Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism: Surprising Differences, Conflicting Visions, and Worldview Implications--From the Early Church to Our Modern Time

CHRISTIANITY

AND

RABBINIC JUDAISM

Surprising Differences, Conflicting Visions,

and Worldview Implications

from the Early Church to our Modern Time

Volume One

JONAS E. ALEXIS

Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism

Surprising Diff erences, Confl icting Visions, and Worldview

Implications—From the Early Church to our Modern Time

Copyright © 2012 Jonas E. Alexis

Scripture quotations are taken from the King James Bible.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the publisher except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

WestBow Press books may be ordered through booksellers or by contacting:

WestBow Press

A Division of Th omas Nelson

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.westbowpress.com

1-(866) 928-1240

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any Web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. Th e views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily refl ect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Th inkstock are models,

and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Th inkstock.

ISBN: 978-1-4497-3486-2 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-4497-3487-9 (hc)

ISBN: 978-1-4497-3485-5 (e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2011963157

WestBow Press rev. date: 1/18/2012

Contents

ENDORSEMENTS

PREFACE

INTRODUCTION:THE NATURE & IMPLICATIONS OF TRUTH

INTRODUCTION:AN APPEAL TO REASON AND EVIDENCE

Chapter 0.1 Truth Matters

Chapter 0.2:Treason of the Intellectuals: Dissecting Scientific Truth

Chapter 0.3-Confronting Historical Truth: Slavery in the Western World

PART I:DEFINING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CHRISTIANITY & RABBINIC JUDAISM

CHAPTER I THE INCEPTION OF CONFLICT

Chapter 1.1 False Messiahs

Chapter 1.2 Setting the Stage

Chapter 1.3 Who Put Jesus on the Cross?

Chapter 1.4 Prove All Things

Chapter 1.5 A Brief History of Neoconservatism

Chapter 1.6 The Ad Hominem Tactic: Insult versus Refutation

Chapter 1.7 The Historical Truth about Slavery

Chapter 1.8 Clearing Christianity of the Charge of Slavery

Chapter 1.9 Worldviews in Conflict

CHAPTER II CHRISTIANITY AND THE JEWISH TALMUD

Chapter 2.1 Theological Prelude to a Cosmic Struggle

Chapter 2.2 How to Play the Anti-Semitic Card…and Lose

Chapter 2.3 Litmus Tests of Anti-Semitism: Leo Frank & Alfred Dreyfus

Chapter 2.4 Book Burning in Or Yehuda

Chapter 2.5 Jewish Influence in Hollywood

Chapter 2.6 Strange Bedfellows:Judaism’s Alliance with Atheism

Chapter 2.7 Psychoanalysis & Sexual Taboos

Chapter 2.8 Prostitution & Sexual Liberation as Cultural Warfare

Chapter 2.9 Howard Zinn’s Quiet Revolution

Chapter 2.10 The Modern Golem: Artistic Subversion

PART II:THE EVOLUTION OF RABBINIC JUDAISM & THE IMPLICATIONS FOR CHRISTIANITY

CHAPTER III A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE TALMUD

Chapter 3.1 How the Jews Became the People of the Book

Chapter 3.2 Revolution & the Birth of the Talmud

Chapter 3.3 Historical Results of Rabbinic Theology

Chapter 3.4 The Missing Link Between Darwin & Eugenics

Chapter 3.5 Cultural Revolution

Chapter 3.6 The Iraq War & U.S. Foreign Policy

Chapter 3.7 The Logos & the Wars in the Middle East

PART III:REVOLUTIONARY ACTIVITY THROUGH ALLIANCES

CHAPTER IV THE BLACK-JEWISH ALLIANCE & ITS AFTERMATH

Chapter 4.1 Racism Meets Anti-Semitism

Chapter 4.2 The Black-Jewish Alliance & Martin Luther King,Jr.

Chapter 4.3 Christian Education During & After Slavery

Chapter 4.4 The Revolutionary Basis of Neoconservatism

ENDNOTES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PHOTO CREDITS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To the Glory of God and His Son Jesus Christ and to the thousands, perhaps millions, of those who follow the truth, no matter where it may lead or what consequences it may bring.

All photos used in this work are intended to identify each person for educational, instructional purposes only; the author, editor, and publisher of this book make no claim to their copy rights.

ENDORSEMENTS

[The assessment of slavery] is a truly fascinating and profoundly enlightening text, and I have no doubt that [Alexis’s] scholarship is sound. I can also imagine the problem of rendering these views acceptable in view of the disinformation that academic historians are expected to disseminate on the subject of [this] work.

Paul Gottfried

(Horace Raffensperger Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, adjunct scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and author of numerous books including The Strange Death of Marxism: The European Left and the New Millenium)

I learned a lot [from the chapters of slavery].

James Petras

(Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University and author of Zionism, Militarism, andthe Decline of US Power)

[This] research is strong and well presented…1 find [Alexis’s] work to be very interesting and well written.

W Wilson

(Council for the National Interest)

PREFACE

This current volume was intended to complete a series of themes in Christianity as they relate to worldviews and real-life implications. (Since the project was too immense to be discussed in one sitting, this current book was divided into two parts, the second of which is to be published within a year. After the second volume is published, a third work will follow, to serve as a companion to the controversial issues raised by readers of various stripes, including a question-and-answer session to address any objections.)

As shall be argued throughout this work, this book was written solely out of love for serious people who are interested in truth, not in political or manipulative ideologies. The only way that this book will be of use to any reader is if he or she considers truth to be the motivating factor in examining any issue, ideology, or movement. If that is the case, then we definitely will make progress here. SoliDeo Gloría.

Jonas E. Alexis

Fall 2011

jonasealexisphlm@netscape.net

INTRODUCTION:THE NATURE & IMPLICATIONS OF TRUTH

And don’t you think that being deceived about the truth is a bad thing, while having a grasp of the truth is good? And don’t you think that having a grasp of the truth is having a belief that matches the way things are?

Plato¹

INTRODUCTION:AN APPEAL TO REASON AND EVIDENCE

"Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about

thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart."

Proverbs 3:3

Chapter 0.1

Truth Matters

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord.

Isaiah 1:18

Any discussion of truth or right and wrong is based on fundamental assumptions about what defines truth, how we arrive at the truth, and why truth matters. In a relativistic worldview, truth itself is not important; the unspoken assumption is that truth is not known but made—that may be true for you, but it’s not for me is the common catchphrase. However, this implicit assumption violates human reason and experiential relevance.

This book is written from the Christian perspective that objective truth exists and that human beings are able to discover and comprehend it. (If this is not the case, then why write books at all?) But throughout these preliminary chapters we will meet the skeptics of objective moral values in the arenas they generally appeal to: science, logic, reason, and history.

During the early part of the twentieth century, one popular movement among philosophers was logical positivism, which limited truth to what could be empirically verified by the five senses or experience. At its core, the movement sought to deconstruct revelation—chiefly theological assertions—or anything else that appeared to be beyond the five senses.2 Since statements like God lovesjou could not be verified by the five senses, logical positivists dismissed them as meaningless.

Over the course of more than a decade, logical positivists launched their ideas with great energy and passion, willing to crush anyone who stood in their way. Yet the movement could not gain much ground because its founding principle was self-defeating. After all, can the proposition any statement that cannot be empirically verified is meaningless itself be empirically verified? No. It is an axiomatic proposition—nothing less, nothing more. In the end, logical positivism ceased to carry any intellectual weight and quietly slipped out of academia,3 although it continued to impact many people.

Of course, the verification principle was later modified by people like Sir A. J. Ayer in language, Truth, and ‘Logic, but that modification itself was fraught with logical inconsistency. Ayer, who was largely responsible for spreading the gospel of logical positivism in England,4 asserted in 1936 that a proposition is said to be verifiable, in the strong sense of the term, if, and only if, its truth could be conclusively established by experience.5 Yet this bold proposition fails to pass its own test. Ayer seems to have foreseen the implication of the statement, and moves on to declare that if we adopt conclusive veri-fiability as our criterion of significance, as some positivists have proposed, our argument will prove too much.6 Ayer was, in the words of historian Paul Johnson, a passionate disciple of Bertrand Russell,7 who was also a logical positivist.Johnson was a close friend of both Russell and Ayer and discussed deep issues with them frequently. (Russell, in order to maintain his atheistic views, had to live in intellectual and experiential contradiction.)

By the 1970s, logical positivism was almost universally derided for its lack of intellectual rigor and obvious inability to cope with the experiential and scientific world.8 Even Karl Popper, a noted Jewish philosopher of science, argued that at its eventual root, logical positivism would undermine the nature of the scientific enquiry.9 Popper was right, for the scientific enterprise is based on assumptions and presuppositions, and many conclusions are drawn using inference to the best explanations.10

The fact is that science itself is based on fundamental assumptions that cannot be proven by the scientific method—assumptions like the universe is rational, that it obeys mathematical and scientific laws, and that the rationality of the universe can be understood and can correspond to the rational human mind. These assumptions are essential to science and yet they have not been proven by the scientific method. Moreover, these assumptions are perfectly congruent with the Christian understanding.11 It was not just the sciences that are at stake, however, but ethical values and inferences, as well as history, because it by nature includes so many assumptions, many of which will be examined in this introduction. For this reason, logical positivism was largely abandoned.

Even Ayer—the man who brought the movement to England—suddenly abandoned his atheist/agnostic stance after a near-death experience. He privately told his physician, Jeremy George, I saw a Divine Being. I’mafraid I’m going to have to revise all my various books and opinions.12 Yet in order to maintain his prestige as a philosopher responsible for destroying the concept of a Creator in the minds of many, Ayer never mentioned this to anyone—not even his wife or son. George later wrote,

He was confiding in me, and I think he was slightly embarrassed because it was unsettling for him as an atheist. He spoke in a very confidential manner. I think he felt he had come face to face with God, or his maker, or what one might say was God. Later, when I read his article, I was surprised to see he had left out all mention of it. I was simply amused. I wasn’t very familiar with his philosophy at the time of the incident, so the significance wasn’t immediately obvious.13

Clearly Ayer was more interested in promoting his intellectual image than coming to grips with the afterlife. As he said in the essay written after his experience, I trust that my remaining an atheist will allay the anxieties of my fellow supporters of the Humanist Association, the Rationalist Press, and the South Place Ethical Society.14

As philosopher of science James Ladyman shows, logical positivism, though it appears to be quite young, actually had its inception in the eighteenth century in David Hume’s empiricism.15 Hume set a principle in his Inquiry Concerning turnan Understanding that later proved self-destructive to his critique of theology (mainly Christian theology). He wrote, "If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence ? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.16 As some writers later proved, Hume’s bold declaration should have been dismissed with little thought, for it is neither mathematical nor scientific.17 Moreover, Hume’s famous claims against miracles have also been proved completely erroneous.18 But—illogic notwithstanding—Hume’s dictum got refined and sharpened in the early 1920s among a group of mathematicians, scientists and philosophers called the Vienna Circle. Ladyman declares, Many of the Vienna Circle were Jewish and/or socialists. The rise of fascism in Nazi Germany led to their dispersal to America and elsewhere, where the ideas and personalities of logical positivism had a great influence on the development of both science and philosophy."19

The philosophical idea of logical positivism was closely linked to naturalism, which simply says that nature is all that exists. Both ideas discount the existence of anything outside of what can be verified by our senses. However, as attractive as this result was (and is) to atheists, logical positivism proved to be less than logical and had to be discarded.

The modern incarnation of logical positivism is relativism. Relativism in its metaphysical and categorical forms is neither logical nor coherent, and therefore cannot possibly be true. Consider for example the person who utters the phrase, There is no such thing as absolute truth. This statement is either absolutely true or absolutely false. If it is true, then the statement logically self destructs, for it is nonsensical to assert absolutely that absolute truth doesn’t exist. On the other hand, if it is false, then we have no reason to believe anything the person says.

Let’s move this argument into a moral arena so that we get an accurate description of what is at stake here. If truth is simply based on cultural bias, individual preference, majority vote, or any other subjective criteria, we cannot say that the actions of Adolf Hitler orjoseph Stalin were morally wrong. Making any kind of moral statement proves that, at some level, human beings all act as though truth is absolute, no matter what we say we believe.

In the real world, moral truth must exist. If it does not, then we have no foundation from which to judge the numerous crimes against humanity that have been committed in the last century alone and prevent future human rights violations. Moral truth must also be objective—bigger than humanity itself. It cannot be based on mere social contract, as Jean-Jacques Rousseau20 would argue, or on the community of individuals, as Bertrand Russell21 would say, or even on what you and I agree is right. Otherwise moral truth will constantly be redefined to fit the inclinations and ambitions of selfish men and women.

This was illustrated by Mao Tse-tung. Mao did not consult the laws of major nations to define basic human rights. Instead, he defined morality in terms of what he liked and disliked. Morality does not have to be defined in relation to others, he said unapologetically. Some say one has a responsibility for history. I don’t believe it. I am only concerned about developing myself…1 have my desire and act on it. I am responsible to no one.22 Mao’s subjective morality was eventually responsible for taking the lives of more than forty million people, according to historian Frank Dikotter of the University of Hong Kong, who has written a book about Mao based on documents from the Chinese archives.23 The fact is that history has proven time and again that mere agreement between those in power is not enough to safeguard against atrocity.

Even if we grant relativists the premise that objective morality is based on the pressure of the community on the individual,24 they still must face the ultimate question of why they are accepting the moral values of the community, since they believe that in the end everything will collapse. Russell, after pondering the ultimate end of human existence, declared that humanity’s achievements will inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.25

Russell follows this with a conclusion based solely on his atheistic world-view: Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.26 With such a cheerful outlook, it is no wonder why a reputable mathematician like Bertrand Russell lived a life of despair, while his daughter, Katherine Tait, was able to make peace with the Christianity that Russell had attacked so vigorously.27

If communal agreement is proven not to be a valid foundation for morality, atheists often turn to a biological explanation. Philosopher and atheist Michael Ruse (who has become progressively more honest in recent years28) wrote back in 1989 that the best that can be said about morality is that it is a biological adaptation. "I appreciate that when somebody says ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves…Nevertheless, to a Darwinian evolutionist it can be seen that such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction…an ephemeral product of the evolutionary process, just as are other adaptations. It has no existence or being beyond this, and any deeper meaning is illusory."29 Bertrand Russell likewise noted in his atheist apologetic Why I Am Not a Christian that outside human desire there is no moral standard.30

Although this view of morality is extremely prevalent (to the point of becoming axiomatic), it categorically fails to correspond to the real world as we know it, for we constantly refer to universal moral laws either directly or indirectly.31 To return to real-world illustrations, objective moral truth simply states that Stalin was wrong irrespective of what he and the Bolsheviks believed, Hitler was wrong regardless of his motives or ambitions, and Mao was wrong despite his evolutionary belief that those who could not adapt to his ethical codes had to vanish. Ruse’s definition certainly suffers badly here. Who are we to say that these leaders were wrong if in fact they were simply following popular atheistic principles to their logical conclusions? Yet everyone feels in his or her soul that the atrocities against humanity these leaders carried out are in fact wrong.

Despite insurmountable evidence, atheists still refuse to admit that absolute, objective moral truth exists. Noted atheist philosopher Kai Nielsen even laments that no one has yet been able to give a rational defense for the view that one ethical point of view is better than another outside of objective moral truth.32 (This is not to say that philosophers haven’t tried.) Yetalthough atheists lack a firm foundation for their denial of absolute truth, they remain adamantly opposed to it.

Richard Dawkins demonstrated some years ago where his atheistic worldview is taking him in his widely read book River Out of Eden: A Darwinian ‘View of Life. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference…DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we just dance to its music.33

On a philosophical level, Dawkins is quick to assert that there is no good or evil. However, on a practical level, he lives by the principle that good and evil do exist. Otherwise, how can he logically write The God Delusion, denouncing the God of the Old Testament as a malicious freak? If he truly believes that there is no rhyme or reason to the universe, then why is he so angry at God? On what grounds can he rationally condemn Hitler or Stalin? Weren’t they just dancing to the music of their DNA?

On the eve of his intellectual fame, Dawkins was asked the following question: Suppose some lads break into an old man’s house and kill him. Suppose they say: ‘Well, we accept the evolutionist worldview. He was old and sick, and he didn’t contribute anything to society.’ How would you show them that what they had done was wrong?

Listen to Dawkins’ response very carefully: If somebody used my views to justify a completely self-centered lifestyle, which involved trampling all over other people in any way they chose, roughly what, I suppose, at a sociological level Darwinists did, I think I would be fairly hard put to it to argue on purely intellectual grounds. I think it would be more: ‘This is not a society in which I wish to live. Without having a rational reason for it, necessarily, I’m going to do whatever I can to stop you doing this.’

The brilliant interviewer then pressed the question forward. They’ll say, ‘This is the society we want to live in.’ Dawkins replied, I couldn’t, ultimately, argue intellectually against somebody who did something I found obnoxious. I think I could finally only say, ‘Well, in this society you can’t get away with it’ and call the police. I realize this is very weak, and I’ve said I don’t feel equipped to produce moral arguments in the way I feel equipped to produce arguments of a cosmological and biological kind.34 Morality, as defined from within an atheistic worldview, is merely a social construct, and it is very important that serious atheists have pointed this out.

In a widely viewed debate between Christian philosopher William Lane Craig and Massimo Pigliucci (evolutionary biologist and Chair of the Depart-

ment of Philosophy at the University of New York), Pigliucci unambiguously stated, There is no such thing as objective morality. We got that straightened out. Morality in human cultures has evolved and is still evolving, and what is moral for you might not be moral for the guy next door and certainly is not moral for the guy across the ocean.35

There is certainly an obvious contradiction among atheists in this area. G. K. Chesterton points out the futility of their thinking in his book Orthodoxy.

The new rebel is a Skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty…and the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it…As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is a waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything, he has lost his right to rebel against anything.36

If there is no such thing as good and evil, it would be a perfectly legitimate parallel argument to say that there are no real differences between a Richard Dawkins or a psychopath, a Sam Harris or a serial killer, a Daniel Dennett or a suicide bomber, a Christopher Hitchens or a sexual predator.

Without the black and white of moral absolutes, the world becomes neutral grey, with no idea or action ranked better or worse than anything else. No one can ever claim they have been wronged, no one can rely on unalienable human rights, and no one can expect justice or fairness. Yet every atheist would be just as quick as any other person to loudly defend his or her rights, from something as simple as being cut in front of in line to something as involved as personal liberty from tyrants. Dawkins and others simply cannot have it both ways, and their contradictory beliefs and behaviors prove just why relativism does not work in the real world.

Let me make it clear here that I am not arguing for an epistemologicaliovin-dation of objective moral values, but rather for an ontological foundation of objective moral values. In other words, I am not saying that an atheist does not or cannot make reference to an objective moral value, or that moral values are the sole province of religious people. Neither the atheist nor the theist needs God to recognise morality. It is ingrained in human nature. For example, if a sexual predator rapes a twelve-year-old child, both the theist and the atheist would say that this act is morally wrong.

This is one of the points Adam Smith made in his 1759 The "Theory of Moral Sentiment:’1 C. S. Lewis calls this the law of human nature.38 Even Emmanuel Kant, one of the toughest philosophers during the end of the eighteenth century, made this stunning statement in Critique of ‘Practical Reason. Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more oftener and the more steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.39

Some skeptics have speculated that Kant was probably arguing from an agnostic point of view, showing that right and wrong cannot be determined by reason alone and without God. But that is not the case, if we are to take Kant seriously, for he made it clear that ethical values are completely independent of our happiness.40 If they are independent of our happiness, then ethical values lie somewhere else. Therefore, Kant, whether he liked it or not, was arguing from an implicitly Christian viewpoint. Pure reason, ultimately, leads to the Logos (an issue that will be dealt with more fully in a future chapter). Pure reason, like mathematics or physics, is non-negotiable and is therefore completely compatible with the Christian worldview. But practical reason (ethics and morality) is where the atheist worldview fails miserably. Even trenchant atheist philosopher Kai Nielsen admits that practical reason in and of itself cannot determine right from wrong.41 Furthermore, if morality can be deduced from practical reason alone, then who is going to do the reasoning? As Ravi Zacharias points out, this reason alone fallacy is precisely the reason for a total breakdown of understanding between East and West…What may be reasonable in India may not be reasonable in France, and what may be reasonable in America may be ‘satanic’ in Iran.42

The concept of a moral law within me is not a modern creation—it has been found in such ancient civilizations as Egypt, Babylon, China, Greece, and Rome.43 So let’s break it down into simple terms. All people can agree that it is wrong to steal, covet another man’s wife, or torture and rape little children. The question is where did that objective moral judgment come from! We know that it is not from Darwinism (a topic I will go into in more detail in another chapter).

Let me be crystal clear before we move on—I am not claiming that atheists cannot live moral lives or appeal to moral objectivity. To a large degree, both theists and atheists appeal to objective moral values and truths. Sam Harris agrees with the premise that objective moral values do exist.44 What he disagrees with, however, is that such values cannot exist without God; for him, objective moral values can be explained through the emergence of the scientific enterprise. Yet not one Darwinian principle suggests that objective moral values are sustainable independent of what you and I think.

Therefore, the core issue is not whether objective moral values exist, but whether objective (ontological) moral values can exist without God. One well-known philosopher who clearly understood that there were no morals without God is Friedrich Nietzsche.45 Nietzsche took that principle to its logical, bitter end, something that Sam Harris and others have not been willing to do. Not only does Harris fail to give us a rigorous scientific rubric by which to examine the thesis that science can determine human values, but he moves on to tell us that moral responsibility is a social construct that can make more or less sense given certain facts about a person’s brain.46 With nowhere else to turn, Harris jumps to determinism. Citing neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga, he agrees that in neuroscientific terms, no person is more or less responsible than any other for actions.47 We will return to this premise in a moment. For now, though, let’s continue our discussion of objective values in the cultural realm of relativism.

Relativism also does not work within the world’s major religions, for all religions make exclusive claims that simply cannot be reconciled. Islam teaches that Christ did not die on the cross, Rabbinicjudaism—our core subject in this book—is still looking for its Messiah, and Christianity declares that not only has Christ already appeared, died, and rose again, but that He fulfilled all the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah. Buddha, the figurehead for Hindu beliefs, rejected both the Yedas and the caste system, which are fundamentally essential to Hinduism.48 He even rejected the existence of the supernatural altogether,49 while other religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam affirm it.50

Given this widespread dichotomy, it is nonsensical to say that all these religions teach the same things or that they lead to the same conclusions. While they may share a few themes in common here and there, ultimately they make exclusive claims that are vital to their continued existence. The Apostle Paul sets forth one of the qualifiers for Christianity when he argues that if the doctrine of the resurrection of Christ were removed from Christianity, the religion as awhole would cease to exist (1 Corinthians 15:13-18).

Moreover, it is completely irrational to say that all these religions lead to the same God. Oprah Winfrey, one of the most influential women in America, says, I’m a Christian who believes that there are certainly many more paths to God other than Christianity.51 Although many paths claim to lead to what one might call god, it contradicts logic to say that all those religions lead to the same God or gods. As Ravi Zacharias, an expert on world religions, points out, "All religions are not the same. All religions do not point to God. All religions do not say that all religions are the same. At the heart of every religion is an uncompromising commitment to a particular way of defining who God is or is not and, accordingly, of defining life’s purpose."52

Throughout this book, we will be exploring the ways in which Rabbinic Judaism explicitly disagrees with Christianity and its Founder. Jesus declares, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me (John 14:6). Can we honestly say that Jesus and other religions are equally right—when they clearly contradict each other—and still remain reasonable?

More importantly, what are the features that enable an individual to be inclusive or exclusive and still remain rational? Why is rationality even an issue? Rationality is important precisely because it is the one tool every human being relies on to discern between sense and nonsense, fact and fiction, common sense and craziness. As I argued in detail in my previous book Christianity’s Dangerous Idea, it is not illogical to be exclusive, since rationality demands it.53 It is much more rational to be exclusive when all the religions are contradictory.

The fact is that Jesus is not being irrational when He ^proclaims that there is only one way to get to God. As we shall see, His claim is perfectly within the realm of the reasonable. In that context, the rational human response is to discover where the rational and irrational exist in the major religions and to discern whether exclusivity is based on truth or not. It is not narrow-minded to reject contradictions, nor is it irrational to argue that one religion might be telling the truth (and therefore that others are not), wherever that religion may lead. According to the basic principles of logical consistency, contradictory religious claims cannot all be right at the same time and in the same respect.

As a corollary, there is an often ignored principle that must be clearly emphasized here: the denial of the only way is another only way. Rejecting Christianity on the grounds of exclusivity means setting up an opposing but equally exclusive belief system. Once a person states that Christ is not the only way—there are more ways to God, he has made an implicit only-way claim. If the person protests that he is not making an only-way claim, but merely accepting other views into his equation, then logically he has to accept the possibility thatjesus could be right, which would negate his stated claim. Either his process of logical reasoning is flawed or he is grasping at straws in order to justify his bias against God.

Finally, it is irrational for anyone to frustratedly claim that because all religions, at bottom, contradict each other, therefore none of them is telling the truth. If I cannot find an answer to a math problem, or happen to arrive at an answer that contradicts what my friends come up with, it does not necessarily follow that the answer is unfindable or that there simply is no answer at all. This is merely a way to avoid the discussion altogether—it does not solve the problem at hand.

It must be said at the outset of our journey that truth sometimes does not bring good news. For example, if a doctor finds out that one of his patients has terminal cancer, he is obligated to tell the man the truth about his condition. It would be morally irresponsible for the doctor to say, Don’t worry, my friend. Everything is all right. Just take this pill or that medicine and your pain will be gone forever. Although it would be much easier to lie and spare the patient worry—and although it would be compatible with the relativistic premises we have just discussed—the doctor would put his credibility at stake for lying to the patient. He would not be a doctor for long, once the truth came out.

More importantly, the patient would not want his doctor to behave as a relativist, since going to the doctor implies that he believes truth about his condition exists and that he wants to be told that truth.

However idealistic someone’s opinions may be concerning relativistic ideology, he or she will live as if truth matters when it comes to going to the doctor, buying a car, or paying taxes and bills—the simple truth is that you won’t have running water or electricity if you don’t pay your bills. Although it may be painful to accept the truth, in the end it will be worth it, for only truth has the ability to liberate us from falsehood and bondage (John 8:32). One of the most important areas of life—and one that matters to almost everyone—is wanting to know the truth when choosing a husband or wife. Does he or she love you because of who you are or because of what you are or have? If truth matters in these areas, then it matters universally.

One very clear place to illustrate why truth matters is in academics. If a student is told one day that x + x = 2x and the next day that x + x = x2, he has a problem. 2x is not the same as x2 at all. No matter how he tries, the student will not be able to reconcile the two answers. Unless his teacher can rationally explain the answer, the student would be justified in respectfully saying that the teacher is either irresponsible or incompetent. It is just that simple; we are all wired to expect things to be coherent and consistent.54

In all areas of life it is both unrealistic and dangerous to place our trust in a relativistic world in which truth is simply a matter of taste or personal preference. Relativism, although it is adopted by many for ideological purposes, cannot exist in the real world. It is heartbreaking that when it comes to the most vital issues—the questions of origin, morality, meaning, and destiny—many try to avoid the truth, as if the answers to those questions are unimportant. If truth exists, then we can do nothing less than to search after it—no matter where it is and in which direction it may point us. Solomon urges his readers to buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instructions and understanding (Proverbs 23:23).

No matter how much it costs or what consequences it may bring to our lives, truth is not just better than falsehood: it is real freedom in the most radical sense, and people who love the truth will align themselves with it. Yet more often than not we do not want to find out the truth because it might lead us to disturbing conclusions—conclusions that may not line up with our preconceived notions and that will force us to reconsider our way of seeing things in light of obvious evidence.

Chapter 0.2:Treason of the Intellectuals: Dissecting Scientific Truth

How have intellectuals managed to be so wrong, so often? By thinking that because they are knowledgeable—or even expert—within some narrow band out of the vast spectrum of human concerns, that makes them wise guides to the masses and to the rulers of the nations.

Thomas Sowell1

Scientific truth experienced one of its most important paradigm shifts in the twentieth century when scientists discovered evidence that the universe was not eternal, but had a beginning. As Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose state, almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang.2

Many scientists were bewildered by that discovery because it clearly pointed toward a conclusion they had been trying to avoid. Not only did it compel them to reconsider their theories, but it also implied that a greater intelligent force must exist. After all, everything that begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause. While physicist Paul Davies agrees that the scientific data (most specifically from his own fields of interest, which include mathematics, physics, and astronomy) suggest that the universe had a beginning, he rejects the conclusion of a Creator because, in his own words, I never liked the idea of divine tinkering.3 When all is said and done, the scientific evidence does not offer us many choices when it comes to the beginning of the universe. Despite the fact that religious people have been saying for thousands of years that the universe had a beginning, some atheist scientists have just figured that out in the twentieth century. The only difference is that the theist posits a Creator as the cause, whereas the atheist tries to come up with something—anything—else.

Since the eternal universe hypothesis has now been scientifically disproven, we are left with two possible explanations: either the universe created itself, which is a contradiction in terms, or someone else did the job. The universe as we know it is a privileged one, containing all the elements required for life—alter or remove a single element and death on a massive scale will ensue. This is a fact most physicists agree upon,4 however reluctantly, and is what mathematician David Berlinski calls a put-up job.5 If the universe created itself, that means that the universe had to be in existence before it created itself. This is not only self-contradictory but completely incompatible with all the known laws of science and human experience.

Unfortunately, many brilliant minds have fallen into the trap of what I call intellectual perversity. Daniel Dennett declares in his book Breaking the Spell (a book that is considered an apologetic for atheism) that the universe "creates itself ex nihilo" and that, he believes, is the ultimate bootstrapping trick.6 Quite frankly, it is a bootstrapping trick, and Dennett gets stuck on that trick because he wants the origin of this self-creation to be non-miraculous—with no supernatural intervention at all.

Dawkins said something quite similar. In answer to the question How do you believe life itself began?, he responded, The origin of life has got to be something self-replicating. We don’t know what it was, but whatever it was, it was self-replicating. When the interviewer asked him to define what he meant by self-replicating., Dawkins said, It has to grow and then split, so that it reproduces daughter units like itself.7

Stephen Hawking, in his recent book The Grand Design, ascribes to that hypothesis, saying, Because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing.8 Peter Adkins of Oxford likewise gives allegiance to this principle, calling it the Cosmic Bootstrap. For Adkins, space-time generates its own dust in the process of its own self-assembly.9 These ideas are spurious when taken to their logical conclusions. As Oxford mathematician and philosopher of science John C. Lennox notes in his critique of Hawking’s view, "If we say that ‘X creates Y,’ we presuppose the existence of X in the first place in order to bring Y into existence. That is a simple matter of understanding what the words ‘X creates Y mean. If, therefore, we say ‘X creates X,’ we imply that we are presupposing the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. This is obviously self-contradictory and thus logically incoherent—even if we put X equal to the universe! To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its own existence sounds like something out of Alice in ‘Wonderland, not science."10

Yet Dennett believes that even reason can be explained this way. In the beginning, there were no reasons; there were only causes. Nothing had a purpose, nothing had so much as a function; there was no teleology in the worldat all. The explanation for this is simple: there was nothing that had interests. But after millennia there happened to emerge simple replicators.¹¹

At its core, this is nothing more than a circular argument. Adding massive amounts of time does not change the fact that nothing can begin without a cause. If there was no purpose or reason in the beginning, where did these simple replicators originate from?

Natural selection cannot be the answer, for it can only function using information already present in a system. A donkey, for example, has in its gene pool the information for four legs, a tail, and so on, but it does not possess the information to produce a wing or a beak. Charles Darwin assumed that the required information was already present in the system and had evolution continue on from there (quite frankly, he was never able to give a succinct explanation of the origin of species in his ambitious Origin of Species).

Daniel Dennett, however, attributes to Darwinism what Darwin had assumed already existed: self-replicating macros, preceded or accompanied perhaps by self-replicating clay crystals, gradually advancing from tournaments of luck to tournaments of skill over a billion years. And the regularities of physics on which those cranes depend could themselves be the outcome of a blind, uncaring shuffle through Chaos. Thus, out of next to nothing, the world we know and love created itself.¹²

This argument is important because it demonstrates how far Dennett is willing to bend reason and logic in order to justify his preexisting beliefs. Dennett’s idea that the universe created itself, without reason or cause, is not only irrational but suggests that Dennett is willing to give up whatever intellectual credibility he has to make his dreams of a Godless universe come true. For him, the issue of a miraculous origin of the universe is out of the question, so he is forced to postulate something that is even more miraculous: that the universe created itself. This kind of desperate leap of faith is needed when one tries to escape from the more rational conclusion that the universe is speaking loudly about its Creator, yet this particular view is shared by many, including Thomas Nagel of New York University, Richard Lewontin of Harvard, L. T. More of the University of Cincinnati, physicist Paul Davies, Nobel laureate George Wald, and scientist/author Isaac Asimov.¹³

In recent years, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow have fallen into a similar trap by promoting the multiverse theory in order to escape the ultimate conclusion that the universe was created by a supernatural being. They declare that the new theory, also called M-theory, predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing. Their creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god.¹⁴ But where did these multiverses come from? Hawking and Mlodinow tell us that they "arise naturally from physical law. They are aprediction of science."15

Both scientists, though brilliant in their own fields, cannot see that this simply replaces one circular argument with another. If adding billions of years is not enough to solve evolution’s problems, then adding an unlimited number of parallel universes also will not answer the question of how our universe was created. These arguments are merely smokescreens to deflect attention away from the inherent deficiencies of the atheistic belief system.

It is one thing for Hawking and Modinow to confidently posit these assertions as axiomatic, but it is quite another to provide scientific foundations for them. If multiple universes arise naturally from the physical law, where did the physical law come from in the first place? If multiple universes are a prediction of science, then science must be able to give us at least some scientific explanation for this.

Againjohn Lennox addresses the underlying flaws of this theory: Physical laws cannot create anything. They are a description of what normally happens under certain given conditions…The sun rises in the east every day, but this law does not create the sun; nor the planet earth, with east and west. The law is descriptive and predictive, but it is not creative. Similarly Newton’s law of gravitation does not create gravity or the matter on which gravity acts.16 Because there is no scientific or rational backbone supporting Hawking’s multiverse theory, fellow intellectuals such as Paul Davies and Richard Swinburne completely reject it. Swinburne states, It’s crazy to postulate a trillion (causally unconnected) universes to explain the features of one universe, when postulating one entity (God) will do the job.17 Physicist and staunch atheist Steven Weinberg lamented that multiple universes are very speculative…without any experimental support18 and physicist Lee Smolin called it a fantasy,19 even though he promoted it in his book. Roger Penrose, who is far from thrilled with Hawking’s new book, declares in his response to The Grand Design that M-theory enjoys no observational support whatsoever.20 Atheist physicist Peter Woit of Columbia University was also disappointed at The Grand Design’s heavy reliance on M-theory, which he sees as sheer speculation. I’m in favor of naturalism and leaving God out of physics as much as the next person, Woit tells us, but if you’re the sort who wants to go to battle in the science/religion wars, why you would choose to take up such a dubious weapon as M-theory mystifies me.21 Because Hawking and Modinow jumped on the multiverse idea without first pulling together scientific backing,John Horgan of Scientific American denounces Hawking’s ’new’ theory as the same old crap.22

The lack of scientific evidence for M-theory has also been dismissed by physicists such as Frank Close,Jon Butterworth, andjim Al-Khalili.23 Even if we grant Hawking the premise that M-theory is correct and scientific for the sake of argument, it would still not be legitimate to conclude that there is no

God behind it. This was pointed out by Don Page, a theoretical physicist at the University of Alberta, Canada, and a former student of Hawking’s, with whom he co-wrote many papers. Page declares, I certainly would agree that even if M-theory were a fully-formulated theory (which it isn’t yet) and were correct (which of course we don’t know), that would not imply that God did not create the universe.²⁴ As George Orwell once said, there are some ideas so preposterous that only an intellectual will believe them, because the common man does not fall for such nonsense.

Although atheist physicist Victor J. Stenger admits that Hawking and Mlodinow have not said anything new at all, he rejoices that thanks to Hawking’s notoriety, at least more people will now have heard that science has plausible answers to how the universe came about naturally without the need for a creator.²⁵ Why is it that a person of his reputation cannot see the obvious contradiction in his statement that the universe came into being naturally, i.e., that the universe created itself?

The only people thrilled with The Grand Design rest largely in the New Atheists camp. Richard Dawkins, for example, rejoiced at what he saw as a victory for evolution. ‘Darwinism kicked God out of biology but physics remained more uncertain. Hawking is now administering the coup degrace."26

Michael Shermer of Skeptic magazine has also promoted the multiverse theory in many of his lectures as an alternative to a Creator. (Yet Shermer, a self-proclaimed skeptic, does not equally employ his skepticism when it comes to things he holds dear.) Similarly, although Hawking and Mlodinow declare in the first page of their book that philosophy is dead and that it has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics,²⁷ they later get involved in highly philosophical theories that have not been confirmed by science.

Speculation about multiple universes aside, there are basic yet profound questions—such as why human beings matter, why there is a universe after all, and why the laws of the universe seem to correspond to the rational human mind—that science cannot explain. Nobelist Sir Peter Medawar called this the limit of science.²⁸ Michael Polanyi, the Jewish polymath who converted to Christianity, also implies that there is a limit to the sciences.²⁹ As mathematician and astronomer John D. Barrow argues, science can only make sense if it operates within certain parameters, for if it is unlimited and unbound, it may lead to contradictions.³⁰

Science also cannot explain basic mathematical truths and principles—axioms that all mathematicians take for granted. Even Euclid made it clear in his ‘Elements that postulates in mathematics are unproved but accepted premises.³¹ Mathematics cannot function without these unproved but accepted premises, and ‘Elements itself has to begin with accepted premises inorder to go forward. Every student of geometry knows that a line by definition must contain at least two distinct points. But this is an assumption that has to be accepted as true in order to make any progress in geometry. There is no such thing as a free lunch after all.

Despite this principle, Peter Adkins of Oxford wrote, "There is no reason to suppose that science cannot deal with every aspect of existence. Only the religious—among whom I include not only the prejudiced but the un-derinformed—hope there is a dark corner of the physical universe, or of the universe of experience, that science can never hope to illuminate.32 Yet fellow atheist Bruce Sheiman declares, The more I understand the world as revealed by science, the more I find the materialist and reductionist explanation for our human destiny terribly devoid of depth, value, and meaning.33 Adkins, like many of his fellow atheists, has not been paying attention at all, for even physicist and Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman made it clear that every attempt to reduce ethics to scientific formulae must fail… The sciences do not directly teach good or bad…Ethical values lie outside the scientific realm."34 And Feynman certainly was not among the religious. Einstein foresaw the same problems when scientists try to build a scientific foundation for morality.35

Willfully ignorant of the shaky footing their suppositions rest on, Hawking and Mlodinow then apply their views to the human brain. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions and not some agency that exists outside those laws.36 Then Hawking and Mlodinow take the next step, concluding that free will is just an illusion.37 There is nothing new here at all.38 This idea has been advanced by scientists from Daniel Dennett to Francis Crick, but it suffers badly when it is taken to its inevitable conclusion. If the brain determines our actions, it logically follows that we are prisoners of our brains. Be it for good or evil, we have no choice but to follow the commands of our brains, since we are no more than biological machines.39 Einstein, being a determinist, accepted the idea that we have no responsibility when it comes to our own actions, even though he saw the logical repercussions of the idea and was frightened by them. I know that philosophically a murderer is not responsible for his crime, but I prefer not to take tea with him.40 However, if Stalin, Mao, and Hitler are not philosophically responsible for their actions, then how can they be held accountable?

The interesting part is that this deterministic/materialistic view is also embraced by Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, and nearly all the other New Atheists.41 In actuality, they leave themselves no other choice. For example, Stephen Hawking is a flaming determinist, so it is no accident that in The Grand Design we constantly read phrases like given the state of the universeat one time, a complete set of laws fully determines both the future and the past (using Pierre Laplace’s argument) and this scientific determinism must hold for people as well.⁴² Not only that, the authors state that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets.⁴³

One needn’t be a genius to see that this is nonsense. If the unfeeling laws of nature determine how a system will evolve over time, what reason do we as conscious human beings have to trust that system? The laws of nature do not have minds or emotions. And a thing by itself cannot be determined—i.e., passively acted upon—without necessitating an external determiner.

Hawking and Modinow are very vague about how they arrived at the idea that because biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry, they are therefore determined. This is why philosopher of science Ervin Laszlo makes the point that when people like Hawking begin to talk about God and religion, we should not mistake them for scientists.⁴⁴ In order to make their case, Hawking and Mlodinow have to give the impression that their presuppositions are scientific, when in fact they can provide no scientific foundation for their flimsy and—quite frankly, intellectually embarrassing—claims. There is no convincing evidence from neuroscience saying that our physical brains determine our actions.⁴⁵ In fact, there is a great deal of reliable evidence to the contrary. The brain is simply a machine that the real person inside uses. This is one reason Sir John Eccles declared that there is a ghost—the real person—that tells the brain what to do.⁴⁶

Yet the New Atheists seem determined to base whole premises on the idea that understanding the physical brain will help neuroscientists understand the real person. The more we understand ourselves at the level of the brain, Sam Harris writes, the more we will see that there are right and wrong answers to questions of human values.⁴⁷ Hawking and Mlodinow agree wholeheartedly. "Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is ourphysical brain,following the known laws of science, thatdetermines ourac-tions, and not some agency that exists outside those laws."⁴⁸

This makes no practical sense whatsoever. If their suppositions are true, we might as well empty our jails and close down our courts, since anyone accused of a crime was simply taking orders from his or her brain. They can’t be held responsible for the chaotic, meaningless commands issued by their brains. Yet every day thousands of people are convicted and held responsible for their choices. Another application is emotional love. If Hawking and Mlodinow are correct, then telling someone I love you has no meaning. It was merely prompted by chemical impulses in the brain, probably to further a biological imperative. Unfortunately, this line of reasoning culminates in absurd real-life applications. If we are merely puppets of our brains, thenpersonhood, free will, the purpose of life, and humanity itself become meaningless concepts. Howlongwill it take intellectuals to start beinghonest?

We see a similar pattern in Sam Harris’s books, which are fraught with internal contractions. During the course of The Moral Landscape, he uses brain and mind interchangeably, revealing his rejection of anything beyond the materialistic.49 However, he also refers to human beings as conscious creatures and consciousness as the basis of human values,50 concepts which his colleague Daniel Dennett completely denies.

Dennett himself unapologetically asserts that human beings are made of mindless robots and nothing else, no non-physical, non-robotic ingredients at all.51 Robots, by definition, do not have consciences and do not act as free agents. External entities always tell them what to do and they act on those orders. Again jumping off his premise that we are all robotic machines rather than free agents, Dennett argues that consciousness itself is an illusion.52 Francis Crick and others believed likewise.53

Steven Pinker, who along with Dennet previewed Harris’s manuscript for The Moral Landscape^ also does not believe in a conscious, human-controlled mind. He states that the mind is simply the physiological activity of the brain and that this process goes back to the genes, which previously had been shaped by evolutionary processes.55 But even he understands that this is merely a hypothesis. He admits that virtually nothing is known about the functioning microcircuitry of the human brain, because there is a shortage of volunteers willing to give up their brains to science before they are dead.56 Lost in his assertions, Sam Harris somehow fails to provide an evidentiary explanation as to why human beings are conscious creatures. Harris simply assumes it and offers nothing more. In fact, Harris has repeatedly been asked to defend his positions one-on-one with Dinesh D’Souza and has always refused.57 Perhaps he realizes his flimsy theories would be no match for a truly logical mind.

In a nutshell, the New Atheists have adopted such ideas about the brain not because there is verifiable science behind them, but because, as Richard Lewontin said some years ago, materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.58 In other words, these atheists don’t care whether an idea is true or false, whether a hypothesis is scientifically accurate or incorrect, but merely whether it denies God a place in the universe. Listen to Lewontin’s full quote:

We take the side of science in spite of