Genius and Truth – the Linguist, the Philosopher, and the Rabbi

 

One of the main arguments that Rabbis use, even the rationalists such as R’ Moshe ben Chaim,  is that if you study (with a rabbi) the texts of previous rabbis (eg Maimonides), you will see the sheer genius of HaRambam, and then relying on that, it would be unthinkable to suggest that he would believe in the Oral Law  if it was in fact false.  E.g. http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/sheeps-fat-tail-and-other-mysteries.html

This line of argumentation is false for several reasons, as I may have hinted in some of the previous posts.  I will show how such undue surrender of the intellect is both dangerous and dishonest.

First of all, it is not at all clear that Maimonides or any other rabbi was the ultimate intellect.  He was good in some subjects, but even so his knowledge was still limited. Thus his knowledge of astronomy was not as advanced as modern astronomy. He viewed the Earth as being the centre of the universe.  His knowledge of chemistry was also an ancient one which consisted of 4 elements.  Furthermore he claimed it was impossible for a metal ship to fly in the air like a bird.   Even his understanding of the planets was false, as he considered the planets to be intelligent spheres with no material substance, although since then we have sent men to the moon, and probes to other planets.  We also have brought back rock samples from the moon.

Next, Maimonides  said that Aristotle was the greatest of all logicians, and was one step away from reaching prophecy. It is not for me to debate the merits of this claim, but if we go along with Maimonides for such a claim, then obviously  Aristotle was a greater mind that the rabbi. And Aristotle did not believe in the Torah, let alone any “oral law”.

More pernicious a fact, is that when it comes to interpreting the written Torah, Maimonides is blatantly dishonest.  He simply pushes his own (or inherited rabbinic) views and misinterprets the Torah, no differently than a Christian or Muslim would, to suit his own ideology. As I have shown on several occasions, he, and the other “great” rabbis, are simply rewriting what it says in the Torah, to justify their belief in (or membership of) the rabbinical talmudic system.

But is Ben Chaim’s claim valid in any other way?  There are great philosophers, throughout history, who might have belittled the rabbis in their intellectual capabilities.  This is clear today, where leading rabbis make absurd and embarrassing statements, whilst their followers have faith in their words, and are violent towards those who refute them.  One such rabbi is called Gottlieb, at a Yeshiva in Israel. A former “professor” of Philosophy, but never was a full professor, thus had he been at a British University, he would only have been a lecturer.  This rabbi makes dishonest statements with every breath he takes.

Indeed, he claims that the evidence for prehistoric life was all manufactured  but it never existed as real life, since the world is no older than 6000 years. The dishonesty is that he himself rejected Cartesian standards when it suited him, ie  in his alleged Kuzari argument.  He rejects alternative hypotheses which do not have an absolute disproof, when they don't suit him, but utilizes them when they do.  Indeed, the example he gave for such a hypothesis (which he rejected) was precisely the same one which he now utilises to explain away evidence of prehistoric life!

But this is not limited to rabbis alone.  Great minds in one area may still be incompetent  in other areas, or even dishonest in their own field.  Thus, a real Professor of Philosophy, Noam Chomsky, although a great mind in the field of linguistics, makes use of his skills to twist things as much as possible to suit his own ideology.  He claimed once that USA actually used nuclear weapons in Vietnam.  How were these “used”?  They were used as a threat, i.e  he alleges that America threatened to use them (but never did)!  So the expert in linguistics makes absurd “midrashic” arguments, which are not logical or honest. He also denied the genocide in Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge, and by other communist regimes, because he is himself a Marxist.

And thus, we see that someone may be good in certain subjects or fields, but that does not make them honest or objective.  The rabbis used many twists of logic, as did Chomsky, to pervert the meaning and practice of the Torah. They were twisted linguists, as is Chomsky.  Maimonides was a so-called rationalist, but only as far as it suited him.  When it comes to reading the Torah, he is the most anti-rationalist, and most dishonest, of perhaps all the rabbis. He was a Philosopher-Rabbi.

It is not only the philosophers we can look to see the fallacy in this line of reasoning.  Other religions make similar claims. The Muslims claim that if one learns Arabic and then studies the Koran,  he will see the “truth” of the Koran as the most “perfect” book, which could only be a Divine revelation!  How does this differ from what the rabbis say?  It is essentially the same structure of argument. It is based on the assumption of ignorance and inferiority. Since someone else, who lived before our time said something, which we may or may not comprehend, therefore it must be the Truth.   No, this alone does not make anything true.

So, Ben Chaim’s argument (which is quite widely used among the rabbis) is certainly false.