Great piece Yaacov! Loved the part at the end about positive and negative commandments and how it applies to X!
Re: the beginning part about it being contradictory to speak about climate change when one doesn’t believe in anything beyond “nature”, I don’t necessarily know if I agree with that. One could technically believe that man came about from natural processes and evolution and that it just happened, but I don’t think the logical next step is, well let’s just let nature continue taking its course. I think that as evolved people we can recognize that we are in a situation that may lead to the demise of the planet and we can either try to change it, or not.
This is not my stance on climate change, I personally believe that G-d will take care of the planet and it’s our job to work on the things he actually tells us to do. I’m just saying that I don’t necessarily think it’s illogical for an atheist to say “let’s save the planet.”
Re us needing to 'save the planet', from the purely Athiestic standpoint the Planet will outlive humanity by billions of years and any 'damage' we do to it will be inconsequential. In the same way that the Planet bounced back from the meotorite which wiped out the Dinosaurs.
There are definitely secular reasons for wanting to stop climate change, what I am saying is the specific language of the planet 'needing us' is nonsensical.
Yaacov, I like your writing very much but I do not think the "atheist position" on climate change is such. I would recomend listening to Sam Harris discuss climate chnage. Furthermore, I wonder how you are assume that any damage we can incurr on the planet will be inconsequential, I am no expert in climate chnage and therefore do not hold a strong position one way or another, I think having a nonchalant attitude twoards a disaster that is at least in the realm of posibility is maybe not the best position to hold.
Let me know what you think? Do you have a strong belief one way or another? I was actually just having this conversation with a friend, what is the torah perspective on such an issue were the science itself is very controversial.
To be clear, I am not arguing that it is nonsensical for an Athiest to be worried about climate change, I am also not saying that all Athiests use the language of protecting mother earth ect. What I am saying is that it's is nonsensical to be an Athiest and also use the terminology of us being responsible to nature. Such terminology definitionally sets us apart from nature when from the Athiest perspective we are nature!
With regards to climate change being inconsequential it is all a matter of perspective. Certainly it could be very dire for mankind and I am also not 100 percent clear on what the religious take should be on it all. However from the perspective of 'the planet' it will be just a blip in it's billions of years of history. In the same way that the meotorite which allegedly destroyed most large life on earth didn't destroy the planet.
Very nice: “No one condemns volcanoes for wrecking nature because they are nature! But if volcanoes had opposable thumbs and could pick up a hammer and chisel, they'd probably be in deep trouble!”
Some reflections on the question of commandments in general.
When we interpret moral commandments it is still only our interpretation that we ‘hear’. Everything given can be misinterpreted, turned upside down relative to the intended meaning, so ultimately it is always us individually who are morally responsible, and every commandment and scriptural pronouncement is bound to be interpreted according to our character and moral conscience, which is in turn conditioned by countless moral choices made in the past. Every moral error, once normalised, integrated into our understanding of the world, distorts our capacity for future moral discernment, making future errors more likely. Conversely, everything we do right improves our capacity for moral discernment. It is indeed like a ladder on which we can climb up, towards moral perfection and meaning or down, towards the animal realm.
If we would accept a commandment dogmatically, we relinquish our own moral authority, deny the moral challenge that the world is presenting us with, but this is already a moral transgression, because we endorse a judgment of another without knowing it to be right, we merely assume it to be right without a sufficient reason, which entails a contradiction. In this light, moral dependency is always wrong. If, on the other hand, we preserve a degree of uncertainty about what is right, accept that interpretations may differ, we consciously assume moral responsibility for the present choice, and we act consciously as moral beings. Yes, we may still be wrong, but then we can only blame ourselves and can learn from the experience.
History shows that even the most basic prohibition “Thou shalt not kill” means little unless we understand why we ought not to kill, otherwise invalid exceptions or excessive inclusions are bound to be made. Should the commandment be taken absolutely, kill nothing and ever, not even a plant, or does it apply only to conscious rational beings, or just to my tribe, or just to my friends, or just to me, or just on Tuesdays? Should we not kill enemies, should we not kill in self-defence, should we not kill wrongdoers, should we not kill those who kill? However we interpret the scope of this commandment depends on us individually, and unless we can derive it from a fundamental principle we are probably wrong.
Great piece Yaacov! Loved the part at the end about positive and negative commandments and how it applies to X!
Re: the beginning part about it being contradictory to speak about climate change when one doesn’t believe in anything beyond “nature”, I don’t necessarily know if I agree with that. One could technically believe that man came about from natural processes and evolution and that it just happened, but I don’t think the logical next step is, well let’s just let nature continue taking its course. I think that as evolved people we can recognize that we are in a situation that may lead to the demise of the planet and we can either try to change it, or not.
This is not my stance on climate change, I personally believe that G-d will take care of the planet and it’s our job to work on the things he actually tells us to do. I’m just saying that I don’t necessarily think it’s illogical for an atheist to say “let’s save the planet.”
Love your writing as usual 🙏🏻
Thanks so much!
Re us needing to 'save the planet', from the purely Athiestic standpoint the Planet will outlive humanity by billions of years and any 'damage' we do to it will be inconsequential. In the same way that the Planet bounced back from the meotorite which wiped out the Dinosaurs.
There are definitely secular reasons for wanting to stop climate change, what I am saying is the specific language of the planet 'needing us' is nonsensical.
Yaacov, I like your writing very much but I do not think the "atheist position" on climate change is such. I would recomend listening to Sam Harris discuss climate chnage. Furthermore, I wonder how you are assume that any damage we can incurr on the planet will be inconsequential, I am no expert in climate chnage and therefore do not hold a strong position one way or another, I think having a nonchalant attitude twoards a disaster that is at least in the realm of posibility is maybe not the best position to hold.
Let me know what you think? Do you have a strong belief one way or another? I was actually just having this conversation with a friend, what is the torah perspective on such an issue were the science itself is very controversial.
Firstly thanks so much!
To be clear, I am not arguing that it is nonsensical for an Athiest to be worried about climate change, I am also not saying that all Athiests use the language of protecting mother earth ect. What I am saying is that it's is nonsensical to be an Athiest and also use the terminology of us being responsible to nature. Such terminology definitionally sets us apart from nature when from the Athiest perspective we are nature!
With regards to climate change being inconsequential it is all a matter of perspective. Certainly it could be very dire for mankind and I am also not 100 percent clear on what the religious take should be on it all. However from the perspective of 'the planet' it will be just a blip in it's billions of years of history. In the same way that the meotorite which allegedly destroyed most large life on earth didn't destroy the planet.
Hmmm I hear you.
I'll take it!
Very nice: “No one condemns volcanoes for wrecking nature because they are nature! But if volcanoes had opposable thumbs and could pick up a hammer and chisel, they'd probably be in deep trouble!”
Some reflections on the question of commandments in general.
When we interpret moral commandments it is still only our interpretation that we ‘hear’. Everything given can be misinterpreted, turned upside down relative to the intended meaning, so ultimately it is always us individually who are morally responsible, and every commandment and scriptural pronouncement is bound to be interpreted according to our character and moral conscience, which is in turn conditioned by countless moral choices made in the past. Every moral error, once normalised, integrated into our understanding of the world, distorts our capacity for future moral discernment, making future errors more likely. Conversely, everything we do right improves our capacity for moral discernment. It is indeed like a ladder on which we can climb up, towards moral perfection and meaning or down, towards the animal realm.
If we would accept a commandment dogmatically, we relinquish our own moral authority, deny the moral challenge that the world is presenting us with, but this is already a moral transgression, because we endorse a judgment of another without knowing it to be right, we merely assume it to be right without a sufficient reason, which entails a contradiction. In this light, moral dependency is always wrong. If, on the other hand, we preserve a degree of uncertainty about what is right, accept that interpretations may differ, we consciously assume moral responsibility for the present choice, and we act consciously as moral beings. Yes, we may still be wrong, but then we can only blame ourselves and can learn from the experience.
History shows that even the most basic prohibition “Thou shalt not kill” means little unless we understand why we ought not to kill, otherwise invalid exceptions or excessive inclusions are bound to be made. Should the commandment be taken absolutely, kill nothing and ever, not even a plant, or does it apply only to conscious rational beings, or just to my tribe, or just to my friends, or just to me, or just on Tuesdays? Should we not kill enemies, should we not kill in self-defence, should we not kill wrongdoers, should we not kill those who kill? However we interpret the scope of this commandment depends on us individually, and unless we can derive it from a fundamental principle we are probably wrong.