Colson's phrase also neatly captures an idea in the beginning of this week's Torah reading, Chukat-Balak (Numbers 19:1-25:9). The reading begins with the description of the statute (chok) of the red heifer, whose ashes cleanse ritual impurity associated with having come into contact with the dead. According to Jewish tradition, the term chok, or statute, implies that the kind of law in question differs from other kinds of laws in that its rational basis is not readily apparent. To put it mildly.
Another class of Torah laws -- mishpatim, often translated as "ordiances" -- are "rational" in the sense that the reason behind them can be discerned without the need for revelation. Many of these are laws that humankind might have arrived at on our own had the Hebrew Bible not been revealed. Think of them as natural law. Some, though not all, of the laws in the Ten Commandments would be examples of this.
But a chok almost seems to invite mockery from the world. On this point, the Medieval commentator Rashi on Numbers 19:2 cites the Talmud (Yoma 67b). Why does the verse speak of the law of the red heifer as "the statute of the Torah," as nothing less than the prime example of a Torah "statute"?
Rashi answers:
Because Satan and the nations of the world taunt Israel, saying, "What is this commandment, and what purpose does it have?" Therefore, the Torah uses the term "statute." I [God] have decreed it. You have no right to challenge it.
Sometimes a chok is called a "suprarational" law. That doesn't mean it's irrational. Instead, the rationale behind the law, its significance when considered rationally, can only be perceived from within the system of Torah thought -- the worldview of the Hebrew Bible. From outside, it indeed appears irrational. An alien worldview, like secularism, blinds a person to being able to see the law's sense, the insight and beauty it reflects -- "worldview-induced blindness."
I know that such "statutes" aren't irrational because Jewish tradition has much to say about their meaning. Just yesterday I attended a circumcision and the rabbi spoke movingly about circumcision as a "chok" -- brit milah is indeed mocked by many in the secular world -- but then he went on to elaborate on its meaning in what seemed, to someone listening from within the Torah's worldview, a very sensible way, having to do with the permanent engraving of God's relationship with the Jews as a mark on the human body. Chok is etymologically related to the Hebrew word for "engraved."
In earlier posts, we've been talking about homosexuality. It is relevant and interesting to glance at Leviticus 18, where many laws of sexually immoral combinations (e.g., incest, bestiality, homosexuality) are given. These laws are prefaced with the statement: "Carry out My ordiances and safeguard My statutes to follow them; I am the Lord, your God" (18:4). In other words, looking at the Hebrew, it's clear that the passage speaks of both "rational" and "suprarational" laws -- those whose sense can be readily appreciated from outside the Torah's worldview and those whose sense cannot be readily appreciated, where worldview-induced blindness comes into play.
The verse doesn't tell us which laws are which, but maybe we can speculate that the laws against incest would fall under the former category, and against homosexuality, under the latter.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
There is an old Texas expression: All hat, no cattle.
Lets rephrase that to fit the context here in respects to the title of your "article", "Worldview-Induced Blindness," Intelligent Design, & the Ashes of the Red Heifer:
All title, no content.
I read Dr. Meyers book and found it very well reasoned, polite, and well documented. I wish his detractors would save their cleverness for their social life and engage Dr. Meyer at his level. I urge all Darwinists to at least consider that as we learn more about life we see that it is more and more complex than we previously believed. Complexity is the arch-enemy of chance. The more complicated an outcome, the less likely it is luck. I can understand why Darwin might have seen chance as a reasonable explnation given the lack of detailed knowledge of cellular life. But as scientific inquiry reveals more and more details and spectacular and ingenius design it becomes increasinly difficult for me to believe that random chance is more likely than purposeful design. I wonder how more than a million really intricate and perfect life forms were able to "evolve" and yet not give any demonstrations of the actual process. I want to see the mechanic at work. When all the real action is behind some curtain I suspect the work of an illusionist. I believe that Dr. Meyer actually understates the case. He only addresses molecules at the level of electrons. The cosmologists have discovered that there is an even more complicated universe of particles and waves hidden within every molecule. The level of information at that deeper level is well beyond our current ccomprehension. If molecules are more complex than simple positive and negative switches, imagine the amount of information that can be conveyed by each molecule. Evolution doesn't have a chance of explaining that level of design.
Donald K. Struckmann -
If that is what Meyer wrote, he does not know what he is talking about. Such claims about chance are meaningless nonsense.
I wonder how more than a million really intricate and perfect life forms were able to "evolve" and yet not give any demonstrations of the actual process.
If you spent some time learning about biology and evolution instead of believing the anti-science nonsense that the Discovery Institute pays people to write, you would know how wrong your "wondering" is. Like David, you have demonstrated a sufficient ignorance of science to show that your opinion should be ignored by anyone who actually cares about these things.
Go. Learn. Rather than offering ignorant opinions, fix your ignorance. You and the rest of the world will be better off.
You see freelunch, the cell is so complicated that god had to design it. And everything we know about god is in a book, the bible, which is much less complicated than the simplest cell. So in order to understand complexity one is best off consulting a snake handling Applichian Christian
screw spell checking
"why believers in Darwinism can't open their eyes and see when presented with scientific evidence of design in nature."
Well, this gambit has been tried and found wanting for over a hundred years now. Perhaps it's because such "scientific evidence" is not really scientific at all. Beauty and design are in the eye of the beholder when that beholder is religious. But not when the beholder is a scientist. I wonder why? Perhaps something about being "rational" instead of "having faith"?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.