Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Not evidence

News from our Pakistani friends (I didn’t know, by the way, that “Paki” is a racial slur — but then again, my grandmother is not the Queen of England, thank G-d):
Pakistan’s prime minister has dismissed the significance of a dossier handed over by India about the Mumbai attacks, saying it was just information and “not evidence”.
This reminds me of talking to some of my liberal friends about proof of Judaism. After I finish explaining Kuzari Principle (which proves that the story about Sinai revelation could not be invented and sold) to them, some of my friends do not argue against the Principle itself. What they say is: “Witnesses are not evidence”. Even 3 million witnesses. At the same time. At the same place. Of some events that happened every day (except Shabbos) for forty years. Simply not evidence. Perhaps just information — but not evidence.

If presented in court, yes, my friends agree, such witnesses would be considered as evidence. Even if it would mean making a life-or-death decision. But when it comes to G-d and Judaism — simply not evidence.

I wonder how some people’s brains work. I mean, I was an atheist myself for quite some time. I wasn’t stupid and irrational though. These people say religious people are irrational (and I don’t disagree regarding quite a few “believers”). At the same time these epitomes of rationalism rely on hergesh for morality (and take immoral stance in conflicts involving self-defense against murderers), rejecting evidence, supporting government’s economic policies and electing a President.

Also they shave and don’t wear hats.

I just don’t get it.

No comments: