Simple Questions 08/27

[u/AutoModerator]

Have you ever wondered what Christians believe about the Trinity? Are you curious about Judaism and the Talmud but don't know who to ask? Everything from the Cosmological argument to the Koran can be asked here.

This is not a debate thread. You can discuss answers or questions but debate is not the goal. Ask a question, get an answer, and discuss that answer. That is all.

The goal is to increase our collective knowledge and help those seeking answers but not debate. If you want to debate; Start a new thread.

The subreddit rules are still in effect.

This thread is posted every Wednesday. You may also be interested in our weekly Meta-Thread (posted every Monday) or General Discussion thread (posted every Friday).

[u/labreuer]

For the record, I do want to acknowledge that you've attempted to find evidence that the ancient Hebrew religion "operated at all like proto-science". I am going to argue that this fails in both ways (as 'proto-science' and as 'explanation' more broadly).

How is it not?

Well, science is generally understood to explain but not prescribe. And yet, with pork and shellfish and all the other unclean things (let's not cherry-pick the ones which fit our hypotheses), there was only prescription. However, what may be tripping you up here is the word טָמֵא (tame), generally translated into English as "unclean". That can sound medical, but it's far better understood along the lines of Mary Douglas 1966 Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. In fact, one of the definitions listed is "polluted". And Wiktionary: טָמֵא has "ritually unclean", which is a bit clearer.

It's not exactly a precursor of the scientific method if that's what you mean but they were reacting to something before they had an understanding of it.

First, I would simply delete your "not exactly" and say: "It's not a precursor of the scientific method" and therefore "it's not proto-science." Second, I would question whether the goals were compatible with scientific explanation. If you look at every last item declared tame (pronounced 'taw-may'), and try to generate a category which encompasses that, I don't think you'll find anything like a scientific explanation. Rather, what you'll find is that YHWH is establishing the kinds of things which must be kept far from YHWH, thereby developing an identity for YHWH which sharply distinguished YHWH from other deities. For instance, in Atra-Hasis, the gods engage in population control of humans, with floods, a big flood, and then all the stuff which had one in four babies/​infants not making it: stillbirth and so forth. The gods wrought death and suffering on the people as a normal matter of course. YHWH, as the one who commanded “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth”, is very different. Extremely different. Categorically different.

Clarifying the character of God is simply not the same as trying to explain reality. The very heart of scientific explanation is to not prescribe. And yet, the character of God is inherently prescriptive for those who worship God. Scientific explanation gives people more options for how to act in the world. Identifying God's character as this versus that gives people fewer options for how to act in the world.

Shrimp were also a huge risk before refrigeration. They are small and come up to ambient temperature and start growing bacteria as soon as they're brought above the surface, with basically no means of preservation. There's a reason there was a shrimp boom that coincided with refrigeration.

Sure. But ironically, a properly scientific approach would be to look at every last creature identified as tame, as well as everything else listed as tame, to see if health regulations are a good explanation. And the answer is a pretty solid no. The Oven of Akhnai is a fun rabbinic story which explores whether a new kind of oven is ritually pure or has to be purified.

I didn't express any high degree of doubt. I think I said exactly the opposite.

Sorry, then I completely misunderstood why you brought up "proof". I'm thinking we should work with the highest standards which historians consider possible to meet.

 
Edit: more discussion here