Do the dead know what happens in the land of the living?
The Talmud discusses this question at length in Berachot 18a-19a (starts with "R. Hiyya and R. Jonathan were once walking about in a cemetery").
Aside from interpretations of biblical verses, much of the evidence comprises anecdotes about the exploits of spirits in cemeteries. Read them and be spooked.
So, how are we moderns to relate to such passages? Are we required to believe them since they appear in the Gemara? Apparently the sages did, to the extent of determining halacha on their basis.
May we dismiss them as folk tales? On what basis would we do that? Just because they sound fantastical? They aren't more unbelievable than a host of biblical passages which Orthodox Jews certainly do believe (the flood, the splitting of the sea, the sun standing still, to name a few).
From a scientific perspective, science can neither prove nor disprove such tales. Just because we have no confirmed evidence of spirit communications is not proof that they do not exist. The fact that many modern westerners cringe at such stories is not evidence that they are false.
The issues at stake here are similar to those in the Nosson Slifkin controversy, though one step removed. Unlike the age of the earth or animal anatomy, science has no decisive position on ghosts and spirits. A lack of evidence does not constitute proof, as the Talmudic maxim goes. If we reject ghosts, we do so based on our own instincts and experiences. No scientific methodology can decide the question.
On the question of spirits, we are not forced into a choice between science and Torah. So why do we find it so difficult?
4 comments:
We can't accept spirits, because of how our minds work today.
Our theories about the world are (or at least they should be) based on our observations of the world rather than on intuition or faith; that is, empirical research and a posteriori inductive reasoning rather than purely deductive logic.
My view on spirits: We aren't required to believe they are real. There is absolutely no evidence of their existance, and the thought that they might be real is offensive to reason. So why bother?
Why should it be more difficult to believe in spirits than, say, God? Is there more evidence for the latter? If you apply empiricism to the former, why not the latter? For that matter, does the soul exist?
We use empirical reason to understand the workings of the physical world, those aspects of the world which are subject to experimentation and the scientific method. Since when do we use those methods to discover the truth about the spiritual world? On the contrary, we rely on tradition, faith and personal experience.
While there is no proof that spirits exist, one could argue that there is abundant evidence. Stories of spirits are prevalent across societies and eras. I know people - people I trust, rational people - who claim to have experienced phenomena not explainable by science. Does none of this constitute "evidence", simply because it is not repeatable and thus not subject to scientific inquiry?
In what way is the existence of spirits "offensive to reason"? Either they exist or they don't. Would the world be irrational if they did? (Of course, the world might well be irrational, but that's another matter...)
My view on spirits: I don't know if they're real. My instincts reject them, but my intellect remains open to the possibility. I have no proof either way.
I am, however, convinced that there are phenomena in this world, in particular relating to death, which cannot be explained by science, and are not subject to the scientific method. I believe I've experienced some of this myself, as have others I'm close to.
A good scientist understands the limits of science.
Why should it be more difficult to believe in spirits than, say, God? Is there more evidence for the latter? If you apply empiricism to the former, why not the latter? For that matter, does the soul exist?
----- Believing in God is a religious obligation. And note the word: belief. I don't know that God exists, not in the way that I know my hand exists. But I believe that he exists, as required by Jewish law, which is not the same thing as knowing.
I am not required to believe in spirits.
We use empirical reason to understand the workings of the physical world, those aspects of the world which are subject to experimentation and the scientific method. Since when do we use those methods to discover the truth about the spiritual world? On the contrary, we rely on tradition, faith and personal experience.
------- And as a result we can't ever "know" anything about the spiritual world. We can aquire a set of beliefes, but we can't "know" that those beliefs are true - certainly not in the way we "know" things about the physical world.
While there is no proof that spirits exist, one could argue that there is abundant evidence. Stories of spirits are prevalent across societies and eras.
--- That's not evidence. Stories are notoriously unreliable.
I know people - people I trust, rational people - who claim to have experienced phenomena not explainable by science. Does none of this constitute "evidence", simply because it is not repeatable and thus not subject to scientific inquiry?
--- Yes. Personal testimony is unrealible. People are easy to fool, they let their emotions cloud their judgement and so on. None of that counts as evidence for the purpose of this examination. See the Covington fairies. Half of England "believed" they were real. And I am sure many of those people were rational and trustworthy.
In what way is the existence of spirits "offensive to reason"? Either they exist or they don't. Would the world be irrational if they did? (Of course, the world might well be irrational, but that's another matter...)
--------- Not the existance. The belief that they exist absent real evidence. That's what is offensive to reason.
My view on spirits: I don't know if they're real. My instincts reject them, but my intellect remains open to the possibility. I have no proof either way.
--- You have no proof of dragons, nor or the Loch Ness monster. Are you open to the possibility that they exist. More improtantly, would you make a life altering discion, based on anything like the evidence available for believing in spirits? I hope not.
I am, however, convinced that there are phenomena in this world, in particular relating to death, which cannot be explained by science, and are not subject to the scientific method.
--- Why?
I believe I've experienced some of this myself, as have others I'm close to.
--- Belief is not knowledge. And again, people are notoriously prone to mistakes, and they are easy too fool.
A good scientist understands the limits of science.
--- We aren't discussing science. On this thread you and I are discussing epistemology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology) ie: What are "justified true beliefs?"
Believing in God is a religious obligation.So you believe in God because God commanded you to? What am I missing here?
I believe that he exists, as required by Jewish law, which is not the same thing as knowing.I'm not sure I buy the distinction between believing and knowing. Do you believe in quarks or do you know they exist? What about angels? I expect more people claim to have observed spirits than quarks.
I am not required to believe in spirits.Well, that's exactly the question under discussion here. You're required to accept the authority of the sages, right? They apparently believed in spirits. Ergo?
Stories are notoriously unreliable.Sure they are. But that doesn't mean they can be utterly dismissed. Do you believe things your friends and family tell you? Do you believe the newspapers and the history books? Or do you dismiss them all as stories?
Presumably you do both - you believe them to a certain extent, while retaining skepticism. You can dismiss all the stories about spirits as unreliable, but that doesn't mean they don't constitute some form of evidence.
Why do you assume your reason is more reliable than your experience, or that of others?
Not the existance. The belief that they exist absent real evidence. That's what is offensive to reason.If you dismiss all the potential evidence, naturally. But you still have the same problem with God, and miracles, and prophecy, and many other supernatural phenomena described in Jewish sources which I presume you accept as a religious Jew. Some of those sources describe spirits, too.
You have no proof of dragons, nor or the Loch Ness monster. Are you open to the possibility that they exist.In a theoretical sense, yes I am open to the possibility. Scientists have, even recently, at times discovered new large animals previously unknown. Practically, though, it's hard to hide a dragon or the Loch Ness monster, and it's hard to imagine they have gone unrecorded until now. The same is not true of spirits.
More improtantly, would you make a life altering discion, based on anything like the evidence available for believing in spirits? I hope not.Depends on what you mean by a life-altering decision. Many people say kaddish to benefit the souls of their loved ones. Is that an illegitimate motive?
We aren't discussing science. On this thread you and I are discussing epistemology.Fair enough. But the use of empirical evidence to understand the physical world is generally identified with the scientific method. It is by no means the only legitimate way to know things about the world around us. Tradition, experience, intuition and authority are also legitimate ways of acquiring knowledge, and we all rely on them to varying extents.
Orthodox Jews certainly rely on tradition and authority for certain realms of knowledge, in particular those relating to the realm of the soul. On what grounds do we accept some elements of that knowledge and reject others?
Post a Comment