Daily Archives: September 2, 2021

By Moshe Phillips

PHILADELPHIA The news media had a field day recently with the man-bites-dog story of the self-proclaimed atheist who was recently named chief chaplain at Harvard University.

After nearly 400 years of having chief chaplains who believe in G-d, Harvard has gone in a surprising new direction. Not only that, but the new head chaplain, Greg Epstein, is Jewish and a graduate of the rabbinical ordination program at something called the International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism.

Undoubtedly some parents of Jewish students at Harvard will be troubled at the prospect of their sons or daughters coming under the influence of a passionate advocate of atheism. Active rejection of the most basic concept in Judaism belief in G-d is pretty fringe stuff in the eyes of most American Jews.

The problem is not that Greg Epstein is an atheist; thats his business. The problem is that he presents himself as a rabbi, even though his core belief system is rejected by every Jewish religious denomination of note Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist.

The power of the rabbi title is that it confers Jewish legitimacy and respectability on whatever the rabbi, evena self-proclaimed one, says. Jewish students at Harvard who dont know better will hear that the rabbi said something, and assume that what he said represents Judaism, not just a tiny fringe element on the Jewish spectrum.

Whether Greg Epstein will influence Jewish students religious beliefs remains to be seen. It could be argued that these students are more likely to be influenced by their professors, whom they often perceive as experts and authority figures.

But where Epsteins influence may well be felt even more strongly, I fear, is on Jewish students perceptions of Israel, the Holocaust, and antisemitism.

Because he is Jewish, and because of the power of his new position, Epstein will have significant new platforms from which to share his views on Jewish issues at campus events, in the news media, and well beyond. And Epsteins views on Jewish issues are disturbingly extreme.

A Tweet from Epstein on April 28, 2021, employed the ugly term Jewish supremacists to demean Jewish nationalists who were marching in Jerusalem. That slur was coined by neo-Nazis and then more recently adopted by the radical left.

One indication of Epsteins shallow understanding of the Holocaust was his 2019 tweet calling American detention facilities for illegal migrants concentration camps.

If you think I am exaggerating, and that Epstein could not possibly have meant literally that those facilities are similar to concentration camps, note that he wrote they can LITERALLY [his caps], in a historically accurate way, be called concentration camps.

No, they cant be, which is why the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and other scholarly Holocaust institutions strongly denounced those comparisons.

As for Israel when Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections, Epstein was part of a group of left-wing rabbis who rushed to urge President Obama to refrain from rejecting the terrorist victors. We urge you to maintain a cautious approach toward Hamas, in order to advance the goal of a Palestinian state, they wrote to the president.

I guess since Epstein is a member of the J Street Rabbinic Cabinet, thats pretty much what we should expect. J Street, the controversial Jewish pressure group that was created to lobby for a Palestinian state, consistently supports Palestinian Arab demands against Israel. The leaders of J Street always seemto blame Israel for what goes wrong, no matter how extreme or violent the Palestinians are.

Is this the kind of person whom Jewish parents want influencing their college-age children? That doesnt seem like a very attractive return on their $51,925 in annual tuition payments.

*

Moshe Phillips is a commentator on Jewish affairs whose writings appear regularly in the American and Israeli press. He was a U.S. delegate to the 38th World Zionist Congress in 2020. His views are his own.

Read the original here:

The Real Danger of that Atheist Harvard Chaplain - San Diego Jewish World

By Michael Brown, CP Op-Ed Contributor | Tuesday, August 31, 2021

Harvard University was founded as Harvard College in 1636. Its stated purpose was: To train a literate clergy. Among its mottos were, Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae (truth for Christ and Church) and In Christam Gloriam (to the glory of Christ). Now, Harvard has hired an atheist as its chief chaplain. And no, this is not a poor joke.

As reported by the New York Post, This spiritual leader doesnt need a higher power.

Harvard Universitys organization of chaplains is getting a new president to coordinate the campus Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and assorted other religious communities. Only the new president, 44-year-old Greg Epstein, does not identify with any of those traditional religions himself.

He is an atheist.

But how can an atheist be a university chaplain?

Epstein explained to The New York Times, There is a rising group of people who no longer identify with any religious tradition but still experience a real need for conversation and support around what it means to be a good human and live an ethical life.

We dont look to a god for answers. We are each others answers.

The only problem is with Epsteins explanation is, well, everything. He may believe in God or not. He may follow a religion or not. Thats his own business. And he may have some great ideas about living an ethical life.

But to be a chaplain, by definition, means to be a religious leader, not simply a department head or an administrator or someone who believes in ethical living. And so, to appoint an atheist to be chief university chaplain is like appointing a Christian evangelist to head up the universitys atheist club. Or a devout Muslim to head up the universitys Judaism club. It is a total contradiction in both purpose and logic.

As for Epsteins appointment being controversial, thats not how Harvards leadership felt, voting to elect him unanimously. What a perfect choice! Couldnt think of anyone better!

The Merriam Webster website offers these four definitions for chaplain: 1: a clergyman in charge of a chapel; 2: a clergyman officially attached to a branch of the military, to an institution, or to a family or court; 3: a person chosen to conduct religious exercises (as at a meeting of a club or society); 4: a clergyman appointed to assist a bishop (as at a liturgical function).

According to Dictionary.com, a chaplain is: 1. an ecclesiastic attached to the chapel of a royal court, college, etc., or to a military unit. 2. a person who says the prayer, invocation, etc., for an organization or at an assembly.

And a military website states that: The chaplain's responsibilities include performing religious rites, conducting worship services, providing confidential counseling and advising commanders on religious, spiritual and moral matters. Chaplains are commissioned officers stationed wherever there are military members, including combat environments.

But if you dont believe in God, you cannot perform any of these functions.

Really now, how can you conduct a worship service if there is no God to worship? How can you perform religious rites, all of which presuppose the existence of a deity, if there is no deity?

To whom do you pray? What hope can you offer regarding the world to come? How can you help someone connect to the spiritual, unseen, eternal realm? Who, outside of the human race, forgives your sins or empowers you to change?

And if you yourself are convinced that there is no God, doesnt that mean that you view all religious believers as being in serious error, not to mention deeply deceived?

Its one thing if Harvard said, Rabbi Epstein does a great job of bringing people of different religions together. Terrific. Then hire him as an administrative coordinator for the chaplains department. But dont hire him as your chief chaplain. To do so only heaps further scorn on Harvards wokeness.

As for Epstein being a rabbi, that is just as absurd as being a chaplain, if not more so. (For the record, he received ordination as a Humanist Rabbi from the International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism.)

Without God, there is no Judaism, since Judaism is the story of God choosing the Jewish people for Himself, rescuing them from bondage in Egypt, and giving them His Torah. Thus, to have Judaism without God would be similar to having Christianity without Christ. It simply cannot be.

But why let truth and facts and logic get in the way? Lets just set our own standards and, to cite the title of Epsteins 2009 book, which has suddenly become a bestseller, lets just be good without God.

In the end, if someone wants to try and be good without God, that is their choice. Just dont call that person a rabbi or a chaplain. To do so, to say it once more, is a total contradiction in terms.

As for the Harvard of old, in order to graduate with the most basic degree in arts (not theology, which came later), the student had to be able logically to explain the Holy Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testamentsandbe blameless in life and character.

Among the Rules and Precepts of Harvard to be observed by the students were these: Let every Student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life.

And: Every one shall so exercise himself in reading the Scriptures twice a day, that he shall be ready to give such an account of his proficiency therein, both in Theoretical observations of Language and Logic, and in practical and spiritual truths ...

As for the Harvard of today (in terms of its spiritual condition and worldview), need I say more?

Dr. Michael Brown(www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicatedLine of Fireradio program. Heholds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and has served as a professor at a number of seminaries. He is the author of 40 books. Connect with him onFacebook,Twitter, orYouTube.

Go here to see the original:

When Harvard hired an atheist to be the chief university chaplain - The Christian Post

. . . while I offer a serious answer to his caricature regarding the Bible and genetics

This occurred in a combox at anti-theist atheist Jonathan MS Pearces blog. Words of atheist Makoto will be in blue.

*****

He has abundantly revealed Himself in the Bible. That is its purpose. There are arguments about how to interpret it, but for the most part, all Christians agree on the basic aspects of the nature of God (classic theism).

And we come back to how is that different than other holy works for other religions. I wasnt even trying to get into the fact that different Christians obviously disagree on how to interpret your bible, because Christians cant even agree on how being saved works, which seems like it would be a pretty important aspect of your bible!

Its different because it is consistently verified by historiography and archaeology, which is consistent with (but not proof of) its divine inspiration. Ive been writing a lot about this lately on my blog: the Bible & archaeology (as well as science).

See, for example:The Bible on Germs, Sanitation, & Infectious Diseases.

Scientifically accurate? Theres plenty to choose from on this topic, but since when do we breed animals in front of background props to change how the offspring look?Now, you could say it was a miracle, of course, but miracles, by definition, would not be scientific.

See also my web page:Bible & Archaeology / Bible & Science (A Collection). You asked me why I thought the Bible was different from other holy books. This is why.

I did a quick search I didnt see a single instance of breeding, sex, offspring, or similar terms in that post. I did notice the whole Piltdown Man thing, which science disproved, not religion, though

You replied to my post about breeding with a different set of points. Sorry, I was trying to stay focused. Did you have a reply to my point about breeding, or is this deflecting to other science parts that you feel have support?

You asked me how is that different than other holy works for other religions[?]. I replied that Its different because it is consistently verified by historiography and archaeology, . . . (as well as science). I then offered as one evidence of that, the biblical teaching on germs. Your task, then, would be to explain how that knowledge got there, which took modern science 3100 years from Moses time (13th c. BC) to figure out? You went off on the issue of breeding (which is not a biblical teaching on science).

Thats not my argument. You asked me about why I believe the Bible is different, and I answered. Thus, for the discussion to rationally continue, you have to offer a disproof of the biblical teaching on germs, or explain variously how the ancient Hebrews in the 13th c. BC could know these things, short of divine inspiration (which is my explanation). And thats only one argument of many that I have compiled, as regards the Bible and science, and the Bible and archaeology.

Do you want to address the breeding issue? If not, fine, I understand, I just wanted to be very sure we both agree this is in the bible you claim is scientific.

I did, in saying, its not a biblical teaching on science. In other words, I deny that it has anything to do with the topic at hand. It merely indicates Jacobs pre-scientific (but not anti-scientific) understanding of breeding of animals.

I gave a specific example of biblical teaching that is remarkably in harmony with post-19th century science regarding germs and hygiene. Do you wish to address (or refute) that or not? I have provided a concrete example of the Bible being extraordinarily accurate, 3100 years before science caught up with it. It seems to me that ispreciselydead-on-topic.

Moreover, heres an article that satisfactorily explains this topic you brought up (showing that nothing in the account contradicts genetics):

A Mendelian Interpretation of Jacobs Sheep (J. D. Pearson,Science and Christian Belief, Vo. 13, No. 1, pp. 51-58, 2001). Thats my counter-response to the ultimately off-topic issue you raised. You have yet to offer any counter at all to my far more nuanced and complex argument about the Bible and germs.

Man, you really dont want to talk about breeding at all, do you? It literally is science, after all. Bible says, in Gen 30:39, they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted.This is very straightforward. Very biblical! Do you have a reason this should not be accepted as god-based science, despite it being literally in the bible?

Nice try. I already answered with a link that refutes what you are contending (three minutes before this comment of yours). Man, you really dont want to talk about the (13th c. BC) biblical teaching on germs at all, do you? It literally is science, after all.

I did not see your refutation when I was typing up my reply. I will read it now. I have to admit, its crazy to think the bible says that the point was to breed them in front of reeds. That seems absurd, because your linked article implies that it would not matter! They couldve bred anywhere, yet the bible says it was in front of reeds that was important. Why?

Understood and thanks. I eagerly await your counter-interpretation on the Bible and germ theory. Im sure youll have a fascinating theory as to how this knowledge was in possession of ancient Hebrew nomads over 3200 years ago.

I have to admit, there is a side to this I completely agree with, in regards to biblical germ theory! Lev:13:45-46:

A diseased person must wear torn clothes and let his hair hang loose, and he must cover his mouth and cry out, Unclean, unclean!As long as he has the infection, he remains unclean. He must live alone in a place outside the camp.

If only more Christians were willing to listen to that these days, it very much describes the use of masks and social distancing/quarantine

Science is not at all unanimous on masks.

Im still waiting for your theory on breeding in front of reeds, so thats cool.

Its in the article that I posted 28 minutes ago.

Right, I read that. I still dont get it, though. It literally is denying the participation of the reeds, which.. if I check my bible.. is a key factor. Was that something unrelated? If so, why was it in the bible?

Im not gonna go over the article. It was addressed there. Now its your turn to deal with my argument on germ theory, and Im not holding my breath . . .

Glad I didnt hold my breath. Its now been about 28 hours and counting, since no response has been forthcoming.

[30 hours passed from the time of my original challenge question]

Oh, my apologies. I got bored. You bored me.You lash out at atheists left and right, werent presenting anything useful that I saw, and I decided I had better things to do. Such is life.

Right. This is what atheists do when they have no answer to Christian arguments. Thanks for the entertainment!

***

Photo credit: Clker-Free-Vector-Images(4-11-12) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Summary: Exchange with an atheist that delved into the Bible & science. I submitted my article on remarkable biblical knowledge of germs in the 13th c. BC. He offered a non-argument on genetics.

Read the original post:

Bible on Germ Theory: An Atheist Hems & Haws - Patheos

Tyson Chase, who blogged as Salt City Pagan on the Patheos Agora blog, made a farewell post last week. Unlike some whove left Patheos Pagan in an uproar, this was a polite and personal farewell that focused much of its attention on giving thanks. In particular, Tyson expressed gratitude for the Pagan way of seeing the world that helped him extract himself from the framework provided by the Catholic Church.

As someone who worked for many years to extract myself from Protestant fundamentalism (or more precisely, to extract Protestant fundamentalism from me), I am thrilled that our movement was able to help Tyson find his way out of a religious environment that didnt work for him, even if he didnt stick around.

Paganism isnt for everyone. Even though there are many different polytheist, duotheist, pantheist, and non-theist versions, our Big Tent isnt right for everyone. Some people need the familiarity of the religion of their childhood, whatever it may be. Some need the infrastructure the Big Five religions can provide that we cant. And some people sincerely believe the doctrines of various religions, or of no religion.

Tyson Chase found his home as an Agnostic-Atheist. So be it. My Paganism is as much of an orientation as it is a conscious choice. If I have a Pagan orientation, it stands to reason that some people have an atheist orientation. If this is where Tyson belongs, Im genuinely happy for him, and I respect his decision even though Im always sad when someone leaves the Pagan community.

However

After his expressions of gratitude which are absolutely genuine Tyson elaborates on The Choice To Leave. His reasons are valid. He examined the evidence and came to the conclusion that agnostic-atheism was the right path, at least for him.

I also have a strong respect for science, and I do my best to live my life in a reasonable manner. But my experiences and my interpretations of those experiences have led me to very different conclusions.

If Tysons post was on the Patheos Nonreligious channel, I might read it and let it go. But its on the Pagan channel, and so I feel the need to offer a different perspective.

Tyson finds the evidence for the existence of the Gods to be insufficient. Thats fine. We all have to examine the evidence we have and evaluate it as best we can and we dont all come to the same conclusions. And to be fair, his identity as an Agnostic-Atheist affirms the reality that ultimately, we cant prove or disprove the existence of the Gods.

But then he says to argue that science cannot definitively disprove deities is creating a faith in the God(s) of the gap. Now, the idea that the Gods are in the gaps of our scientific knowledge is a logical fallacy, a fallacy that is made clear every time science discovers new knowledge and fills a gap previously occupied by a deity (who is usually assumed to be the Christian God, but thats not important here).

The problem here is materialism the assumption that if something exists, science can observe and measure it. And also, if science cant observe and measure it, then it cant exist. But there is another possibility: that there are things or persons who are beyond the capacity of science to observe and measure. Not Gods of gaps, but Gods who are bigger than the bounds of materialism.

Tyson says no God claim has met its burden of proof. Implicit in that statement is the assumption that there is an objective standard for such proof, or at least that all reasonable people have a similar standard. Neither is true.

I believe in the Gods because I have experienced the Gods for myself. Now, you can argue that my experiences were simply disruptions in brain chemistry caused by something completely ordinary and within the bounds of materialism. I freely admit you might be right.

But I dont call myself an Agnostic-Pagan I call myself a Pagan and a polytheist. I take what I think is most likely true and I order my life as though it is absolutely true. My life has been objectively better since I started on this path why would I do otherwise?

Different people have different standards of proof. The existence of the Gods matters a lot more to some people than to others. I cant say for certain that Im right and Tyson is wrong.

I can say for certain that the preponderance of evidence convinces me that the Gods are real, and Im happy with that conclusion.

Tyson describes some unfortunate experiences with some unethical readers. I wish he was describing a rare occurrence, but hes not. A few psychics and readers are fakes who defraud their clients. Many more are simply incompetent.

It took me years to get to the point where I could read Tarot with any degree of accuracy. Even now, if you ask me for precise details Im probably not going to be able to answer. I cant see specifics in the cards and Im not going to pretend I can.

But I can get general impressions. I can paint a picture for myself or for a client of what things will be like if you continue on a certain path. Then you can decide if you want to continue on that path, or if you want to make a change. I cant make a major life decision for you and I wouldnt if I could.

To be clear: Im not blaming the victim here. Im warning those who want to be public readers to make sure youre ready before you start charging money. Being ready means proving your accuracy and your helpfulness to yourself and your non-paying friends. It also means committing to ethics in divination.

Because if you dont, you might be part of the reason someone leaves Paganism for atheism.

We all know about the placebo effect. The open-label placebo effect takes it a step farther. Thats when you fake something, and you know youre faking it, but you get some benefit from it anyway.

Except, what if youre not really faking it?

Tyson said for some time, this approach to magick sustained my practice. But also I feel better connected to a situation when I am not utilizing the placebo effect.

I understand the need to focus on what you think is real, even if what you pretend is pleasant and helpful. But heres the thing: if you do the ritual and you get the results, how do you know the results come from the placebo effect?

How do you know the ritual didnt work just like its supposed to work?

The only completely honest answer is that you dont know. Materialism says theres no way it can work. But what if theres something to psychic energy manipulation (energy being a problematic word in this context, but most of us know what we mean)? What if the Gods we prayed to assisted us just enough to make a difference?

And whats behind the placebo effect anyway? It shouldnt work but it does. Instead of dismissing it, what if we learned how to manipulate it?

Im convinced that magic does work. Sometimes by the manipulation of what we call psychic energy, sometimes by the intercession of Gods and spirits, and sometimes by psychological programming. I dont know where the placebo effect fits into that model, or if its evidence of a fourth type of magic.

But if it works, its real.

Tyson is disappointed in the response of some Pagans to the Covid pandemic. So am I. But as a whole, were taking this a lot more seriously than the conservative religions. I wish we were 100% vaccinated (excepting those who cannot be vaccinated) and were 100% responsible in public gatherings, but were doing about as well as anyone. This is not an issue specific to Pagans.

Hes also disappointed in Pagans who practice cultural appropriation, and calls out white people who wear Native American headdresses as an example. I share his disappointment, and Im committed to building a Paganism where we do better. As with the Covid response, this is not a problem unique to Pagans.

But it can be the last straw for someone who was already on their way out.

Im writing this to the community at large, not to Tyson Chase. Hes made his decision and I have no need to try to convince him to change it. Paganism isnt for everyone, and if people examine the evidence and come to the conclusion that there are no Gods, so be it. As the quote often attributed to Marcus Aurelius says:

Live a good life. If there are Gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are Gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no Gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

But some of us have examined the evidence and have concluded that the Gods are very real, and so we worship and work with Them. Weve concluded that magic is real, so we study and practice and experiment and try to be the most effective magicians we can be. And weve concluded that divination is real, so we do our best to relay the messages weve been given as honestly and accurately as we can.

You must weigh the evidence and choose for yourself.

I wish Tyson Chase nothing but the best, and I will continue to work with him where our this-world interests align and they do on many issues.

But when it comes to Paganism, Ive examined the evidence and Ive come to a very different conclusion.

See the original post:

A Reflection on a Blogger Leaving Paganism for Atheism - Patheos

Atheist Sam Harris has been one of the most vocal unhinged critics of former US President Donald Trump. In his hatred for Donald Trump, he claimed that notorious terrorist Osama bin Laden was less morally reprehensible than the 45th president of the United States of America.

When Trump was banned by social media platforms simultaneously, Sam Harris cheered for it despite the ominous signs of censorship. It was a decision that was condemned widely by leaders across the world, including Emmanuel macron of France, Angela Merkel of Germany, the president of Mexico, members of the Parliament of India and many others.

There were many who warned Harris that he was widely wrong about Trump and although the former president is a fundamentally flawed individual, he is certainly not the worst thing to have happened in the United States. But Harris remained adamant in his assumptions. Thus, on the 20th of January, when Joe Biden took oath as president, he heralded the occasion as the second coming of Jesus Christ.

On Thursday, however, after the Kabul suicide bombing, when the cost of Bidens botched Afghan withdrawal became evident, he finally conceded that he was embarrassed about the glee with which he had welcomed the adults in the room.

On the 20th of January, Harris had said on Twitter, Feeling overwhelming gratitude for the adults in the room. But by the 26th of August, it turned into an embarrassed Publicly eating these words syllable by syllable.

Sam Harris is the same person who had once infamously declared, Osama bin Laden, as a person, is far more understandable to me and far less reprehensible, personally, psychologically, than Trump.

Earlier, he had said, I find Trump more despicable than I found Osama bin Laden With Osama bin Laden, its just obvious to me that he could have been a mensch in some sense, right? Hes making serious sacrifices for ideas that he deeply believes in. Hes committed to a cause greater than himself.

It is not clear whether Harris still holds on to those opinions, given that over 100 lives have been lost to the Kabul airport attack, which was committed by ideological compatriots of Osama bin Laden, even if they belonged to a different terrorist outfit.

Whatever his opinions maybe, his opinions regarding the adults in the room certainly appears to have undergone a radical change. Sam Harris is greatly fond of the American national security establishment, the class of individuals who are responsible for the current mess in Afghanistan and unleashing devastating carnage in the Middle East that has absolutely destroyed the region.

In 2016, the rational atheist hoped for Hillary Clinton to win, a certified warmonger who presided over the destruction of an entire region during her tenure as Secretary of State. However, now he is forced to reckon with his ridiculous assumptions about the competence of the managerial class he loves so much.

But not everyone is ready to give Harris a free pass over the hysterical nonsense he peddled about Donald Trump. Gad Saad, a Lebanese-Canadian Evolutionary Psychologist, said, Some of us tried to warn you but you were drowning in your hysterical and irrational Trump hatred. Next time around, dont reject those with whom you share many values simply because of your tribal blind hysteria.

He stated further, Are you going to publicly eat your words regarding supporting that Trump be banned from Twitter? Deontological principles should NEVER be sacrificed at the altar of tribal hate. Political commentator Mike Cernovich was particularly caustic in his remarks, suggesting that the bin Laden admirer had gone into damage control mode.

Sam Harris is not the only person who has to contend with their flawed assumptions regarding Joe Biden. The mainstream media, which had worked hard to elect him as president, appears to have abandoned a sinking ship as well. No longer in a position to defend his botched handling of the Afghan withdrawal, even they are harshly criticising the decisions he has made in recent weeks.

At the same time, Bidens approval ratings are at an all time low as he struggles to cope with the fallout of the Afghan crisis. And with the death of US marines and calls for him to resign, his approvability is expected to plummet further.

Go here to see the original:

Trump derangement syndrome patient Sam Harris admits he is embarrassed over enthusiastic welcome for adults in the room involved in botched Afghan...