Come, Let Us Reason Together

 

Isaiah 1:18 begins in many translations as “Come let us reason together.” This is God calling to his people. God wants to talk with them and to settle a dispute. He is giving them a chance for repentance.

Many modern people see argument as hurtful, but traditional Jewish culture sees argument as healthy and productive. Come, let us reason together. Argue your points with respect and civility towards one another, examining everything from all possible sides. Argue as friends.

The rabbis speak of arguments for the sake of heaven and arguments not for the sake of heaven. A matter of degrees of importance.

Jews are famous for arguing, often seeming to enjoy it, without becoming hateful or personal with it. Some describe a good argument as something that spices or flavors life. A rabbinic study method is pilpul, which carries the idea of peppers, to spice, to season, and to violently dispute (the idea of getting hot like a pepper). The method examines every possible angle on a dispute until arriving at an agreed upon answer.

https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12153-pilpul

Jews historically prefer reason over violence or force and argument over intimidation. Argument has even been described as a form of scholarship. Come let us reason together.

https://inheritmag.com/articles/the-jewish-way-to-argue-without-losing-friends

Modern Western society has become increasingly argumentative without the underlying brotherhood. Everyone pulls into their own camps and seeks to “cancel” those with whom they disagree. This even happens in our churches.

Maybe we would be wise to listen to Isaiah 1:18. After all, it is in our Bible.

______________________________________________________

לכו־נא ונוכחה    Isaiah 1:18 word study: A very loose approximation or paraphrase could be, “Come, let us walk alongside one another and discuss this.”

            Le-ku  לכו (from halak, Strong’s 1980), “Come,” an imperative or a command. It can also mean argue, reason, decide, or walk alongside.

            Na נא (na, Strong’s 4994), meaning now or pray. This is an article of exhortation or entreaty, giving a courteous urgency to the imperative or command. The one being addressed is being given respect as a person. Something like “now I pray you” or “now I request of you.”

            We-niw-wa-ke-hah ונוכחה (from yakach, Strong’s 3198), meaning dispute, argue, reason (together). The wa וְ is not usually translated but can mean something like and.

The Classical Arguments for the Existence of God

 

There have been many attempts made to prove the existence of God but none have been definitive or inarguable. Some have pointed out that even if definitive proof existed that would not be enough. Knowing is not the same as believing.

There are three classical arguments for the existence of God. Argument to most people carries

the idea of an angry exchange of words sometimes leading to a physical altercation, but there is also an understanding of the word from a classical legal background. Ancient orators (the forerunners of attorneys) and their descendants, modern scholars, professors, and attorneys offered arguments on numerous subjects, giving persuasive statements for or against a particular matter or understanding of a subject. Modern lawyers present closing arguments to a jury at a trial.

The three classical arguments for the existence of God are the ontological, cosmological, and the teleological. The English-language word ontology is derived from the Greek words ὄν or ὄντος (being, that which is) and λογία (word, study). The English-language word cosmology is derived from the Greek words κóσμος (order, arrangement, or adornment) and λογία. The English-language word teleology is derived from the Greek words τέλος (end, aim purpose, goal, finality) and λογία.

The Ontological Argument says that since we can conceive of a perfect being, then God must exist. The weakness here is that we can also conceive of H.P. Lovecraft’s extremely complex mythology of ancient gods like Nyarlathotep, Yog-Sothoth, or Cthulhu but that does not mean that they actually exist.

The Cosmological Argument says that everything in the universe has a cause and that there must be a first cause, which is God. The weakness here is how to explain how God can be an uncaused cause. To say that God caused himself is just talking in a circle and does not answer the objection.

The Teleological Argument: is generally considered to be the strongest of the three.  This is also known as the argument from design. This argument points to the apparent order, purpose, and complexity of the universe as strong evidence pointing to an intelligent designer. This argument often mentions the fine-tuning of physical constants which must be the way they are for the existence of life, and of multiple complex biological systems which must all function correctly together the very first time or the organism will not be viable. The weakness here is that this argument can point but cannot prove. It can only define a degree of probability.

This argument cannot answer numerous objections. Was God designed by another designer who also had a designer who also had a …? Are there other designers creating other universes? Do suffering and natural disasters show God to be cruel or evil? Does the designer care at all about what he designed? Do we so much want to see design that we see it when it is not really there? Does the apparent presence of design point to the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition or to some other deity? Every one of these questions and objections and many others have been brought up over the centuries and have led to the development of the field of apologetics.

Apologetics absolutely cannot prove the existence of God. What it seeks to do is to find and explore every possible provable fact which adds to the probability of the truth of the Judeo-Christian tradition. There are literally thousands of these provable facts. Do not expect any of this to convince a true confirmed skeptic.

One can easily get bogged down in all the arguments, but I believe that the point of apologetics can be summed up by a line from the Jean-Pierre Jeunet secular comedic film masterpiece, Amelie: “When the finger’s pointing at the sky, only a fool looks at the finger.” 

The field of apologetics attempts to pile facts upon facts to raise the probability of God’s existence to the point at which even hostile total skeptics have to admit that it is at least a viable argument.

The abortion debate is not only based on religious beliefs

     A friend and I were talking  and somehow got onto the subject of abortion.  When I expressed my opposition to the practice he told me he was surprised at me.    He said, "You're so well read and seem to be intelligent.  How can you be anti-choice?"

     I pointed out to him that I am not anti-choice, I'm pro-life.  He started rolling out all the pro-abortion arguments.  And, he made the charge that only fundamentalist Christians and Roman Catholics oppose abortion; so, declaring that it was not necessary to invoke religion at all in the debate, I asked him a question.

     "If you take tissue from an aborted fetus and from the biological mother and submit the samples separately for DNA analysis and comparison, what will be the result?  ... The DNA analysis will demonstrate that the tissues came from two separate and totally distinct individuals.  Genetic science states that the fetus, from the moment of conception, is a separate life, not merely a patch of tissue in the mother's body."

     My friend admitted that this was true but the implications of that admission flew right over his head.  He resorted to the hypothetical game, "If your unmarried young daughter were ... "

     Many people of both liberal and conservative orientations stake a claim on a particular issue on ideology and become almost automatons, chanting the established mantra over and over.  They challenge any deviation from their particular orthodoxy.  Real argument, in the classical sense, is drowned out; they merely become louder with their chanting.  If you don't agree with them you must be an uneducated boob, hopelessly confused, or, worst of all, a bigot.

     It would be a positive step if we could all learn to argue with respect.  At the end of our argument my friend and I looked at one another and laughed, both of us sure that the other was wrong.  We're still friends.