The Challenge of Noah, Part Two

Updated thru 11/4/2016 - added commentary from JPS

Please at least skim The Challenge of Noah, Part 1 first.

This post will be devoted to sinking the Apologetic that the Noah story is an allegory/metaphor/parable. Religious people who advocate this approach probably acknowledge there was no world wide deluge, yet the Tenach and Oral Tradition is most likely describing a global deluge as I explained in part one. 

We will see that the Tenach and Oral Tradition almost certainly did not consider the Noah story an allegory, but rather as actual history. 

We will see the story provides the basis for actual commandments (see below). It would be odd to base commandments on a fictional story. Also, for example the Noahide laws apply to all mankind. They are called Noahide laws because the children of Noah were given seven laws and accepted them. But if all mankind did not descend from Noah, the laws would only apply to Noah descendants and not the rest of mankind.

Finally, if the Noah story is fictional which parts are fictional ? It is a slippery slope. “Genesis 9:18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth from the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth; and Ham is the father of Canaan. 19 These three were the sons of Noah, and of these was the whole earth overspread.”
Note these verses imply all mankind descend from Noah and it refers to the flood story. But if the flood story is fictional maybe the Torah genealogies are fiction. The genealogies leading up to Avarahum Avinu (Abraham our father) could be fictional. Then maybe Avrahum is also fictional and so the  Israelites would not be descendants of Abraham. 

The Tenach

The Tenach most likely meant the Noah story as actual history. Here are some examples.

Genesis 9:11 And I will establish My covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of the flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

Note - Establishing a covenant based on a parable makes no sense.

Genesis 9:18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth from the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth; and Ham is the father of Canaan. 19 These three were the sons of Noah, and of these was the whole earth overspread.

Note these verses imply all mankind descend from Noah.


Genesis 9:18  "And the sons of Noah, that went forth from the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth; and Ham is the father of Canaan. 19 These three were the sons of Noah, and of these was the whole earth overspread. 20 And Noah the husbandman began, and planted a vineyard. 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his youngest son had done unto him. 25 And he said: Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said: Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem; and let Canaan be their servant. 27 God enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be their servant. 28 And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. 29 And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years; and he died. 10:1 Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth; and unto them were sons born after the flood. 2 The sons of Japheth...

Verse 18 writes Noah and sons leave the Ark-an event-period-marker, Noah plants the vine yard after which various blessings and cursings and then in verse 28 we are back to the flood - an event-period-marker and writing Noah lived after the flood. It makes no sense that Noah lived 350 years after a parable. Verse 10:1 again used the flood-event-period marker and it makes no sense to write about people being born after a parable. 

Psalms 104:5 Who didst establish the earth upon its foundations, that it should not be moved for ever and ever; 6 Thou didst cover it with the deep as with a vesture; the waters stood above the mountains..

Psalms 29:10 The LORD sat enthroned at the flood; yea, the LORD sitteth as King for ever.

Psalms 104 and 29 recalls the flood.

Isaiah 54:9 For this is as the waters of Noah unto Me; for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee. 

Isaiah is treating the flood as an actual event.

Oral Tradition 

I am aware of no traditional sources advocating that the flood is an allegory.  My Orthodox Yeshivas taught the flood as a real event. In addition, if the story is an allegory why does the Talmud, Midrash, traditional commentators all provide additional real world information, details, miracles and facts about the flood ?

Here is sampling where it is self evident Oral tradition treats the flood as a real world event and sometimes it has legal implications.

1) Rambam - Guide to the Perplexed Part 3 Chapter 50

“It is one of the fundamental principles of the Law that the Universe has been created ex nihilo, and that of the human race, one individual being, Adam, was created. As the time which elapsed from Adam to Moses was not more than about two thousand five hundred years, people would have
doubted the truth of that statement if no other information had been added, seeing that the human race was spread over all parts of the earth in different families and with different languages, very unlike the one to the other. In order to remove this doubt the Law gives the genealogy of the nations (Gen. v. and x.), and the manner how they branched off from a common root. It names those of them who were well known, and tells who their fathers were, how long and where they lived. It describes also the cause that led to the dispersion of men over all parts of the earth, and to the formation of
their different languages, after they had lived for a long time in one place, and spoken one language (ibid, xi.), as would be natural for descendants of one person. The accounts of the flood (ibid, vi.-viii.) and of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (ibid, xix.), serve as an illustration of the doctrine that “Verily there is a reward for the righteous ; verily He is a God that judgeth in the earth” (Ps. IVIII. 12).

I have highlighted some very informative Rambam commentary. Let me explain. Rambam cites  Genesis X which begins with 10:1 Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth; and unto them were sons born after the “flood”

Rambam is advocating the genealogy as history. Notice people are being born after the “flood”. Would it not be odd that a history lesson’s first sentence involves an allegory ? It makes more sense the sons are born after the flood is being understood as history. 


The accounts of the flood (ibid, vi.-viii.) and of the destruction
of Sodom and Gomorrah (ibid, xix.), serve as an illustration of the doctrine that “Verily there is a reward for the righteous ; verily He is a God that judgeth in the earth” (Ps. Iviii. 12).

Rambam is writing the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah are  illustrating a doctrine. How would fictional stories illustrate a reward for righteous or judgment ?  

2) Ramban commentary on

Genesis VI - Ramban asks how did the Ark space accommodate the many large animals ? And answers is was a miracle.

[It make no sense for G-d to provide a miracle in a fictional event.] [A reading of Ramban’s Noah story commentary makes clear he understood the flood as a real event.]

3) Rashi commentary on

Genesis VII:11 Rashi cites a dispute among the ancient Rabbis regarding which month the flood starts.

4) Genesis Rabbah 

28.8 - The earth acted lewdly; wheat was sown and it
produced pseudo-wheat, for the pseudo-wheat we now
find came from the age of the deluge. [Thus the flood is considered a real event]

28.8 Judgement of the flood generation lasts twelve months. [Talmud explains they also had no portion in the world to come.]

34.11 Discusses if the planets functioned during the flood. [Why the discussion if the flood was an allegory ?]

5) Talmud

The Talmud almost certainly is treating the Flood as a real world event and using the Noah story  to deduce actual law. Here are some examples. 

In Sanhedrin 56b, the Talmud tries to deduce halacha (oral law) from Genesis 9:6. 

Sanhendrin 59a “Our Rabbis taught: But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat, [Genesis9:4] this prohibits flesh cut from the living animal. R. Hanina b. Gamaliel said: It also prohibits blood drawn from a living animal....” [A halacha embedded in a fictional event ?]

Zevachim 113a - It seems halacha depends on  whether the holy land was flooded or not. How could a halacha depend on a fictional event ?

Sanhedrin 108a “Our Rabbis taught: The generation of the flood have no portion in the world to come, as it is written, And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground and every living substance was destroyed refers to this world; which was upon the face of the ground...”

Berachoth 59a 
“For at the time when the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to bring a flood upon the world, He took two stars from Kimah and brought a flood upon the world.”

Roah Hashona 11b “ ‘In the sixth hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month.’ [Genesis 7:11]  R. Joshua said: That day was the seventeenth day of Iyar, when the constellation of Pleiades sets at daybreak and the fountains begin to dry up, and because they [mankind] perverted their ways, the Holy One, blessed be He, changed for them the work of creation and made the constellation of Pleiades rise at daybreak and took two stars from the Pleiades and brought a flood on the world.”

Rosh Hashona 12a “Our Rabbis taught: ‘The wise men of Israel follow R. Eliezer in dating the Flood and R. Joshua in dating the annual cycles, while the scholars of other peoples follow R. Joshua in dating the Flood.”

6) Stone edition commentary

Page 14 - The flood begins in the year 1656 from creation.

Page 19 Be fruitful and multiply found in Genesis 9:7 is a command (Rashi).  Genesis  9:3 G-d now givess man permission to eat meat.  Genesis 9:5 G-d places another limitation on man’s right to take life. An accounting from one who spills his own blood.

Regarding Genesis 9:18-27  - Noah was humiliated resulting in blessing and curses. And regarding 9:25-27 Rav Hirsch calls them the most far reaching prophecy ever uttered.

[Can all the above based on an allegorical story ? ]


{ETA 11/4/2016 (7)  JPS - Jewish Publication Society The Jewish Study Bible - Berlin and Brettler Editors 2004

Page 25 In the Talmud,  Genesis 9:5  is interpreted as a prohibition against suicide (Talmud Bava Kama 91b).  And verse 6 is cited as support against abortion (Talmud Sanh. 57b). Regarding verses verses 8-17: "In the talmud, it is taught the 'descendents of Noah'   - that is universal humanity - are obligated by seven commandments:..."

[Notice all humanity descends from Noah. This must mean all other people had been wiped out in an actual flood. Also odd indeed for the Torah to embed laws within a fictional narrative. ] }

{eta 12/22/2019  (8) Sefer Kuzari I, 67  - written by Judah Halevi. He mentions Prophetic traditions of Adam and Noah. [In other words they were real people who provided traditions.] }

The Challenge of Noah, Part One

11/4/2016 Updated for a correction regarding Talmud Sanhedrin 108

Updated 11/19/2021 to cite Isaiah 54:9

The story of Noah and the Deluge encapsulates many of the major problems with the Orthodox Jewish narrative. The story conflicts with Biology, Genetics,  Geology,  Archaeology,  History, and Modern Bible scholarship. It has logistical impossibilities, and has pagan parallels. 

The focus of my Noah posts will be to show Orthodox Judaism has no intellectually honest responses to the challenges posed by the Noah story.

No modern scientific text advocates a worldwide deluge of the Biblical scale within the past 6000 years, and for very valid reasons. We may accept that it is almost certain it did not occur.

Apologetic responses have advocated a local flood or the Noah story is an allegory/metaphor/parable. Another approach is to accept a Biblical world wide flood and to make the flood fit with modern academic knowledge, typically by distorting modern academic knowledge or ignoring certain incongruities. When all else fails, cite miracles galore.

This post will torpedo the local flood approach and sink it.

Religious people who advocate this approach probably acknowledge there was no world wide deluge. It is a post hoc rationalization to force fit the Torah to modern science.  

The Tenach and Oral tradition are almost certainly describing a global flood.

The Tenach

I will quote some but not all chapters and verses supporting a worldwide flood.

Genesis 6:17 And I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; every thing that is in the earth shall perish.

Note the text “all flesh...under heaven”

Genesis 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I blot out from off the face of the earth.'

Note the text “every living thing that I have made”

Genesis 7:19-20 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered. 

Note the text “all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered. “

Genesis 7:23 And He blotted out every living substance which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and creeping thing, and fowl of the heaven; and they were blotted out from the earth; and Noah only was left, and they that were with him in the ark. 

Note the text - “Only Noah was left”

Genesis 9:11 And I will establish My covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of the flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

Note - If the Torah deluge was a local  G-d’s promise makes no sense. There have been many local floods. What the text means is there will be no more world wide floods.

Isaiah 54:9 

“To me this is like the days of Noah,when I swore that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth.”

This implies Noach was a global flood, because there have been many local floods.

Genesis 9:13 I have set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between Me and the earth. 14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring clouds over the earth, and the bow is seen in the cloud, 15 that I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

Note verse 15 “all flesh”. 

{ETA 11/3/2016 Genesis 9:18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth from the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth; and Ham is the father of Canaan. 19 These three were the sons of Noah, and of these was the whole earth overspread.

Note these verses imply all mankind descend from Noah and so ther must have been a global flood destroying all mankind.}


Psalms 104:5 Who didst establish the earth upon its foundations, that it should not be moved for ever and ever;
6 Thou didst cover it with the deep as with a vesture; the waters stood above the mountains.

Note verse 6 “cover it [the earth] and verse 5 it is referring to the entire earth not a local portion. 

I came across this in Commentary on the Torah by Richard Friedman 2001 - 

Page 35 [Regarding Genesis 6:11 And the earth was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.] The book explains here the Hebrew word Eretz (translated as earth) refers to all the earth. 

Page 37 Regarding Genesis 7:11 “It is far more than an ordinary rain. It is a cosmic crisis, in which the very structure of the Universe is endangered.”

Oral Tradition understood the Flood to be Worldwide

I am aware of no traditional sources advocating a local flood.  My Orthodox Yeshivas taught a global flood.

Here is sampling of traditional understanding.

A) Radak Commentary 

On Genesis 7:11 - he explains the surface of the globe was flooded.

On Genesis 7:21 he explains 15 cubits of water covered even the tallest mountains making it impossible for ANY person to survive. [My caps].

On Genesis 8:17 - only very few of each species left the ark. They were told once more they would be numerous. [It seems to me this implies a global flood. If the flood was only local, they were already numerous]

B) Ramban  Commentary 

Ramban explains - The Ararat mountains are among the highest under the heavens per all commentators. [Also see Genesis 7:19-20 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered.] 

On Genesis 8:2 - Water spread over the WHOLE EARTH. [My caps].

C) The Stone Edition Tenach - Rabbi:Blinder, Gold, Zlotowitz, Scherman 1996 Edition.

Page 14 Regarding Genesis 7:10-24 “The flood inundates the world”

D) Leviticus Midrash Rabbah 5.1 explains that after the flood the world was reconstructed from one man [Noah].

E) The Hirsch Chumash - Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch 2002 Translated by Daniel Habarman.

He writes beginning on page 172 - that the flood decayed bones and flesh and this would explain why no Antediluvian remains of man have been found. [This implies a world wide flood, because otherwise his explanation makes no sense.]

The Rav writes “Thus a whole generation went to its ruin because of its sin”; The whole generation was condemned to extermination, except Noach. “After 1,600 years of Human history, one man and his family stand alone and God continues to build his world upon this one man.”

Page 176 A new humanity descends from 3 ancestors.

Page 193 In the days of the Catastrophe a new world was formed.

Page 195 “Everything came to pass exactly as had been previously announced.”

F) Talmud 

Sanhedrin 108

“R. Johanan said: The corruption of the generation of the Flood is characterised as great, and their punishment is characterised as great. Their corruption is characterised as great, as it is written, And
God saw that the wickedness of man, was great in the earth; and their punishment is characterised as great, as it is written, All the fountains of the great deep. R. Johanan said: Three of those [hot
fountains] were left, the gulf of Gaddor, the hot-springs of Tiberias, and the great well of Biram.”

{It seems to me that “All the fountains of the great deep” are opened except three implies more, a lot more than a local flood. ETA 11/4/2016 - I think the talmud means to say all the fountains were closed after the flood except three.}

“Our Rabbis taught: The generation of the flood have no portion in the world to come, as it is written, And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground and every living substance was destroyed refers to this world; which was upon the face of the ground to the next....”

{It seems to me the term ‘generation of the flood’  is used without ‘local’ qualifiers thru out the Talmud and Rabbinic literature, meaning the entire generation of the flood, not just a local portion of the generation of the flood.}

Berachoth 59a 

“For at the time when the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to bring a flood upon the world, He took two stars from Kimah and brought a flood upon the world.”

[It seems to me the terms “upon the world” implies non locality.]

Some Apologetics mislead by claiming there is a Talmud section that writes the flood was local. There is discussion in Talmud Zevachim 113a about whether the holy land was flooded or not. One master says yes, another no. Neither cite any other region that may not have been flooded. 

Continued Part 2

Proof of God from the Gaps, Sherlock Holmes, and Absence of Evidence

Updated thru 4/4/2106

Many proofs of god suffer from these related logical fallacies. Fallacy of incredulity or argument from ignorance or god of the gaps, false dilemma and the Sherlock Holmes argument.

I will briefly discuss the fact that absence of evidence is sometimes evidence of likely absence. 

Argument from Ignorance - arguing a claim is true because it has not been shown to be false. Example -  God made a covenant with the Jews at Mount Sinai. Or God created the Universe as described in Genesis. You were not there so you can not disprove either one. (For now lets ignore the very unlikely 600000 plus witnesses figure and other evidence the Torah got the creation story wrong.) However, the onus is not on me to disprove the stories. The onus on the person making the claims to support them. 

God of the Gaps Fallacy - plugging a gap in knowledge with God being responsible. Example - Science can not explain how life arose from matter, hence God did it. (For now lets ignore scientific research into this.) 

Fallacy of Incredulity - XYZ is so incredible. I cant imagine XYZ being true. Therefore XYZ is false. 
Example - The suggestion that small mammals eventually evolved into humans cant be true because it sounds so unbelievable. (For now lets ignore all the evidence in favor of evolution.)

False Dilemma -  Reducing the number options usually to just two. Example - Since the Universe could not have come from ‘nothing’, God must have created it. Here  just two options are provided. But there are other possibilities. Maybe the universe or it’s building blocks always existed.  Besides Physicists have offered cosmological models of a Universe coming from nothing and models requiring no supernatural intervention.  Another example is found in one version of the Kuzari argument. It begins either a revelation by God actually took place at Sinai in front of a mass of people or the Sinai story is false. But there are many other options. Something could have happened and it was mistakenly interpreted as a supernatural event. My Kuzari posts discuss a number of plausible scenarios. 

Sherlock Holmes Argument  “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

Suppose John Doe is found stabbed to death in his home.  The detective creates his list of suspects

a) The Butler
b) The Maid
c) The Wife
d) A supernatural being

Suppose the detective has eliminated a) thru c) as being the murderer, then choice d) must be the culprit.

Lets examine the fallacious conclusion.

First, we can not eliminate all possibilities, since we don’t know them and sometimes can not even imagine them.  There are thousands of other potential suspects unlisted or reasons why Jon Doe is dead. Did he fall on the knife or stab himself ?

Second,  we often can not claim certain things are impossible because our knowledge is often insufficient for doing so. Also, maybe the reason we think the Butler innocent is only because he fooled us somehow.

Third, after eliminating a) thru  c) is the  remaining possibility viable ? Are supernatural beings even a valid option ?  In other words simply eliminating choice a), b), c)  does not mean d)  is guilty. We know people kill other people based on past experience, so options a) thru c) are plausible possibilities.  But should d) be seriously considered to be on the list ? We have no empirical evidence or reason to believe supernatural beings stab people nor do we have any reason to believe they even exist.  In other words, if the list was expanded and ranked according to likelihood, d) would be at towards the very bottom of the list with arguably a zero or near zero probability. 

{ETA 4/4/2016 In the 2016 Sherlock movie The Abominable Bride we find support for my interpretation of Sherlock Holmes. I am only about halfway thru the movie as I write this. 

There have been several murders committed by the a ghost or zombie. Watson and Sherlock are casing out a home. Outside a ghostly apparition is seen. The home is sealed close. Nevertheless  a man is stabbed to death in the home ! Moreover, Watson claims to have seen the  ghost/zombie inside the house and claims the ghost is the culprit. Sherlock responds to Watson -  eliminate the impossible i.e the ghost,  and observe what remains.  So Sherlock would not consider a ghost or living dead as a possible explanation for being the murderer.  

I bring this movie to your attention as humorous refute for using Sherlock to prove supernatural. Sherlock himself rejects supernatural even when there is eyewitness testimony and other reasons to support supernatural as the murderer.}

Lets suppose there is some phenomena for which we can not conceive an explanation for. We  then claim God is responsible for the phenomena. Even if God did exist it would be  faulty logic. God may exist, but maybe he was not responsible for the phenomena. For example, God may say I threw the dice but let chance determine the outcome. Or perhaps God would say I am not responsible for that particular phenomena which emerged on its own or was caused by some other supernatural entity or natural force.

To return to the idea of absence of evidence. 

Suppose I call you after you return home from work and  tell you an Elephant was in your garage the whole day.  Should you believe me ?  You may ask me the color and if I said pink you may smile. But suppose I said grey ? You may call in experts looking for odor, hair, dander, urine, excrement remnants etc: and after doing a diligent investigation no evidence of the Elephant is found. You ask many neighbors, the children who played in the street, the police, the fire department etc: and nothing at all suggests an Elephant was in your garage. I think most rational people would agree absence of evidence is evidence of likely absence of the Elephant being in your garage today.  

Some religious people claim absence of evidence for 600000 plus people at Sinai is not evidence of absence of 600000 plus at Sinai. But is this reasonable ? Such a large mass of people would most likely have left some traces in their wanderings. They likely would have left an  imprint on the Egyptian country and a significant  large  imprint on entry into Canaan. Some surrounding cultures would surely note such a large Exodus perhaps recording it or acting on it. Then there are enormous logistical issues which I will not delve into. Virtually every, if not every  expert who has studied the issue rejects 600000 plus. Not a single expert advocates 600000 plus. We can safely claim absence of evidence for 600000 plus people at Sinai is evidence of likely absence of 600000 plus at Sinai.

The Tenacity of Unreasonable Beliefs - Fundamentalism and the Fear of Truth

I have a great affinity for Professor Solomon Schimmel (Author of The Tenacity of Unreasonable Beliefs - Fundamentalism and the Fear of Truth) because similar to him I was born into an Orthodox Jewish milieu,  placed significance on the importance of truth and left Orthodoxy in my 20's. We both rejected Orthodox Jewish claims for some of the same reasons.  

As a 'young-en'  seeking the truth I spoke to Rabbis, sought 'proofs to our faith', 'proofs of G-d',  and read Orthodox Jewish responses to the challenges they cared to respond to. I still do !. The religious proofs and responses are a failure as has been demonstrated in my posts and will be explained more generally below.

My passion for Emes (truth) was probably instilled in me by my Orthodox Jewish upbringing. To this day I remember the lesson my Father taught to me as a very young child. Why do we so despise the Chazir (pig) ? Because the pig displays it's split hoofs and says see I am kosher. A lie, intellectual dishonesty - what a great lesson. 

The following summary is adopted,  (portions may be copied accidentally as its based on my notes of the book read a while ago),  and inspired by part of a chapter of the book The Tenacity of Unreasonable Beliefs.

Why do gods and religions persist ? What defense mechanisms do believers use to respond to logical or empirical challenges ? What
belief maintenance mechanisms do believers use ? 

Why Do People Maintain and Protect Their Religious Belief ?

Religion may satisfy many needs: Social , emotional, psychological, and intellectual. These reinforce its hold on those socialized from birth and may attract new converts. The latter some of the most ardent defenders of the faith.

To many it provides meaning and purpose to life, hope in the face of adversity, immortality, joyful occasions, a moral code, group identity, and can explain the mysteries of the world.

Family attachment and childhood memories are integrated into the religion, guilt of betraying parents, friends, teachers, Klal Yisrael, the six million, the millions of  our ancestors butchered by (you name the countries) ...

All that results in expending much energy to defending and even using arguments they would reject purely on intellectual grounds.

There are educational, economic and financial forces encouraging the preservation of the religion. 

No doubt religion fulfills a need for many people and many societies and a complete response requires several books. Of course, none of this implies supernatural beings exist.

Why Do Certain Religions or Belief in God(s) persist even when the religion or belief is confronted with valid logical and strong counter evidence ? 


Because religious beliefs that are flexible can be more readily retained. If  there beliefs that are rigid,  there arise a strong mechanism to deny the reliability of the evidence  and admissibility of the evidence.

Here are some examples of this flexibility or rigidity:

G-d is omnipotent. If so why does he allow horrible catastrophic events to happen, like Earthquakes ? 

Religious response may include: Perhaps G-d lets nature take its course and does not interfere. Yet, the claim is made G-d does, can and has interfered. Or perhaps, G-d works in mysterious ways and he has his reasons...

How can the Torah's Genesis  have incorrect cosmology and evolution sequence ?

Religious response may include the Torah is not to be taken literally - it does not mean what it says. It really means...Or perhaps the believers may say science  shmience - the Torah has it right. But if 'science' may conform something in the bible it becomes SCIENCE proves bible had it right over 3,000 years ago.

How can a merciful  G-d allow the Holocaust ? 

Religious response maybe: The Holocaust was punishment for the sins of the Jews, or the intention was to save them from assimilation (with friends like that who needs enemies).  Or G-d allows free will. Or they may say G-d works in mysterious ways.

Archeologist are unanimous there was no mass Exodus; No mass invasion of Canaan by the Israelites; No mass wandering in the desert for 40 years. Therefore, how can Orthodox Jews believe all that ? 

Religious response maybe: Archaeology is not 'real' science (unless some discovery confirms a Biblical verse, then it becomes ARCHEOLOGY proves the bible is accurate).  Or they may say expert opinions can change. 

What Defense Mechanisms do believers use to respond to logical or empirical challenges ?

1) Believers use arguments that cannot be refuted, can not be confirmed, are non falsifiable, not subject to disconfirmation so their arguments are useless. 

Example: The Universe  was not 'created' in six days; it is not 6,000 years old. The Universe is Billions of years old. 

One religious response: God created a universe that has the appearance of billions of years old, but it only came into existence 6,000 years ago.  {ETA 12/3/2014 So god would have had to create one planet to be a certain age, another one much older another one much younger. Same for stars and everything else. There is virtually an infinite amount of ages to be kept track of. It seems very inefficient for God to do that. And why would he do it that way anyway ? The Lord is surely a mystery. It seems more reasonable things look older or younger because that is how they evolved or developed. The earth now billions of years old went thru many stages before it became earth as we know it. It did not come into being in one instant.} {ETA Light comes from stars dead millions of years ago. So these stars did not exist yet G-d made it as if they did exist ? }

Or Gerald Schroeder's use (misuse) of  science and the Torah to argue that from a certain vantage point the Universe is 6,000 years old from another its billions (as in his book the Science of God). After all, according to relativity  time is relative right ? {ETA 12/01/2014 The Torah just should have said the universe is billions of years old. Then it would not require the mental gymnastics of Schroeder 'creative insight' that part of Genesis is from one vantage point and the other part of Genesis is from a different vantage point.}

Or the Torah does not really mean what it says. Its an allegory. Or the "real" interpretation of the Torah is...and now you see it is consistent with science. 

(Note - I would argue the above religious responses can be refuted. But religious people do use non falsifiable arguments.) 

2) Selective Attention - Believers cherry pick facts or arguments that support their belief while ignoring facts and arguments that challenge it.

Example: With prayer, a 'miracle' occurs and a newly born severely diseased child recovers. This ignores the multitude of others that died. And why was an innocent child born so  ? The ways of the Lord are a mystery.  Or if the child dies he will go straight to heaven.

3) Selective Interpretation - Accept a less plausible interpretation of a certain fact or event because that interpretation confirms your belief.

Example: The numerous Torah anachronisms, contradictions, doublets etc: are  there to teach us deep lessons, are miracles of prophecy or for some other reason.  Actually, the Torah itself never teaches us these reasons. Rather, Rabbis and others  invent explanations. It is more plausible there were multiple authors compiling disparate oral traditions for political and or theological or other reasons.

4) Discredit Contradictory Information - 

What do academic bible scholars know ?  Are not they  anti-Semites anyway ? There is a conspiracy against us. They have not studied all Shas, all the Midrash,  or our holy commentators (meforshim)... they are ignorant. 

Well, many academic scholar have studied ancient near east languages, cultures, myths and rituals and it has illuminated so much of the real meaning and origins of the Torah. Many are Jewish or Israeli with no hint of antisemitism. Many have studied our Jewish holy texts. Peer review, competition , evidence based reasoning all prevent conspiracies.  You cannot dismiss the mountain of evidence they have compiled with ad hominem attacks. 

5) Selective Evaluation -  Seeing congruent events as more important than incongruent events.

One archeology find that may corroborate a Biblical passage is worth ten that contradict it. One event that can be interpreted by some to confirm a "Bible Prophecy" is fulfilled,  is worth more than ten that were not fulfilled. And why did a particular beneficial prophecy not occur ? Because the Jews sinned. Or if the 
prophecy was punishment and failed to occur, it  is was because the Jews repented and G-d did not punish the Jews.

What Belief Maintenance Mechanisms Do Believers Use ?

1) Selective Interaction - Believers associate with other believers which provides mutual reinforcement to challenges. 

They study with each other in Shuls and Yeshivas. Form institutions to defend the faith....

2) Social Forces - Many people benefit in some way from the maintenance of the belief system. This reinforces the belief system and people feel united. Many people rely on 'truth' from Authority figure. Religious rituals reinforce the beliefs.

Orthodox Jews tend to associate themselves in enclaves, almost like self imposed ghettos. They have kosher supplying stores, Jewish owned stores, attend Shuls (synagogues), and socialize with virtually only each other from birth on. Many shun secular studies, while other may study secular material up to a point.

One argument some Orthodox Jews use is - there is this 'Scientist' or Rabbi who believes. You think you are smarter ? You are arrogant. 

This is meant to stop you from thinking for yourself. Also, it does not address the reasons why Orthodoxy is most likely bogus. Why does that authority figure believe ? Is it because of early childhood socialization ? Is the authority figure being intellectually honest ? Does that figure really believe and what is it he believes ?  Has the figure examined  the arguments and evidence against the belief ? Is 
that authority qualified to examine the issues ? What is the consensus of qualified opinion as opposed to this alleged authority’s opinion ?