Syncretism, Judaism, and Alternative Claims

Answer

I think that the most direct response to the rather casual conclusions some people draw about syncretism is to take a step or two back and consider the issue of quality of evidence. If we’re engaged in a debate about the truth of some matter, you can’t simply speculate and leave it there: why should I accept blindly your claim without any hard evidence to support it?

Here’s an illustration. Suppose you claim that there are really two gods in the universe. Your proof? Because the number two is just as prime as one, and pairings are endlessly repeated in nature (night and day, sexual reproduction etc.). And besides, two is the very paradigm of aesthetic symmetry. What else could a rational man conclude, you argue, than that the universe was created thus as a reflection of the dual-divinity that formed it!

Now, of course, I could counter that three is just as prime as two, that there is plenty of asexual reproduction going on and that symmetry isn’t aesthetic at all (it’s a judgment call, right?). And anyway, who said that the universe should reflect the nature of its creator(s)?

Making a claim is not the same as demonstrating its truth.

Another illustration. We’re confronted with some phenomenon and are struggling to understand it. Let’s say that woolen socks have been developing holes at an alarming rate over the past few weeks. One group announces at a well-attended press conference that the clear and unassailable cause of the problem is global warming. Another, the next day, declares that in fact it’s all the fault of a coming ice age. A third group loudly guffaws and offers their own deeply-held belief that you can put the blame on solar radiation arriving from Pluto. Finally, some obscure urban cult publishes its conclusions: we’ve angered the gods with our excessive materialism and they’re getting back at us. And just you wait ’til you see what they’re serving for supper!

Without any objective, positive and demonstrable evidence, no claim makes more sense than the others. You can suggest that this possible scenario fits the pattern, but you also have to prove it.

Put another way: the mere existence of one particular possible interpretation doesn’t by any means require that it and it alone is true.

So now let’s look at the claim of syncretism.

There does indeed seem to be a wealth of ideas and practices for which parallel versions can be found in multiple religious and cultural systems. It’s undeniable. Lots of religions believe in an afterlife or divine justice or angels or any number of things. But so what? It could mean that there is some anthropological imperative among humans to invent such myths. It could also mean that one group made it all up and the others blindly copied them. But are these the only (or even the most probable) possibilities?

Couldn’t it also mean that these things are actually true and that this truth became apparent (or was revealed) to multiple audiences? Or couldn’t it mean that the truth was revealed only once but because of its obvious value was then copied by others and later showed up in their literature and practice too?

Have the syncretists offered any objective and positive evidence that their story is demonstrably true and the traditional version is a fraud? I’ve yet to see it if they have.

Therefore, without even getting into individual examples to examine if there is, indeed, “syncrecity” (something, actually, that Rabbi S.R. Hirsch was very good at), we see that the existence of parallel beliefs and practices alone proves absolutely nothing at all.

With my best regards,
Rabbi Boruch Clinton
Ottawa, Canada