Apr 30, 2008 10:39 PM
Why believer's arguments are so bad_
Having just posted why believers behavior is quite understandable and reasonable, some of you might be wondering how can I say that, considering the appallingly awful and illogical arguments that believer tend to spout when confronted about their beliefs.
I think the explanation for this is quite straight forward (though maybe hard to convey in words), and I am pretty sure this explanation is correct because I can well remember from when I was a believer, making these kinds of horrible arguments, and I can remember my thought processes at that time (it was only about 2 years ago).
The way it plays out is as follows:
The believer has a very strong belief e.g. TMS (or whatever). The belief is almost 'hardwired' into the brain (as DovBear once famously explained it). It is a belief which is encoded very deeply into the cognitive structures of the mind (There's probably some psychological/neurological term for this but I don't know it). So the believer belives very strongly, but not because of some well reasoned steps of rationality, but rather because of emotions, brainwashing or whatever.
So, in any argument about beliefs, the believers conclusion is already set. And set very firm indeed. The beliver really believes! But now the believer is being questioned why he/she belives, and now the believer has to work backwards from the foregone conclusion and try and create a set of rational steps which lead to that conclusion.
Unfortunately, it never works, because there is no rational set of steps and there never was. But since the conclusion is set, and the believer really really believes it, the believer has no choice but to argue/invent those supposedly rational steps.
I've seen this so many times that I'm no longer surprised by it. Also, this is why I'm fairly optimistic that many people can indeed be turned, given enough time. I've seen it happen in real life. Since there aren't actually any good reasons, eventually if you are diligent enough and patient enough, you can rattle even the most hardened believer. (This is probably why there are strict halachot against arguing with apikorsim).
At that point, when the believer gets rattled, you have reached a critical juncture. The believer will be feeling a sense of unease. His brain will be rebelling, because the deeply held beliefs are now clashing with the rational arguments. His brain may literally begin to hurt (seriously). He will feel very uneasy and probably very guilty at his 'kefirah' thoughts. Many believers grow fearful at this point, and then seek segulahs or other methods to 'assuage their doubts'. I know this from personal experience and also from other people's experience.
If the believer is too afraid to continue, then they probably won't be turned. Instead, they will refocus on learning or kiruv or similar, and try and push out the doubts from their mind. However if they are truly intellectually honest, they will 'push past' this cranial discomfort in an effort to find the truth. Eventually (hopefully) the discomfort will subside, and the rational thoughts will push out the deeply encoded religious beliefs.
But this is often a slow process, and you will find in the interim people who are very conflicted. Rationally they know their religion is untrue, but emotionally they still believe in it. I know this from personal experience and also from talking to other people. For some skeptics, this process is over very quickly, in a matter of weeks or months. For other skeptics, it can take years.
Why do people react so differently? Why do some doubters refuse to push past the discomfort and instead mollify themselves with platitudes, whereas others keep on going? Why are some people unable to ever be honest, whereas others can be brutally honest?
I don't think it's a question of IQ, or even honesty per se. Maybe it's some other character trait (ability to be objective and unemotional e.g. INTP), or maybe it's just a complex interplay of nature and nurture. I think this is a somewhat fascinating subject, probably there has been some research on it somewhere but I haven't seen any.,
Apr 30, 2008 10:39 PM
A while back, I said that most believers believe in OJ (or any other religion) due to feelings, emotions and things like that, rather than any rational reasons. Since then we have had an extended debate, primarily with Yus, on whether believers are rational. He has insisted they are, mainly due to loyalty and I keep trying to explain to him that 'loyalty' can't make things true.
I think the problem has been that 'rational' is an ambiguous word; it has a popular usage as in 'You're acting irrationally i.e. You're acting crazy', plus it also has a more technical usage as in 'A rational thought process i.e. A thought process based primarily on reason and logic'.
There's no question that believers are generally not crazy people. They have normal or even high IQ, they don't have any specific neuroses, they may be very mentally healthy indeed. I was not ever claiming that believers are irrational as in crazy (though sometimes you gotta wonder). Rather the point of my argument is that believers are not following a rational thought process.
The difference is between behavior and epistemology.
Believers exhibit rational (i.e. non crazy behavior), they believe in what they were taught to believe and they expend great effort in trying to prove it true, or at least show that their behavior is reasonable. And to a large extent it is.
However this says nothing about the beliefs themselves. It may be entirely reasonable behavior for a fundie to believe, after all, he has been brainwashed typically from birth to believe. But that doesn't make the belief itself rational, unless he has a good reason why the belief itself is true.
A concrete example of this is Yus's 'loyalty' argument. Loyalty is an excellent reason why Yus might chose to engage in a certain behavior, and at a stretch you might even be able to claim that the act of believing is 'behavior' (of sorts). However I am not interested in why Yus behaves the way he does, I know all the reasons why and I could care less.
Rather, what we are interested in here is whether the beliefs themselves are true. And so we ask believers why they think the beliefs are true. I have asked many believers, both online and offline why their beliefs are true. And I know a few people who have done the same.
And invariably, the responses that come back are always behavioral reasons - loyalty, feeling etc, but never good reasons why the belief itself might be true. This in fact is one of the primary reasons why I started thinking that OJ is false, because every time I asked a believer why they think it's true, the reasons that came back didn't really address the question.
In other words, when I ask a believer why he believes, what I want to hear is why the beliefs are true, not why the believer insists on believing. Maybe this is a fault of english language, it's hard to clearly identify the difference, but I hope I'm making myself clear.
This is also why I find RJM so fascinating: He is really the only person I know who claims to have solid reasons why OJ is in fact true. I think his reasons don't work, but I'm more than happy to debate him, and I hope he wins, because there's nothing I would like more than an Olam Habah.,
Apr 30, 2008 11:31 AM
Why we don't believe in supernatural miracles_
BECAUSE NOBODY HAS EVER PRODUCED ANY SOLID EVIDENCE OF ANY SUPERNATURAL MIRACLE EVER.
Simple really, when you think about it. And I'm not talking about 'miraculous recoveries' from illness, the miracle of childbirth, or things like that.
No, I'm talking about a bona fide 'supernatural' miracle: Talking fish, splitting seas, people levitating, Gods talking. Anything outside the laws of science. No reliable evidence has ever been shown for such a miracle (though there have been many, many bogus claims).
Why is this?
Why doesn't anyone have any solid proof for a miracle? I suppose you could say God makes it that way to keep our bechirah (and Dor hamidbor were different, kvetch kvetch kvetch). But maybe the evil alien creator keeps it that way? Or the FSM? (Not to be confused with the RJM).
The obvious and rational conclusion here is that no miracles have ever been shown to happen because no miracles happen. Could miracles have happened in the past? Yes, if you have really good evidence. But no really good evidence exists for miracles ever having happened in the past either.
This is why Hume's argument works so well.
We have no solid evidence of any miracles. So when something amazing, strange and/or unique occurs, for example the birth of Monotheism (actually the long, slow evolution from Paganism to Polytheism to Monolatry to Monotheism) the more credible approach is to explain it via natural causes, not by invoking miracles, none of which have ever been proven to have happened.
Even if some miracles have been proven to exist, it would still be a stretch to explain ANE history by invoking miracles, as opposed to natural causes. Kal Vechomer when no solid proof of any miracle ever happening has ever been produced!
The only time it makes sense to invoke a miracle is when natural explanations are simply not possible. And even RJM doesn't have the guts to claim that natural explanations for ANE History are simply not possible.,
Apr 29, 2008 7:02 PM
Why no argument for TMS works_
Forget about the Documentary Hypothesis. Forget about all the contradictions in the Text. Forget about all the glaringly obvious duplicate passages, too numerous to mention. Forget about all the Scientific inaccuracies, unbelievable stories, borrowed expressions, common mythological themes.
Forget about all of that.
Imagine that the Torah was an excellent text. No duplicates, no contradictions, no inconsistencies, no unbelievable stories, no problems at all.
The arguments for TMS still don't work.
Why?
David Hume explained why over 200 years ago:
'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish....'
Or, to put it in more modern English. It would need to be a bigger miracle that the mesorah could be false, for us to accept that TMS is true. And clearly the Mesorah could quite very well be false. Why? Well, every single other ancient mythological tale is certainly false, so why should this be any different?
Let's be honest here. It wouldn't take a miracle for the mesorah to be false.,
Apr 29, 2008 9:39 AM
Important Post about Arguments from Authority_
Some people seem to be confused about arguments from authority. Let me explain.
It is impossible nowadays for everyone to be expert on everything. The sciences, the arts, history, current events and so. There's simply too much knowledge for any one person. Maybe in the middle ages it was possible for the Rambam to master all the major fields of knowledge, but no longer. The only rational position in today's world is to trust the authority of recognized ezperts. Now, you might say 'How do we know the experts speak the truth?' And that could be a problem in some very contentious fields. But in general, my position has always been as follows:
'IF there is global concensus amongst globally recognized experts in a field, AND there is no over-riding issue of bias, THEN I will respect the expert opinion'
So for example, there is global concensus that the Universe is billions of years old, but there is some minor quibbling about precisely how many billions of years it is. Therefore the most rational position is to accept the fact that it is billions of years old, but not get too hung up on the precise number, say 14.5 billion.
Some commenters yesteday were saying that we shouldn't leave things to the experts, but rather we need to evaluate the arguments ourselves. One example was brought - where very sick people often do their own research, and pursue various 'alternative' cures. This is somewhat true, but I'm not sure if this is a good example. Is there any evidence that someone with a GOOD doctor can better the doctor's opinion by doing their own independant research?
On the contrary, the sick person is probably acting out of desperation, not wanting to accept the Doctor's terminal diagnosis. Maybe I would act the same way, but this is not rational behavior. The sick person is clutching at straws, rather than spending their final months in a more fulfilling way. Note: This has nothing to do with getting a second opinion which is obviously a good strategy. But get the second opinion from a qualified expert, not a relative or good friend!
Actually I think this is a very good moshol to what is going on here with the discussions of TMS. The experts in the field have given OJ a terminal diagnosis. But the believers, too sick with emotion to think clearly, don't want to accept this diagnosis, and so they are going off and doing their own research for some miracle cure.
[Note: Having said all this, I am still quite happy to discuss any details of any arguments, rather than just leave everything to the 'experts'. The only reason I brought up the experts in the first place is because RJM always says 'If you only knew ANE History / Medieval Philosophy / Comparative Religion you would see I'm right'. To which the obvious response is 'There are thousands of experts in these fields and they don't agree with you'. If RJM stays away from his 'If you only knew' argument, I will stay away from the 'experts' argument.],
Apr 28, 2008 9:37 PM
Excellent argument: Argument from evidence
Good argument: Argument from authority of globally recognized subject matter expert
Bad argument: Argument from your own authority as a subject matter expert (not globally recognized)
Really Bad argument: Argument from your own authority when you are not even a subject matter expert
Horrible argument: Argument from your own authority when you are not a subject matter expert and you disagree with every single person who is a globally recognized subject matter expert
Really horrible argument: (RJM) argument from your own authority when you are not a subject matter expert and disagree with every single person who is a subject matter expert and your arguments coincidentally agree with the religion that you happened to have been born into.
Awful argument (YUS): argument from loyalty
[Hat tip: A commentator],
Apr 28, 2008 12:27 AM
The problem with Yus (and other Intellefundies)_
Yus would like to believe he is rational. Yus claims that his worldview is quite rational, and his argument goes something like this.
1. God exists. This can't be proven, but without God, everything is nothing, so we might as well / should / must believe in God.
2. It is reasonable to assume that an intelligent God who cares about the world (assuming God is intelligent and does care about the world) would reveal some instructions to man.
3. True, there are many contradictory traditions about what this revelation / instructions are, but we should be loyal to our own tradition.
And indeed, that is quite a rational and reasonable worldview. It makes sense (in the abstract), and you could probably kvetch away to answer all major questions, even if you have to go a bit Halivini or Jacobsish.
There are however two huge problems with this: worldview
Firstly, it rests on a number of unproven and possibly unprovable assumptions; for example that God exists, that God is intelligence, that God is involved in the world etc etc.
Secondly, there are any number of equally reasonable (or maybe even more reasonable) worldviews. For example, the worldview which I think is more reasonable is that God does indeed exist, but all religion is man made. What does God want from us? Mankind is expected to develop, evolve and figure that out. After all, don't we believe we have a God given Neshamah? And given all the literaly unvbelievable religious mythology, this would make more sense than believing any religion is true. Some people might argue that the Atheist worldview is even more believable, and the fact that we can't understand how a complex universe can spring from nowhere says more about our lack of science knowledge than the existence of God.
Now, we can certainly debate the details, but it should be pretty clear that there is more than one option here. And, given the lack of data, for anyone to state that their option is the one true option, well that's just plain ridiculous. Loyalty can produce many things, but it can't make things any truer than they are.
So ultimately, here is where Yus and his Intellefundie friends are mistaken. The irrationality of the Intellefundies is not that their worldview itself is at its core an irrational worldview, but rather the fact that they are convinced that their worldview is the one true worldview is the problem. Given all the assumptions, questions and issues that any fundamentalist worldview is subject to, thinking that your worldview is the one true worldview, that is the irrational behavior here.
So how can Yus convince us that he is actually rational after all? I think Yus has to state the following:
I recognize that there are many possiblities for how the Universe came to be, and what Man's role is within it. I personally would like to believe that an intelligent God created the Universe, and revealed His will via our Tradition. However I realize that this is but one option out of many others, and it may not even be the most reasonable option.
Can Yus do it?
[Note: This entire post applies equally well to RJM too.],
Apr 25, 2008 2:17 AM
A few days ago, I challenged RJM with the following:
RJM says:
"If you only knew ANE and comparative religion, you would see that TMS is the most probable explanation for what happened."
Unfortunately for RJM, there are thousands of ANE scholars who know ANE and comparative religion (and more besides) very well, but still don't believe TMS is true. I guess they could all be biased, but then so could RJM.
Well, RJM has finally responded, and it turns out that I mis-represented his argument. He's not arguing, like I wrote,
"If you only knew ANE and comparative religion, you would see that TMS is the most probable explanation for what happened."
No, not at all. His argument is much more sophisticated than that. He is in fact arguing like this:
"If you only knew ANE and comparative religion AND Torah in depth, you would see that TMS is the most probable (or only) explanation for what happened."
Seriously. And of course this explains why all the world's ANE experts don't see that TMS is true, because they don't know Torah in depth (as Chazal and the Meforshim explain it).
RJM writes:
My answer to your question is very straightforward. The ANE experts, in my experience, haven't a clue what the Torah is really about. And, with all due respect, I don't believe you have much of a clue yourself, judging from your writings and our conversations.
....
When you show me solid proof of any ANE nation or culture that had a transcendent, universal concept of a purely just and merciful God, a belief in a rationally order harmonious universe, a repudiation of icons, magic, superstition and ancestor/king worship, a self-critical and didactic religious history that challenged its beliefs and conduct rather than simply validating it, and a track record of enormous success in producing highly educated, intellectual and sincerely charitable human beings who were light years ahead of their time in almost every sense of the term "civilization", then I will drop my claim that the Torah cannot be reduced to a freak accident of ANE cultural evolution.
Now this argument sounds great, even to me, right up until you actually think about it for a second. RJM strings together all the good and unique aspects of our religion, and then says TMS is the only reasonable explanation
(RJM seems to vacillate on this point: Sometimes he says TMS is the only reasonable explanation, other times he seems to admit there might be other reasonable explanations but thinks TMS is the most reasonable).
Of course you could string together all the really bad or non unique aspects of Judaism (morality, mythology, etc etc) and make the very opposite case.
So which take on ANE history is correct?
RJM's argument of 'if you only really understood Judaism you would see TMS is true' is a typical ploy of the fundies. Other religions say the same - Islam claims the Koran is so amazing only God could have written it, yet all of us see nothing but a rather bad book. Likewise here.
Is RJM really that credible when he claims that all the world's comparative religion and/or ANE experts don't really understand these basic aspects of Judaism? That hardly seems likely. Isn't it more likely that RJM's arguments are just not convincing?
So again, we're back to probabilities, and which is more likely:
a) RJM has actually taken an unbiased look at all the evidence, and come to the rational conclusion that TMS must be true, and the reason why all the rest of the world's ANE and religion experts don't come to the same conclusion is because they don't know Torah/Judaism deep enough
OR
b) RJM is yet another hopelessly biased religious fundamentalist with a bunch of highly subjective (non) arguments which don't convince anyone who is not already convinced
Also, RJM is clearly committing the 'Must be God did it' fallacy here. I have heard the details of RJM arguments, and they're not any more deeper than what he writes above. He says no way could the Neviim have come up with all these ideas by themselves without God, and I say they could have, and furthermore, the proof is that they did!
Who is correct?
Well, we don't really have any solid data to analyze, only this one time unique historical occurrence. I mean, if we had 100 cases of Neviim coming up with amazing ideas, and 99 times out of 100 it was provably from God, then ok. But of course we don't have that. We have a one time unique historical occurence. (Though we do have several thousand cases of 'Neviim' claiming to have Gods message and turning out to be fakes, but RJM conveniently ignores that statistic)
So, even if you buy into the idea that the history/philosophy of the Jews is a one time unique historical occurrence (which is probably not that true anyway), the explanation could be that this is in fact a one time unique historical occurrence. Do one time unique historical occurences happen? Presumably.
So how do you make the extraordinary jump from 'one time unique historical occurrence' to 'must be God did it'?
(Answer: The leap of faith was already made prior, and the rationalization comes post-facto.)
That's the fallacy of 'Must be God did it'. And RJM falls for it hook, line and sinker.,
Apr 25, 2008 1:07 AM
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa_
_I love kids. But tiny little crying babies whose age is measured in days give me the heebi jeebies.,
Apr 24, 2008 11:07 PM
Why do skeptic bloggers do it?_
[XGH: I received the following guest post from Prof Solomon Schimmel]
Dear followers of extremegh,
I am preparing a paper for a conference in early June, the title of which is:
ANONYMOUS BLOGGING AS A SAFE HAVEN FOR CHALLENGING RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY AND CREATING DISSIDENT COMMUNITIES
My paper begins with the following paragaphs:
"The development of the Internet, and more recently of blogs, has provided opportunities for individuals living in tight-knit religious communities - which historically have exercised a strong degree of social control over members of their communities, preventing them from openly questioning, challenging, mocking, or denying fundamental beliefs of the group - to voice their ideas, opinions, and attitudes with a large measure of safe anonymity, and to create virtual communities of like-minded doubters and heretics.
Many of these skeptics-doubters-deniers have not come ‘out of the closet’ in their actual communities, for fear of the impact of doing so on themselves, or even more so, on their families, who might suffer painful social and psychological consequences. In fact, some of these individuals have not even confided their religious doubts to their own spouses or friends. The Internet and the blogosphere provides them with an opportunity to cathart their repressed frustrations at their religious community and its leaders, as well as to engage in stimulating and open discourse with others, which they cannot do in their homes, houses of worship, religious seminaries, and real life social environments.
This phenomenon has important consequences – for the bloggers themselves as well as for the religious leaders and the members of the communities in which the bloggers reside. These leaders and communities are being critiqued on the Internet and the blogosphere in ways that they have not experienced in the past when they exercised tight social control. Anonymous skeptical bloggers and participants in forums are to be found in many religious communities such as Mormon, Orthodox Jewish, Fundamentalist Christian, and Traditional Muslim. These skeptics openly question, mock, or deny the ‘fundamentals’ of the faith communities in which they live and the behaviors of its adherents and leaders even as they continue to reside in those communities and to behave externally in accordance with the their respective religious norms.
I am particularly interested in the impact of this phenomenon on the bloggers sense of personal and intellectual integrity, its influence in spreading and sowing religious skepticism and doubt, and in the reactions to it from the religious establishments being criticized."
I would be interested in your reflections on the above, and more specifically on the following, whether with respect to your own motive(s) or your perception of the motive(s) of others who blog or who respond to blogs in anonymity:
Why Do Anonymous Bloggers Critical of Orthodox Judaism Blog?
1. To cathart deep feelings and to articulate thoughts that would otherwise have to be repressed because they cannot be spoken of openly.
2. To engage in conversation and deliberation with likeminded individuals because they cannot do so in their real lives.
3. To sincerely criticize their communities out of a desire to see their communities rectify their perceived deficiencies.
4. Entertainment.
5. Revenge against the communities by those perceived to have been hurt by it, in general, or in specific instances.
6. To destroy or weaken the community by exposing to other members of the community (especially its youth) the faults, presumed ‘evils’, and deficiencies of the community.
7. To help other doubters feel comfortable with their doubts, and to provide intellectual, emotional and social support to them.
Thanks in advance for your input.
[XGH: 8: All of the above!],
Apr 23, 2008 10:31 PM
_The Tenacity of Unreasonable Beliefs
Fundamentalism and the Fear of Truth
Solomon Schimmel
Hardback, 352 pages
Due Jul 2008
Price: $29.95
The Tenacity of Unreasonable Beliefs: Fundamentalism and the Fear of Truth is a passionate yet analytical critique of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim scriptural fundamentalists. Schimmel examines the ways in which otherwise intelligent and bright Jews, Christians, and Muslims defend their belief in the divine authorship of the Bible or of the Koran, and other religious beliefs derived from those claims, against overwhelming evidence and argument to the contrary from science, scholarship, common sense, and rational analysis. He also examines the motives, fears, and anxieties of scriptural fundamentalists that induce them to cling so tenaciously to their unreasonable beliefs. (XGH: Has he been talking to Yus?)
Schimmel begins with reflections on his own journey from commitment to Orthodox Judaism, through doubts about its theological dogmas and doctrines, to eventual denial of their truth. He follows this with an examination of theological and philosophical debates about the proper relationships between faith, reason, and revelation. Schimmel then devotes separate chapters to Jewish, Christian, and Muslim scriptural fundamentalism, noting their similarities and differences. (XGH: That should be interesting)
He analyzes in depth the psychological and social reasons why people acquire, maintain, and protect unreasonable religious beliefs, and how they do so. Schimmel also discusses unethical and immoral consequences of scriptural fundamentalism, such as gender inequality, homophobia, lack of intellectual honesty, self-righteousness, intolerance, propagation of falsehood, and in some instances, the advocacy of violence and terrorism. (XGH: What, no Amalekite babies??? For shame!).
He concludes with a discussion of why, when, and where it is appropriate to critique, challenge, and combat scriptural fundamentalists. (XGH: LOL)
The Tenacity of Unreasonable Beliefs is thoughtful and provocative, written to encourage self-reflection and self-criticism, and to stimulate and to enlighten all who are interested in the psychology of religion and in religious fundamentalism.,
Apr 22, 2008 6:32 PM
Yus convinces me that paganism is the one true religion_
Wow. Now I see that Judaism is completely false, and I have Yus to thank for that.
Basically, Yus argues as follows:
Obviously when you have absolute evidence that something is false, then it would be unreasonable to believe it is true. But when it comes to God (or gods), or other religious beliefs, there is no absolute proof that any of it is false.
Admittedly, there is no proof that it is true either, but if there is a religious tradition believed by millions then it's sensible to believe in it. And as for the fact that there may be hundreds of competing religious traditions, that's not an issue, for two reasons. Firstly, one should be loyal to their own tradition, and secondly, the original tradition is the most reliable.
So, we have an original tradition of Paganism, that was believed by millions of people for thousands of years. It fulfills all these criterion mentioned by Yus. Then, a disloyal skeptic by the name of Avraham Avinu comes and decides to change the religion to something else completely! What disloyal chutzpah! So clearly, according to Yus, the onus is on us to right the wrong committed by our extremely disloyal forefather, and revert back to Paganism.
My blog shall henceforth be renamed Pansgtagan.,
Apr 17, 2008 12:22 PM
Your Unique God Given Personal Mission in Life!_
A ‘vort’ that I hear a number of times is that each of us have a unique God given mission in life, and nobody can fulfill anyone else’s mission. It’s very Artscrolly, and it's also quite appropriate for the current Zeitgeist, where everyone needs to feel special and unique.
The problem I have with this is that I don’t think it’s true, I don’t think it’s sensible and I don’t think it’s even very traditional. Since when was this concept a major part of Hashkafah? A few statements from various people here and there have been cherry picked, and now ‘standard OJ theology’ holds we each have a unique mission in life.
The reason this isn’t sensible is how on earth are we supposed to know what our unique mission is? It’s not like you get a call one day describing your mission, like in the movies. Am I supposed to be a blogger who bashes fundamentalism? Or just a father and a husband? There’s no way anyone can tell what their unique God given mission is supposed to be.
Rather, what ends up happening, is that people do whatever they want, and then if they are successful, people claim it was their unique mission in life. Or alternatively it can be an effective way of persuading gullible people to do what you want them to do, for example with Mordechai & Esther when he’s trying to persuade her to save the Jews. Or when the Rebbe tells the class clown that he should go into Kiruv.
This concept is closely related to that other silly concept – ‘the bashert’. Again, anyone marries whoever they want to (or have to), and then afterwards everyone says they found their bashert. And if the marriage wasn’t successful, but a second one is, does that mean that the original spouse wasn’t their bashert after all? These concepts are all just cute motivational concepts with no real basis.
Now of course it’s true that we are all individuals (I’m not!), and that we each have a unique set of character traits, and a unique set of circumstances. No two people are alike. So of course we can all play a unique role. But that doesn’t mean we each have a pre-destined unique mission in life from God that must be fulfilled, or else we get re-incarnated gilgul style.
There are some eastern religions that believe that, but not mainstream Judaism.
So what is our (non unique) mission in life?
I dunno, it’s probably to do with perfecting ourselves and the world around us. Or something like that.,
Apr 16, 2008 12:54 AM
Charlie Hall on the conflict between Science and Religion_
Intellefundies like to claim that Science does not contradict religion in any way. Here is a typical intellefundie comment on the subject, this one courtesy of Charlie Hall on Cross-Currents:
Science is limited to addressing matters that are amenable to empirical verification, and thus is a potential threat to religion only to the extent that a religion’s basic precepts are empirically verifiable. Science is therefore no threat to Judaism as only one of the Rambam’s 13 principles — the eighth — is even theoretically subject to empirical verification, and a practical verification of even that one is impossible. Judaism also has a long tradition of non-literal interpretation of its sacred texts so even an actual disproof of the most straightforward literal meaning, which of course has happened for parts of Sefer Bereshit, is no challenge to our tradition. As a scientist I have no difficult in reciting, “Ani maamim….”
This is of course wrong, for multiple reasons. The main mistake that Charlie Hall is making is that he is confusing Scientific Knowledge with Scientific Method.
It is true that Scientific Knowledge does not inherently contradict the ikkarim. Most of the ikkarim are about God, or about Nevius, or about the future. There is no Scientific knowledge on these topics, because they are beyond the bounds of science.
However the Scientific Method certainly does make committed belief in the ikkarim quite ludicrous. The Scientific method informs us that the most reliable way to gain information is to follow the evidence, take the most resonable, unbiased, objective conclusion, create testable hypotheses, subject your theories to peer review, and be fully open and willing to change your theories if someone else comes up with a better theory. The ikkarim fulfil none of these conditions.
In addition you have Scientific techniques and guidelines such as Occams Razor and similar. The most reasonable explanation of Judaism, all things considered, is that it is a religion like all the others, and most likely untrue. This is the conclusion you would inevitably reach were you to follow the Scientific Method.
Charlie Hall, being a Scientist, should know that.
But of course Charlie is only capable of 'being Scientific' in the realm of the physical universe and the laboratory. When it comes to religion, his emotions and desires take control of his thought process, and he is no longer capable of 'being Scientific'. Instead, he allows his subjective feelings and desire for his religion to be true to over-ride the obvious fact that all religions are ancient mythologies, which only survive though intense indoctrination of their children from a very young age, Baal Teshuvahs notwithstanding.
Possibly, Charlie will argue that Science works well in the realm of the physical universe, but when it comes to the spiritual universe, Science won't work, and you need something else to find the truth, such as religion, or your soul, or something like that.
I am entirely fine with that argument, as long as you can show that there is such a thing as a 'Spiritual Universe', and more importantly, that religion is a reliable way of discovering the truth about it.
But of course Charlie can't do that, since there is no solid evidence of a spiritual universe, which is exactly why Science can't touch it. And furthermore, all the various religions disagree violently on spiritual truths, and therefore clearly religion isn't even a reliable method of discovering truth about the spiritual universe, never mind the physical universe.
Science says 'Here is a theory, we think it's true, based on all this data. But if you come up with different data and a better theory, we will change'.
Religion says 'Here is what you must believe, based on ancient tradition. If you believe otherwise, you're may be going to hell'.
Since 90% of the planet would trust their lives to 90% of Science (and that's a conservative estimate), and 90% of the planet are passionately convinced that 90% of all religious belief claims are wrong (except of course those of their own sub-sect of their own sect of their own religion), I think it is entirely reasonable to conclude that Science seems spectacularly successful at establishing generally agreed upon provisional 'truth', while in contrast, Religion has been spectacularly unsuccessful at establishing truth. Nobody argues on this.
While this is not inherently a conflict, any reasonable person would conclude that Scientific beliefs are generally reliable, whereas religious beliefs are not, unless you have some exceptionally strong data and evidence. Since almost all the data and evidence I am aware makes the claims of fundamentalist religion, including Orthodox Judaism, look highly unlikely, and since we know that in general religions are false, I see no reason to assume that contra all evidence, this particular religion is true.
As a normal, reasonable person, I have great difficulty in reciting 'Ani Maamin', and as a Scientist, Charlie Hall should kal vechomer have the same problem. Why doesn't he? Because like all Intellifundies (not the fake ones) he's not capable of being either objective or honest when it comes to his religious beliefs.,
Apr 15, 2008 12:21 AM
If you believe that the Torah is true, then you'll see that the Torah is true!_
I wasn't kidding when I posted the top ten reasons why Orthodoxy is most probably not true. But the number one reason, that the people with the answers don't really believe much themselves, might not be the actual number one reason.
Probably the number one reason is that the most sophisticated and highly intelligent apologists always end up with some ridiculous argument that even a child can see has no foundation. The two most striking examples on the internet are RJM and David G. Now, I like David G and RJM. I like them both a lot. But a spade must be called a spade.
Let's start with David G. He's so incredibly circular, I don't know if he's kidding or what. Here's an example from his latest post:
Torah has to be accepted. Its divinity and inerrancy have to be accepted rather than proven. For Torah to work as an educational tool towards the ultimate goal of knowing God and His ways, it has to be accepted fully as divine and inerrant.
How can he write this stuff? How is this any different than the following:
Koran has to be accepted. Its divinity and inerrancy have to be accepted rather than proven. For Koran to work as an educational tool towards the ultimate goal of knowing Allah and His ways, it has to be accepted fully as divine and inerrant.
(David G's probable response: But the Rambam says we can't learn the Koran!)
But wait. There's more:
Rambam in MN 1:35 lists foundational rules or accepted beliefs that all have to accept before embarking on a discovery journey towards God. They start with the existence of God and exclusive worship of only Him followed by belief that God is not physical, He is transcendent, His existence, life, knowledge are all equivocal statements (they are human concepts applied to a non-graspable entity for lack of better words).
Wow, so in order to start a discovery journey towards God, we have to believe God exists! Who woulda thunkit?
Most of the rest of the post is about the same.
As for RJM, all his arguments for the truth of Orthodoxy ultimately boil down to this:
"If you only knew ANE and comparative religion, you would see that TMS is the most probable explanation for what happened."
Unfortunately for RJM, there are thousands of ANE scholars who know ANE and comparative religion (and more besides) very well, but still don't believe TMS is true. I guess they could all be biased, but then so could RJM.
Bottom line: None of these arguments work. And just admitting to the bleeding obvious, that you believe in OJ because you want to believe (as per evanstonjew), is a lot more truthful, respectable and admirable than arguing a bunch of hooey.
I wonder if David G or RJM could agree to the following statement:
"I admit that from a rational objective perspective, Orthodox Judaism does not look true. However I am passionately, emotionally and intellectually committed to Orthodox Judaism, therefore I will use whatever arguments I have to try and make a case for it.",
Apr 14, 2008 10:34 AM
Pesach at home: A guide for ex-Pesach-Hotel'nicks_
Like many of you, I usually spend Pesach at a Pesach Hotel. In fact, I have spent so many Pesachim at Pesach Hotels, I can no longer remember what a Pesach at home is like. But this year I am going to spend my first ever Pesach at home. In fact, this will be the first Pesach that my wife and I have ever made!
And I’m sure that many of my readers are in the same boat. Due to the looming recession and economic downturn, many of you might not be able to afford a Pesach Hotel this year. So, for all those people who are going to have to make Pesach on their own, I have put together a short halachic guide to help you out.
Many of the unique mitzvoth and minhagim of Pesach can be very hard to fulfill properly at home, which is why so many yidden are makpid to always go to a hotel, despite the exorbitant prices. Mi Keamchah Yisrael!
But unfortunately, economic or other realities mean that for many of us, a Pesach Hotel is just not possible under any circumstances. But don’t worry! Even though all the halachot and mitzvoth of Pesach might seem daunting, this guide can help you.
Note: Some of my halachic guidelines might have been influenced by my Pesach Hotel experiences, so you should consult a qualified Halachic authority before paskening halachah lemaaseh.
First days of Chag
All chagim involve special foods. On Shabbat we have wine and challah, meat and fish. On Shavuot we eat dairy, especially cheesecake. On Pesach we have a very special and unique food, of course I’m talking about Jelly Fruit. I don’t know the source of this mitzvah, but it is clearly quite central to the chag. One should eat jelly fruit before and after the seder, and also all other meals too. In fact, a Pesach meal without Jelly Fruit is hardly a meal at all!
On Succot we eat in the Succah, and on Pesach we eat in the Tea Room. A Tea Room can actually be any room in your house, except for a mokom mius, and unlike a Succah it doesn’t require any sechach. However there must be tea and coffee available 24 hours a day. Also, the Tea Room is where the Jelly Fruit should be located. If you don’t have any Jelly Fruit, are you still yotzeh your chiyuv of Tea Room? You could substitute any kind of candy, as long as a child below barmitzvah would still consider it ‘nosh’.
Like all other yomim tovim, there are certain unique things we do on Pesach which we don’t do on other chagim, in commemoration of the unique character of the chag. On Succot we wave lulav, on Rosh Hashanah we blow shofar, and on Pesach we hang out by the pool. The source of this mitzvah is clear – it is to commemorate the crossing of the yam suf, where the yidden were by the water, but were not actually in the water.
One should ideally hang out by the pool immediately after davening finishes (or even a little bit before). It is also good to spend all afternoon by the pool too. Some people have the minhag to grab large amounts of Jelly Fruit from the Tea Room and eat them by the pool. Although the primary mitzvah of Jelly Fruit is to eat them in the Tea Room, the minhag to eat them by the Pool has a long and distinguished history. The taam of this minhag is to commemorate the fact that according the medrash, fruit trees grew along the path through the yam suf, and the yidden ate fruit while by the water.
What if you don’t have access to a pool? Then unfortunately you can’t be yotzeh this mitzvah on yom tov. But you should try on chol hamoed to at least go to the beach or something.
Chol Hamoed
During Chol Hamoed, one must have a BBQ night, with entertainment. The BBQ must contain massive amounts of burgers, hot dogs, steaks and chicken. It is good to fight your fellow yidden over the best cuts, and this is in memory of the incident of the slov. Entertainment can be a ‘game night’, or perhaps a third rate Jewish entertainer you’ve never heard of. I'm not sure what the taam of this mitzvah is, but it might be to commemorate the tzaar of the yidden in mitzrayim.
Learning
Learning on Pesach is a big inyan. But this should not be your usual daf hayomi or other boring learning. No, the learning on Pesach has to be special interesting learning. What defines ‘special learning’? Well, it sounds like learning, it is advertised as learning, but it actually is not quite learning. For example, a ‘shiur’ on how to deal with your in-laws can be made to look like learning, and can be advertised in the program as a shiur, but when it comes down to it, it is actually more like a session with Dr Phil. You could also have a shiur on the evolution of Jewish textual dynamics, which in reality is just an excuse to bash the chareidim for censoring out the rational rishonim.
Davening
Davening on Pesach is much reduced than the rest of the year. Minyan can start very late, and you can also leave early. You should usually arrive by the bidding for aliyot, and can basically disappear during musaf. Also, most of the rest of the time you can be hanging out outside the ‘shul’ ‘looking after the kids’. And of course minchah and maariv are always optional, except for the first and last night of yom tov.
Yom Tov Clothes
You should wear normal Yom Tov clothes for most minyanim, with two exceptions. On the first night of chag you must wear your absolute finest clothes, and for minchah & maariv (should you choose to go) you should wear casual beach wear. Tommy Bahamas is best, but any kind of khaki pants and Hawaiian print shirt is acceptable.
Conclusion
Although Pesach at home is far from an ideal way to spend the chag, with a little effort you can still be yotzeh the main mitzvos and inyanim, at least in a bdi’eved fashion. I hope you enjoy your Pesach, and lets’ all say together with the utmost kavanah:
Leshanah Habaah bePesach Hotel!,
Apr 10, 2008 11:12 PM
The Minutae of Halachah: Insanity or Neccessity?_
I have long argued for the value of the Halachic system, and always refer people to David Hazony's excellent article in Azure on the topic. If you haven't read it, you should do so. All societies, cultures and civilizations have laws and customs, either written or unwritten, and Judaism is no expection.
Where Judaism differs though is the sheer volume, scope and detail of its law. For most non Orthodox people, who don't believe that God really requires you to keep the law, this is a problem. Even for people who are very Orthoprax, sometimes the volume of minutae and detail about the most obscure seemingly irrelevant things (what size Matzah you should eat at the Seder and how long you can take to eat it) seems ridiculous. Can this level of detail really have any value? Isn't it a waste of time worrying about this stuff? Could an all powerful God really care less about such detail? Or think that man will be in anyway improved by caring about it?
I think that when talking about Halachah, we need to distinguish three areas of Halachah:
Civil Law
Ethical/Moral Law
Ritual Law
1. Civil Law
Nobody would argue that legal minutae are not important in capital or criminal cases. On the contrary, a death sentence or millions of dollars can hang on a legal technicality. Obviously nobody would be satisfied with some vaguely worded general statement about kiling being forbidden - the legal system requires every precise detail to be considered and spelled out. So, I can't imagine anyone having a real problem with the types of halachic detail spelled out in Babah Kamah for example. Also, whenever I am at a shiur where there is an in depth analysis of the halachic approach to civil law issues (e.g. theft etc), I am always impressed at how well the Halachah deals with complex situations, and how well the general principles can be translated to very modern day cases. If there was anything that makes me think Halachah (or maybe the Halachic process) is divinely inspired, this would be it. On the other hand, this is somewhat cancelled out by the Halachot of ritual described below.
2. Ethical /Moral Law
These are laws that deal with ethics and morals, for example the Halachot of Loshon Horah (slander) or sexual ethics. Areas which in modern society are usually left to the individual's judgement, and are seldom part of the legal code (though there can be overlap - for example the 'Good Samaritan' Law, or laws of libel and slander.) I think you can argue with the content of these laws in some cases (for example why certain behaviors are forbidden etc), but the general principle seems sound. By going down to the minutest detail, we can really get to appreciate the ethical and moral issues involved. Some people may argue that it is ridiculous to try and formulate laws for such subjective and personal topics, but this is where Hazony's article comes in. So, I don't have any problem with this area of Halachah either. In principle that is, I might argue on some of the current Halachic pesak.
3. Ritual Law
The aspect of Halachah that is most troubling to Orthoprax people is I think ritual law - the incredible minutae of Halachah that apply to ritual days such as Shabbat, or ritual acts such as waving a Lulav. Since all this is clearly Rabbinic, does it really make any difference? Should we really drive ourselves crazy about such things. I have relatives who exercise tremendous thought and judgement (and obsessive compulsive neurotic behavior to be completely frank) about the minutest of detail here. An attention to detail that is not always applied to other areas of life, especially ethical areas.
Now I am well aware of the standard arguments here: That forcing attention to ritual detail trains a person to be a rule follower and someone who can control himself in general. But still, it all seems a bit over the top to me. On the other hand, I think halachic commitment is often dependent on personality type. Some people just like to follow 'the rules', other people are more free spirited, have problems with authority, and generally don't like to be constrained. I know some virtual kofrim who love Halachah, and will have no problem spending hours researching the Shulchan Aruch and other codes to investigate the correct Halachah in some inconsequential area of ritual. Other people, even very 'frum' people, don't seem to be too concerned about the minutae at all.
Ultimately, I think the Orthoprax position on the minutae of ritual law has to be as follows: Rituals are extremely important and valuable, and rituals need guidelines and a framework. If the minutae of ritual law really bother you, you should probably avoid thinking about it too much, and go spend your time on philosophy, theology, sprituality, morality, ethics or your favorite hobby, and leave the legalistic minutae to the type of people (orthodox OR orthoprax) who enjoy that sort of thing.,
Apr 9, 2008 11:55 PM
Top ten signs your religion might actually be the one true religion...._
10. Everybody who experiences it fully believes in it with a passion quite unlike anything else, and there seems to be a very positive effect on the believers, enabling them to survive the most dreadful perils while still remaining optimistic about life and humanity, and still contributing more per capita to humanity than any other religious group.
9. The foundational stories cannot be disproved scientifically when you follow certain ancient traditions and read certain parts metaphorically.
8. Your community and family are happy to give you a strong religious and secular education, and many people are able to become religious leaders and scientists at the same time.
7. Your religion encourages questions (within limits) and there are plenty of answers to chose from.
6. Your community runs seminars and hosts lecturers who can answer any faith questions you have.
5. The foundational text of your religion has had a profound effect on humanity, and is the basis of multiple religions and Western civilization.
4. There are many very knowledgeable and educated modern believers who are fully aware of science, history and philosophy yet continue to believe.
3. The most revered and distinguished scholars and leaders of your religion have the most amazing commitment to chessed and are light years ahead of the religious leaders of any other religion.
2. There is flexibiity within the religion to keep both hard core extremists and modern liberals happy.
And the number one sign your religion might actually be the one true religion is ....... (drum roll).....
1. The religion focuses on prax more than dox, and you don't actually have to believe in anything much to be a member of the religi0n in good standing.,
Apr 8, 2008 10:43 PM
Top ten signs your religion might not be the one true religion ..._
10. Nobody else in the world believes in it (including 80% of your co-religionists), apart from people born into it, and a small percentage of lost souls who get pursuaded into it.
9 The foundational stories of the religion have been shown scientifically and historically to be extremely unlikely, and in some cases impossible, and the possibility that people were misled into believing in it (like every other religion) is thousands of times more probable than it actually being true.
8. The community and your family expend tremendous unrelenting effort to ensure that you are strongly indoctrinated from very early childhood, and don't ever come into contact with any information which might shake your faith.
7. The religion includes numerous laws forbidding you to investigate your faith, and certainly not changing your faith, including death penalties (in theory) for changing your faith or pursuading others to do so.
6. Your community will severely shun anyone who asks questions, and in some cases forbid questions.
5. The foundational Divine text of your religion has been shown to have been authored by multiple humans, and every scholar in the world believes this to be true (in one form or another), and the only people who don't believe this are the people required by their religion to not believe it.
4. Almost very time you get into (or witness) an argument between a believer and a skeptic, the believer ends up appealing to authority, faith, tradition, or all three. And the one rare exception to this argues that if you only understood ANE history you would see that it's true, yet is unable to explain why all the world's secular ANE experts know ANE history very well, yet still don't think it's true.
3. The most revered and distinguished scholars and leaders of your religion seem incapable of being honest and admitting to basic, proven scientific fact.
2. Significant elements of your religious brethren believe in all sorts of nonsense, beliefs which even their fellow, but more modern, believers are convinced are nonsense, yet the processes & arguments (and of course biases) by which these extreme believers gain (and maintain) their beliefs are curiously identical to the processes and arguments (and of course biases) by which the more modern believers gain (and maintain) their beliefs.
And the number one sign your religion might not be the one true religion is ....... (drum roll).....
1. Every time you meet a rational, intellectual believer, who appears to the outside world to have reconciled all the questions and figured it all out, it turns out that deep down they don't believe very much either, and have some lame reason why they pretend to do so.,
Apr 8, 2008 10:43 PM
Long Lost Home Movie of XGH's Barmitzvah Drashah_
Popout,
Apr 8, 2008 10:43 PM
A divided Jerusalem and a two state solution? We should be so lucky_
I never ceased to be amazed at the short sightedness of modern, Orthodox Jewry, especially that of the typical NY/NJ variety. I just received the new OU magazine, and it's full of the usual 'we must keep Yerushalayim intact' polemics and a general right wing knee jerk no compromise stance. They don't even think about the possibility of being wrong.
Listen up guys, a split Jerusalem and a two state Solution overall is probably the BEST scenario we have for a Jewish Israel. The alternative is a one state solution, which demographically will almost definitely become a disaster in a few short decades. Unless you are really stupid enough to think that a small (or non existent) majority can happily keep a major segment of the population under strict control, while still remaining a normal member of global society. Are you really that stupid to think this is in any way possible?
What's the usual response from Zionists? 'Oh, we have faith, it will work out'. Whatever happened to ayn somchim al hanes?! Anyway, your faith in this instance is about as useful as most other faith. In other words, a complete waste of time.
Is a two state solution viable? Maybe yes, maybe not. Maybe it will be a disaster. But a one state solution is almost guaranteed to be a disaster. Maybe the Zionists think they can wait to see what happens, and if a one state solution starts to look really bad demographics wise (30% arab, 30% chareidi, 20% dati leumi and 20% other) then they will go for a two state solution at that point.
Well, that's not going to work. The window for a two state solution is rapidly disappearing. In fact, quite a few political analysts think it's already gone, and the Arabs realize that simply by biding their time they will eventually win by default. I tend to agree. I don't see the possibility of a solution, and I think the future for Israel is probably bleak.
Stupid, short sighted, no compromise fundies screw it up again.
And this time I don't even mean the Chareidim particularly, but rather all the crazy Zionists and Modern Orthodox with their 'God gave us this land and we're never giving it back' mantra. It reminds me of the situation just before the churban, when the 'kanaoim' (of all types) caused the destruction by being unwilling to compromise.
On the bright side, the whole concept of 'God gave the Jews the land of Israel' is a bunch of baloney anyway. Don't get me wrong, I like Israel, and would hate to see it go, but at the end of the day it's just a country like any other.
It's ironic though that the people most invested in it are probably going to be the people that destroy it.,
Apr 7, 2008 12:19 AM
Book Review: Bondage of the Mind_
I just finished reading Bondage of the Mind by RD Gold. Now I see Yaakov Menken over at Cross Currents has a post about it, in which he rants and raves about how terrible the ads for the book are, though he hasn't actually read the book.
Menken is upset because the tone of the advertising is that the book bashes OJ, and that's quite true, the book does bash OJ (ironically it also bashes Reform). Menken says that OJ books don't bash Reform, but rather 'prove' the truth of OJ, and a reform book should just 'prove' the truths of Reform, without attacking OJ. I see his point, but I don't think it works, since the 'truth' of Reform is basically that OJ is untrue, so you have to take down OJ before you can get anywhere.
However, I do agree that the book is lame, and Gold sounds like a blogger with an axe to grind half the time. Gold does a very quick run through the DH, with hardly any good examples of any problems in the text. In fact Louis Jacobs has way more content in his ikkarim book. Gold mostly appeals to the authority of Richard Friedman, and also some Israeli archaeologists. While Gold's basic premise is obviously correct, he certainly doesn't make a good case for it in this book. He also spends an entire chapter bashing bible codes, as if the truth of OJ rests on that!
He mentions having had long conversations with an OJ Rabbi, it seems to me that Gold went on an Aish discovery program, or had some similar bad BT experience. Anyways, after not making a very good case why OJ is false, he then starts to bash OJ, bringing up Baruch Lanner, Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir in short order. Not very impressive. And he doesn't even mention the amalekite babies!
Finally he gives a somewhat half hearted nod towards Mordechai Kaplan (though he says he doesn't like Kaplan's take on ritual), and then the book is over.
If I was going to write a book which disproves OJ, I would make it very detailed. Every DH question would have to be in there, plus all the other questions of history, science etc. Once you see all the questions laid out, and also all the flimsy answers, then it becomes clear.
Now it's true that the burden of proof lies with OJ, so to 'disprove' OJ all you really should have to do is knock down the various 'proofs' for OJ, which Gold certainly does. But that's never going to convince an OJ. It's only after they see all the issues laid out that they start getting nervous (assuming they are honest).
Probably Gold wasn't looking to convince any OJs to turn secular. Rather, I think he is alarmed at the popularity and success of the kiruv movement and of fundamentalism in general, and he's writing the book for would be BTs or secular Jews who don't know much about religion.
But, if you're looking for more solid proofs that OJ isn't true, you can get much better content on a blog.,
Apr 4, 2008 11:39 AM
New Guide for Pesach Cleaning_
Just got the new guide (out of Lakewood) for Pesach cleaning. It's pretty extreme, but it does now come with helpful pictures. Here is how you should prepare your living room and bathroom. Happy pesach cleaning!
Apr 3, 2008 11:39 PM
Interview with a Fake Fundie!!!_
Today I had a two hour interview with a fake fundie! A genuine Orthodox Rabbi / Educator / Leader / Well Known type of guy (i.e. not just some nobody blogger). And don't even try to guess who it is, believe me I am very well connected. I know plenty of fake fundies on at least three continents. And they aren't even all LW MO! There's no way anyone who even knows me could guess exactly who I'm talking about, because I know at least 4 people who would all say the exact same thing as I reproduce below.
So what did he have to say? Basically his shpiel goes like this: (I'm paraphrasing slightly)
"Yes, of course fundamentalism is somewhat ridiculous. And of course I realize that I'm only here because I was brought up that way. Of course you can't prove any of this stuff, or even show that it's more reasonable to believe than not. In fact many if not most of the fundamentalist claims of Orthodoxy are clearly NOT true and I don't believe them at all.
However I still believe in God, and I would like to think the Torah has some Divine inspiration behind it (though it doesn't have to). I'm ok with the DH and things like that. I do believe that religion in general, and OJ in particular, has very good values and is a good way of life, and the halachic framework is important.
But if I came right out and told people in my OJ community my true views, I would be cast out as a kofer, and I would have no effect on anyone. So I stay on the inside, and slowly slowly try to move people more to the left. You have to take baby steps with things like this.
Am I being a fraud and a fake? No! If I told people my true beliefs it would just turn them off or hurt them. This is no different than if your wife asks you 'honey do I look fat' and you lie. It's not being a fake or a fraud, that's the way the world works.
Of course, if I felt fundamentalism was truly evil, like Dawkins or Hitchens, then maybe I would have to speak out more strongly against it. But I don't think it's truly evil, just that it needs to move more left, and be open to any academically accepted truths such as Biblical Criticism. The best strategy to achieve this is to be circumspect about my true views, while slowly introducing people to the true facts of the matter.
You on the other hand [XGH: i.e. me], are the frum skeptic equivalent of Richard Dawkins. You're way too extreme and confrontational, and you end up having the opposite effect - the fundies just circle their wagons and ignore you [XGH: except for the ones I manage to convert! Bwahahaha]. You should stop being so aggressive against the fundies and adopt my strategy'. [XGH: Ironically I say the same thing about Dawkins].
Also, you're too negative and destructive, and not constructive enough. You use loaded words like 'fundie', 'narishkeit' and so on. You need to be more tactful. All you'll end up doing is either alienate people from you, or alienate people from religion entirely. You need to move people slowly away from their fundamentalist beliefs, while maintaining their religious commitments [XGH: Only if God exists, but we can assume He does for now].
So, I have to admit he has a good point. But I'm not sure I could ever play that game. I'm the classic engineer at heart, I tell it like it is. But, I guess we have to differentiate between two types of fakefundie:
- Gratuitous Fake Fundies are just cowards, who can't be honest about their true beliefs. I don't hold of those guys at all.
- Strategic Fake Fundies have a plan to make people less fundie, and the only way to achieve that is from the inside. I'm not sure I could do that myself, but I guess it's a reasonable strategy.
So which type of fake fundie are you?,
Apr 3, 2008 1:13 PM
Latest Scientific Research Confirms Jewish Values_
Michael Steger, director of the Laboratory for the Study of Meaning and Quality of Life at the University of Louisville, Kentucky has just published a paper showing that people are happier pursuing meaningful activities, rather than if they just pursue pleasureful activities.
Abstract
Eudaimonic theories of well-being assert the importance of achieving one’s full potential through engaging in inherently meaningful endeavors. In two daily diary studies, we assessed whether reports of engagement in behaviors representative of eudaimonic theories were associated with well-being. We also examined whether eudaimonic behaviors were more strongly related to well-being than behaviors directed toward obtaining pleasure or material goods. In both studies, eudaimonic behaviors had consistently stronger relations to well-being than hedonic behaviors. Data also provided support for a temporal sequence in which eudaimonic behaviors were related to greater well-being the next day. Overall, our results suggest that “doing good” may be an important avenue by which people create meaningful and satisfying lives. ,
Apr 3, 2008 9:21 AM
[I coulda written this. I shoulda written this. But I didn't. And evanstonjew did.]
Many people of all religions believe in believing. They want to adopt a religious attitude towards life, not because such and such dogma is true, but because they just want to. It is a desire that cries out for satisfaction like all other desires; not all people, only some people and not necessarily all the time.
This is happening everywhere in the world. Why are Muslim girls putting on scarves? Because they believe in hadath min hashamayim? No...they seek a spirituality, and they give expression to this desire by inscribing it on their bodies.
My intuition is that behind all the bluster many of us at least some of the time want to believe, not believe some propositional content, and not just believe in the evolutionary or utilitarian value of emuna, which is considerable and hardly ever discussed, but simply want to be frum...daven bekavanah, learn as we did when we were in yeshiva, walk in the world with a frum consciousness.
Some people simply have a desire to return to the enchanted world of religion, and in our case Orthodoxy.
This active nekudah in some Jews is in my opinion a good thing, everything else being equal, i.e. it doesn't end in fanaticism, remains progressive and decent in politics and human relations, etc.
As usual propositional truth, dogmas are irrelevant to the cultivation of this feeling.,
Apr 3, 2008 7:21 AM
This blog is not OJ.
It has not been OJ for about 2 years. Actually, at this URL, this blog was NEVER OJ. In fact, that was the entire reason I moved to this URL in the first place, to distance myself from my previous URL, since some people felt it was misleading since previously my blog was a bit OJ.
I don't know how many times I have to keep on repeating that, but apparently I do.
Even though the blog is titled 'Angstgnostik', and not 'Come learn the Holy Torah with me', apparently some people are confused. Even though I have posts titled 'OJ isn't true', apparently some people are still confused. Even though I have had several HUNDRED posts, all pointing out that OJ is completely false, and anyone believing in it is living in a delusional bubble, apparently some people still are not quite sure what the views of this blog are.
Possibly you think I'm saying my blog is not an orange based drink? Or maybe you think I'm telling you that this blog is not a discredited former football star. I'm not sure. But OJ stands for Orthodox Jewish and this blog aint it.
If you are looking for a blog which consistently says OJ isn't true, and then tries to deal with that, you've come to the right place. But if you are looking for an OJ blog, try Hirhurim.,
Apr 3, 2008 12:47 AM
I keep on having the same argument with RJM, and RJM keeps on missing the point. Here is how it goes:
RJM: If you truly understood ANE history, you would see that TMS is the only reasonable explanation for what happened.
XGH: If that's true, then why don't all, or at least many, ANE history experts convert to OJ? Yet they don't. In fact if anything, it's the other way round. Clearly, ANE experts don't find your arguments convincing.
RJM: Many people find my arguments convincing.
XGH: Only co-religionists do, and they are required to believe that. No one else finds these arguments convincing, because they are highly subjective and basically they are just not good arguments.
RJM: You are being circular, because if anyone finds my arguments convincing, they would by definition be OJ, and then you would discount them.
XGH: But nobody does find them convincing!
RJM: Circular!
XGH: Good grief!
RJM ENTIRELY misses the point, every time. I will try and explain it again to him one last time, and if he still doesn't get it, I give up. He is quite intelligent, so he should be able to get it if he tries hard.
RJM believes he has strong arguments for TMS. I have heard his arguments multiple times, straight from his mouth. They are all more sophisticated variants of the Kuzari proof, i.e. No way could such a Torah have ever been created by man, for various reasons to do with ANE history and similar.
The problem is, he doesn't ever have any hard and fast facts, all he has are subjective arguments.
For example, he says:
'No way would the Neviim have been able to convince idolatrous ancient Israelites to give up their idols if TMS wasn't true'.
And I respond:
'Sure they could!
And more to the point, they did! And the proof for this is that TMS is not true, yet the Neviim were still able to convince the ancient Israelites to give up their idols'.
This argument sounds almost like a joke, but this is actually how every single argument goes with RJM on this topic.
(He has different arguments when it comes to First Cause, but since he correctly admits that First Cause says nothing about God, that whole argument is absolutely irrelevant to me now.)
RJM says 'X happened, and no way could X have happened unless TMS was true', and I say 'Sure it could'. But there's no corroborating evidence, no way of verfying that X implies TMS, there's only RJM saying 'If you truly understood ANE history, then you would see that X could only possibly have happened if TMS was true.
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF RJM'S TMS ARGUMENTS FOLLOWS THIS SAME PATTERN.
Now THIS is the point at which I bring up the academics. RJM argues that if you truly understand ANE history, you will see that the most reasonable explanation is that TMS is true.
Yet there are hundreds, if not thousands of all types of ANE experts in academia, and none of them hold that TMS is true! If RJM is correct, and if RJM's arguments are convincing, then surely many, if not all, of these ANE experts should all be converting to OJ!
Yet hardly any of these experts ever convert to OJ. How can this be? These people are experts in ANE, yet they do not find RJM's arguments in any way convincing. The only logical explanation is that these arguments are NOT in fact convincing to anyone, not even to ANE experts. Especially not to ANE experts. They are only convincing to RJM and his fellow co-religionists, and naive lost students being conned at Aish discovery programs.
And even worse, the 'traffic' is almost all in the other direction.
How many secular academics believe in SINGLE HUMAN authorship of the Torah in 1200 BCE? Not Divine Authorship, but Human Authorship in 1200 BCE.
How many? NOBODY.
But why not? This has nothing to do with God or religion, it's simply a single human author in 1200 BCE. Yet nobody believes that. The only people who believe in SINGLE authorship are also not co-oincidentally religious fundamentalists who HAVE to believe that because they are religiously required to hold that.
Yet there have been quite a few formerly OJ Bible experts who have been convinced the other way: on the textual evidence alone, they became convinced that the Torah had multiple human authors and was compiled late.
The bottom line is that all of RJM's arguments are highly subjective and almost nobody who is not already convinced is ever convinced by them, including experts on all the very subjects that RJMS claims prove his point.
And what does RJM respond to this? He just claims I'm being circular, that of course people who find him convincing are OJ, and people who don't are not.
The only possible defense that RJM has here is for him to argue that ANE history does reasonably show that TMS is true, but all the ANE academics are too biased to accept that. The trouble is, if RJM plays that hand, he instantly loses, because then I counter that of course TMS isn't true, and the only reason he thinks the arguments are convincing is because he's biased. He can't win that argument at all.
Like I said, entirely missing the point.
And the really funny thing is, RJM has admitted to me on numerous occasions that religion has an incredible problem, because when it comes to religion, everyone is inescapably biased and everything is entirely subjective, there are no hard facts. RJM said this to me personally.
So if that's the case, why should I believe anything that RJM (or anyone else) says on the topic of religion? Everyone is hopelessly biased and subjective, even RJM agrees. Obviously the entire field is a complete and utter waste of time and should just be ignored until some real evidence comes to light. And in the absence of any good, unbiased evidence, the best approach is to assume that all fantastical claims about gods writing books should be taken with a grain of salt.
Isn't this entirely poshut, from a rational standpoint? Of course it is.,
Apr 2, 2008 10:43 PM
Some of my new commenters don't seem to understand. This blog is not about debating whether OJ is true. That debate was lost by the fundies a long time ago. (About 400 years ago to be precise. Badaboom).
There are many reasons why OJ isn't true, but here it is in a nutshell (RD Gold uses this argument in his book on why OJ isn't true):
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If someone you trust tells you he had a flat tire, it's reasonable to believe him, because flat tires are normal and this is a trusted friend. If someone you trust tells you he got abducted by aliens, you don't believe him. If ten thousand people, all independently tell you they saw an alien, maybe there's something to it, but you would still need to seriously investigate.
Many Moslems are convinced that Jews were behind 9/11. Why? Because they saw multiple stories in multiple sources about this. However, all the stories traced back to a singular nasty 'rumor' put out just after 9/11, that was then picked up by all the Islamic outlets. Moslems think they heard the story from multiple sources, but in reality it all traces back to one, unreliable source.
It's the same deal with OJ. Yes, we have 3000 years of people believing in it, but it all traces back to one event, Mattan Torah at Har Sinai. And there is absolutely ZERO corroborating evidence that it ever happened, ZERO. Apart from the Torah of course. Well, sorry fundies, but one document which every expert believes strongly was written hundreds of years later is not good enough evidence for such a fantastic claim.
And make no mistake, TMS is a fantastic claim . Especially with all the questions, but even without any questions at all, it's still a fantastic claim. Even if the text was perfectly reasonable and straightforward with no flaws at all, TMS would STILL be a fantastic claim. And with fantastic claims like that, it always boils down to a simple equation: Which is more likely, the fantastic claim is false and people are mistaken or are lying or have been fooled, or the fantastic claim is actually true?
Well, everyone (even fundies) agree that religions are 99.99999% false. Also, all books are written by men, and no one has ever seen God. So which is more likely, TMS is true, or this is just another false religion? It's not even a kashyeh.
So we have an absolutely extraordinary claim, with zero corroborating evidence, plus plenty of questions and evidence which makes the claim look entirely untrue. It's a no brainer.
So why do people think it's true?
Why are people of all fundamentalist contradictory religions so passionately convinced that their religion is the one true religion? It's all emotional/spiritual of course. Even to this day I have a hard time countering the incredible religious brainwashing I received for most of my life. My family is OJ, my community is OJ, my friends are all OJ. The peer pressure is immense. It's very, very hard to escape from it, especially if you basically had a happy childhood and were always 'into it'. (It's not as hard to escape if you were 'abused' by the system, theologically or otherwise.)
Intellefundies will of course claim corroborating evidence, and then launch into a series of highly debatable and highly subjective arguments, like 'Jewish history is so unique, TMS must be true!' Or 'Torah is so amazing, TMS must be true', or many other arguments which are similar. As the argument of last resort, they will fall back on loyalty and faith.
Trouble is, all these kinds of arguments work equally well for all other religions too. 'The story of Christianity is so unique, Christ must be Lord!' 'The Koran is so amazing, Koran Min haShamayim must be true!' And so on and so on. I have seen these arguments myself.
But here is the clincher, and note this very well:
'Any argument which works for all religions works for NO religion'.
Now, the 'loyalty and faith' argument might very well work from a practical, social or cultural aspect. i.e. you should be loyal to your tribe, for whatever reasons. But it doesn't work for determining truth. Imagine the following scenario:
Kiruv Worker: You should become frum!
5th generation Reform Jew: But I have loyalty and faith to my parents, grandparents and community!
Of course the above story would never happen, because there's no such thing as a 5th generation Reform Jew! Badaboom.
But seriously folks, none of these arguments work to establish truth. The best approach (which makes skeptics crazy), in fact the only approach which even has a snowball's chance in hell of working, is to attack the very foundation of knowledge and truth itself.
That's right. I'm talking PoMo. (gasp)
UPDATE: Ooops! There is one other approach which works well, though it's somewhat juvenile. I'm talking about the 'I don't care approach'. 'I don't care if OJ looks entirely false, I'm gonna believe it anyway!'. Hard to argue against that one, and more people really rely on that argument than you might think.,
Apr 1, 2008 11:27 PM
Fake Fundies Do It Disingenuously_
So an Orthodox Rabbi I know has been telling me that I'm irresponsible for blogging that Orthodox Judaism isn't true. (For goodness sake man, my blog is called 'Angstsnostik', not "Come Learn The Holy Toyrah With The Godol Hador'. Haven't you ever heard of Caveat Emptor? Sheesh, there's no pleasing some people.)
But I wonder if he would say I was being irresponsible if I told people that Christianity isn't true? Or Wahabi Islam? Or what if told people that a secular life was worthless and meaningless, would that be ok? Probably.
The funny thing is, this particular Rabbi, like many MO Rabbis I know, actually believes far less than he makes out in public. His beliefs are basically Conservative, not Orthodox. And he's not the only one.
So how is that morally acceptable? To be an Orthodox Rabbi, yet not really believe in it? And even worse, to go around spreading lies and pretending that Orthodoxy is totally true? Isn't that bad? I think so.
Sam Harris famously argues that liberal (i.e. non fundamentalist) religion is to blame for the actions of the extremists. How so? Because the liberals give the extremists cover, by validating that religious faith is a good thing to have. I don't buy this argument at all, because liberal religion is about as different from fundie religion as secularism is, and anyway, the liberals are probably our last remaining hope against the extremists.
So, I'm okay with liberals. But what about a liberal masquerading as a fundie, too scared to admit to his real views, and instead comforting the fundies that their faith is ok? Seems to me that such a person truly is bad, and Sam Harris argument would apply.
Now what about a liberal, masquerading as a fundie, who claims that he's our 'man on the inside', and that his goal is to convince the fundies that science, or tolerance, or some such liberal value or belief, is okay, and compatible with fundie-ism. And the only way he can do that is to masquerade as a fundie. Would that be okay? And in case you think this is a bizarre unrealistic scenario, I know multiple people who think like that.
I guess it's not totally terrible. But it's far too sneaky for my liking. I prefer to be honest about things, and I think honesty is usually the best policy. I don't pretend (even in real life) to be anything more than I'm not, except in mitigating circumstances (e.g. where people would get needlessly upset).
Honestly, I don't know how some of these Fake Fundie Rabbis sleep at night, considering the charade they play. Maybe they really don't sleep very well at all. That would certainly explain their grumpy demeanor.
I would really like to hear from a Fake Fundie about this. Seriously, how do you guys rationalize your behavior? Is it an elitist/masses thing? Or a 'someone's got to do it and better it should be me' type of thing? What? Please tell.,
