May 31, 2008 10:59 PM
Was that like the shortest retirement ever or what?!
I was all burned out with hashkafah, but then I started reading 'In the footsteps of the Kuzari' by Shalom Rosenberg (published by our favorite blogger, Yashar books in conjunction with ATID) and it inspired me to blog again. And that was just the preface! (I don't know how good the rest of the book is, I will reserve my opinions until I actually read it) but kudos to Yashar and ATID for taking the initiative to publish such an interesting work, especially since Shalom Rosenberg is a talmid of the fabulous Mr Shushani! Also I look around shul and I see all these lost skeptical souls, and I figure they need me. so welcome back me!,
May 29, 2008 10:26 PM
_
Update: Guys (and gals), this is just a picture of a shrimp trawler in the low country. It wasn't meant to be the ship of death crossing the Styx into Hades.,
May 29, 2008 10:26 PM
And with an even better URL www.chareidi.com
And now they're branching out to bash all of Chareidi Orrthodoxy, not just the Yated. I think it's high time we bashed OJ a bit more, it keeps them on their toes which is a good thing all round. A win-win situation.,
May 29, 2008 11:25 AM
Top five irreconcilable conflicts between Orthodoxy & Modernity
People often assume that the conflict between Orthodox Judaism and the Modern world is to do with the age of the world, evolution, the global flood or possibly morality issues such as acceptance of homosexuality.
However, in reality, these are relatively minor side issues. The real conflicts between the beliefs of Orthodoxy, and the accepted facts of the Modern world are as listed below. Some people may argue that the ‘soft sciences’ (history, textual analysis etc) are not on the same level as the Hard Sciences (physics, chemistry etc) and can therefore be ignored. And of course it is true that the soft sciences are nowhere near the level of the hard sciences in terms of rigor.
But, and this is absolutely key, however much the ‘soft sciences’ lack in rigor, objective analysis and evidence, you can be sure that religious arguments are even less rigorous, more highly biased, and more lacking in evidence and rational analysis than even the softest science, so this is hardly an effective objection.
More of this at the end, but let's now look at the top 5 conflicts.
[Note: I recognize that the Post Modernists will have a slightly different emphasis here, focusing more on individual choice and real life issues of ethics and morality. I believe this post to be accurate even with respect to the vast majority of Post Modern theory (apart from possibly the most extreme of the Post Modernists), but I do value greatly input from the Post Modernists here].
1. Torah Shebaal Peh (TSBP)
Orthodoxy
Orthodox Judaism today is essentially Rabbinic Judaism, as defined by Chazal 1500 years ago, and then further refined by the Geonim, Rishonim and Acharonim. This magnificent edifice rests on the premise that Torah SheBaal Peh was given in tandem with Torah Shebichtav, and that TSBP explains all the fine details of the laws which are not present in the written text. And not only the finer details, but often entirely new laws, or even laws which (seemingly) contradict the written text.
In fact, one of the classic arguments for the validity of TSBP is that the written law is clearly deficient in its approach to law, and therefore there must be an oral tradition which God passed on to Moshe to explain it all.
Modernity
The reality is quite different. The written text evolved over hundreds of years, and became somewhat ‘set’ around 500 BCE. However folk traditions, customs and actual practice, along with changing circumstances and environments, meant that after a while, the actual practice of law diverged quite a bit from what was written down in the texts. Over time, these two conflicting ‘sources’ were somewhat reconciled by Chazal, and the myth of ‘Torah SheBaal Peh’ was born.
2. Torah ShebichTav
Orthodoxy
Orthodox Judaism holds that the entire text of the Torah (first 5 books) that we have today (give or take a few later additions or corrections) was dictated by God to Moshe at Har Sinai (or thereabouts). The text is therefore sacrosanct.
Modernity
The academic consensus is that the Torah is a composite document, that evolved over hundreds of years, first as oral traditions and then later as written texts, finally being canonized sometime around 500BCE (or possibly later). Analysis of the text clearly demonstrates this, with multiple passages of the same subject, conflicts, omissions, use of different styles, use of later language and earlier language, and many other textual clues. While there is not concensus of the actual divisions and authorship of the text, the composite and evolving structure is agreed to by all Except of course by religious fundamentalists. It is highly noteworthy that the ONLY academics to accept the single-author theory are academics who are also highly religious (Kenneth Kitchen, Umberto Cassutto). There are NO secular academics who think that the text is a unified single author (god or man) text.
3. Chazal
Orthodoxy
As each generation moves further away from Adam Harishon (the first man), or alternatively from the revelation at Har Sinai, we get intellectually and spiritually ‘weaker’. Therefore the ideas and opinions of the previous generations, especially Chazal, are so much more superior to ours that we have no choice but to acquiesce to whatever they said, even if our modern knowledge tells us otherwise. Chazal in particular were all ‘supermen’, whose ever utterance is virtually infallible. Some Modern Orthodox are prepared to accept that Chazal were wrong on Science, but certainly not on Jewish history and tradition.
Modernity
Ancient peoples had very little knowledge of ancient history (even their own), and certainly almost no understanding of science. In fact the concept of objective, true history and science as we understand it barely even existed in ancient times. Almost all ‘knowledge’ passed down by ancient cultures has been proven wrong, except perhaps for observations about human nature. In general, humanity’s capacity for ‘greatness’ is improving, with longer lifespans, increased access to knowledge, and possibly long term evolution of the brain. We know far more today about science and ancient history than Chazal ever did, even about ancient Jewish history. Chazal were demonstrably wrong about Science and even their own history, for example missing out 150 years of Jewish history in the Persian era. Of course the reason why Orthodoxy believe sthat Chazal are virtually infallible is because Chazal said so, entirely circular reasoning.
4. Olam Habah / Moshiach
Orthodoxy
Olam Habah is the ultimate end game of life. Even though Judaism is very this-world focused, that’s only because we all live in this world now, and Judaism is the guide to how to live in this world. However the ultimate ‘point’ of life is not this world, which is ‘kulo sheker’ (all false) and ‘hevel havolim’ (all vanities), but rather the afterlife, where the righteous bask in God’s glory for all eternity.
And in fact the afterlife is the primary reason why God created this world, because to give us the afterlife without us having earned it would not be satisfying to us, similar to the way a poor person cannot get great satisfaction from charity, but would rather earn his money. (‘the bread of shame’)
The arrival of Moshiach will signify the end of ‘This world’ and all it’s attendant problems, and the arrival of a new world (Olam Habah) where all the righteous dead are resurrected, and everyone live happily ever after for all eternity.
Modernity
Olam Habah is a relatively late development in Judaism, influenced by ideas from Greek philosophers, Zoroastrianism and other cultures. Early Judaism, like many of the surrounding cultures, believed in the ‘Sheol’ (Hades), which was where people went after they died. Sheol wasn’t Heaven, or eternal bliss, but rather some kind of eternal resting place, where the dead simply rested in peace.
The concept of the Messiah was another late development in Judaism, after the destruction of the Israelite kingdom. The belief spread that a new King, probably from the Davidic dynasty (the most successful Jewish Royal family) would soon arise and lead Israel to victory over its enemies. Over time, as a result of the various persecutions that Jews suffered, this idea expanded to become the idea of an ultimate Messiah who would redeem the whole world.
5. The Unbroken Mesorah
Orthodoxy
Orthodox Judaism is the end result of an unbroken chain of tradition, stretching back to Moshe at Har Sinai, or even back to the Avos. Some laws have been added (or removed), and due to our sins we have lost certain crucial things (the Beis Hamikdosh, the Sanhedrin etc), but this is all within the guidelines of the tradition.
Modernity
The evolution of Judaism is far more complex, fractured and conflicting. Early Biblical Judaism evolved in fits and starts, as the various Priestly clans sought to turn the people from idol worshippers to believers in the one true God, and to worshippers in their temples. Many of the ‘prophets’ on the other hand were very distrustful of the Priestly cult, and tried to promote the ideas of social justice and morality, and downplay the ideas of temple worship and sacrifice. There were multiple ‘heir apparents’ to early Biblical Judaism and during the second temple period these sects were all vying for dominance. Ultimately the Pharisees (forerunners to Chazal) won out, for various reasons, and then they read their version of history back into the texts and the traditions. All of this can clearly be identified by reading Tenach and the Talmud.
In addition, even the most basic Jewish concept of ‘one God’ evolved over the centuries, with early Israelites being Henotheistic (worshipping their God over the other gods, but still believing in the existence of other gods), and only later becoming truly monotheistic. This evolution can clearly be seen in Tenach.
And of course, the reason why Orthodoxy believes that the Mesorah is unbroken is because the Mesorah says so, again entirely circular reasoning.
Conclusion
Modern Orthodox intellectuals will claim that Modernity’s views on these subjects are far from proven, and rest for the most part on incorrect assumptions, lack of true understanding of ancient history and religion, and general academic bias. But of course all these allegations can be applied back to religious scholars tenfold.
Ultimately, a rational person has to decide which is more credible; the global academy of scientists and academics, working with the primary goal of objective evaluation of facts, publishing in peer reviewed journals and similar, composed of scholars from many different cultures and religions; or the ancient mythological beliefs of a specific religious sect.
Of course scientists can make mistakes, and are only human, and have biases. But clearly the profession of Science is the most reliable means of knowledge in existence, whereas none of the religious beliefs of any religion have ever been proven true, and in fact almost all have quite convincingly been shown to be false. And this is in addition to the fact that almost all religions violently disagree with each other about most of the beliefs, and all use similar arguments (faith, tradition) to convince their followers.
A general analysis of the facts of the matter leads to the inevitable conclusion:
The scientific methodology can be convincingly shown to be the most credible ‘knowledge acquisition / validation’ process that we have today (or that humanity has ever had). Science isn’t perfect, nothing is, but its by far the best thing we have.
In stark contrast, the religious ‘methodology’ can be shown to have never produced any verifiable facts about anything ever.
Is Science the answer to eveything? Of course not (at least not currently). Judaism (and other religions), in as much as they reflect the combined wisdom and practice of thousands of generations of thinking people, have much to teach us about values.
Judaism in particular excels in this area. But a true reconciliation of Orthodoxy and Modernity has to occur in the sphere of values and ethics, combining the best of both worlds. It cannot occur in the sphere of history or science.
Chareidim live in their own sheltered world, and don’t care too much about the modern world and science (except of course in practical matters like technology and medicine). This post is not addressed to them.
However Modern Orthodox Jews claim to be able to reconcile Modernity with Orthodoxy. As we have seen, this is quite impossible, at least when it comes to science and history. Not only are the fundamental beliefs of Orthodoxy completely contradicted by global academic consensus in these fundamental areas, but more importantly the methodology of assessing and evaluating these beliefs is completely contra modernity.
Modernity values objectivity, evidence and rationality. Orthodoxy values tradition, loyalty and respect for ancient Sages. While tradition, loyalty and respect are all certainly very admirable character traits, they cannot ever determine truth. By insisting that its adherents believe the unbelievable, Modern Orthodoxy is almost guaranteeing that its most honest and best followers will eventually leave the fold.
Orthodox Jews are generally raised to believe that Reform and Conservative Jews have rejected the basic beliefs (and resultant practice) of Orthodoxy due to disloyalty, desire, laziness or all three. However, the global academic concensus certainly supports the theological and historical claims of these denominations over Orthodoxy. Certainly, the other deoniminations have their problems, and may not be best way to live a traditional Jewish lifestyle (assuming such a lifestyle has value, a subject for another post).
But on these five key beliefs, Orthodoxy does not have credibility, by any normal, modern standard of credibility.,
May 28, 2008 6:46 PM
Can religious believers accept reality? And what happens if they do?
Fundamentalists are usually very invested in their beliefs, emotionally, spiritually, intellectually and more besides. Challenging their beliefs often makes them ‘circle the waggons’ and become even more stubborn.
One belief which I think believers are particularly sensitive about is Olam Habah. Maybe I’m projecting here, but I remember back in the day when I was a true believer thinking skeptical thoughts for the first time, the notion that Olam Habah may be a myth really horrified (and terrified) me.
But the reality is that Olam Habah is very clearly a late belief in Judaism, and considering the reliability and credibility of religious beliefs in general even the most devout believer has to accept the very real possibility that there is no such thing as Olam Habah, even if God does exist.
How this jives with a good God is a different question, but no worse than any of the other questions we have, especially the problem of evil. Olam Habah is really the only answer to the problem of evil (and even then people don’t think it’s a great answer), and if you take away Olam Habah the problem of evil gets so much worse. Still, we can’t understand the ways of God, so it has to be accepted that there’s a good possibility that God exists but Olam Habah doesn’t. Of course there’s also a possibility that God doesn’t exist either.
Can believers truly accept the possibility of no Olam Habah (for anyone), or no God? Would they still be as committed to performing all the Mitzvos and refraining from Aveiros? I wonder.
As a believer, the thought of no God or no afterlife was really horrifying. And indeed, the Chief SpinMeister err Rabbi makes a lot of hay from this terror, writing in numerous places that he cannot imagine having hope or optimism in a world without God. But I think that after the initial shock wears off, you can get used to the idea. Personally, it was after I saw someone close to me wither away and die, that I accepted the possibility that death is quite final. Depressing but true.
But in reality I don’t think you really change too much after losing these beliefs. People have a certain inbuilt optimism, morality and spirituality which is a combination of nature and nurture. The specific beliefs you hold don’t seem to make much difference to this.
I think it’s probably similar to how happy you are – researchers have found that people only fluctuate mildly around a certain level of happiness, seemingly set for them for life. Even winning the lottery doesn’t change it much, after the initial euphoria wears off. And even losing a limb doesn’t change it much (though losing a child or loved one can permanently change it). Same thing in my opinion with morality, optimism and all the ‘good’ character traits. They are pretty much set at a certain level from early childhood, and it’s very very hard to change them later on, whether you become a skeptic or a BT or whatever.
Having said that, I do think that God & Olam Habah believers do have an extra motivation to be good, especially when no one is looking, so there is some utilitarian value in it. Maybe having these beliefs in childhood sets you on a certain good way, and you continue that way even after you lose the specific beliefs? Or perhaps the beliefs never really made a difference anyway? Hard to say.
We would need to conduct experiments on twins separated at birth, brought up in identical moral environments, with one twin being taught a God based morality (plus Olam Habah) and one twin being taught a secular based morality (with no Olam Habah), and then see how each twin made out, and then see if the God twin lost his belief what happens. Very complicated, but I’m sure it has happened in real life someplace.
Anyways, bottom line: You might want think realistically about all the possibilities of what might (or might not be true), and plan accordingly. On the other hand, it might make no difference, and denial and delusion can often work out great, so maybe just forget about it. Tzarich Iyun Godol.,
May 27, 2008 7:31 PM
A commenter points out that there is much confusion in Judaism about the afterlife, or world to come. Here is a short list of other worldy concepts (times and or places) found in Tenach and Chazal.
1. Gan Eden (Garden of Eden / Paradise)
2. Shomayim (Heaven)
3. Gehenom (Hell)
4. Sheol (The Underworld)
5. Zman Moshiach (Messianic Times)
6. Olam Habah (The world to come)
7. Zman Techiyas Hamaysim (Resurrection of the Dead)
8. Pardes (The Garden)
9. Olam Haneshamot (World of souls)
Here's how I think it plays out in popular OJ theology.
Gan Eden is where you go after you die. It is the same as Olam Haneshamot and Olam Habah. It is located in Shamayim, but Shamayim is much bigger - Shamayim also contains the angels and the rest of the Heavenly court, an dpossibly Hell too (depending on how you view hell). When Moshiach comes, all dead people come back to life (Zman Techiyas Hamaysim and Zman Hamoshiach happen at the same time). At that point this world itself turns into Olam Habah / Gan Eden, (or maybe Olam Habah gets relocated to this world) and we all go to Israel on magical flying shuls (or rolling though underground tunnels if you are dead). After that point, Olam Hazeh as we know it is finished. (Possibly it gets blown up by angelic constructor fleets to make way for the expanded Gan Eden, possibly it magically transforms). If you are bad however, you go to Gehinom after you die, and Gehennom is also called Sheol. I guess Gehenom is kinda in Shomayim too, just the bad part of town. As for the Pardes, that's strictly reserved for kabalanuts.
In scholarly OJ theology, it's all over the place, with different views in Chazal, Rishonim and the like. I have heard Rabbis say that Moshiach is just a this-world event, and has nothing to do with Techiyash Hamaysim. The Rambam says that Techiyas Hamaysim is very temporary, and then we change back to souls and go live in Olam Habah. Plus I imagine there's many other views too, but basically nobody knows anything for sure (or even for not quite sure).
Why all the confusion? Well, the kiruv clown answer is that this is a dovor 'nistar', a hidden thing which does us no good to know about (though that doesn't stop Chazal from saying that denying Olam Habah in the Torah is a major heresy). The true answer is that all these concept evolved over time, many influenced by outside sources, and at different points and within different groups in Judaism the concepts evolved slightly differently. Same kind of deal as to why Har Sinai (or God for that matter) has multiple names.
May 27, 2008 3:40 PM
Avi Shafran to Einstein: We're not childish, but you're a big baby! (nah nah boo boo)
Most articles on Cross-Currents annoy me, but this article by Avi Shafran on the recently published letters of Einstein was sillier than most. Einstein, in a personal letter, called religion childish, and so Shafran responds by calling Einstein a baby and putting him down. (Sounds like a typical night at my house. Avi, if you don't stop this nonsense I'm putting you in time out! )
And what's Shafran's response? Einstein was too biased to be able to see clearly that what the Torah says is true. And how does Shafran know this? Why, because the Torah says that
"only one who has overcome the human desires and imperfections of character with which we are all born can perceive the Divine clearly. "
And of course the only true way to overcome the Yetzer Horah is to learn Torah. So we know Einstein is wrong because the Torah says that only people who learn Torah can see the truth. Shafran goes on to say:
It is telling that many brilliant people – and Einstein is, sadly, no exception here – who were atheist or agnostic were not beacons of morality in their personal lives and relationships.
Well DUH! People who don't believe God exists don't have as much motivation to be 'moral' (at least not by the Torah's definition of 'morality'.)
Just brilliant. Sounds like Shafran has been taking courses at the Reb Elchonon school of circular logic and general kiruv clownery.,
May 27, 2008 3:40 PM
_Hirhurim has a nice post up asking one of the skeptic's favorite questions: How come there is no mention of Olam Habah (explicitly) in the Torah? He then proceeds to list about 12 different answers from various Rishonim and Acharonim. As a Rabbi once said to me, whenever the meforshim give totally different answers to a problem, it means nobody knows the answer and everyone is guessing.
What is surprising here, apart from the lameness of most (if not all) of the answers, is that Chazal already addressed this question quite categorically, and said if you even dare say that Olam Habah is not in the Torah you're not getting any (so there!). Although as a Rabbi once said to me (actually the same Rabbi as above), the fact that Chazal then go and try and give 20 different places where Olam Habah is hinted at in the Torah means even they knew it wasn't really in there.
So, if Chazal were so adamant that it is indeed in the Torah, how come all these Rishonim and Acharonim are answering the question of why it isn't there?! I guess you can kvetch an answer and say Chazal were saying if you dare suggest that Olam Habah is not hinted at in the Torah then you lose your chelek, and these Rishonim are coming to answer why it's not in there explicitly. Of course this is as much of a 'kvetch' as all the answers given
So let's get into all the answers, and see if any are not completely lame-brained. And I mean by todays standards. I am not faulting medieval commentators (or Chazal) for being clueless about ancient Egyptian history (or ancient Jewish history for that matter).
1. Ibn Ezra (Deut. 32:39) writes that the Torah was written on a simple level, so that everyone can understand it. The afterlife is a complex philosophical idea that only sophisticated individuals can comprehend, and therefore had to be omitted.
The concept of the afterlife was well known in the ancient world, and certainly in Egypt, which the Bnei Yisrael should have been familar with. See here for more details, and here for some actual solid evidence.
Verdict: Very lame.
2. The Ramban (Commentary to Ex. 6:2, Lev. 18:29, 26:12) writes that reward and punishment in the afterlifes is a natural outcome from the spiritual state of our souls at the time of death. Reward and punishment in this world is entirely miraculous. The Torah only mentions the miraculous aspects of reward and punishment, which is in this world, and not the natural aspects.
Eh, a kvetch. Olam Habah is an extremely important concept for Judaism, and certainly for Chazal. In fact Chazal say 'Olam Hazeh Domeh Leprozdor' and many similar sayings. Even if you can somehow kvetch that Olam Habah is 'natural' and that this is somehow different from sechar ve'onesh in this world, it still doesn't answer the question overall, only maybe why it wasn't listed in last week's sedrah.
Verdict: very lame.
3. R. Yitzchak Arama (Akedas Yitzchak, ch. 70) points out that the Torah describes the reward of God dwelling in our midst (cf. Lev 26:11-12). This, he argues, is the spiritual equivalent of the afterlife
That's all very nice, but RYA has just gotten rid of the afterlife as everyone understands it. If Olam Habah is really just God's presence in this world, then there is no 'afterlife' for us after we die, which is contrary to how almost everyone understands Judaism. It also contradicts most of the other answers, and most if not all of Chazal's sayings here. Basically RYA is a Reform Rishon.
Verdict: Nice answer. If you are a REFORM Jew.
4. We do not truly know what the soul is, nor what brings it joy and pain. The Torah only tells us in detail about rewards and punishments that we can understand.
Doesn't answer the question. We don't really understand what God is, but the Torah speaks about God all the time (metaphorically or otherwise). In the same way that Chazal were able to describe it, why couldn't God? At least mention it. You know, considering it is one of the ikkarim and all. Then again, how many of the ikkarim are actually in the Torah? No, that's not an answer, that's another kashyeh.
Verdict: Makes no sense because the Torah talks about God.
5. Reward and punishment in the afterlife is well known and accepted. The Torah did not need to mention in it because the Tradition was sufficient.
This is my least favorite answer. A typical kiruv clowny kvetch.
Verdict: Yuch.
6. The people at the time of the giving of the Torah were unsophisticated and could not handle the complicated philosophical subject. God taught them--like children--concepts that they could handle and of which they would understand the more complex version at a later time.
Same as 1.
7. Reward in the afterlife requires more than just good deeds. It also requires helping others to do good deeds and a special kindness from God. And while punishment in the afterlife should come automatically, God is merciful and sometimes intervenes to prevent it. Because they are not automatic rewards and punishments, they cannot be listed in the Torah as such.
Isn't helping others to do good deeds also a good deed? Anyway, this answer makes no sense. God could have explained this in the Torah too. Or left the fine details to Torah Shebaal Peh, like pretty much EVERYTHING else. Duh.
Verdict: Very lame.
8. Reward and punishment in this world are for outwardly visible deeds but the afterlife is for deeds that people cannot see and are not aware of. The afterlife is essentially a place of Divine recompense -- reward and punishment people cannot see for deeds that they cannot see, which is why it is not mentioned in the Torah.
So what? Just mentiont this too. Or else leave the fine details to TSBP.
Verdict: Very lame.
9. Reward and punishment in the afterlife is really just the result of having a connection with God. Phrasing it in terms of reward and punishment minimizes it and defeats its purpose.
Fine, so describe it in terms of connection to God then!
Verdict: Very lame.
10. Reward and punishment in the afterlife is logical and does not need to be mentioned.
Sounds like 5 to me.
Verdict: Very lame.
11. It is the nature of prophecy to speak at length about immediate needs and only briefly about distant needs. The afterlife is a distant need and therefore did not need to be explained.
Eh. Kvetch, kvetch, kvetch. Again, Olam Habah (for Chazal) is a hugely important concept that could and should have had at least a brief mention.
Verdict: Lame.
12. R. Yehuda Ha-Levi (Kuzari 1:109) explains that the aim of Judaism is not next-worldly but to achieve communion with God in this world.
Ah, a favorite answer of the Modern Orthodox, especially when they are trying to show how much better we are than Islamic fanatics. See how 'this-wordly' Judaism is, we don't even mention Paradise in our Torah! The question turns into a tirutz! An explanation to make The Chief Spinmeister err I mean Rabbi proud.
Verdict: Very convenient spin for this day and age, but not an actual answer, especially compared to the weight that Chazal put on Olam Habah.
Summary
All these answers are lame. The true answer is of course that Olam Habah was not a major feature of early Judaism. God was a powerful 'this-world' God, who gave you bountiful crops and other this-wordly blessings if you followed his commands. Olam Habah, Souls and all that Jazz came much later, due to Greek, Zoroastrian and other influences. Chazal incorporated it, and then tried to say it was always there. As even Gil admits about Chazal "not everything they said is part of a tradition" [direct quote].
Personally, of course I hope there is an afterlife. Who wouldn't want eternal bliss? Even if it's an eternity with a gemara and a shtender. I could get into gemarah. It's better than having the worms eat into my brain. But I'm not holding my breath.
May 22, 2008 11:20 AM
_I love this twisted logic (courtesy of Alex):
Let's take a truly bizarre coincidence or a spectacular biological marvel. Let's each put a probability that this 'thing' has a purely natural explanation behind it. You say 100% (because you're dogmatic?) and I say 99.8% (because I'm a little open to the miraculous).
Now, we find 10,000 such 'things', uncorrelated/independent; not a hard thing to do. To calculate the probability of at least one of these things being the result of NON-natural causes is either (1 - 1^10000) vs (1 - 0.998^10000) Or, 0 vs 99.999998%
All of a sudden, by deductive logic, my faith (as described in the first paragraph) is overturned, and I'm practically /forced/ by logic to believe that at least one thing is the result of NON-natural causes.
In case you didn't quite follow what Alex is saying, let me explain it better. Alex is saying like this:
Let's say you have a bizarre event (e.g. Har Sinai) which is 99.99% probably some natural occurence (e.g. volcano myth) rather than some super natural thing (e.g. Divine Revelation). Okay, so far so good, we can all agree on that. But now let's say there are a thousand other cases just like that. Now all those 0.01% chances of something being supernatural all add up, and you end up with a 99% chance that something, somewhere was actually supernatural!
I love it! It reminds me of one of my favorite all time movies, 'Dumb and Dumber'. Lloyd (Jim Carrey) is wondering if Mary (Lauren Holly) likes him (this is from memory):
Lloyd: Give it to me straight. Is there any chance at all that a girl like you could go for a guy like me?
Mary: Well...
Lloyd: Just tell me straight, be honest. What are my chances?
Mary: I guess about one chance in a million.
Lloyd: Eyes open wide...thinks... Yes! There is a chance!,
May 22, 2008 11:20 AM
I’m not one for muckraking (really) and I’m no UOJ, and I don’t really want to get into the seedy side of all this in any great detail, so I’m going to stuff it all in one post and then get out of town quick for the weekend. If you need me, I’ll be in ***** Island.
Rabbi Dovid Cohen (RDC) is the Morah De’asrah of Gvul Yaavetz in Brooklyn, and also of OHEL. He is well known for his somewhat extremist views on all manner of things and has been the subject of some controversy in the past. He gave a speech a while back in Bergenfield where he very clearly and very publicly stated that there’s nothing wrong with tax evasion according to Halachah (and has said to numerous people on other occasions that gezel akum in general is ok), and that dina demalchusah wasn’t an issue. He also said he would deny saying this if it ever got him into trouble!
This caused some of the fine MO residents of Teaneck to go a bit apoplectic, especially since RDC is on the Va’ad Haposkim of the RCA, and was part of the famous RCA Teshuvah banning smoking. Some people tried contacting the RCA and asking them how on earth they could be associated with such a person, but the RCA wasn’t interested in talking about it, and basically stonewalled them.
The MO crowd are also furious because Rabbi Dovid Cohen “is also well known to have publicly humiliated Rav Soloveitchik in 1960 in a shocking manner" (their words). While that is a long time ago, David Cohen is known to be still proud of his actions. You can hear the entire story in R. Cohen's own words in this link. The tape is from 2001. The RCA leadership is well aware of this tape and does not seem to care. "We essentially have a situation in which the RCA, which is almost entirely composed of students of the Rav, or Rabbis who claim to view the Rav as their spiritual mentor, is now willing to place on their most elite committee a man who has no regret over having publicly attacked the Rav”.
I also heard that RDC said some very crazy things about child molesters and mesirah, but I don’t want to get into that at all.
This also reminded me of a recent post on Areivim (I edited it very very lightly just for formatting):
Subject: Re: [Areivim] Acting Without Chillul Hashem
To: The General Discussion Area for Avodah
There are many parts of Torah that we do not want outsiders to find out about.
We have to be careful where we say them, but that doesn't justify pretending that they're not true. Such as the fact that (aside from some farvorfener Meiri that shlumei emunei yisroel do *not* hold like) me'ikar hadin one should not be mechalel shabbos to save the lives of non Jews. Such as the fact that non Jews do not have a nefesh Eloki. Such as the fact that if our bull gores theirs we will not pay, but if theirs gores ours we will demand payment. Such as the fact that if we murder one of them we are patur bedinei adam. Such as the fact that when we responded to blood libels by pointing out how we are careful even from a drop of blood in an egg, so how could we drink human blood in matzos, we conveniently left out the fact that human blood is only assur mishum mar'it ha'ayin, and is batel berov, so that a matzah with human blood in it would be perfectly kosher (but chametz, because a mixture of "mei perot" and water is machmitz instantly). [XGH: So what’s the problem? We couldn’t possibly have drunken blood matzah because it would be Chametz!] And more that I won't even mention here. Some things are for internal consumption only, and "kevod Hashem haster davar" when it comes to the outside.
So what do I think about all this?
Mixed feelings.
On the one hand, it provides fodder for anti-semites and so on, which of course is a great shame. On the other hand, the things mentioned by Zev above, and even the crazy pesakim of RDC, are all fairly authentic strands of Halachah / Hashkafah from way back. Certainly as authentic as anything else in our tradition. I think the MO fundies are so convinced that Halachah is perfect, they can’t bear to think that maybe parts of it are actually not so nice (by modern Western standards of course).
Also, just because Halachah says something is ossur, and even if Halachah says dina demalchusah doesn't apply, so what? Then your just in the same boat as everyone else, subject only to the law of the land, with no additional 'legal system' in place. I assume RDC doesn't tell people that they should purposely commit tax fraud, and that they should break the law!
Of course I agree with the general sentiment that we should try and make Halachah as ‘nice’ as possible but let’s call a spade a spade. There are certainly things in Halachah which do not and could not ever jive with 21st century morality, such as attitudes to homosexuality for a start. But what do you expect from a 3,000 year old man made system? It's way way better than some of the other religions I could mention. And however extreme RDC may be, he’s way better than any extremist Islamic Mufti.
The Chief Rabbi could put a great spin on anything, and I’m sure he could spin all the above in the best way possible, and last week in my shul a YCTish Rabbi gave a great drashah on why the institution of Eved Ivri is way more moral, even by 21st century standards, than the American penal system (Eved Ivri’s typically didn’t get raped). I think some of the skeptics sometimes go overboard with this stuff. Plus morality is all subjective anyway. [Joke].
I think the reality is like this
Not everything in Halachah or the Gemarah is great (by modern standards), but nowadays we (mostly) have gotten rid of the bad stuff one way or another, or we spin it to make it better (e.g. Amalek). Institutions like the RCA should try and promote this general evolution of Halachah / Hashkafah, and they should shun people like RDC who are still living in the past.
But it doesn’t bother me if the RCA moves to the right. That will just create more room for the Rabbinic Fellowship.
May 20, 2008 10:35 PM
Does it make any difference if you believe in God?
_Yes, God is an incomprehensible something, but that doesn't stop at least 70%? of the planet believing in Him/Her/It/Them.
So what exactly are we believing in? And what exactly are Atheists not believing in? And does it make any practical difference? Obviously the debate can't be about the details of what God is, since no one knows what they are. Even according to Chareidim (according to the Rambam, and possibly even according to Kabbalah) we can't understand what God is.
So, I think the debate about God belief must be about something else, and I think it's worthwhile to try and analyze this, and see if it actually has any real ramifications.
1. Created the Universe for a reason
Leaving aside the various pagan and polytheistic religions, most religions believe in a God who created the Universe. But not just created it for a laugh, but rather for some ultimate, serious and good objective. Judaism affirms this, and I think this is a decent concept, certainly no stranger than any other explanation for how the Universe got here. It starts to get a bit tricky though when you think about the 'for a reason' part, in conjunction with the 'all powerful part' . Why on earth would an all powerful something want to create a Universe? I know the Ramchal answer, but it's not very satisfying. We don't really have a good answer here but we have faith that it must be some really, really good reason (good in both senses of the word).
But, I think all this 'Creation' business is somewhat secondary, and the real belief here is 'ultimate meaning'. Or to put it another way, when we say God created the Universe for a reason what we are actually affirming is a belief that life has some ultimate real meaning.
2. Rewards and punishes good and bad behavior
Almost all religions believe in an all-knowing, all-seeing God who has a defined moral code, and rewards or punishes you depending on how you act relative to that code. Unsophisticated fundamentalists might believe in Heaven and Hell as reward and punishment respectively, but the Rambam and others held that it was more of an intrinsic thing - if you act correctly you will naturally be at a higher madreigah and be closer to God. (In the Rambam's case he seemingly emphasizes correct opinions over correct behavior, but really he holds correct behavior is the neccessary foundation for correct beliefs and you need both.)
So, considering the Rambam, and considering that we have no idea what Olam Habah is or possibly could be, again I think that the belief as stated above is really secondary, and what we are actually believing in here is that there is objective morality (at least vis-a-vis humanity), and that being good will somehow ultimately result in more good (or else what's the point).
So far so good. Even skeptics have a strong belief in meaning and morality (even though they hold it's all subjective), and when it gets down to it there is very little difference between theists and atheists on these two points. I used to think that Theists had more motivation to do good because they believe they are being watched, while moral Atheists must be incredible Tzaddikim, but evanstonjew commented as follows:
"All people both secular and religious have an internalized superego which watches, judges and pushes us around. Religious believers externalize the superego’s functions and attribute them to God."
I'm no Psychloogist but this sounds probably true, because le'maaseh we don't see Theists all being incredible Tzaddikim while Atheists are all reshoim. And sometimes, it seems davkah the opposite. Just compare Warren Buffet, Richard Dawkins and Bill Gates to AchManIdidaJihad, Osama Bin Laden and Sheikh Nasrallah.
However the next point is where the differences between Theists and Atheists really become apparent:
3. Runs the world and everything in it, listens to prayers
Most religions believe that God is actively running the world. Judaism certainly believes this, though we are fuzzy on the details - does God run absolutely everything, or only on a general scale, but individuals, animals, leaves etc are left to the randomness of nature? (I'm actually pretty dissapointed that there's no clear derech in OJ on this). However we still believe that prayers do work (mostly) and that when bad (or good) things happen somehow it's all part of God's mysterious plan.
When it comes to this concept, I'm stuck. I see no parallel or underlying belief here that an Atheist or Skeptic could possibly believe in. If you are an Atheist, things just happen for natural or random reasons. No one is pulling any strings or controlling the show, and there is no point in davening to anyone either.
I think this is a huge difference between believers and non-believers (unless I guess you have some funny views about hasghachah).
4. Gives you an afterlife
I used to think that this was the single most important reason why anyone believed in God - because it creates the possibility of an afterlife. And if you believe God is good, then since this world is so unjust the concept of God pretty much requires there to be an afterlife. Some say that if you take away the afterlife concept, most people would no longer believe in God, but I'm not so sure about this anymore. Perhaps for some people, objective meaning, objective morality and the ability to daven and possibly get results might be enough of a reason to believe, even without an afterlife.
Of course skeptics don't have an afterlife per se, but they believe you live on through your works, or descendants, or you return to being stardust, one with the universe, or whatever. And since none of us can possibly really comprehend what an afterlife is anyway, (since our notion of being is intrinsically rooted in the physical) I'm not sure it makes much difference.
5. Gives you a special mission in life
This is an extension of the 'ultimate meaning' concept. Not only is the world meaningful, but you may in fact have some special unique mission in life, set by God. This is current OJ popular theology, but I'm not sure it's rooted in anything really real, apart from some cute ancedote from some Chassidic Rebbe someplace. Still, most Theists believe they are somehow special, and loved by God. But then most people believe the world revolves around them (which in a sense, it does), so I'm not sure there's such a big difference here either. Plus, there's no way for you to figure out what your unique mission is anyway, so I think it's moot.
Conclusion
Ultimately the only real practical day to day difference between Atheists and Theists with respect to God belief is number 3. Theists believe that (almost) everything happens 'for a reason' (there is no such thing as a co-incidence), and furthermore you can possibly affect what happens by davening. Atheists on the other hand have no such beliefs at all. But does this have any pragmatic ramifications? (apart from Theists spending time praying) Maybe Theists will be more comforted when faced with a really crappy situation. On the other hand, Atheists may be more motivated to do something about it, rather than just accept it as the 'will of God'.
Bottom line: Atheists or Theists, there doesn't seem to be much difference, at least with respect to God belief.
Of course the real issue is what you think God's 'moral code' is (i.e. how should we act). But then, the vast spectrum of Theistic beliefs on this matter far outweighs any gap between a typical modern Western Theist and a typical modern Western Atheist. So again, the Atheist vs. Theist debate is essentially moot.
May 20, 2008 11:06 AM
I think I have finally figured out a fairly succint way of talking about Faith vs. Reason.
Faith is when you want to believe something is true, for various reasons (e.g. loyalty, emotion, lifestyle etc).
Reason is when you have reasons why the belief itself is true (evidence, inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning etc).
Confusion arises when believers are challenged to provide reasons why they believe, and of course they do provide reasons. However these are usually reasons why they have faith, rather than reasons why the belief is actually true.
So for example, when Yus says 'I believe because of loyalty' what he's actually saying is 'I have faith (i.e. I want to believe) because of loyalty. Yus may respond that he has faith his ancestors wouldn't lie (or be mistaken), but again this is pure faith, unsupported by reason. Do we have evidence that Yus's ancestors could not be mistaken? After all, 90% of the world's ancient population were of course mistaken about almost everything, so why not Yus's ancestors?
Of course in real life things are not so clear cut, and typically even the most ardent faith based believers actually have (or rather think they have) good reasons why the belief is itself true. Plus life in general requires a little bit of faith no matter what (faith in humanity, in the powers of human reason, that we are not all brains in a jar etc etc).
Where believers go wrong though is that at some point you shouldn't let your own personal desires for what you want to be true intefere with what probably is true. This isn't always the case, and sometimes denial, delusion and fantasy can actually be better than reality. But in general I think it is fair to say that reality should trump fantasy.
When is faith legitimate? I think most people would agree that if the evidence is fairly balanced, then it's ok to have a 'humble' faith. So for example, the evidence for and against some incomprehensible something 'creating' the Universe for a specific reason is basically in the balance (i.e. nobody has a clue), so having 'Faith' (i.e. hopeful thinking) that there is a God would seem to be fairly reasonable, or at least as reasonable as insisting the whole universe came about by 'chance' (or a Multiverse or whatever else).
However, when the evidence is against the belief, strongly believing that belief despite the evidence would seem to be silly. So, there is fairly strong evidence that the text of the Torah we have today is a composite document, and that all religions in general are man made, and that all the ancient mythology is just mythology, and no good evidence at all that God actually wrote the Torah word for word, so it would seem to be silly to firmly believe that.
However, it must be acknowledged that we are dealing with an 'ought to' here, i.e. one ought not believe in things contra all known evidence, and you can't really ever 'prove' an 'ought to'. The most you can show is the practical ramifications of doing (or not doing) the action in question would be good or bad. And of course good and bad are subjective qualities which rest on a foundational value system. And that foundational value system tends to be different in believers and skeptics, with the skeptics valuing truth and acuracy, while the believers value the content of their beliefs. So basically it's hard to get anywhere arguing with believers, at least online.
Having said that, most believers can actually be turned if given enough focus, since at the end of the day their beliefs are generally baseless and even the biggest fundamentalist deep down uses rational reasoning in formulating decisions. It's how our brains work and can't be avoided, unless the owner of the brain is suffering from some psychosis or similar.,
May 19, 2008 2:46 PM
Holy Moly!!! Rabbi Gil Student TOTALLY confirms everything I have been saying_
If you have been following my blog for the last few months, you will have noticed a huge argument between myself, Yus, RJM and a few dozen others. What kicked off the latest round of debates is a post where I said that even Intellectual Fundamentalists (Intellifundies) don't believe in the truth of OJ because of good reasoning, but rather their beliefs are based off emotions (or loyalty or faith or similar). Now I see that Rabbi Gil Student totally agrees with me! Here is a direct quote from him, in response to someone asking him 'Why be Orthodox':
In my opinion, and that of most Jews today, Orthodox Judaism is the authentic Jewish tradition where you can experience Judaism as our ancestors did. I know that Conservative Jews will disagree but for sociological reasons their communities simply don't live up to it. It's only in Orthodox communities where you can live Judaism from cradle to grave, enveloped in a Torah environment.
Faith precedes belief and if you have faith in the overall system of Judaism, then most of the questions are irrelevant and the few that remain are left as "tzarikh iyun". People who become frum want to have faith, for whatever spiritual, psychological or social reason.. If you want to have faith and Orthodox Judaism is presented to you as intellectually sound ("proofs" might serve this purpose but are not necessary), then the only barrier to you is changing your life to fit in with Jewish practice. If you don't want to have faith then no "proof" is going to change your mind.
So Reb Gil is saying that the 'proof's don't work, and you have to start with faith. Faith is basically an emotion, as in 'I want to believe, therefore I believe'. And I agree with him, except that I don't believe Orthodox Judaism can possibly be presented as 'Intellectually sound'. Is it internally consistent? Kinda (with some kvetching). But intellectually sound? Only if you insist that all the world's academic experts on ANE history and Bible are biased and don't have a clue about Torah.
Is that an intellectually sound position? Hardly.,
May 19, 2008 2:46 PM
[XGH: This is somewhat ironic. Rabbi Gordon Tucker has a teshuvah on why homosexuality should no longer be assur. It was rejected by the Conservative Gedolim, and he bemoans the fact that Conservatives are too fundamentalist in their understanding of Halachah. Here is an excerpt:]
When someone says, “What can we do? The Torah is clear on the subject!” [XGH: talking about the issur of homosexuality], what is being said amounts to a claim of infallibility and irrefutability for the text of the Torah. And that claim ultimately rests on the assumption that the words of Leviticus (and, of course, those of the other four books of the Pentateuch) express directly and completely the will of God. (Indeed, treating a text as infallible on any basis other than on such an assumption would surely count as a form of idolatry.)
But that assumption (that the Torah is the direct and complete expression of God’s will) is one that, for all its currency in parts of the Jewish world, is not accepted in our Conservative Jewish world. And it is not accepted for good scholarly and theological reasons. We should be clear that this is not an assertion that the Torah is not divine, or that it is merely human. Heschel famously wrote that “as a report about revelation, the bible itself is a midrash.” We quote this phrase often enough, but perhaps don’t sufficiently appreciate that its far-reaching implications both free up our religious thinking and tie us to traditional theological categories at the same time.
It is, in other words, possible to (a) believe in God; (b) believe in revelation; (c) believe that it is meaningful to speak of a divine will for the world; and (d) to have faith in the idea that the Torah is our first (and thus, in an important sense, most sacred) expression of God’s will in human language, and still insist that the sacred text of the Torah does not perfectly and infallibly express that will. Heschel also wrote that “…whatever hand wrote the Torah included the ‘finger of God’…..”
This is a view of the Torah that conforms to scholarly discoveries about its text, and at the same time presents to us a most compelling theological image of human-divine partnership. That is, the non-acceptance of biblical infallibility is not merely a negative verdict on the divine authorship of the Torah born of academic skepticism; it is a profound and inspiring positive message about the ways in which God and humans find each other on the stage of history onto which we have been placed. A large part of our understanding of the role of human beings in the generation and perfection of religious truth hinges on the idea that God’s will is not infallibly represented in the Torah, but only imperfectly, in a form that awaits the engagement and honest searching of religious communities that connect to one another, and to Sinai, throughout the ages, but do not simply duplicate one another.
Was it for nothing that we have celebrated the groundbreaking scholarship of Yehezkel Kaufmann on the religion of Israel? Is it merely an intellectual game that we have played for a century now by calling such people as Mordecai Kaplan, Robert Gordis, Gerson Cohen, Abraham Joshua Heschel, Nahum Sarna, H.L. Ginsburg, Jacob Milgrom, and Yochanan Muffs our masters and teachers? Why do we study and get inspired by such teachings, and yet fear to teach them in turn to our congregations, preferring to present to them the simple – but misleading – formulation that the Torah is the word of God? And why would we even consider doing halakhah by appealing to an axiom of biblical inerrancy that undermines the very theology with which these revered teachers, and others, have gifted us?,
May 16, 2008 2:59 PM
How to de-brainwash yourself from a chareidi/orthodox upbringing_
evanstonjew likes to joke: 'You can take the Bochur out of Flatbush but you can't take the Flatbush out of the Bochur'. This is very true. A lifetime of Chareidi or even Modern Orthodox upbringing ingrains itself on the average person in very substantial ways.
Even those skeptics who are honest and unbiased enough to be able to see the truth still have a hard time in de-brainwashing themselves from the undelying charedi/orthodox thought patterns such as seeing everything in black & white, having no respect for any Jewish movement to the left of Orthodoxy, not really being comfortable with egalitarian minyanim and so on.
This problem also manifests itself culturally - when I lived on the Upper West Side I found it easy to spot the ex-Mirrers and ex-Chassidim who were trying to blend in. Their mannerisms, ways of talking, reactions to their environment, various chareidi cultural 'tics', were all easily identifiable.
Its one thing to change your beliefs. It's quite another to reverse a lifetimes worth of thought patterns, values, prejudices and culture.
There are some people however who don't find this to be much of a problem. They are 'cultural chameleons', able to blend in easily anywhere. I guess it's similar to the way that some believers are able to become skeptics and some cannot.
But what about those skeptics (or other ex Orthodox types) who want to change their underlying thought patterns and behavior to match their new set of (non) beliefs? I'm not talking about Chassidim who need help speaking English or going to college, I'm talking about regular Modern Orthodox people.
For example, I'm not comfortable listening to a woman layn, daven for the amud, or even a woman giving a shiur (gasp!). I know it's dumb but that's my background and it's difficult to get over it. Should I just accept that this is my personal comfort space, or should I work to change it? And if I wanted to change, how would I go about it? Should I seek out every women's shiur to attend, kinda like getting over arachnophobia, where the remedy is to have a pet spider? (I guess I have egalatariaphobia).
So, let's hear from some people who became Chozrim Bsheelah, and how they adjusted to their new lifestyle. Again, I don't mean how you went to McDonalds, but rather how you adjusted from being a chareidi/RW MO type to being a Mechon Hadar Reconstructionist Orthoprax type.
I actually heard of someone who decided to go OTD, and then went to the local Kiruv Rabbi to ask his advice on how to do it. I guess he figured that this Rabbi was an expert on cultural change, and that the lessons learned are generic enough to be applied in either direction. So, any BTs or Kiruv folks who want to weigh in with advice are welcome!
I would imagine the basic approach is as HaRav Nike says - just do it.,
May 16, 2008 2:43 AM
Chief Rabbi makes no 1 most influential on JC list, cousin makes top 30_
The Chief Rabbi made number 1 second year in a row on the Jewish Chronicle's most influential person w.r.t. British Jewry. Here's what they said:
It has been a good year for the Chief Rabbi, who turned 60 in March, and perhaps one of his best since taking office in 1991. Tens of thousands of copies have been sold of his edition of the Singer’s Prayer Book since its publication nearly a year-and-a-half ago. Extracts of his most recent book, The Home We Build Together — a critique of the excesses of multiculturalism and a recipe for social cohesion — appeared in The Times. Around 200,000 copies of his newly released double CD, Home of Hope, “a journey of music and words” to celebrate Israel’s 60th anniversary, have been distributed within the Jewish world with demands pouring in for editions in Hebrew and Russian. His musical choice for the discs, encompassing contemporary Israeli pop as well as chazanut —not to mention his appearance in a YouTube promotional video — demonstrates a rapport with younger listeners. At a time when religion has come under increasingly hostile attack from atheist hardliners, Sir Jonathan has consolidated his reputation as a rational and eloquent spokesman for people of faith through his broadcasts and newspaper columns. In an interview with The Times last year, he described himself as “the acceptable face of fundamentalism” — a reference to his Orthodox commitment. But it is a fundamentalism tempered by a highly cultured mind that opposes refuge in religious sectarianism and champions participation in the wider world. Few can match his gift for drawing insights from the Bible into contemporary society and communicating them to a broad audience. And unlike the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, whose remarks on sharia law had commentators frothing earlier this year, he has stepped well clear of potential banana skins.
Wow, books, albums, YouTube. What next? A world tour with Justin Timberlake?
Also, my cousin made the top 30 list, which is pretty cool. Well done cuz! And I have another close relative who is kinda influential too.
Damnit! I need to be influential. And not just on a blog.,
May 15, 2008 8:27 PM
Kannaim indicted for fraud! Don't give up!_
_
One of the foremost 'kannaim' in the Science & Torah debacle just got indicted for fraud (again!):
NEW YORK, May 8 (Reuters) - Two former principals of a New York-based mortgage lender surrendered to the FBI on Thursday after being indicted on charges of conspiracy and fraud involving Fannie Mae (FNM.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Credit Suisse First Boston (CSGN.VX: Quote, Profile, Research), a federal prosecutor said.
Lieb Pinter, 64, is charged with fraud in connection to the theft of $44 million of payoff proceeds for refinanced mortgage loans financed by Fannie Mae and serviced by Olympia, a now-defunct Brooklyn, New York-based mortgage lender.
Barry Goldstein, 59, is charged with fraud in connection with Olympia's sale of a portfolio of mortgage loans to Credit Suisse using falsified loan histories.
"Investigating and prosecuting mortgage-related fraud is a priority of the (U.S.) Department of Justice and this office," U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York Benton Campbell said in a statement.
Pinter is charged with conspiracy and wire fraud. Goldstein is charged with conspiracy and bank fraud. If convicted, each faces up to 30 years in prison.
The pair are expected to be arraigned later on Thursday before U.S. Magistrate Judge Joan Azrack.
Oops.
Shame it's not a federal offence to fraudulently insist that people believe in falsified fundamentalist histories.
Ironically, the views of this blog nowadays are about as diametrically opposed to the Science & Torah reconciliators as the Kannoim. Funny how things turn out.,
May 15, 2008 2:38 PM
Well, I guess that depends what the question is. Here's is what their web site says:
In June 2006, Rabbi Shai Held, Rabbi Elie Kaunfer and Rabbi Ethan Tucker, launched Mechon Hadar: An Institute for Prayer, Personal Growth and Jewish Study. The founders of Mechon Hadar have spent years teaching and building Jewish community, and have served as founders and leaders of Kehilat Hadar, an independent, egalitarian community committed to spirited traditional prayer, study and social action.
Sounds interesting. But is this Conservative, Reconstructionist, Modern Orthodox, Orthoprax, or what? Well, I always say you can judge a religion (and by extension an institution) by its people, so let's see whose in charge, and who teaches there.
[Note: The following analysis is based off the Mechon Hadar 'Staff' page on their web site. I will judge each person by their choice of educational facilities, and any other relevant information. I selected people semi randomly.]
LEADERSHIP
Rabbi Ethan Tucker: Founder
Semichah from Chief Rabbinate of Israel (Dati Leumi)
Yeshivat Ma'ale Gilboa (Dati Leumi)
PhD in Talmud and Rabbinics from the JTS (Conservative)
Verdict: Unclear. His father is Conservative Rabbi Gordon Tucker, who translated Heschel's TMS book. His mother is now Hadasah Leiberman (married to the senator). He sounds borderline Conservative / MO.
Rabbi Elie Kaunfer: Executive Director
Ordained at the Jewish Theological Seminary
Verdict: RW Conservative
Rabbi Shai Held: Scholar in Residence
Teaches at JTS
MA in Jewish philosophy from JTS
Verdict: RW Conservative
Aryeh Bernstein: Assistant Director of the Halakhah Think Tank
B.A. in Psychology from Columbia
B.A. Talmud from Jewish Theological Seminary (Conservative)
Yeshivat Ma'ale Gilboa (Dati Leumi)
Yeshivat Hamivtar (Modern Orthodox)
Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (LW MO)
M.A. candidate in Talmud at Yeshiva University (RW MO)
Verdict: Confused! Maybe originally Conservative now more in LW MO circles? (Hard to tell without specific dates).
Leadership Summary
Hmm, very confusing. Seems like borderline Orthodox/Conservative leadership. Maybe if we look at the faculty it will help.
FACULTY
Shoshana Cohen: Talmud Teacher
Brandeis University : Near Eastern and Judaic Studies.
MA in Ancient Jewish history at the Hebrew University
Midreshet Lindenbaum (LW MO)
Drisha Institute (LW MO)
Fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute (LW MO)
Verdict: Sounds LW MO to me.
Rabbi Miles Cohen: Teach Basic Torah Reading
Senior lecturer of Professional and Pastoral Skills at The Jewish Theological Seminary
Verdict: Conservative.
Steven Exler: Tanach Teacher
Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (LW MO)
Brandeis University: B.A. in Biology
Yeshivat Har Etzion (Dati Leumi)
Yeshivat Maale Gilboa (Dati Leumi)
Verdict: LW MO
Rabbi Amy Kalmanofsky: Parsha Teacher
Reconstructionist Rabbinical College
Verdict: Reconstructionist
Rabbi Ben Skydell: Teacher
Semichah from RIETS
Verdict: RW MO at one point. Unclear where he is now.
Shmuel Kadosh: Teacher
Nothing on the web page but I happen to know he was at YU/ RIETS.
Verdict: Choteh umachti es harabim.
Summary
The faculty is even more confusing. Everything from people with semichah from mainstream Orthodox institutions, to female Reconstructionist Rabbis.
So what kind of institution is this? Do they ever have debates about hashkafah? What is the common thread here? What's going on????????????????,
May 14, 2008 5:55 PM
Rav Schwab single-handedly destroys the Kuzari proof!!!_
Yus and Huh are really not going to like this one! (RJM will be OK since he doesn't hold of the Gedolim much anyway)
So the Kuzari proof runs something like this:
We know the Torah is true, because we have an unbroken chain of mesorah stretching back to Har Sinai, and we know our parents wouldn't lie to us.
The only problem is, not only do parents lie to their children (or rather are mistaken themselves), and not only do parents routinely pass mistaken beliefs and innacurate history to their children, but Rav Schwab actually recommends this practice to Orthodox parents and educators!
Money quote:
"What ethical purpose is served by preserving a realistic historic picture? Nothing but the satisfaction of curiosity..... we have to do without a real history book. We can do without. We do not need realism, we need inspiration from our forefathers in order to pass it on to posterity. And Torah-true "historians" do just that. "
Seems like a major Godol has inadvertantly destroyed the premier proof for the truth of Orthodox Judaism. Whoops!
Yes, yes. I know Rav Shwab was talking about historians giving accurate portrayals of Gedolim's behavior, not major historical events. But the point still stands - once he admits that ethics is more important than history, he has just put a huge dent in the credibility of this argument (or rather what little credibility was left, which actually wasn't very much to begin with). Because now, it is quite possible that Chazal (or someone somewhere along the Mesorah) realized that TMS wasn't quite true, but decided that in the interest of ethics they should pretend it is! Which is quite understandable really. And not only is this not a wacky suggestion, I genuinely think that this is probably the case.
[Hat tip: The Hedyot],
May 14, 2008 5:55 PM
Does really bizaare co-incidence OR really unique co-incidence = Must be God did it?_
Another favorite argument of the believers is as follows:
TMS / ANE History / The hanging of Ten Nazis on Purim in 1946 is so amazing / unique / bizarre / co-incidental that God must have done it.
The problem with this argument is that bizarre, unique and coincidental things DO happen. In fact, by the laws of statistics, bizarre, unique and coincidental things MUST happen, I would say about 5 to 10% of the time, if you look hard enough.
So far, RJM Yus, J and all the rest have only come up with a few bizarre, unique and coincidental things about OJ. And honestly, for a religion that's about 3,000 years old, finding 3 or 4 bizarre, unique and coincidental things isn't that amazing. I would actually have expected quite a few more. Several hundred bizarre, unique and coincidental things to be exact, over the course of 3,000 years.
But to prove OJ, we need more than just bizarre, unique and coincidental things to happen. We need truly IMPOSSIBLE things to happen. And so far, I haven't seen any proof of any.
I created a graph for this last week. Here it is again. As you can see in the graph, very improbable things Do indeed happen, just not very often. Impossible things though don't ever happen. And that's what makes them impossible!
May 14, 2008 5:55 PM
Does lame argument + lame argument + lame argument = good argument ?_
One thing we have discussed a couple of times is whether a bunch of weak arguments added together makes a strong argument, or just another weak argument.
In my frummer days, I once posted that when you take all the arguments for OJ together (mass revelation claim, original monotheistic religion, amazing history etc etc), even though individually they are all weak, taken together they add up to a strong argument. One skeptic famously responded: '0+0+0+0=0'.
But I think this whole premise is flawed. This is a complex subject, and the way I look at it is that you have to consider ALL the ‘data points’ for and against, all the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’. After you have considered ALL possible arguments, then you evaluate as objectively as possible, use reason and logic, and then (hopefully) you arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. This is my method.
So, I agree with the believers that we need to look at all the arguments together. And I agree that mass revelation + unique history + original monotheistic religion + all the rest does add up to a stronger argument than any of these arguments by themselves.
BUT
the fatal flaw in the believer’s arguments is obvious:
Just like you add up all the ‘for’ arguments, likewise you have to add up all the ‘against’ arguments! And there’s quite a few of those.
The believers though tend to avoid doing this. They have a few approaches:
1. They just ignore all the ‘against’ arguments, or downplay them. Most kiruv books do this. And then you have people like Chief Rabbi sacks who are amazing spinmeisters and can make anything sound good. I bet the Chief could spin Wahabiism and make it sound uplifting.
2. They have kvetchy answers to the problems (Why does the Torah look like a composite, human document? You can’t ask questions on God’s writing style!).
3. They assume the Torah is true as the basis for all their 'for' arguments, either overtly e.g. ‘The Mesorah is unbroken because Chazal said so’, or covertly e.g. ‘How could Monotheism have suddenly sprung up out of nowhere?’ (answer: it didn’t, it was a slow progression from polytheism to henotheism to monotheism).
Ultimately, I find that the following methodological difference is apparent.
Skeptic’s methodology:
Objective Facts + Objective Reasoning => Conclusion
i.e. They arrive at their conclusion AFTER considering all the arguments for and against.
Believer’s methodology:
Foregone Conclusion (based on emotions, loyalty etc) => Subjective ‘Facts’ + Subjective 'Reasoning'
i.e. They start with their conclusion (that TMS/OJ is true) and THEN try to construct arguments which lead to that conclusion.
It would be interesting to see if any believer would have the cojones to try and objectively evaluate all the arguments AGAINST OJ. I have never seen any of them do this, but I have seen skeptics do it (for example, I have a few posts about the strongest arguments FOR Judaism, around July 2006 I think).,
May 14, 2008 12:53 PM
Just when I thought I was over you, oh baby, those fallacious arguments come crashing though…._
_This happens every time. Just when I decide to live and let live (da da da da), some crazy believer comes along with a bunch of ridiculous arguments that I can’t resist addressing.
Last night was a veritable goldmine of such arguments, from Yus and Huh?. I would love to know what RJM thinks of these people. He is always suspiciously absent from these kind of debates. My guess is he’s embarrassed, but doesn’t want to let the side down.
Anyways, here is a short list:
Fallacy 1: Other religions only have a revelation to one person (or small groups of persons), but Judaism has a revelation to 600,000 people! How could 600,000 people have been deceived like that?
Answer: There was never any revelation to 600,000 people, and 600,000 people were never deceived like that. There was a small revelation myth, which 500 years later grew into a bigger story about people’s ancestors. There is a huge difference between 600,000 people claiming to have seen something, or people 500 years later claiming that 600,000 people saw something.
Fallacy 2: Okay, but how could you deceive a whole nation about what their ancestors saw? Surely they wouldn’t have believed it unless they heard it from their parents. And yet the entire nation of Israel believed it!
Answer 2: Firstly, the entire nation of Israel did NOT believe it. Tenach is full of stories of idolatry etc. Could be the majority of people did NOT ever believe it, but we don't hear about such people since they assimilated. (Just like today, the vast majority of Jews don’t believe it). Secondly, the belief only spread HUNDREDS of years after the supposed event. People back then had no clue about ancient history (we know more about it today than they did then). There was no TV, no newspapers, no nothing. Just oral transmission. If the priests and community spread a story, people believed it. There are thousands of examples of ancient cultures all believing the most ridiculous things. (Modern cultures too) It is FAR more likely that gullible people were misled into believing some false mythology than any other alternative.
Fallacy 3: My parents wouldn’t lie to me. And they heard this from their parents, all the way back to Sinai. It’s an unbroken chain of Mesorah! No other religion has this.
Answer 2: Firstly, the Mesorah is probably broken. There are stories in Tenach about things being entirely forgotten for hundreds of years. Who says it’s an unbroken chain? Why the Mesorah of course! So the Mesorah tells you that the Mesorah is reliable because the Mesorah is unbroken! Ever hear of circular reasoning? Secondly, the entire argument is incredibly poor. No one is accusing your parents of lying, just that they are mistaken. Since most (if not all) religions are false, this would be a good assumption.
Fallacy 4: How can you not trust your parents? Do you not trust them about you being a legitimate child etc?
Answer 4: Most parents don’t lie about their parenthood. If we lived in a society where most parents did indeed lie (or were mistaken) about this, then yes, we would probably doubt them. For example, there are certain segemnts of modern society where fatherhood is much debated. (See Jerry Springer for more details). However even believers agree that most religious beliefs are wrong, so it makes sense to doubt parents about religious beliefs, since the statistics in this case are undeniable.
Fallacy 5: The story of mass revelation being a myth is so amazing. Such a thing never happens. How can you make such an amazing claim without any proof? Aren't you transgressing your own maxim that amazng claims need amazing proof?
Answer 5: Firstly, it’s not so amazing. We have plenty examples of all sorts of fantastic ancient myths that people believed, even mass myths (global flood, the Aztecs etc). Within the three ‘Abrahamic’ faiths, it is true that we are the only one with a mass revelation story. However all this means is that we have a better story than the other two. That’s it! Doesn't make it any truer. Also, the Jewish story was claimed to have happened 3,000 years ago, and that claim was only made 2,500 years ago, before there was even much writing. Xtianity was 500 years later, and Islam a 1000 years later. By that time it would have been too difficult to fake a mass claim.
Secondly and more importantly, we don’t NEED any proof that the myth grew. It’s certainly a possibility, and it’s not a miraculous possibility, it’s an understandable possibility. So, given the choice between a natural possibility, and a supernatural possibility, it makes sense to pick the natural one. You don't ever pick some super natural explanation if there is a perfectly reasonable natural explanation.
Fallacy 6: It doesn’t matter that the Torah looks complex, confusing, multiple texts etc. It was written by God, so it doesn’t have to follow normal writing rules.
Answer 6: Sure, if it was indeed written by God, then fine. But we have no evidence it was written by God. Instead, it looks exactly like you would expect an ancient text to look. It has Summarian style ancient creation myths (modified to be monotheistic of couese), Hammurabi style law codes, and all the other usual stuff. Plus lots of duplicate passages, many contradictions, etc etc.
Fallacy 7: Sure it looks like other texts, 'Dibrah Torah Keloshon Bnei Odom'. But that's how God writes!
Answer 7: Maybe so. But again, without any evidence that God wrote it, there's every reason to believe that man wrote it, just like all the other 99.9999999999999% of books in the world.
Fallacy 8: Let’s say Har Sinai happened. What evidence would be left today? None at all, except a legacy of descendants from the original people saying it happened. And that’s exactly what we have today!
Answer 8: Maybe so. But again, without any evidence that God wrote it, there's every reason to believe that man wrote it, just like all the other 99.9999999999999% of books in the world. The bottom line is there's no evidence that God wrote it, and no good reason to believe so.
Update: And here is the best one of all, from huh?
Fallacy: Other religions being false don't disprove Judaism. Other religions could well be historically true, e.g. Jesus was resurrected, they are just theologically false. We have a stronger 'theological' claim than they do.
Answer: I don't even know where to start with this one! How can a Navi Sheker get resurrected? Once Jesus was dead, he would be in gehenom, roasting in boiling kaki. How could he resurrect himself?! Does a Navi Sheker have powers after he's dead?! Unbelievable.
Update: Seems that huh? meant that Jesus never really died, he managed to escape death from crucifiction by a miracle, and then being buried alive for 3 days another miracle etc. But, if all these false miracles are possible, then maybe the whole Sinai thing was a false miracle? All Moshe needed to do was get some thunder and lightening and a scary god voice. Doesn't seem that much more 'miraculous' than Jesus doing a resurrection stunt.,
May 13, 2008 12:04 AM
You Know That Thing I was Telling You About_
Remember that thing I mentioned a while back which happened but I couldn't blog about it? Well, it happened again last week, but this time I can spill the beans.
Yes, it was the new Rabbinic Fellowship that Rabbis Angel and Weiss are planning to start. They had a secret conference a few months ago, and last week they had a more public conference (though it was by invitation only so I couldn't go).
These people, even though they are a bit fundie, have my full support. American OJ is going off the deep end, with the RW giving in to the crazies in EY. It's about time someone started to push back a little.
Also, I heard something quite interesting. At the conference last week in West Palm Beach, one of the Rabbis got up and said that OJ should embrace (or at least accept) critical Bible study. Can you imagine an OJ which accepts the DH? No, me neither. But still, I think that's a welcome development.
So here's my philosophy of Judaism in a nutshell:
Meaning, Morality & Spirituality. That's what it's all about. All the rest is motivational, metaphorical and allegorical. I'm fine with Chareidim, Reconstructionist, whatever. Whatever floats your boat. Whatever gets you through the night. It's alright, it's alright.
And that's why I am pushing for a new brand of (semi) Orthodoxy which keeps (most of) the prax, but reconstructs (most of) the dox. Will it last for hundreds of years? Maybe not, but so what? I'm concerned about me, and my kids. And possibly my grandchildren. But life is short and you can't worry about your grandchildren's lifestyles too much. Especially when your eldest kid is in kindergarten.
I would really like to move on from debating the fundies, because it's a waste of time. The truth (about the truth) is obvious, and life is too short to debate people who can't be honest, and are too swayed by obvious bias, and can't even admit to their bias.
However, in order to create a space for ourselves, I feel we need to convince people that we have a case. This is for two reasons: (1) So that we get more followers, and (2) So that even the believers will become more tolerant of our goals. And this creates a dilemma which I have never fully resolved.,
May 9, 2008 1:11 AM
Hirhurim asks why be Jewish?
Gil's opinion, in short:
Argument from rational proofs: Not convincing.
Argument from duty and loyalty: Not convincing. (take that Yus)
Argument from beauty & continuity: Convincing!
He ends with the following comment:
Will it [i.e. the argument from continuity] convince people to be Orthodox and not heterodox or just moderately affiliated? Perhaps but not necessarily. It will pique their interest and then it is the job of the Orthodox community to demonstrate the beauty of Orthodox life and the continuity it represents with the past and the future.
Sounds like an argument for Orthopraxy, not Orthodoxy.
Still, I basically agree with him. My main motivation for sticking with OJ is that we have been going on for 2 to 3,000 years and it's quite some story. Being a goy is boring, and being reform will basically mean your grandkids become goyim. So if you want your grandkids to be part of something unique (and crazy and annoying and expensive and often mortally dangerous), then stick with OJ!
But if you don't, then I guess you probably shouldn't.,
May 8, 2008 11:11 PM
Believer: ANE History is so improbable, TMS must be true.
Skeptic: How is it so improbable?
Believer: Well it only ever happened once!
Skeptic: Not true, there are plenty of examples of claimed mass revelations or similar.
Believer: But none of them involved hundreds of thousands of people or happened just like Har Sinai.
Skeptic: Fine, So Har Sinai was improbable enough to only happen once then.
Believer: No, it was so improbable that the best explanation is that God did it!
Skeptic: No, it was so improbable that it only ever happened once.
Believer: It couldn't have happened
Skeptic: But it did!
Believer: Yes, but only because God did it!
Skeptic: How do you know that?
Believer: Because it was so improbable!
Skeptic: Sorry, only impossible things need God. Improbable things don't.
Believer: Not true. Improbably things must be done by God too.
Skeptic: But how do you know that?
Believer: Because they are so improbable, the only reasonable explanation is that God did it!
Skeptic: How can a 'reasonable' explanation be that some super-natural entity that nobody has any solid evidence for did it? Isn't that even MORE improbable than the event itself?
Believer: Divine revelation is not improbable, it's highly probable.
Skeptic: Why do you say that? There's never been any divine revelations, so that makes it highly improbable.
Believer: No, there was one historical event of (mass) divine revelation, so it did happen once.
Skeptic: But you could say the same thing without bringing God into it. There was one FALSE CLAIM of (mass) divine revelation, so it did happen once.
Believer: Yes, but it couldn't have happened without God!
Skeptic: But how do you know that?
Believer: Because it was so improbable!
Skeptic: Good grief, you're nuts.
Believer: Yeah well you're an aspie.
May 8, 2008 10:11 PM
_
An unusually high number of skeptics seem to be techies, computer or science nerds. I don't think this is a coincidence. Check out this article on how there are more people in IT with Aspergers syndrome and mild autism. Money quote:
"The [Asperger's] person usually has a strong desire to seek knowledge, truth and perfection with a different set of priorities. ... The overriding priority may be to solve a problem rather than satisfy the social or emotional needs of others."
In a similar vein, many famous spiritual, mystical or 'prophetic' experiences were likely due to schizophrenia, drugs, or possibly the breakdown of the bicameral mind.,
May 6, 2008 12:31 AM
_I saw 'The Truman Show' when it came out, ten years ago. Last night, I happened to watch it again. Ten years ago, I thought it amazing, how someone can live in an artificial world and not even realize it. Watching it again ten years later, it suddenly hit me how incredibly ironic that moment was in reality: watching a movie about a man living in an artificial world, and all the while living in an artificial world myself. Oh how we all accepted the reality of the world with which we were presented.,
May 4, 2008 12:27 AM
Evanstonjew wrote:
"Both sides in the current debate are engaged in a sort of disavowal of what they really know, and a refusal to see the other from within the other's framework, hence the interminable nature of the conversation.
The believer cannot allow that today, circa 2008, for most Jews there really is no need for any proof that the dogmas of OJ are false. Everything we know points in this direction, one has a hard time to know where to begin. If a proof of TMS turned out to be irrefutable, it would make no difference. This failure to acknowledge secular Jews has no clearer expression than the tinok shenisbah doctrine used to judge the halachic status of the non-frum. As in the Lionel Trilling short story if Eliyahu Hanavih showed up at a secular Seder they would give him his cup and kindly ask him to leave. Simply put if it the dogmas of Torah are true, our current view of the world is totally incoherent, which is bottom line an unacceptable possibility..
Conversely the religious skeptics can't /won't acknowledge that for religious people it is pretty much the other way around...everything THEY know points to the truth of Torah. "Who am I davening to every morning if not to God? Why am I spending $15000 to go away for Pesach if I could eat chametz? ..." The coherence of their practices and life commitments depends on their being a framework within which it all makes sense. There is no more reason to prove why I learn daf hayomi than why I have breakfast. One need not prove those preconditions that guarantee I am not cracked, just as we need not prove that there are other sentient beings in the world.
Acknowledging the other is more than an intellectual task; it is a human emotional problem and raises issues on the limits of empathy, who I want to admit into 'my' world, who I want to care about. Much easier to talk about truth and proofs than to find the world of the Edah Hacharedis and humanistic Judaism inside oneself. It is a lot easier to disavow one or the other or even both."
So, a somewhat PoMo comment. I guess in a sense it's true: we are all human, and history is littered with the debris of failed theories which at one time seemed so obviously true, so how can any of us claim to have figured out the emmes? On the other hand, science and reason work so well, and are such an integral part of the world, it seems impossible to imagine that the whole enterprise could be so wrong as to make any Fundamentalist religion true. On the other hand, that could be just a great example of being so entrenched in a worldview that it's impossible to escape from it. Arggggggh, PoMo is so annoying!
I still think fundieism is bs though.,
May 3, 2008 10:27 PM
Bemokom she'atheists omdim, afilu tzaddikim gemurim ayn yocholim laamod_
A YCTish Rabbi gave a drashah in shul today.
He said imagine if driving over the speed limit was assur (ok it might be assur as dinah demalchusah but let's ignore that wrinkle for now). Frum Jews would never speed! In fact 'Kosher Cars' would be invented which wouldn't allow you to speed. And more machmir people would always remain 5 miles below the legal limit, just to be sure.
He then contrasted this with the statistics that 100,000 people a year die in US Hospitals from Hospital aquired diseases such as MRSA, often due to physicians not washing their hands properly. Since not washing wasn't 'assur', Physicians tended to rationalize their behavior and not always wash.
His point was that 'assur' is a powerful concept for frum people, and made us 'stick to the rules' and 'not cheat' even when nobody is looking, and what a shame it was that the secular world has no concept of 'assur'. I suppose this is kind of true, but the reason behind this difference is obvious.
Frum people believe that God is watching their every move, and they will be punished or rewarded depending on what they do. Therefore they stick to the rules. At least in theory. In practice many people are able to rationalize. Plus LW MO don't stick to the rules anyway. But I digress. You can't ask kashyes from reality onto a sermon!
But imagine if every car had a police camera in it, and the second you went over the limit you got a ticket! People wouldn't break the rules then! Conversely, imagine if we believed that between 2-4pm every day God took a siesta, and nobody was watching you, and anything you did has no repurcussions whatsoever from a religious perspective.
So clearly, the concept of 'assur' is not some magical mystical concept, but rather it's very simple. When people believe that an all powerful Diety (or the local cops) are watching and judging their every move, they're going to be a lot more careful about what they do.
This is why it seems to me that moral Atheists are the true tzaddikim in this life.
I mean, doing mitzvos when you truly believe that God is watching your every step, and will punish you or reward you for all eternity depending on how you act is one thing.
But being a good person when you know nobody is ever watching you, there's no purpose to life at all, and when you're dead that's it? How can anyone remain motivated like that? Seems to me that Atheists who are good people are mamash unbelievable tzaddikim, and that God fearing tzaddikim are nowhere near on that madreigah.,
May 3, 2008 10:27 PM
The schizophrenic nature of this blog_
Someone commented last week that this blog was a little schizo - and indeed it is. There are two major themes running through it, or maybe even three of four.
Theme A: 'What is the truth?' is a no holds barred discussion of what is the truth, or at least what is the best approximation to the truth that we can reasonably get to. In this discussion, I have played various roles, starting out as RW MO, moving to LW MO, and (for now) settling on total skeptic. Total Skeptic is a great role because it's quite easy to win all the arguments. Having said that, on a personal level, I would still like for OJ to be true, because Olam Habah sounds a lot better than death, and also doing the Mitzvos with true Kavanah is more fulfiling than doing them with Orthopraxish Kavanah.
Theme B: 'How shall we live?' assumes that the major doctrines of OJ are false (nobody as of yet has produced any solid reasons for why this assumption is false so I think it's a pretty safe assumption) and therefore the question arises 'What next?'.
'How shall we live?' is not a general universal question, because everyone is different and there is a different answer for everyone. 'How shall we live?' is 'How shall we live?' We, those of us who are in Orthodox communities, and who have realized that some or all of the major tenets of OJ are probably not true. How shall we live?
Shall we become secular? Shall we try out Conservative or Reform Judaism? Shall we attempt to persuade our friends and families of the truth? Shall we shout it out from the rooftops (or blogs), or shall we keep it a deeply buried secret? Shall we give up on OJ completely, or try and find a new theology which makes sense? How shall we live?
Theme C: 'LW MO Commentary' is where I provide commentary on the issues of the day from a LW MO perspective. This might seem strange considering Themes A and B above, but the fact is that (for now at least) I affiliate communally with LW MO, and occasionally like to voice a LW MO perspective on current affairs and other issues.
Theme D: 'Existential Angst' discusses the various existential angsts that can befall a person in this day and age, sometimes but not always linked to religion. This is where I like to discuss general philosophical issues, without having to feel tied down to any religious ideology.
Recently, there's been a lot of Theme A. I'm not sure why, I just blog whatever happens to be on my mind.,
May 2, 2008 2:39 PM
RJM wrote:
"When you are prepared to stop psychoanalyzing and start discussing content patiently, deliberately and with attention to actual sources, please let me know and I will be glad to participate."
Deal.
So let's start here.
Do we all agree with the maxim that amazing claims require amazing evidence?
i.e. That there is a direct correlation between the 'amazingness' of the claim and the amount of evidence required for it? This seems intuitively correct to me.
Update: I need to re-formulate the expression better. Please use this formulation:
Statistically unlikely claims require stronger evidence than statistically likely claims.,
May 2, 2008 9:55 AM
We often talk about bias in the believer's arguments, but I don't recall any systematic analysis of this topic, so it's time to get more detailed. Bias manifests itself in a number of distinct ways. It is important to realize that we are not talking about dishonesty or deliberate conscious bias (at least not in most cases), but rather a subconscious bias which the believer may not even be aware of.
I. Ways in which bias manifests
1. Downplaying the amazingness of the claim
Amazing claims require amazing evidence. This seems like a fairly intuitive maxim, and I think even the believers agree to it (though no doubt when they start losing an argument they will attack even this maxim). However when it comes to the claims of religion, the believers don't find the claims to be so amazing.
For example, claiming that a God (or the God) wrote a book is an amazing claim, there's no doubt about that. Why is it an amazing claim? Because we've never seen a God, and we've certainly never seen a God write a book! But even more so, even the believers will agree that God(s) don't write (or dictate) books every day. In fact the OJ believers are distinct from Islam and Christianity in that say only one book ever in the entire 15 billion year history of the Universe was ever (and will ever) be written (dictated) by God.
So by any account, saying that any one particular book was written by God is a seriously amazing claim. However the believers, coming from an a-priori position that God wrote the Torah, don't appreicate this at all. To a believer trying to justify their belief, TMS is just a normal claim, not that special.
I even experienced this first hand in a phone debate with RJM. I said that TMS was an amazing claim, and RJM responded that it wasn't! But when pressed, he didn't have a good explanation for why it wasn't that amazing.
2. Up-playing the amazingness of the evidence
In conjunction with the downplaying of how amazing the claim is, the believers equally 'uplay' the amazingness of the evidence. For example, RJM will argue that Monotheism and the other aspects of the Torah's teaching are so amazing, must be God did it. But no other experts see it that way. Sure, Judaism is somewhat unique, but so are lots of things. I was talking to a frum guy who is going OTD the other day, and he had an interesting analogy - he said he sees uniqueness as a bell curve - some things will be very not unique, most will be somewhat unique, and of course a few things will be extremely unique. The people at the unique end of the bell curve may be astounded at how unique they are, but the laws of statistics will say that someone must occupy that position! Anyway, however unique our history may be, it's a huge leap (of faith) to get from 'this is amazingly unique' to 'must be God did it'. But of course the ' this is amazingly unique' bias, coupled with the 'this is not such an amazing claim' bias, enables the believers to make that leap.
3. Highliting all the good things
A common bias seen amongst all religious believers is the tendency to focus excessively on all the good aspects of religion. For example, Chief Rabbi & RJM are both masters of positive spin, enabling any aspect of Judaism to be spun to sound great. There are so many examples of this I don't even know where to start. One recent example: RJM arguing that only Judaism has amazingly deep legal complexity. Now to the unbiased fellow, this hardly seems like a good point. On the contrary, this seems like a very, very bad aspect of Judaism. But of course with some positive spin, it can be made to sound good. I think this problem is also exacerbated by the fact that genuine spiritual leaders are often very positive, optimistic, spiritual types, who genuinely always do see the good in everything, and are reluctant to see the problems. While this can be a good character trait, it can also have very bad side effects.
4. Conveniently ignoring all the bad things
This bias goes hand in hand with the above bias. Believers always try and ignore all the bad aspects of religion. While skeptics are sometimes guilty of over-stating the bad aspects, I find believers to be guilty of trying to ignore them completely. All the questions from science, archeology, ancient history, textual analysis, etc etc, are downplayed completely. One Science & Torah reconciler I know dismisses all questions apart from Scientific ones with the excuse that these questions come from the soft sciences and therefore are not credible. Of course this believer's 'proof' for TMS is as soft as can be, but that doesn't seem to bother him!
These are the four main areas of bias which I have seen. No doubt the believers will respond that the skeptics are biased equally in the opposite direction. However I don't find that to be the case, because I see the skeptics trying to honestly evaluate the evidence, whereas the believers are interested in justifying their pre-set notions of what is true.
Now that we have identified the major areas of bias, we should look at the causes of bias.
II Causes of bias
1. Emotional Investment
This one is pretty obvious and clear. Believers have an incredible amount of emotion invested in their religion. It is incredibly painful and difficult to accept that your entire worldview and liferstyle are based on a lie (or untruth). Very few people have the mental abilities to accept this. Emotions can distort your thinking in strange and quite scary ways, ways which can be hard to identify. I see this in myself and other people all the time, it takes a lot of hard work to overcome this.
2. Halachic Requirement
Another serious cause of bias in any believer is of course the halachah, which actually forbids you from becoming a non believer. Most frum people respect halachah and have no desire to break it. So how can a genuinely frum person become a non believer! Many believers try to avoid this by saying that if they ever saw that OJ was false, then by definition they wouldn't care about Halachah. But this isn't how the mind works. Until a believer can be convinced, he always has the halachic pressure in the back of his mind, working against his ability to be objective.
3. Guilt & Fear
Although these are both emotions, I think they need to be called out, because of how powerful they are. Even today, when it is abundantly clear that the beliefs of OJ are not supported by the evidence, I still feel guilt and fear over the concept of non-belief. What punishments will I receive in Olam Habah for not believing?! Will I even get into Olam Habah? Will God punish me by making me sick? Why do I have a strange pain in my back?! When these things have been drilled into you since childhood it can be very difficult to escape from this way of thinking.
4. Community & Family Pressure
Going 'OTD' is as bad as marrying out in many circles of OJ. The pressure from family, friends and community can be immense. The stigma of going OTD can affect a person for life. Very few people, even hard core skeptics, can afford to go 'officially' OTD. It's simply not an option. And many of the believers who debate here are Rabbis and well known people in the OJ world, there is no possibility whatsoever that they could easily go OTD without any major repercussions on their livelihood.
So far I have identified ways in which bias manifests itself, and also the causes of bias. But do we know for sure that bias exists? Let's see.
III. Evidence of bias
1. Appalling Arguments
I know this is highly subjective, but the quality of the arguments coming from some believers is so bad it's mind boggling. The skeptics all seem to follow a similar path, and it is very rare (if ever) that I see a skeptic say something stupid. But the believers are all over the place. One believer once admitted to me that he just throws anything out that he can think of, to try and derail the arguments. I'm pretty sure that even RJM is quite embarrassed at some of the arguments offered by the believers. For example, Avrum68 argued yesterday that since I had never investigated homosexual behavior, that proves that I don't investigate all my beliefs. Mind boggling indeed.
2. Statistics
The statistics here are pretty clear. The number of people who switch religions due to skeptical arguments is extremely low (though of course plenty of people lose their religion). But each religion claims to have good reasons why they are the one true religion, so statistically if the arguments are all quite good, there should be an equal number of people switching every which way. But this never happens, because the believers of course have a huge bias to want to stay with their own religion. How anyone can deny this simple and obvious statistical fact is beyond me. Even RJM admitted to me that religious arguments are highly subjective and bias is a huge problem (though mysteriously he is able to be objective).
Summary
There is clear evidence of bias, and there are clearly motivations for bias. Unfortunately the bias argument doesn't get anywhere, because the believers just hit back and claim that the skeptics are biased. But show me evidence of skeptic bias! Show me motivation! Most skeptics I know continue to lead Orthoprax lives, so you can hardly claim they are motivated by their taavos. I think this issue is clear: The believers are heavily biased, while the skeptics are far less so. In fact, this may be the key distinguishing feature between skeptics and believers: Skeptics have an intellectual and emotional ability to rise above their subjective bias and evaluate things more objectively.,
May 1, 2008 11:34 PM
Skeptic: Prove to me that TMS is true.
Believer: Can you prove to me that you exist?
Skeptic: Don't be ridiculous!
Believer: Aha! Yet you believe it without proof!
Skeptic: But everyone believes that!
Believer: Yes, and without any proof at all!
Skeptic: So what's your point?
Believer: That its rational to believe things without proof!
Skeptic: OK, then I'll believe in Jesus then
Believer: No, no. I can prove to you from Chazal that Jesus is not Moshiach.
Skeptic: What all of a sudden proof is important?
Believer: No, loyalty is what's important
Skeptic: But loyalty doesn't show that TMS is true!
Believer: Wouldn't you be loyal to your wife if she was accused of murder?
Skeptic: Well, I guess so, but that doesn't prove she didn't do it
Believer: Yes, but since you are close to her, you have special knowledge that you know she is innocent
Skeptic: On the contrary, since you are close to her you are biased, and your testimony doesn't count!
Believer: Look, can you prove your parents are really your parents? Or that you wouldn't be happier being gay? Or that you love your wife?
Skeptic: Err whaaaa?
Believer: See? You believe lots of things without proof
Skeptic: But all the evidence shows that OJ is probably not true!
Believer: But there is no solid evidence proving that OJ is false!
Skeptic: But there is no solid evidence proving that OJ is true!
Believer: Of course not. But you can never have solid evidence. But you can go with other things, such as intuition.
Skeptic: But you just said the lack of solid evidence that OJ is false was a problem!
Believer: Yes it is, especially since I have evaluated all the experts and found them lacking
Skeptic: But you should trust the experts
Believer: No, you have to think for yourself
Skeptic: But I am thinking for myself, and I see that Judaism is false!
Believer: No, no, no. You must listen to the Gedolim and read the Rishonim.
Skeptic: But you just said I should evaluate the experts myself!
Believer: Sure, but you must have loyalty to the Gedolim and the Rishonim!
Skeptic: But why should I?
Believer: Wouldn't you be loyal to your wife?
Skeptic: Err, I guess so.
Believer: And yet you can't prove you love her?
Skeptic: Well, I suppose I can't prove it but..
Believer: So it's the same here!
Skeptic: Jesus H Christ you are frikkin nuts. What's the matter with you???? None of your arguments make any sense, you contradict yourself from one sentence to the next. It's like you will say anything to get to the outcome that you want.
Believer: You're so sad and miserable. Just accept frumkeit then you'll be happy.
Skeptic: But it isn't true!
Believer: But you can't prove that!
Skeptic: But you can't prove that religion is true either!
Believer: I don't need to prove it! I have a mesorah, my father wouldn't lie to me. And his father wouldn't lie to him, and so on back to Har Sinai!
Skeptic: But you have no idea who your great grandfather even was, he could have been a criminal for all you know!
Believer: Now you're just being skeptical for the sake of it. I trust my father, and there's every reason to believe he trusted his father, and so on all the way back
Skeptic: But every religion relies on tradition, it's not reliable.
Believer: Not true! I have studied Christianity, and they don't make a big deal about received tradition.
Skeptic: But that doesn't make the received tradition reliable. It's obviously myth formation.
Believer: No way! Judaism is so amazing, it can only have come from God.
Skeptic: What's so amazing about it?
Believer: The Torah is clearly amazing, in its depth and complexity.
Skeptic: But that's only because thousands of people have been trying to make it consistent for thousands of years. That's bound to increase complexity!
Believer: But look how amazingly it all fis together!
Skeptic: What are you talking about, it's a huge gigantic mess!
Believer: Oy, you skeptics can't see anything straight. Just let go of your negativity and use your inbuilt neshamah to see the truth!
Skeptic: But my inbuilt neshamah feels this is all nonsense!
Believer: Think deeply, you will see that the Torah is true, and all the miracles happened.
Skeptic: Look, there's no proof of any miracles ever having happened, how can you believe this nonsense?
Believer: There are miracles all around you! Every breath you take, every child that is born, the existence of the universe, it's all a miracle
Skeptic: Sure it's all amazing, but you don't need Torah to be true for all that to happen
Believer: Of course you need Torah! How else would man know what to do?
Skeptic: By following our inbuilt neshamah! Didn't you just tell me that?
Believer: Yes, but your neshamah can't tell you all the details, or all the chukim!
Skeptic: But I wouldn't need all the crazy details or all the chukim if it wasn't for the Torah!
Believer: Exactly!
Skeptic: Good grief man, you are not making any sense!
Believer: I feel sorry for you, so confused by all this skeptical nonsense. Just learn some Torah and you'll feel better.
[Skeptic onlooker: Jeez, you believers are nuts. You got thrashed completely in this argument.
Believer onlooker: What are you talking about? The believer totally destroyed the skeptic here!],
May 1, 2008 8:01 PM
Sigh.
An Intellefundie by the name of Anthony has raised the old chestnut of 'How do we know anything?'. We have discussed this numerous times in the past, but I guess that's never stopped me before, so here we go yet again.
How do we know we really exist? Maybe we are all in the Matrix, or in the imagination of an evil demon. Maybe reality is an illusion. Maybe I'm real, but you are all simulations. How do I know anyone else really has consciousness? Maybe only I have consciousness, but the rest of you are robots? Maybe when I see red, you see blue? Maybe what I experience as pain you experience as an itch? Can I ever really understand what you subjectively feel? And if I did would I be you? If I got cloned into two people, and then you killed the original, would I be dead? What is reality anyway? What's an atom? What's a quark? Is anything actually real? Maybe we are all just information in the mind of God? Or an alien. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Can God commit suicide? What happens when an immovable post gets hit by an unstoppable cannonball? How do we know God isn't just a congenital liar? How come you can wait and wait and wait for a bus and none will come, and then just when you give up and start walking, three will come together?
Well, there's been plenty of philosophical ink spilt on the above subjects, and I've read plenty of it. There's some cute philosophy books (mostly out of the UK) which go through all of these. A fun read. Especially if you're in 12th grade.
But all of this is irrelevant to us.
We assume we exist because we can think, and we also have sensory inputs. We see other people like us, so we assume they are the same. Could this be a false assumption? Yes, it certainly could be. But what possible gain could there be in thinking like this? Let's say this is all a dream. Would we act any differently? Probably not.
People assume they exist, even philosophers, and even radical skeptics. The only people who don't assume they exist are locked up in asylums. And the only people who bring up these subjects are Intellefundies desperate to try and score some points, and divert attention away from their lack of ACTUAL REASONS why their religion is true.
Now, starting with the assumption that we exist, can we please continue?
[I can see it now: The intellefundie response: 'See! All systems start with basic axioms which are unprovable! Mine are the ikkarim!'. Yes, yes. The only thing this proves is how intellectually bankrupt the intellefundies are.],
