Thursday, August 21, 2008

Existential Angst August '08

We apologize for the inconvenience

As I said a few days ago, this blog has gotten depressing. I rue the day I got skeptical. Maybe I can turn back the clock, maybe not. But anyway, it was fun at the time, but now I regret it all! And just to prove that this time I'm serious, I am disabling all comments and deleting all posts. So long.   

Aug 21, 2008 10:51 PM

Guest Post by Natye Erbok

Nothing puts some fundamentalists in a good mood like finding evidence that, at least to their minds, diminishes science’s unique qualities or standing in the universe. Discovering human-like tendencies in the great scientists or philosophers, discerning a hint of some form of bias in Academia – anything will do, so long as it has the desired effect of “proving” that Science is not that all that special. The always unspoken corollary is, of course, that, hence, Science can’t be trusted when it contradicts religion.

Over half a century ago, pretty much everyone noted the fascinating contradiction inherent in these efforts to diminish Science’s stature. On the one hand, men of religion are responsible for the moral values that include truth. Religious leaders, who are accustomed to enjoying near-universal credibility and adulation in their communities, are also often not, on a personal level, the most obsequious of people. In particular, they have little patience and open-mindedness towards those who challenge religious orthodoxy, as global flood “heretics” and documentary hypothesis practitioners will attest.

Yet, upon finding the slightest basis for challenging religion’s truths, these same truth-possessed individuals are more than eager to yield their value of truth. Apparently, when the drive for your religion to be the one true religion, the longing to be the most loved by Divine oversight implicit in such uniqueness, comes in conflict with the opposing impulse towards truth, the former prevails.

[I don't get this post]                                                   

Aug 21, 2008 10:51 PM

Atheist Turns Rabbi!

From the Forward:

Ruttenberg, 33, was still in middle school when she disavowed God — on Rosh Hashana, in her suburban Chicago synagogue, as she explains in her book. ...

Atheism is a label she wore loudly and proudly into her 20s. “This is what people believe,” Ruttenberg, a religious studies major at Brown University, would tell anyone willing to listen. “And this is what really happened.”  

Now a Conservative rabbi, ordained in Los Angeles at the American Jewish University (formerly the University of Judaism), Ruttenberg describes her circuitous route back to belief in contrast with the prevailing Christian notion that religious transformation can happen overnight — that a person can go from lost to found in one fell swoop. “That is the model in America, but for a lot of people it’s a long, complex, multihued process that doesn’t necessarily involve this light-switch on, light-switch off approach,” she said during a recent interview with the Forward.

But I think this may be not as dramatic as it sounds. Someone who turns atheist as a teenager is maybe just rebelling. In fact, any life decision made by a teenager is somewhat suspect. What the heck does a teenager know about life?

That's why when people like Deganev and Chardal say they were originally atheists in their teens I don't think much of it. People make credible decisions in their 30s and 40s, and sometimes in their 20s. But decisions made in your teens? Feh, it means nothing.

Of course such decisions can turn out to be major, can stick for life, and can be momentous in their ultimate impact. But when someone reverses such a decision, I don't know if it counts for anything special.                                 

Aug 19, 2008 11:52 PM

Has skepticism been good for you?

On my previous post about how depressing skepticism is, JewishAtheist commented that I was only looking at the downside, and not the positive side. But in all honesty, I can't think of a single good thing it has brought me, and I can think of plenty of bad things.

I rue the day I started thinking about all this stuff. I used to be happy being MO (LW in practice, RW in belief and self-image). Now I'm just miserable. It is possible I suppose that I would have been miserable anyway, due to any one of a number of other things, and I'm just unfairly relating everything back to skepticism. But it seems too much of a coincidence when considering the timing.

Of course your mileage may vary, and there are some skeptics who claim to be much happier with their new found lack of faith. So let's do a survey:

All things considered, has becoming skeptical improved your overall life situation or not? 

Aug 19, 2008 2:54 PM

Quiz: How frum are you?

I was just chatting to someone who supposedly is quite frum and he admitted he doesn't even daven every day. I was shocked. Shocked! I mean of course skeptics don't bother, but I assumed OJ people did. So please answer the following questions. I am thinking that the answers are all 'no' for most LW MO.

1. Do you daven Shacharit with tefillin every morning?

2. Do you mostly make minyan?

3. Do you say brachos before eating?

4. Do you only ever eat out in strictly kosher restaurants? **

5. Do you fast the minor fasts?*

Also please specify how you identify (MO, LW MO, Skeptic, Atheist etc).

* Note to AddeRabi: I'm talking about Tzom Gedalyah, Taanis Esther, Asara Btevet and Shiva Asar BeTamuz. Not Behab and Yom Kippu Koton!

** I'm not talking about Carvel. I'm talking about eating fish out.                                                                              

                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                                                                                                              

Aug 19, 2008 1:33 PM

Orthodox Rabbi became Conservative by mistake!

This is interesting. The Jewish Week has a profile on Rabbi David Lincoln, the Rabbi who caused a mini uproar rcently when he said that he wouldn't do business with Chassidim. He has semichah from Kol Torah & the London Beis Din, learned in Gateshead Yeshivah, but ended up as a Rabbi in New York's Park Avenue Synagogue, which is Conservative. Turns out that he only became Conservative by mistake:

After two years serving an Orthodox congregation in southern England, he looked west, to the United States. He contacted the United Synagogue of America, precursor to the present United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. He assumed the American organization was Orthodox, like the United Synagogue in his home country. Impressed by his credentials, United Synagogue officials offered Rabbi Lincoln some pulpit positions, and Rabbi Lincoln quickly learned about Conservative Judaism. Theologically, “I felt very much at home,” he says.

Also interesting is that his successor is Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove, who wrote his phd thesis on Rabbi Louis Jacobs. I wonder if Lincoln knew or was influenced by Jacobs?                                                                                                                        

                  

                  

Aug 18, 2008 11:43 PM

Not Helpful

I was watching the ABC special on Randy Pausch a few weeks ago, and I found it horribly depressing and not particularly uplifting. Poor guy, and 3 young kids too. Rachmana Litzlan. His wife said something interesting though, that whenever she caught herself thinking depressive (but realistic) thoughts, she repeated a mantra to herself 'Not Helpful'.

As I have posted before, reality is quite often 'Not Helpful'. While there are advantages to acknowledging the truth, in many cases many take comfort in faith, or outright delusion. People magazine has a tragic story almost every week, where someone claims to have only survived the tragic death of a loved one through their faith in God. Or Jesus. And I have no doubt this is true.

Skeptics will claim this behavior is 'bad', or 'wrong' in some way. But that's not necessarily true. We clearly have evolved to require these kind of self defense mechanisms. To imagine that everything will be ok. That, as it says in Shaarei Teshuvah, 'There is a chevrah of people who die, but not me.' People need denial and delusion, or else we would walk around all day terrified about our impending death.

I once actually had death anxiety, while in yeshivah. So I went to the mashgiach for help and told him I was worried about my future. He quoted me a maamar chazal: 'Don't worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow you may be dead, and then you will have worried about a world which wasn't yours'. Not Helpful!

When I first started this blog, it was fun. Then it got serious, and more recently, too serious. Not to mention a bit depressing. What's so depressing? Here is my top ten list:

10. Nobody truly knows anything about God. Seriously. Not even whether He exists. People who say they know cannot possibly be telling the truth. At best they have had some dubious personal experience which they decided to interpret in a certain way. Coming from a life where I took His existence for granted, I find this depressing. All that God talk and it's all just as likely fantasy. I still kinda believe though.

9. With God an unknown, there doesn't seem to be as strong a reason to pray. Yes, prayer can be uplifting and beneficial even for an atheist, but coming from an environment where davening meant davening to Hashem with a good chance he might listen, that's hard to adjust to. When I need help, I need to daven, and I expect a response.

8. The next casualty of non belief (or at least disbelief) is Olam Habah. Doesn't seem to be very credible, especially since it was a later invention. So this life is all you get, and then you die. And Daddy is not waiting for you in Jesus's arms. Or in Paradise with 72 virgins. Or in the front row of Olam Habah learning Baba Kama with R Akiva Eiger. (Ha! We win again. World's best Olam Habah)

7. What's further depresing is all the mountains of blood that have been shed, of people defending a religon which probably in't even true. What a terrible waste. Also the people who voluntarily gave up their lives so as not to convert, and the old couple from Russia who never had a child because there was no mikveh nearby.

6. Also depressing is all the time, money and angst wasted on doing ritual things that a normal person would never do. All the beautiful edifice of religion: art, poetry, books, halachah, thousands of years of effort, and all in pursuit of a key belief which isn't even true.

5. Another thing I find depressing is the fundies. Even though they are all hapy, somehow it's depressing to me that they are probably deluding themselves, and they don't even realize it.

4. My kids. I'm going to spend a small fortune teaching them a whole bunch of stuff which most probably isn't even true. And they may even figure that out for themselves, adding to the angst.

3. Without God, there's no hashgachah prattis. Any old crap can happen. That's scary. At least with God you were guaranteed that someone was in charge sonewhere, and that there was some kind of master plan with a just ending for all. I know that statistically the same number of people die in unfortunate accidents each year either way, but somehow with God it seems more planned. 

2. Witout God everything seems kind of pointless and meaningless.

1.Endless tedious arguing about MO vs Chariedim, OJ vs Conservative etc. Endless tedious arguments about the kuzri proof and similar. All fantasy. And a big waste of time.

And as for this post and blog. Not very helpful at all.                                                                                                      

Aug 15, 2008 9:34 PM

Why do Orthodox Jews chase proofs for God?

I've noticed something very strange. Very strange indeed.

Orthodox Jews writing about proofs for God. Hirhurim posting proofs for God. RJM concerned about proofs for God. This is very, very strange.

Why? 

Because the entire Orthodox religion is based on the idea that we have a mesorah that God gave us the Torah on Mount Sinai. Without the Torah, we would know nothing about God. Without the Torah, there would be no Orthodox Judaism. Without Torah Min Hashamayim, all these Orthodox Jews would be Reform.

The centrality of Torah Min Hashamayim to OJ is so huge that without it, there is no OJ. And of course Torah Min Hashamayim makes absolutely no sense at all if there isn't a 'Shamayim' i.e. God, to give it to you in the first place.

In other words, the entire Orthodox religion rests on there being a Torah from God. If you believe in TMS, that's all the proof for God you could ever possibly need. And obviously TMS is provable (at least to a reasonable degree) or else you wouldn't be OJ.

So why on earth are OJ's looking for other proofs for God? TMS is THE proof for God.

Could it be that actually they're not so sure about TMS?                                                                                              

                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                                                                                                              

Aug 14, 2008 6:16 PM

Let us make God in our image

_David Guttman wrote the following comment:

To know that there is one non-contingent entity to me is the basis of Judaism and is the meaning of Shema.To understand, define and "know" that Entity is what Judaism is all about. It is an endless, unattainable but necessary quest if an individual and humanity as a whole are to act in a meaningful way. That means to have a role in existence, a goal, know what it is and act accordingly. To me it is the basis for morality, ethics and right and wrong.

I know David is just quoting classic Rambam thought, but I have to say I disagree with the way he has said it. Nobody knows anything about God whatsoever, nor could they ever, so saying we need to go on this endless (and unattainable) quest to ‘Know God’ is clearly not correct. Rather, it's all about Meaning, Morality & Spirituality, or whatever other values you feel are important. We can project those things onto God if we want, but lets be honest about what we are doing.

And of course even the people who claim to be about 'figuring out God' are in reality doing that EXACT same thing, i.e. they are all projecting their own thoughts onto God.

We know this for a fact, since nobody actually talks to God or knows anything about him (including you, me AND OF COURSE the Rambam), so it's not possible that anyone is doing anything other than projecting their own morality and meaning, and whatever other values, onto something they are calling God.

Some people might claim that they have a ‘personal/spiritual intuition’ that God is X, or God wants Y, or God would approve of Z. But it’s amazing how this intuition always fits exactly into what this individually personally feels, and to which religious sect and sub-sect this individual personally belongs to! The statistics on this are undeniable.

I always find it funny when for example, a chareidi and an MO are having an argument, and the MO says something like ‘I can’t believe God wants women to be Agunot’, or the Chareidi says ‘ No way does God want us to study secular subjects’. They are both simply projecting.

And this post isn’t even being written from a skeptical perspective.

It should be obvious to anyone with sechel that this is true. For example, the Kabbalists and the Rambam can’t both be correct about God. If the Rambam is correct, then Kaballah is (mostly) avodah zarah, and vice versa. And it should also be obvious that the Rambam based his ideas about God after Greek philosophy, while the Kabbalists had a different set of influences, neither of them had any Mesorah from Sinai on this.

It’s obvious that what we say about God, is in fact an expression of what we believe, and of what we want to be true about God. We make God in OUR image.

This is the strongest proof I can think of for saying that all religious (and especially God) talk is really a ‘language game’. And that’s ok.

In fact, that’s very ok.                                                                                                                                                                  

Aug 14, 2008 12:59 AM

Atheism is not as rational as Ignosticism

Atheists are fond of saying that everyone is an atheist with respect to certain gods, for example we are all Thor-Atheists, and so they are just like us, with the exception that there is one more god they don't believe in. But this logic actually works against them, and here's why.

How many gods don't I believe in? Well, my knowledge of ancient mythology isn't that great, so maybe I don't believe in say, 10 gods. But consider a Chareidi who has excellent knowledge of ancient mythology and avodah zarah. Could be there's a hundred gods he doesn't believe in! Using the atheist's logic above, this Chareidi is actually more atheistic than the atheist is!

The point is, that when someone defines themselves as athiest, what they are really saying is that they don't believe in the God of the Bible. They are not making a statement about Thor, nor are they making a statement about all possible Gods, since they can't claim to not believe in all possible Gods, since all possible Gods have not been defined.

So really, all an atheist is saying is that he doesn't believe in a particular god, and in the West that typically will mean Bible-God. But, many frum Jews also don't believe in Bible-God, especially some radical Maimonideans. Do David Guttman and Jacob Stein believe in the same God? Hardly. Each is an atheist with respect to the other's God. Guttman has said many times that believing in Kabbalah-God is Avodah Zarah! And I'm sure that Jacob would say that Rambam-God is pure heresy.

Even an Atheist who swears that he believes in no gods whatsoever is still missing the point, because there's always going to be some (or rather many) God or god definitions that this particular atheist doesn't even know about, and claiming to not believe even in definitions of God that you don't know of is just not that rational.

A more rational position for atheists would be to define themselves as Ignostic, i.e. there is no definition of 'God' that they are aware of that they believe in. Not quite the same thing at all. And also, a bit more congruent with the Rambam.

                                                                                                                                                                                                              

Aug 14, 2008 12:59 AM

Are you S.A.D.? (Skeptical, Anxious, Depressed)

_I have posted in the past about the link between dopamine and skepticism. Higher levels of dopamine seem to lead to increased belief, suggestability and gullability, whereas lower levels lead to increased skepticism. If skeptics took dopamine supplements maybe they wouldn't be so skeptical. This got me thinking about what effect other brain chemicals (serotonin for example ) might have on skepticism.

Since beoming skeptical, I have become somewhat more anxious and depressed about life, the universe and everything. Not suicidal or anything like that chas vesholom, but the (potential) loss of olam habah, a God who answers prayers, and being a member of the chosen people is certainly something to be depressed about! So I have always assumed that loss of faith can (and probably should) lead to a certain amount of anxiety and depression, at least in the short term, until you get used to the new lifestyle and worldview.

However, maybe it also works the way around? Maybe depression can lead to skepticism? Not directly of course, I don't think someone who is depressed suddenly loses their belief in God or Torah MiSinai, but maybe depression can lead to a certain degree of existential angst, which can in turn lead to questioning the basics, which can of course ultimately lead to skepticism.

Quite a few skeptics that I know have anxiety issues, so maybe there is some link there. On the other hand, I also know a few skeptics who are perfectly happy being atheists, and in fact are probably happier now than when they were frum and hating it.

Occasionally I get commenters telling me to take drugs (antidepressants). For example, daat y is always telling me to take Prozac. I'm not sure if he's joking, if he's a psychiatrist or a doctor, or if he's a skeptic speaking from personal experience.

I once worked with a guy who was so incredibly calm, even under the utmost stress when everyone else was losing their cool. One day I asked him what his secret was, and he replied 'drugs'. I laughed, assuming he was joking, but he explained that he was in fact telling the truth, and was on anti-depressants, as otherwise he was always a nervous wreck. So I assume that if I was doped up on Prozac or something like that, the existential angst probably would not bother me so much (and maybe this blog would be over). Thoguh I don't think that being on Prozac could make a skeptic regain his faith.

So, maybe depression could result in someone losing their faith, but taking meds won't get it back. Whereas with dopamine, it works both ways?

As you can probably tell, I have no biology or medicine background. So it would be interesting to hear from anyone who has any personal or educated experience in these areas. Is there a link between skepticism and anxiety? Does skepticism make you anxious? Or does anxiety make you skeptical?

Maybe it depends on which religion you are in. Maybe OJ skeptics are more prone to anxiety because they have lost so much, whereas Mormon skeptics are much happier?

Tzarich Iyun, but this could be a great topic for a phd in neuro-psychology.                                                         

Aug 14, 2008 12:59 AM

No cucumber for you!

_Al-Qa'eda in Iraq alienated by cucumber laws and brutality

Al-Qa'eda is losing support in Iraq because of a brutal crackdown on activities it regards as un-Islamic - including women buying cucumbers.

Besides the terrible killings inflicted by the fanatics on those who refuse to pledge allegiance to them, Al-Qa'eda has lost credibility for enforcing a series of rules imposing their way of thought on the most mundane aspects of everyday life.

They include a ban on women buying suggestively-shaped vegetables, according to one tribal leader in the western province of Anbar.

Sheikh Hameed al-Hayyes, a Sunni elder, told Reuters: "They even killed female goats because their private parts were not covered and their tails were pointed upward, which they said was haram.

"They regarded the cucumber as male and tomato as female. Women were not allowed to buy cucumbers, only men."

Other farcical stipulations include an edict not to buy or sell ice-cream, because it did not exist in the time of the Prophet, while hair salons and shops selling cosmetics have also been bombed.

Response A: See? The chareidim are not so bad after all!
Response B: It's only a matter of time!                                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                                                                                                                              

Aug 11, 2008 9:07 PM

The Conspiracy of Silence

_When I asked 'Kenny' the other day if he had any suggestions for me, he replied that he's 'working on it'. Unfortunately, Kenny wouldn't or couldn't respond as to what exactly he is working on, or when we could expect to see version 1.  

In general, I don't insist that each of my commenters have their own personal theology before they CONSTRUCTIVELY criticize mine. I mean, I spend a lot of time debunking OJ, yet I don't have a good replacement.  BUT, I have ZERO patience for people who acknowledge all the issues, agree that they don't have any good solutions, and STILL criticize me! (I'm not saying that's neccessarily Kenny's deal).  Especially people who pretend everything is A-OK yet deep down admit there are serious issues.

It's almost as if these people are complaining

'We've all agreed to a conspiracy of silence on all this, so you should too. No fair that you get to vent but we have to keep quiet!'

Well, sorry boys, I'm really sorry, but I'm not joining your little conspiracy. I know you would like to shut me up but it aint happening. Could the public good be better served by me shutting up? I think that's entirely debatable. Some commenters (obviously true believers) say yes, many say no. We all have our fans and detractors, eh Kenny?             

Aug 11, 2008 9:07 PM

Religion: Communal vs. Individual

_It's a given to us that religion is a communal affair, not just a personal one. We daven with a minyan, we learn together in a shiur, we celebrate Yom Tov and Shabbos with community and family.

But what if religion was entirely personal? What if the religion itself insisted that all religious behavior must be done privately? Of course humans need social interaction, and some might even argue that the whole point of religion is actual societal and communal, and not personal at all.

But I've been thinking recently about how things might be different if more of religion was personal. Take beliefs for example, they are inherently a personal thing. Plus, when it comes to belief in God, what one person believes may be quite different than what another believes, since who can really define, explain or understand God anyway? Each person has a different (and ultimately wrong) personal conception of God anyway.

Maybe we should treat the external facets of religion (davening, shabbat etc) as purely social & communal institutions, whereas the real work and value of religion (character, dveykus, meaning, spirituality, beliefs etc) is something entirely private and personal (though often manifested by social behavior e.g. gemillut chassadim).

According to this idea, while communally we might say 'We believe in God', this has an entirely different real meaning to each individual personally, and that's the way it is supposed to be. According to this, having different ideas about things is not only bdi'eved ok, but actually lechatchilah, because that's the way it is supposed to be.

Speaking more generally, there is a 'shared language', but it is understood and expected that each person has their own interpretation and understanding of that language. The language and rituals are based on a symbol system, but each individual imparts a different meaning to those symbols.

This of course happens even today, within parameters. The way a kabbalist understands his mitzvah activity is very, very different than the way a rationalist understands it. A Maimonidean will think he is improving himself rationally by performing a mitzvah, while a Chassid will think the value is in making tikkunim in the olam hoelyonos. Even though they both perform the same act, the meaning and kavanna behind it are entirely different! Yet both can belong to the same community! (well, at least in theory).

This also explains much theology and hashkafah. The Rambam didn't get his unique hashkafah through the mesorash, he invented it all, because it made sense to him, on some personal level. Same for all other theologians, whether Rishonim, Acharonim or CHazal. When Heschel or RYBS writes a hashkafah sefer, they are trying to present their own personal beliefs, based in large part on their own personal experiences. This is why these hashkafah books are very rarely rationally argued, but instead make broad assumptions which are baseless. The authors are not arguing from reason, but rather from personal experience and feeling. And maybe that's the way it should be.

I think this idea might have some legs to it. Maybe it's even a solution in part to some of the issues we have been addressing.                                                                                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                                                                                                                              

Aug 11, 2008 9:07 PM

New Travel Mechitzah!

_Remember my question of last week?:

"There are thousands, even hundreds of thousands of people sitting in Kollel (all over the world, not just in Lakewood of course), and what are they all producing? Are there any great chiddushim coming out of all this learning? Any major new theologies? Anything at all of any interest or relevance?"

Well, here's the answer!:

A delegation representing the Rabbinical Committee for Transportation Matters was received by HaRav Chaim Kanievsky shlita at his home and received his blessings for success in the efforts to protect travelers from immodest entertainment on airplanes.

During the visit the delegation demonstrated their new folding mechitzoh designed to hide the main cabin screens from view in order to protect people from seeing inappropriate images.

After erecting the mechitzoh — which can be folded to 25 cm (10 inches) — on HaRav Kanievsky's table, the delegation members asked whether it appeared bizarre and would be liable to cause chilul Hashem, but he allayed their concerns, saying "it's a kiddush Hashem!"

They also asked him about non-Jewish travelers sitting behind them who complain the mechitzoh obstructs their view of the screen, but HaRav Kanievsky dismissed these concerns as well. [That was nice of him]

At the end of their visit HaRav Kanievsky said he was pleased with the solution the delegation presented to improve modesty on airplanes and blessed them for success. For information on flights without movies and regarding the mechitzoh call 057-3155613.

SO, rather than doing nothing, these people are actually inventing portable, travel mechitzas. The R&D effort on that must have been HUGE! I hope they patented it.

Still, I guess it's better than tax fraud.                                                                                                                                   

Aug 10, 2008 1:03 PM

Response to Kenny

_Someone called 'Kenny' asked me a question on my last post. We got into a whole debate, which was inappropriate for the comments section, since in fact there's a lot of history there which an Observer would not know about, so I deleted it all. But his argument, and the biases it exposes, are worth considering.

Kenny asked the following (I'm paraphrasing):

Almost every post here seems to be an attack on OJ. But your blog tagline is 'The struggle to live a meaningful, moral and spiritual life, in a (seemingly) meaningless, amoral and material universe.' How can you claim that is your struggle when all you do is bash OJ?'

What's interesting about this question (apart from the motives behind it which we won't discuss) is the inherent bias in the question. To Kenny, attacking OJ (or rather proving OJ false) is somehow incompatible with the struggle for Morality, Meaning and Spirituality (MM&S).

But of course the EXACT opposite is true. Since OJ is most likely false, then admitting such is EXACTLTY part of THE struggle for MM&S, in this post fundie world. I don't know why Kenny doesn't understand this. Perhaps Kenny thinks that even a secular MM&S would refrain from attacking fundamentalistm. But again, I'm not sure why Kenny would think that. From a secular MM&S POV, fundamentalist religions are almost all evil, and certainly have the potential for much evil.

And then of course there's the BLEEDIN OBVIOUS point that I'm OJ, have been OJ my whole life, live in an OJ community, am incredbly biased TOWARDS OJ, and consequently am naturally very conflicted about it, when I realized it all wasn't quite true. And considering that Kenny apparently has never himself been able to resolve this EXACT same conflict with any degree of honesty (if you have then let's hear it), his comment is particularly chutzpadick.

Here's a deal Kenny: You  seem to have some writing skills, maybe you even have a blog. (If not, I will be happy to let you guest post here). How about YOU explain your views on the global mabul, or 2 million people leaving Egypt, or the DH, or any one of the other myriad questions that cause people to lose belief in OJ? Let's see you put your money where your mouth is. 

Kenny (and others) often say, 'When will you stop bashing and start building?' But as Baal Habos asks, 'Building what?' I'm not sure what to build exactly. A few times I have posted my thoughts about building a non fundamentalist 'version' of OJ, but I continue to struggle with that, there are many unresolved issues there. And, if OJ is truly false, maybe there's no need for any struggle at all. Maybe we should all eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we will die. Maybe the struggle is whether to even bother in the first place? It's ALL part of the struggle. DUH.

What's even more galling here is that my entire beef with people like Kenny is their profound lack of honesty, so to be accused by such people of being dishonest is the height of chutzpah, but I'll leave that discussion to private email.

I think the only legitimate comment here was from Yodeah, who noted that my continuing obsession with OJ, after it is obvious to any clear minded individual that all fundamentalist religions are entirely unsupported, and mostly contradicted by all known evidence, is probably not healthy.

I'm not sure. Maybe this blog is a healthy catharsis, or maybe it has now become an unhealthy obsession. I would trust a therapist or a true friend who has MY best interests at heart to give me some advice on that.                   

                                                                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                                                                                                              

Aug 8, 2008 2:53 PM

Poor Theology over at Hirhurim

Well, I guess I should give him some credit, at least he tries.

After quoting the usual suspects, Hirhurim summarizes:

‘In other words, because we experience ourselves, other people and the world, we accept that experience as reasonable evidence of their existence. Similarly, we should take our experience of God as sufficient evidence of His existence.’

Yeah, except for two KEY differences:

1. Our experiences of ourselves, other people and the world is based on sensory perception of all the above. We see, hear and touch all these things. Plus to believe in our own ‘existence’, all we need to do is think.

However when it comes to something that can’t be seen, heard or touched (at least now nowadays), we might suspect that ‘experience’ really just means ‘beliefs/feelings’, and human history contains a very long list of very passionately held ‘beliefs/feelings’ that were completely false.

You can’t compare experience based on senses (which the entire world shares) to experience based on……what?

Now, we can get into a philosophical discussion about why sensory based experiences shared by the entire world are more credible than non sensory experiences shared by fewer, but do we really need to go there?

2. Religious ‘experiences’ are particularly suspect, since so many people have had entirely contradictory ones.

Now some people, (mostly kooks but not all), will insist that they have truly experienced God’s presence. Or Jesus or the Virgin Mary or whatever. What to do with such people? Well, since their ‘experiences’ are all mutually contradictory, and since their experiences mostly confirm their prior religious beliefs (or beliefs they have struggled with or even rejected in some cases), this would appear to be mostly wishful thinking, akin to past lives and alien abductions.

Of course there are some otherwise credible people who have amazing stories of being in God’s presence (or Jesus or the Virgin Mary), but life is full of mysteries; I wouldn’t take any of that too seriously. And if you do, which God does it validate? The God of Moshe, or Jesus?

Hirhurim then then quotes Shubert Spiro, that this 'experience' is only valid if 'the experience is compelling and cannot be ignored, it is not contradicted by further experience. '

I don't know what criteria would distinguish between 'compelling' or 'non compelling' experience, depth of feeling perhaps? So really deep feelings are more compelling than vague feelings? I guess. Then again, delusional people always have very deep feelings indeed.

But what does he mean by 'not contradicted by further experience'? All religious experience is contradicted by people who have the opposite experience. Perhaps he meant that it's not contradicted in you yourself. Well, since Muslems constantly experience the Muslem God, and Jews the Jewish God, that's not saying anything much. People tend to have consistent religious experiences, since people tend to stick with one religion. Though it would be interesting to survey converts who have experiences. Did they experience Jesus & Mary, and now just God? (Or the Lubavitcher Rebbe, depending).

Hirhurim ends off by quoting Heschel, that people couldn’t have imagined an entirely new concept like God, if He wasn’t real. Heschels says that people might imagine a mirage of a house, but that’s only because somewhere a house exists in the first place.

My objection to this was the fact that Heschel has no evidence for this statement. People make up shit stuff all the time, so why not this?

Then, thanks to Deganev, I realized a much better response.

People really can’t imagine something with no parallel to reality, that's true. And of course that’s exactly why according to the Rambam (and most others), nobody can really understand God, since there is no parallel to reality. And of course this is exactly why all conceptions of God are based on understandable concepts, like a King, or a Watchmaker or something. So Heschel’s argument clearly is wrong, since by definition the concept of God is based on something we do understand.

By the way, Heschel (and many other theologians) do this sort of thing all the time. I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve read a theology book and the author says this type of completely unsupportable statement as if its gospel truth. I guess that’s what you get with theology.                                                                                                                            

Aug 7, 2008 2:34 PM

Coming Soon – Kefirah Patrols!

Hirhurim’s recent post about Tznius Patrols got me thinking.

We all know that the greatest threat to Torah today (apart from long sheitals of course) is rampant kefirah. I’m even shocked myself at the level of kefirah I hear from friends and relatives.

Clearly what is needed is a Kefirah Patrol, modeled on the concept of Tznius Patrols. Tznius Patrols work well because the typical ‘patroller’ is someone very sensitive to tznius, someone who can spot a scantily be-sheitelled woman at 500 feet. We know what kind of people we are talking about here - perverts, who think of nothing but untzniusly dressed women all day long.

In a similar vein, the people best placed to spot kefirah are of course the skeptics. Skeptics are highly tuned to skepticism, and can spot skeptical tendencies in someone as soon as they begin to surface, often times months before the person himself even realizes how skeptical he is. I’ve seen this proven time and again in real life and on the blogs.

What would be the motivation for skeptics to patrol kefirah?

Well, skeptics are always looking for new recruits, and the way Orthodoxy is nowadays, even the slightest threat of kefirah infestation must be dealt with very seriously and promptly. And the only real solution is immediate removal of the infected body. So we get more recruits, and the Orthodox world grows ever more theologically pure.

It’s a win-win situation.

So here’s my plan for the next few weeks. At the Kiddush after davening, I will target suspected Kefirahnicks. I will sidle up to them, and engage in seemingly innocuous conversation. For example, ‘Hey Jeff, what do you think about that evolution stuff, eh?’ It will be pretty easy for me to spot potential skeptics.

But, in case our shul president is reading, don’t worry, I won’t destabilize the shul. I’ll stay away from the Rabbis.

[Note to president: This is a joke.]                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                                                                                                                               

Aug 6, 2008 7:12 PM

Holy Freakin Moly - Hevay Dan Kol Adam Lekaf Zechut

UPDATE: Apparently the Nifater suffered from tremendous physical pain, and may have been using Cocaine as a way to deal with that. Also, only faint traces were found. So my point below is probably not warranted. I actually know some of the family and they are good people, so maybe the only lesson here is that we shouldn't jump to conclusions.

NOTE: I thought the point of this post was obvious but I guess not. The point of this post is NOT to besmirch Chareidim, or the Niftar, who I know was a good person who gave a ton of tzedaka. The point is about meaning and drugs. We are all familiar with the rock star or movie star who has money, fame and anything they want, yet commits suicide or does drugs, because ultimately their life has no real meaning. That's no chiddush. But someone connected deeply to a life of Torah and mitzvot, who devotes most or much of his time to helping other people - that's supposed to provide ultimate meaning according to everyone, even secular philosophers! Yet clearly it didn't. I suppose you could argue that this was just a one off case, and nothing can be learned from it, or maybe it was just a Purim snort and he wasn't an addict at all. But this really caught me by surprise.

http://thejc.com/node/3808

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041830/Gods-postman-gave-away-millions-snorted-cocaine-died-80mph-Bentley-crash.html
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/Boruch+Dayan+Emmes/15912/UPDATED+9:00PM+EST:+Tragic+Petira+Of+R http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=A1YourView&xml=/opinion/2008/04/01/do0104.xml
http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com/archives5768/shemini/SHN68ardunner.htm

That's some crazeee sh**.

The point of this post is not to bash chareidim. But here is someone who supposedly had it all: money, nice family, power, influence, all the benefits of being mega-wealthy and successful.

Of course it's no chiddush that a mega-wealthy person takes drugs. Happens all the time. In fact a mega-wealthy person is more likely to be a crackhead, since he has everything you could want, and realizes there's a great big empty void in his life.

But conventional 'frum' wisdom has always held that this only happens to secular people. But a frum yid, someone with connections to the highest echelons of Torah & Frumkeit, such a person should have tremendous meaning in his life.

Wow.                                                                                                                                                                                                   

Aug 6, 2008 11:22 AM

The Real Problem with Lakewood

I see Hirhurim has a somewhat sarcastic post on a potential Vaad Hatnizus for Lakewood, saying that the problem is not women’s tznius per se, but rather the ostentatious behaviour of some Lakewooders, either with fancy houses, or boasting of their chiddushim.

He’s right, but he’s somewhat missing the mark too.

The real problem with Lakewood is that you have a huge community of 20 and 30 something males who do nothing productive. Nothing productive for their families, nothing productive for the general society, and nothing even productive for their own Jewish community, or the Jewish community at large. All this has been said many times.

But most amazingly of all, they aren’t even doing anything productive in the realm of Torah!

As EvanstonJew commented a while back, there are thousands, even hundreds of thousands of people sitting in Kollel (all over the world, not just in Lakewood of course), and what are they all producing? Are there any great chiddushim coming out of all this learning? Any major new theologies? Anything at all of any interest or relevance?

No! Mamash nothing. What famous sefer or chiddush can anyone recall from the last 20 years from the Kollel world? Anything?

Nothing.

All we get is endless compilations of halachos, and maybe some liteweight shabbas style drashos collections. Oh, and some copycat ‘self help’ style books, mostly ripped off the goyish press, but with a Jewish twist. It’s all a complete waste of time. (And of course anything truly innovative is banned as kefirah.)

Meanwhile, the few hundred or thousand people in Jewish Studies departments in Academia, plus some notable scholars in MO, are the ones producing new insights and some real Torah (or at least as real as Torah could be).

Lakewood Yeshivah is basically as waste of space. A holding pattern while people look to get married, and then another holding pattern while people kill the most productive years of their life doing essentially very little indeed.

(Plus of course they are instrumental in espousing fundamentalism, which is inherently a bad thing, but that’s a different discussion).

What are the reasons for this lack of productivity?

I think they include the following:

1. Low Bar for Entrance
Almost anyone can sit and learn in Yeshivah or Kollel. You don't need to be particularly good at anything.

2. No Pressure
In academia, there is a lot of pressure to do research, to get your PhD, to publish, to get tenure. Maybe after gettign tenure you can coast a bit, but at least during your most productive years (20s and 30s) you are actually being productive. In the Yeshivah / Kollel world, all you have to do is show up.

3. Stigma against anything new
Of course the biggest problem is that in contrary to academia (and to some extent MO), there is an inherent bias/stigma against producing anything really innovative. In fact if you did that, you would probably get banned.

4. Bad attitude
Many (not all) people in Yeshivah / Kollel have a bad attitude. This may be a 'gen-y' type of thing, but many people have a 'magia li' attitude. Magiah li to just sit in the Beis Hamidrash, drink my coffee, shmooz a bit, learn a bit, while my wife works and/or the Kollel / Shverre pays all my bills. Who needs to get a real job? Not me!

So what's the solution? We should go back to how it REALLY was in the heim. A very select group of true tzaddikim and scholars were supported in learning, while everyone else went out and got real jobs. (Plus 80% of them went OTD, but that's a different discussion).                                                                                                                                                   

Aug 5, 2008 1:28 PM

Hamas guy converts to Christianity

This is interesting. Though methinks he is a little naive:

" I don't give Islam a chance to survive for more than 25 years. In the past they scared people and in that way they prevented anti-religious publicity, but today, in the modern age, they won't be able to hide the truth any longer."

LOL.                                                                                                                                                                                                     

Aug 5, 2008 9:51 AM

Time to change the Kinnot

I think it’s funny that RJM and friends were asking for evidence for my theory on the BM. Your entire religion is founded on zero evidence, and you’re asking me for sources?! Isn’t it ironic.

Also, the fellow who suggested that Ezra is fictional is VERY highly qualified. I’m not saying he’s right, but he’s darn well qualified to have an opinion, that’s for sure. In fact, of all the various Rabbis and scholars that I know (and believe me, I know quite a few), he’s probably the most qualified of all in terms of ANE History, Tenach, Halachah and pretty much everything else in that sphere. Sorry I can’t say who it is. Still, he could be wrong I suppose.

Just to clarify on the Korabnot – of course there are still sacrifices today, and of course there were sacrifices all through the axial years until and past the middle ages. My point was about a massive temple with highly ritualized and constant sacrifices – that pretty much died out. Greek temple building stopped around 200CE, and so did everyone else.

There are many and varied reasons for this, including the spread of Christianity, the maturation of religion, and possibly even the urbanization of society. But whatever the reasons, I still stand by my theory that certainly by the time of the Gemara’s redaction, if not before, the notion of a mega temple and associated sacrificial cult was on the way out.

Had the BM not been destroyed what would have happened? Hard to say of course. But maybe it would have degenerated into a totally corrupt cult, and that would have been the end of Judaism. So maybe the destruction of the BM, which allowed Chazal and a Torah/Halachah based Judaism to flourish, was actually a good thing, EVEN from a Chareidi perspective.

Seriously folks, how many people GENUINELY want Korbanot back? Even Chareidim. They feel they have to toe the party line, but in reality it’s an alien concept to pretty much everyone nowadays.

So why go through a fake mourning for something we don’t even want? The Kinnot should be changed from 90% BM related, to 90% Shoah and other tragedy related, and maybe one Kinah (if that) on the BM.

This Tisha Be’Av I’m going to say the following Kinot:

1 about being in Galut (have to pick a good one)
1 about the 10 harugei malchut (though I suspect that some (all?) of it might be fictional
1 about the martyrs of the crusades (Boparte & York for the Brits)
2 on the Shoah

That’s it for kinnot. I’ll then spend the rest of the day watching Holocaust movies. Or maybe trying to fix my new Windows Vista PC, that's about as equally depressing.                                                                                                                     

Aug 4, 2008 11:56 AM

Ezra lo hoyoh ve'lo yihyeh?

I was speaking to an 'OJ' Rabbi the other day and he told me his theory that Ezra is a fictional character. I thought this was quite amusing, since according to the roshodick documentary hypothesizers such as Richard Elliot Friedman, in his book 'Who wrote the Bible', and also Rabbi David Halivni in his book 'Revelation Restored', Ezra was actually the Redactor.

The plot thickens. The mind boggles. The blogger blogs. The commenters comment. And life goes on. 

Aug 4, 2008 12:27 AM

Does Modern Orthodoxy care about the Beis Hamikdosh?

_I don't think many people in MO care too much about the Beis Hamikdosh (BM).

Maybe  in 1300BCE it was a  good idea to slaughter a kid goat, rather than your kid. But by 70 CE the whole thing was probably looking a bit dated. How long could the BM have gone on for anyway? Certainly by the middle ages the notion of having a temple and sacrificing animals would have been totally ridiculous, and even by Chazal's time I think it was just not feasible.

Chazal didn't seem to be in too much of a hurry to bring it back either. By the end, the Temple had become a totally corrupt institution. (Actually even near the beginning). And the Priests were a political power base which Chazal didn't care for too much. So methinks that maybe all the emphasis given to mourning the BM by Chazal was just PC PR, but in reality, nobody really wanted the BM back, even then.

And certainly today I don't think the average MO wants a temple. Rather, at best they think of the BM as just a big shul, and we would rather have a shul on the temple mount than some mosque. But nobody wants animal sacrifices back, the whole idea is just ridiculous.

So, in these 9 days I shan't be mourning the loss of the BM (which has the added bonus of cutting out a lot of tedious kinot). Certainly there's much to mourn, 2,000 tragedy filled years culminating in the Shoah.

But the loss of the BM? Probably a good thing, all things considered.