Bringing Back the Classics of Online Kefira

Introduction

2011-12-31T23:59:00.000-08:00

Welcome!

I've decided to bring back as much of the classics of Online Kefira as I can get my filthy little hands on. That which I have brought back is not complete. Many of the links, especially any blog-referential links, do not work. Many of the discussions that followed in the comments section are lost or too tedious to resurrect. I thought I'd post this stuff as I put it together so please be patient. I hope to have everything I can ressurect up over the course of the next few weeks.

Please enjoy.

Suggestions? Comments? Questions?

UPDATE 11-26-08:

Godol Hador is complete and is posted in monthly subsections.

Mis-Nagid is is posted in monthly subsections.

There are labels by blog name.

UPDATE 12-02-08

Existential Angst has been started. Dec. '07 - Aug. '08 is now available.

Update 12-13-08

Existential Angst is available from Aug. 07. The first result for the google search "Who is the godol hador in our generation?" is this blog.

Email me @ classikefira_at_hush_dot_com

Existential Angst

2008-11-24T07:43:00.003-08:00

In Progress!

Existential Angst August '08

2008-08-21T16:20:00.000-07:00

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.

Existential Angst July '08

2008-07-31T16:20:00.000-07:00

Jul 28, 2008 10:02 PM

Apology to RJM: Chazal destroy Kuzari proof!

I was going to take a nice long vacation (from blogging) but a commenter inspired me to post some more (you know who you are!).

So, I have to apologize to RJM. My post last week on the volcano was quite silly. I now realize (based on comments) that Chazal and the Rishonim themselves are the biggest anti-Kuzari proof, no need to drag RJM into it. Plus he tries hard and is about the most intelligent apologist out there, so I feel bad for giving him a hard time.

Here are two examples of why we don't need RJM to dismiss the Kuzari Proof:

1. Shabbos 86b:

Our Rabbis taught: On the sixth day of the month [Siwan] were the Ten Commandments given to Israel. R. Jose maintained: On the seventh thereof. Said Raba: All agree that they arrived in the Wilderness of Sinai on the first of the month. [For] here it is written, on this day they came into the wilderness of Sinai;15 whilst elsewhere it is written, This month shall be unto you the beginning of months:16 just as there the first of the month,17 so here [too] the first of the month [is meant].

So here we have a machlokes on what day Har Sinai happened. You would think that the most momentous event in Jewish History would have a clear date! But nobody knows for sure. We all know 9/11, but the date of Mattan Torah? Not sure! Also, the Gemarah goes on for 2 or 3 pages discussing when it happened, with various people bringing various pesukim and darshening them. But nobody (here or elsewhere) ever says he has a Mesorah on it from his father? Why not? Isn't that the biggest proof?

2. Moreh Nevuchim III 33

It is clear to me that what Moses experienced at the revelation on Mount Sinai was different from that which was experienced by all the other Israelites, for Moses alone was addressed by God, and for this reason the second person singular is used in the Ten Commandments; Moses then went down to the foot of the mount and told his fellow-men what he had heard. Comp., "I stood between the Lord and you at that time to tell you the word of the Lord" (Deut. v. 5). Again, "Moses spake, and God answered him with a loud voice" (Exod. xix. 19). In the Mechilta our Sages say distinctly that he brought to them every word as he had heard it. Furthermore, the words, "In order that the people hear when I speak with thee" (Exod. xix. 9), show that God spoke to Moses, and the people only heard the mighty sound, not distinct words. It is to the perception of this mighty sound that Scripture refers in the passage, "When ye hear the sound" (Deut. v. 20); again it is stated, "You heard a sound of words" (ibid. iv. 12), and it is not said "You heard words"; and even where the hearing of the words is mentioned, only the perception of the sound is meant.

This Rambam is amazing. He destroys the Kuzari proof in 2 ways. Firstly, if he is correct, then the only thing that the Bnai Yisrael heard was a loud noise, and only Moshe heard God speak. So all we have is 2 million witnesses to a loud noise, and one witness to a Revelation. This puts it in league with Jesus or Mohammed.

Secondly, the Rambam argues on other Rishonim, e.g. Ibn Ezra. But this is no small detail, such as the date. This is an argument about the basis of the entire event! Did the Bnai Yisrael hear God speak the asseres hadibros, or did they just hear an awesome noise?! And yet nobody knows for sure. And of course nobody brings down 'evidence from their father', rather they really on drashos on logic or drashos on pesukim.

Seems nobody really had any mesorah on this, except what was written in the Torah itself.

So much for the Kuzari Proof.

Jul 28, 2008 9:54 AM

Vacation!

See ya.

Jul 25, 2008 4:59 PM

Shafran: Confused yet again

In yet another rather confused article, Rabbi Avi Shafran attempts to discuss miracles and hashgachah prattis. He exhorts us to be grateful for all the many times that arab terrorists don't actually blow us up or kill us, times we often don't realize.

When, twice this month, Arabs turned bulldozers upon Jewish residents of Jerusalem, amid the sorrow over the dead and wounded, and the reminder of the evil that exists in some twisted hearts, a realization also merited attention: There are bloodthirsty Jew-haters at the wheels of countless vehicles large and small in Israel every day of every month of every year. And so, each day we are spared tragic news is a miraculous one.

Wow! Every time we don't get horrendously murdered it's a nes! And if he hasn't been silly enough until now, don't worry, he's about to get even sillier. To illustrate his point further, he quotes a story from the Holocaust, where a Nazi was going to blow up a shul during Friday night davening, but was so startled when everyone suddenly turned round to face him (it was the end of lechah dodi), that he dropped the grenades and only a few people were hurt.

What a miracle!

Shame that they all ended up getting gassed to death in concentration camps though. Along with six million other poor Jews. But remember folks, the lecha dodi miracle proves that if we just daven enough we can expect miracles. And the rest of the Holocaust proves that if we don't keep mitzvos correctly then God will turn away from us and kill us all. I mean, what other explanation could there possibly be?

And if in fact everything that ever happens proves that God wanted it exactly that way, for some reason, by definition. And every time something bad happens, we deserve it. But if 3 people get saved out of 6 million killed in the most appalling way, it's a miracle!

Boruch Hashem.

Jul 25, 2008 11:14 AM

Holy Moly: RJM destroys my emunah in Har Sinai!!!

_Oh my Gosh.

RJM just (inadvertantly) destroyed all credibility in Har Sinai. And I'm absolutely NOT twisting his words (though no doubt he will accuse me of doing so). I will quote him VERBATIM.

It goes like this.

One of my commenters mentioned the case of Zeitoun. Zeitoun was the sight of a mass miracle in 1968, where a vision of the Virgin Mary was (said to have been) seen by thousands, even millions of people, over a period of a few years. This shows that (false) mass revelation claims are indeed possible, thus destroying the Kuzari Proof.

So what does RJM respond? He says:

The Zeitoun case is irrelevant for two reasons:

Everyone agrees that the event occurred - many people witnessed it, and nobody is denying that something unusual took place. The question is the interpretation of the event, what its significance was. Most people assume there is a scientific explanation for what happened, even if we are not sure of how precisely to account for it.

A scientific explanation?????!!!! But wait, it gets worse! RJM continues:

"Had there been clear articulate speech projected, or perhaps lightning, thunder and fire (i.e., unambiguous [super] natural disturbances orchestrated simultaneously) establishing a new religion in front of the same number of witnesses, it would be a credible claim on par with Sinai. "

Do you see what RJM is saying? Seriously.

He's saying that if something very strange occurred, which could not be explained naturally, then it would be legitimate to interprete it super-naturally.

Do you honestly think that people in the desert 3,000 years ago were capable of experiencing a volcano and figuring out a scientific explanation for it?

OF COURSE ancient people ascribed supernatural explanations for all manner of very natural occurances.

In fact a great deal (even the majority) of all ancient mythology has its roots in natural phenomenon which ancient people couldn't explain: volcanos, earthquakes, eclipses and so on. This is a well documented FACT. Read 'When They Severed Earth From Sky' for more details.

RJM concludes:

"I still think, however, that the large number of eyewitnesses to the phenomenon establish that they did see something out of the ordinary. My assumption is that there is a heretofore undiscovered scientific explanation for the anomaly. "

A 'heretofore undiscovered scientific explanation for the anomaly'? Holy crap! Have you ever read Shemos?

Exodus 19:16: And it came to pass on the third day, when it was morning, that there were thunders and lightnings and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of a horn exceeding loud; and all the people that were in the camp trembled. 17 And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet God; and they stood at the nether part of the mount. 18 Now mount Sinai was altogether on smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire; and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.

Can you imagine a more exact description of a volcano (from the ancient world)? I randomly grabbed a volcano picture from the Internet (see above left). There's smoke, fire, a thunderstorm, the works. Also, there was plenty of volcanic activity in the Arabian peninsula. Mattan Torah could easily have been a volcano, or based on a volcano.

Last week, there was a major storm here, and the lightening and thunder were incredible. My kids were scared beyond belief, my daughter was literally shaking and crying. I was even a little scared. And this was in the comfort of my own home! Can you imagine what it would be like if:

a) It was 3,000 years ago, and nobody had a clue about science?
b) You were an ignorant slave on the run?
c) You were in the desert, faraway from civilization and home?
d) You had never seen a volcano before, or even heard of one?
e) You have a charismatic leader?
f) You find yourself at the foot of an erupting volcano?

I mean seriously folks, could you imagine a scenario more primed for a 'super-natural' occurrence?

And we see from his comments that RJM (were it not for his bias) would clearly agree. And if the Bneis Yisrael in the Midbar had had the remotest clue about Science, they would have assumed, just like RJM, that there must be a ''heretofore undiscovered scientific explanation for the anomaly'.

And in the subsequent debate in the comments RJM digs himself in even deeper:

OK, wait for a thunderstorm and volcano to coincide and then let's see you stand on the mountain and produce a heavenly voice establishing a new religion. On the contrary, you would be running away for dear life as anyone would when confronted with a volcanic eruption.

A heavenly voice? Even Chazal say that maybe all they heard was a sound of the first letter, and then they got scared as heck. Have you ever heard a volcano erupting??? Don't you think that it's entirely possible that an ancient people would have attributed that scary sound to the Gods (or God)?

OF COURSE it's entirely possible. As to the content of the revelation, there's no evidence whatsoever that such content actually came out of Sinai. In fact, all evidence suggests it came later.

This is without even getting into the content of Judaism and its radical departure from the primitivism that appealed to the Jews so strongly.

Urrm, we've been through this before. The majority of early Israelites worshipped idols, as is plainly documented in Nach. The evolution from polytheism, to henotheism, to monolatry, to anthro-monotheism to abstract-monotheism was very, very long and slow, and certainly not a 'radical departure'.

The point is that illusions involving light are not as remarkable as natural disturbances operating in concert with a revelatory communication. This should be obvious.

Sure. But you are committing the fallacy of assuming what you are trying to prove. We have no evidence of any actual revelatory communication. All we have is reports of a mountain with fire and smoke, a thunderstorm, and a very awesome sound. At best you have ONE witness to any actual revelatory communication, and that's Moshe. If he even was there.

By 'assuming a scientific explanation' for Zeitoun, you pretty much did yourself in RJM, because clearly, in 1200BCE, a bunch of scared slaves on the run in the desert would not have been capable of 'assuming a scientific explanation'.

Jul 24, 2008 5:29 PM

That's not the Kuzari proof, this is the Kuzari proof!

It’s funny, every time I debunk the Kuzari proof someone comes along and says 'That’s not the Kuzari proof, this is the Kuzari proof!' And then proceeds to give some minor variation of the argument which is just as flawed as the original. There’s probably quite a large number of variations, but they all suffer from the same problem – myth formation. We know humans are excellent at creating myths, and we know that legends and myths grow over time to epic proportions. We also know that people have an unusual capacity to believe (and rationalize) the biggest nonsense, especially when it comes to religion. How else can you possibly explains the millions, even billions, of people who believe in the biggest religious nonsense? (they’re all goyim)

Anyway, here is Benny with his version:

The Kuzari proof is that in our generation we have millions of people who say the exact same thing: that they were told by their parents, who were told by their parents etc. etc. all the way back to the generation that left Egypt, that they themselves were witnesses to G-d giving the Torah to Moshe at Sinai.This tradition must be true because just like it is impossible for someone to convince me (for example) that I was told XYZ by my parents, if in truth my parents never told me about XYZ, it is surely impossible to convince millions of people that they were told something (in our case, this tradition) by their parents if in fact they were never told about it. Therefore one must conclude that our generation is telling the truth (i.e. that they were told this tradition by their parents). And likewise, one must say the same of all of the generations between us and the generation which left Egypt, that started off the tradition. And they certainly must be believed because it is against logic to propose that hundreds of thousands of people (and for that matter even a few hundred people) should make up the exact same lie, and try to convince others that they witnessed (in our case) the giving of the Torah, if they never really saw it.I believe that the above argument destroys the rebuttals from your post.

Benny presents this in the form of a deductive argument with an initial condition. Once the initial condition is shown true, then you can logically reason to our present day.

Benny says that you can’t convince someone that their parents told them something, if their parents didn’t actually tell them that thing. I think this is true enough. You can’t tell me that my parents taught me to play the piano, I know they didn’t. So my parents told me about Judaism, that much is fact. Also, clearly my parents were told about it by their parents. And so on all the way back. I agree with that in general, obviously you also have converts and BTs etc. The tradition came from somewhere, and it was transmitted down through the ages, parent to child (or equally validly neighbor to neighbor, friend to friend, kiruv clown to BT wannabe etc).

The big question of course is how it all got started. And this is where Benny’s argument falls apart. Benny says that when you go all the way back, you must have a case of the original people telling the children that they themselves witnessed it, rather than them just passing on a tradition about their ancestors. And in a perfect world, that might be true.

But this isn’t a perfect world, and there is a gaping hole here.

Benny writes that ‘it is against logic to propose that hundreds of thousands of people (and for that matter even a few hundred people) should make up the exact same lie’, but by this logic, many other religious traditions could be true. For example hundreds of people are reported to have seen Jesus do miracles, and Benny’s argument validates that too.

The obvious flaw in all these cases is that the myth could easily have been created by one or two people only, deliberately or mistakenly, creating a legend about their ancestors. They then tell it to 2 others who believe them, they each tell it to 2 others, and before you know it, you have millions of people believing in something, all because of the original 2 people. 2 raised to the factor of 2 gets very big very fast. If you don’t believe me, try doing 2*2 on your calculator, and keep hitting the = button. There’s no way of proving that this didn’t happen, because if you do the math, 2 people back in 800 BCE would have millions (actually billions) of descendants today.

All you need is ONE original person to have started it, and before you know it you have a full fledged religion. If L Ron Hubbard could do it in this modern day and age, then certainly someone could do it 2000 years ago.

Not only that, but we actually have very good evidence that this kind of thing does happen. Scientology started from one guy, and so did Mormonism. Now, Benny might say that those are different, because the original legend was only about one guy, and so it was easier to convince people of the legend. But again, people are very gullible when it comes to religion, as has been shown, and just like it is possible to convince one person that one man four hundred years ago got resurrected, it is equally possible to convince one person that 600,000 people four hundred years ago were at Mt Sinai.

Benny will no doubt respond: ‘But that person will say I never heard that story from my parents! and you won’t be able to convince him ’. But the response is obvious: He can get convinced by the following argument ‘Your parents are ignorant Jews who don’t know of such things! Believe me, your ancestors were at Har Sinai 400 years ago. And you better believe it or else your crops will fail etc etc’. So then the person gets convinced, and then passes down the information to their kids that their ancestors were at Har Sinai, even though he did not in fact hear this from his parents, but really from the local Priest. And then hids kids pass it down to their kids, and over time the story gets garbled and the myths grow.

How many of us know what our great-great-grandparents did 200 years ago? Or who they were? Or anything at all about them? And this is after the invention of writing and mass production of books! Kal vechomer in 500 BCE when people didn’t have a clue about history.

So after we have got done showing how easy it is for myths to grow, the fundies try a different angle. They say, if its so easy, why didn’t every other religion do it! But the fact is, we have shown it is easy, so this argument is really just a kashye on the other religions, it certainly doesn’t create the proof.

And I think the answer is timing. A mass revelation myth was doable in 800BCE, but it just wasn’t as doable in 70CE or 700CE. Why? Because of writing. Writing is the key differentiator here. Myth formation in the age of oral transmission is completely different than myth formation in the age of highly available writing. When no writing is available, no history, no scrolls, no books, you can pretty much make up anything. However once we have written histories, then claiming that 600,000 people did something becomes next to impossible, because where are the written testimonies? Where is the evidence? You simply can’t do it. So you are forced to invent stories of one man getting a revelation.

That’s the real difference here, the lack of a widely available publishing industry, coupled with less understanding and knowledge about history, makes the world of 800 BCE (pre Greek philosophy) entirely different than the world of 70 or 700 CE. You really can't compare 800BCE with 70CE.

A better comparison in terms of myth would be to compare the Jewish myths of 800 BCE with other myths of that period, to see how fantastic they were by comparison. And they were all quite fantastic back then; Gods and monsters, epic tales, it was all the rage. But by 70CE, that didn’t happen so much anymore, not on that grand scale, anyways.

So there you have it, the Kuzari Proof bites the dust. Yet again.

Jul 24, 2008 12:53 AM

Kuzari Proof For Dummies

_Wow. I'm still surprised by the number of otherwise intelligent people who fall for the Kuzari proof, and don't realize the logical fallacy contained within it. I must have posted this ten times already, but here we go again. There are actually a few forms of the KP, ranging from basic (very stupid) to advanced (logical fallacy).

The basic form of the Kuzari proof goes like this:

P1. No way can you convince 600,000 people that they saw mattan Torah if they really didn't. Maybe you can convince a few people, or maybe a crowd of a few thousand could have mass hallunication, but 600,000 people? No way could they all be fooled. Therefore, TMS must be true.

The fallacy here is obvious, here is the rebuttal:

R1. True, you probably couldn't fool 600,000 people that they saw TMS. However this never happened in the first place. What actually happened is that a few HUNDRED people in 800 BCE were gradually fooled into believing that 600,000 of their ANCESTORS saw TMS 600 years PREVIOUSLY. Fooling a few people about something that happened hundreds of years ago is very possible, in fact it happens all the time, and continues to happen to this day. Over the years, those few hundred people who believed the myth of TMS spread it to a few million people, just like the few original Christians spread Christianity to several billion people.

The fundies then get a little more sophisticated.

P2. If you say it was myth formation, then how come no other religion started with a mass revelation claim? If such a claim could so easily be spread, why did Islam & Christianity start with a single prophet? Since Judaism is the ONLY religion with a mass revelation claim, that proves that such a claim is impossible to promote unless it is actually true.

The rebuttal is a little convoluted, but it works just the same.

R2. First of all, there could be many reasons why Christianity and Islam didn't do mass revelation. By that time, writing was more widespread, and so spreading a claim like that would have been impossible. Judaism's claim however spread from the years 1300 BCE to 800BCE, a time when there was no mass writing and all religion was transmitted orally. There could be many other reasons too.

Secondly, there have been other mass claims. For example with the Aztecs and similar.

Thirdly, so the Jews were unique, and this was a unique claim that nobody else had. So what? On the scale of things, some things will always be unique.

Finally, the fundies argue like this.

P3: If an Event E, should it happen, would leave massive evidence, and if the evidence wasn't there, nobody would believe it happened, then if you have a case that people believed in event E, then must be that it happened. TMS falls into this pattern. Everybody believed in it, and no way could you have fooled even the descendants in 800BCE that their ancestors saw something if there was no evidence, so must be there was evidence (back in 800 BCE)

This one is pretty crazy.

R3: Firstly, there are plenty of events that had they happened would have left massive evidence, yet they didnt, yet people still believe. Global Mabul is a prime example. Yetziat Mitzrayim is another. Also this argument works to discredit TMS: The whole story of SHemos should have left some evidence somewhere (besides the Torah), yet nothing has ever been found which would corroborate this story in any way. The absence of evidence in this case is pretty damning.

Note that with the Mabul its not a case of absence of evidence. Rather there is actual evidence that the global Mabul did NOT in fact occur. Yet people still believe in it.

Why is this?

Because when it comes to religion, people will believe anything. DUH.

Just ask your local Scientologist. Or Chareidi.

Jul 23, 2008 2:05 PM

Bon Jovi Kills The Kuzari Proof

One of the foundatios of the Kuzari proof is that no way could later generation have been convinced that 600,000 people stood at Sinai, had it not in fact happened. Unfortunately, exagerrations of numbers are all too common, even in our own times. Read this amazing article in the New York Times about how City officials used to estimate the number of concert goers at major Central Park concerts:

How, by the way, did anyone figure that 300,000 people came to hear Elton John or 750,000 for Garth Brooks? “You would get in a room with the producer, with a police official, and a person from parks, and someone would say, ‘What does it look like to you?’” ...“The producer would say, ‘I need it to be higher than the last one.’ That’s the kind of science that went into it.”

However, after performing some real analysis on a recent Bon Jovi concert, park officials now realize that probably all these concerts had about 50,000 people maximum, and not the 300,000 or even 750,000 people that was originally claimed:

“You look out at the sea of people from the stage, and your mind tells you, ‘That’s what hundreds of thousands of people looks like,’ ” Adrian Benepe, the parks commissioner, said. “Now we know it’s 48,500.”

As a famous skeptic [hat tip on request] writes:

Do you realize how devastating this is for the kuzari proof? This article shows that in 24 hours, in modern technologically, scientifically, and administratively advanced America, the number of people alleged to have been at a historical event can be multiplied by a factor of 10. Now, ask yourself this: over 1,000 years (around 10 million hours), in a backwards, ignorant, superstitious and credulous society, can the number of people alleged to have been at a historical even be multiplied by a factor of ten, 6 times?

Of course if you believe God wrote the Bible, then accusing God of not being able to estimate the number of people at an event would be very chutzpadick indeed, and would show a tremendous lack of yiras shamayim.

But since He quite obviously didn't write it, this is not an issue.

Jul 22, 2008 11:14 AM

Massively Conflicted

Yesterday someone characterized (charicatured?) my blog as thus:

1)Bash Religion, (the crowd roars)
2)Better Religion, (the crowd boos)
3)Angst, (the crowd pities)
4)Repeat from step 1.

Firstly, that's not even correct even if it was the cycle, it would be more like this:

1)Bash Religion, (the skeptics roar, the believers boo)
2)Better Religion, (the believers boo, the skeptics roar)
3)Angst, (empathic readers pity, the rest think I'm a wuss)
4)Repeat from step 1.

Secondly, that's not the cycle. This is the cycle:

1. Become inspired by something / someone religious. Get inspired to promote religion.
2. Hear / read some retarded drashah / book on some stupid fundie nonsesne, start bashing religi0n again.
3. Repeat endlessly.

The problem is I'm massively conflicted here.

On the one had, I genuinely feel / believe / rationally think I can prove that there is a lot of good in religion in general, and OJ specifically. The morality of a true ben Torah and his family (not the benchwarmer in Lakewood who is shvindling the goverment, or the over the top materialist type in Boro Park, or increaingly Lakewood) is I believe superior to much of the alternative. And of course the beauty and richness of much religious writing and practice is also amazing. I want all that.

On the other hand, the stupidity of some / most / all of the beliefs, and the insistence that we belief in such nonsense, really kills it all.

However hard I try, I just can't reconcile these two apparent 'facts' - It's all amazing vs. It's all nonsense. Yes, I know in theory both 'facts' could be true, and through whatever rational reasons and causes Chazal etc just happened to have hit upon a few universal truths, plus it's probably not really that objectively amazing, I'm just brainwashed. But still, I can't shake either feeling and I can't reconcile them either. This is the problem.

Sometime I think I should force the issue - either I should just become a believer and force it one way, or alternatively (and more realistically) I should just commit myself to secular humanism, by going out to east a cheeseburger on Yom Kippur with the wrong brachah. Though even from a Chareidi perspective it's hard to imagine that God is so vindictive and petty that He could possibly really care if I eat some cheese and beef.

So, I try and push the Divine Inspiration model as a potential way of reconciling these two facts. However I'm still left with the problem that most of the major Jewish Orthodox thinkers were true beleivers, which then makes me doubt their credibility, and we're back to square one again.

Does anyone have a model or way of dealing with this? I think this is the true reconciliation which is needed. Reconciling the fact that many if not all of the foundational beliefs and stories are simple not true, with the fact that this is a good religion and I (personally - I'm not out to convert anyone here) don't want to give it up. At least not today.

Jul 22, 2008 11:14 AM

Were Chazal more moral than the Babylonians?

In a recent post I commented that Chazal had to re-interpret 'vekatzosah es kapah' (cut off her hand) to mean money, since amputation for grabbing someone by the goolies would have been morally unnaceptable to Chazal, based on the morality at that time. RJM however commented thus:

You are operating with an assumption that is completely erroneous here, namely, that the society in which Chazal lived possessed a higher level of morality than the Torah in line with which they felt compelled to interpret the Torah. This is simply and utterly false. The non-Jewish communities of that period did not exhibit any lofty moral standards that the Rabbis would have been pressured to emulate. On the contrary, even taken literally, the Torah is light years ahead of Greek, Roman and other "civilizations" of that time. Your projection of secular values onto the past is an anachronism. If you argue that it was the Rabbis themselves who evolved this remarkable ethical sensitivity, you will then be hard pressed to explain why adherence to a barbaric system of laws (in your view) generated men of such refined sensibility.

I don't know enough about ancient Babylonian society to know if RJM is correct or not. Would limb amputation in Babylon have been considered morally unacceptable like I argued? If not, then RJM has a good point, and maybe it's time to just admit that Chazal were light years ahead of their time in moral issues.

Jul 21, 2008 5:41 PM

When the day is done

When the party’s through
Seems so very sad for you
Didn’t do the things you meant to do
Now there’s no time to start anew
Now the party’s through.

In the late 90s I used to have two recurring dreams, which was rather strange, because I’m not the type of person who has very vivid dreams, and certainly not recurring ones. But these two particular dreams were very, very vivid, and they each recurred 3 or 4 times, maybe more, over a period of a few years.

The first dream was about a plane crashing in Manhattan. This was way before 9/11, though in my dream the plane survives the crash, and the crash wasn’t terrorist related. Still, a bit spooky.

The second dream was far more disturbing. In this dream, I was back in high school, or possibly college, and certainly realized that the end of year final examinations were tomorrow (or very soon), and I hadn’t studied at all. (This dream is somewhat based on an actual occurrence in my life!).

The disturbing aspect of this second dream was the awful feeling which is hard to describe, the feeling of ‘Oh ****, I missed the boat, I’m out of time, if only I had woken up sooner’. Presumably most of you can imagine this feeling.

Now, this is the feeling I have about life. I feel life is moving faster and faster. One day I find ten years have got behind me. The next day it’s twenty years. Am I progressing towards any goal? Am I any closer to enlightenment? I certainly don’t feel any closer.

What are we here for? What’s the point of it all? I used to think I knew, now I realize I never knew. I have a horrible fear that I will be laying on my death bed, and in between the terrifying thoughts of death and pain, I will still be thinking ‘What was it all about? Oh **** I totally missed the boat, if only I had woken up sooner’.

What’s the solution? Spend the next 10 or 20 years reading every philosophy of life I can? Religion? Family? Career? Therapy? Just learn to enjoy the small things in life and maintain low expectations? Denial & delusion?

People say that if you have an engaging job, a family, some hobbies etc, [UPDATE: and a religion!] you will enjoy life. But these seem to be diversions – you get so engaged with these things you forget about the fact that life seems meaningless, pointless, or at least difficult to tell what the meaning and point is. These things divert your mind from the existential angst, they don’t cure it. Seems to me you might still get to your death bed thinking you missed the boat.

We need a deathbed survey.

When the day is done
Down to earth then sinks the sun
Along with everything that was lost and won
When the day is done.

Jul 20, 2008 11:03 PM

Torah SheBaalPeh: The Ultimate Kvetch

We are all familiar with the standard argument for TSBP: The Torah is so incomplete in it's details, there simply MUST have been a parallel Oral law to go along with it. But in reality, it works the opposite way: The Torah is so incomplete, contradictory, and in some cases plain wrong, the Rabbis (etc) simply HAD to invent an 'explanation' to go along with it. There are many examples of this, in fact the whole Gemarah is one big example, but a simple one will suffice.

In Devarim 25/11 the Torah is pretty explicit:

יא כִּי-יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים יַחְדָּו, אִישׁ וְאָחִיו, וְקָרְבָה אֵשֶׁת הָאֶחָד, לְהַצִּיל אֶת-אִישָׁהּ מִיַּד מַכֵּהוּ; וְשָׁלְחָה יָדָהּ, וְהֶחֱזִיקָה בִּמְבֻשָׁיו. יב וְקַצֹּתָה, אֶת-כַּפָּהּ: לֹא תָחוֹס, עֵינֶךָ.

11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets;

12 then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall have no pity.

It doesn't get much clearer than that: If she grabs his goolies, chop her hand off, don't show any mercy.

Of course to Chazal, that was too barbaric, so they said it must mean money, just like 'eye for an eye'. And you can always kvetch and say the Torah wrote it this way to teach you that in reality she deserved to have her hand chopped off (why?), but the Halachah was more lenient. But the poshut peshat is that this was the original law, and then Chazal re-interpreted it.

There are tens, probably hundreds of examples like this, but none of them will sway the true believer. On the contrary, to the true believer, every additional example of crazy stuff in the Torah's text is just one more reason why TSBP simply must be true. They never even stop to consider that the alternative explanation is way more likely: sacred texts conflicted with common sense, and the moral standards of the day, therefore sacred texts were re-intrepreted.

Believers will always reject this explanation, because then it means Chazal were not quite 100%. And we know Chazal were the most amazing people who ever lived because...err....because Chazal said so, of course! And we know Chazal couldn't have been wrong on this, because they had the one true Mesorah from Sinai. And we know they had the one true Mesorah from Sinai because..err..because Chazal said they did! And of course Chazal are right about that without any question since Chazal were totally non biased. And we know that's true because Chazal say whoever learns Torah will be non biased. And we know Chazal were the greatest Torah scholars who ever lived, because...err....Chazal said so. And we know that must be true because the Gemarah is the greatest compendium of Torah ever produced, and Chazal produced it! Q.E.D.

(Ha, I bet you thought that was going to be a circular argument.)

The big question of course, is what the heck were Chazal thinking?

I'm assuming they weren't deliberate con-men, and they must have known they were inventing TSBP somewhat, and it's not like they were latter day kiruv clowns trying to maintain emunah in Chazal. And they certainly had the cojones to change whatever they needed to, so when Chazal said TMS, what did they really mean?

The only answer that makes sense is that Chazal were a shtickle reconstructionist / metaphorical themselves. When they said TMS, they meant TMS, kaveyochol.

Jul 19, 2008 11:33 PM

Whoops, I forgot Har Sinai

One of the funny things about Tenach is the enormous amount of glaring discrepancies in it. My chavrusoh pointed out to me a while back that there are a few Tehillim which recount the history of the Bnai Yisrael, yet leave out Har Sinai! Apparently Har Sinai wasn't an important story in some traditions, though of course later it became very prominent. There is also confusion about the name, with some traditions calling Chorev. Now I see there is a similar example in Joshua 24, courtesy of Rejewvenator (read his blog, it's good):

1. And Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel to Shechem, and called for the elders of Israel, and for their heads, and for their judges, and for their officers; and they presented themselves before God.
2. And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods.
3. And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac.
4. And I gave unto Isaac Jacob and Esau: and I gave unto Esau mount Seir, to possess it; but Jacob and his children went down into Egypt.
5. I sent Moses also and Aaron, and I plagued Egypt, according to that which I did among them: and afterward I brought you out.
6. And I brought your fathers out of Egypt: and ye came unto the sea; and the Egyptians pursued after your fathers with chariots and horsemen unto the Red sea.
7. And when they cried unto the LORD, he put darkness between you and the Egyptians, and brought the sea upon them, and covered them; and your eyes have seen what I have done in Egypt: and ye dwelt in the wilderness a long season.
8. And I brought you into the land of the Amorites, which dwelt on the other side Jordan; and they fought with you: and I gave them into your hand, that ye might possess their land; and I destroyed them from before you.
9. Then Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab, arose and warred against Israel, and sent and called Balaam the son of Beor to curse you:
10. But I would not hearken unto Balaam; therefore he blessed you still: so I delivered you out of his hand.
11. And you went over Jordan, and came unto Jericho: and the men of Jericho fought against you, the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Girgashites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; and I delivered them into your hand.

12. Whoops! I forgot Har Sinai! (Or was it Har Chorev?)

Jul 18, 2008 10:27 AM

Our Strategy

I'm feeling in a strategic mood today, so let us articulate our strategy.

I. Goals
The goal of the MORI Movement (Moden Orthoprax Reconstructodox Ignostic) is to reformulate Modern Orthodoxy to truly reconcile it with Modernity, while remaining true to the values and traditions of the religion.

II. Guiding Principles
The guiding principles of MORI are as follows:

1. Jewish Values
We greatly value the Jewish tradition and practice, believing (based on evidence) that there is much value there. We also value Jewish values, especially Orthodox Jewish values. We believe we can articulate very reasonable arguments as to why our values are very good, and better than many (possibly most) competing value systems. Of course all discussions of values are ultimately circular, since we use our values to judge our values, and therefore it is no surprise that we tend to value our values. he three primary values of Judaism are Torah, Avodah and Gemillus Chassadim, which can be loosely translated as Learning, Service and acts of Lovingkindness.

2. Learning
We believe that an ultimate value needs to be that of knowledge creation and acquisition (a.k.a. 'learning'). This involves learning all aspects of life, science and religion. We follow the research, opinions and advice of recognized experts in all fields of life, where reasonable. This includes Chazal, Rishonim, Acharonim, Scientists, Historians, Archeologists, Secular Philosophers and other religious, spiritual, political and knowledge leaders, each in their respective fields.

2. Service
Service includes the ritual ceremony and associated practices. Human beings need ritual, and ritual serves many purposes in life. The Orthodox Jewish tradition includes a rich history and portfolio of ritual, which we uphold as valuable and life-enriching.

3. Lovingkindness
The Jewish tradition contains a long and proud history of morals, ethics and the performance of 'mitzvot' - good deeds. This is (or should be) the foundational component of any religion.

4. Acknowledging Knowledge
Science and other related academic scholarship has clearly proven the following:

a) The universe is very ancient, approximately 15 billion years old.
b) Mankind is very ancient, modern man is about 30,000 years old, ancient man has been around for millions of years.
c) No bona fide miracles have ever been observed to happen, and it is more likely than not that none have ever happened.
d) Modern scholarship in the fields of archeology, history, Bible studies etc clearly show that the Bible is a composite work, produced over many centuries.
e) Halachah is clearly man made, and has clearly evolved over the centuries.

5. God
No evidence exists to show that God exists or does not exist. Furthermore, no comprehensible description of God exists either. 'God' is an abstract concept, which in reality symbolizes meaning, morality, and spritiuality. Each one of us conceptualizes God is various (ultimately ways. and this is a highly personal matter. Religion has evolved a language to speak about 'God', and this is fine as far as it goes.

6. Halachah
Halachic communities which practice halachah as it is supposed to be practiced have a higher moral standard than other communities, with lower rates of infidelity, divorce, physical / sexual / drug abuse and crime than the national average. Since halachah has been the glue that binds the Jewish people together for thousands of years, and since halachah can be proven to create highly moral societies, we uphold the value of halachah. Of course no system is perfect, and there are certai areas of halachah which seem unjust and need revision. However the integrity of the system is such that all change must proceed slowly and carefully, even sub-consciously in some respects. Based on evidence and statistics, we firmly believe that the halachic community is in general superior to the alternative, and therefore it is ultimately more moral to belong to this community than not. (Of course ultimately morality is subjective, so this argument is ultimately as circular as any and all arguments to the contrary).

7. Reconstructionism
Radical reconstruction of ideas is disingenuous. For example, to reconstruct 'Torah' to mean 'ethics' would be incorrect. However, evolutionary reconstructionism is acceptable, and even traditional. For example, 'Torah' can certainly mean the combined wisdom of the Jewish people, and 'Min Hashamayim' can certainly mean 'Heavenly', i.e. Divinely Inspired (inspired by the idea of the Divine). We support evolutionary reconstructionism in the spirit of the Rambam, but reject radical reconstructionism.

8. Focus on today
MORI is not intended to be the final word in religion, nor could it ever be. Nothing is ever final in this world. New advances in knowledge occur every day. Relgions evolve and change all the time, even fundamentalist religions. MORI is yet the latest step in the process of human evolution. Nobody can predict the future, and in fact the most significant events in history were always the least expected. We shall focus on the here and now, and the needs of our constituents today, with the understanding that things can and certainly will change in the future.

9. Stagnation vs. Evolution
Nothing remains static, and we must continually be on the lookout for new ideas, new knowledge and enw ways of thinking, without trampling or discarding the values, traditions and practices of our past (assuming they still have value). No system can be successful if it is constantly in a state of flux, however too much stangnation is not healthy either. We must be constantly vigilant in finding the right balance between evolution and stagnation.

III. Strategy

To develop and promote MORI, we will follow a multi-facted strategy.

1. Validate and articulate our values
The core motivation behind MORI is that we truly value our (Orthodox) Jewish values. As an ongoing effort of justification and motivation, we shall strive to fully articulate our values, and explain why we value them.

2. Taamei Hamitzvot (reasons for the commandments)
All the ritual and other commandments in Judaism clearly have reasons, or else they would not have been created. In some cases the reasons are obvious. For example Shabbat, a day to turn away from materialistic concerns and instead focus on meaning, morality and spirituality (and of course family) is obviously of value, and even secular people recognize this. Other areas of halachah are harder to explain, but clearly everything has some reason, or else it would not have become law. Our task is to articulate the reasons behind halachah as much as is possible. In cases where the original reasons no longer apply, AND there is limited value in the halachah, careful consideration must be made. We do not advocate wholesale and rapid halachic change, as this will lead to the dissolution of the enterprise, as recent experience with Conservative Judaism clearly shows.

3. Combating Fundamentalism
We have a moral duty to compabt fundamentalism, since extremist fundamentalist ideas can clearly be very dangerous. In addition, in order to clear a space for MORI proponenst within the (LWMO) Orthodox world, we would need to clearly articulate our reasons for why we reject fundamentalist beliefs (they aren't true).

4. Continued exploration of Philosophy, Theology, Science etc
We cannot afford to remain static. We will constantly evaluate and study new ideas and knowledge, to see what ramifications there are for MORI. However we must be careful not to introdcue to much flux and instability into the system.

5. Reconstructionism
We need to engage in a certain amount of evolutionary reconstructionism. At its most disingenuos, this can amount to cherry picking and deliberate mis-transalation of key phrases. We will strive to reconstruct as non disingenuously as possible. We believe there are many sayings and beliefs in Chazal, Rishonim and modern day jewish thinkers which provide much fertile ground here. The dogmas of modern day Judaism, as embodied in the Rambam's ikkarim, are certainly a late invention and are of little consequence.

IV. Approach

1. Community
We need to create a community of like minded individuals. This can be a concrete community, or an online community, or a combination of both. Certain elements of the LW MO / RW Conservadox world are very close to our conception of religion, certainly close enough in many cases. Significant institutions are YCT, Mechon Hadar and similar.

2. Study
We need to embark on a study program, especially for the reconstructionist aspects of the strategy. Primary texts include Heshchels TMS, various works by Rav Kook, and various works by modern day thinkers, especially works produced by the Hartman and Shalem institutes.

We also need to study & promote the findings of Biblical Criticism, both as a means to promote our ideas, and also as legitimate 'parshanut'.

3. Facts on the Ground
We need to work on gaining influence 'on the ground'. This means finding, promoting and cultivating relationships with key individuals in the Jewish scene. There are many LW MO Rabbis who agree with our agenda, though opinions might differ as to the best approach here.

V. Conclusion
There has never been a better time to embark on this course of action. The Jewish community is straining for new modes of expression, and for Modern Orthodoxy to truly reconcile Modernity with Orthodoxy (praxy). Many new institutions, educational, spiritual and social are being formed across the country and around the globe to address the needs of our constituents. Rather than dwell on the mistakes of the past, let us work together for a more productive future!

Jul 18, 2008 9:20 AM

The Return of Religion

[XGH: Not bad]

By Roger Scruton

Faced with the spectacle of the cruelties perpetrated in the name of faith, Voltaire famously cried ‘Ecrasez l’infâme!’. Scores of enlightened thinkers followed him, declaring organised religion to be the enemy of mankind, the force that divides the believer from the infidel and which thereby both excites and authorises murder. Richard Dawkins is the most influential living example of this tradition, and his message, echoed by Dan Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, sounds as loud and strident in the media today as the message of Luther in the reformed churches of Germany. The violence of the diatribes uttered by these evangelical atheists is indeed remarkable. After all, the Enlightenment happened three centuries ago; the arguments of Hume, Kant and Voltaire have been absorbed by every educated person. What more is to be said? And if you must say it, why say it so stridently? Surely, those who oppose religion in the name of gentleness have a duty to be gentle, even with – especially with – their foes?

There are two reasons why people start shouting at their opponents: one is that they think the opponent is so strong that every weapon must be used against him; the other is that they think their own case so weak that it has to be fortified by noise. Both these motives can be observed in the evangelical atheists. They seriously believe that religion is a danger, leading people into excesses of enthusiasm which, precisely because they are inspired by irrational beliefs, cannot be countered by rational argument. We have had plenty of proof of this from the Islamists; but that proof, the atheists tell us, is only the latest in a long history of massacres and torments, which – in the scientific perspective – might reasonably be called the pre-history of mankind. The Enlightenment promised to inaugurate another era, in which reason would be sovereign, providing an instrument of peace that all could employ. In the eyes of the evangelical atheists, however, this promise was not fulfilled. In their view of things, neither Judaism nor Christianity absorbed the Enlightenment even if, in a certain measure, they inspired it. All faiths, to the atheists, have remained in the condition of Islam today: rooted in dogmas that cannot be safely questioned. Believing this, they work themselves into a lather of vituperation against ordinary believers, including those believers who have come to religion in search of an instrument of peace, and who regard their faith as an exhortation to love their neighbour, even their belligerent atheist neighbour, as themselves.

At the same time, the atheists are reacting to the weakness of their case. Dawkins and Hitchens are adamant that the scientific worldview has entirely undermined the premises of religion and that only ignorance can explain the persistence of faith. But what exactly does modern science tell us, and just where does it conflict with the premises of religious belief? According to Dawkins (and Hitchens follows him in this), human beings are ‘survival machines’ in the service of their genes. We are, so to speak, by-products of a process that is entirely indifferent to our well-being, machines developed by our genetic material in order to further its reproductive goal. Genes themselves are complex molecules, put together in accordance with the laws of chemistry, from material made available in the primordial soup that once boiled on the surface of our planet. How it happened is not yet known: perhaps electrical discharges caused nitrogen, carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms to link together in appropriate chains, until finally one of them achieved that remarkable feature, of encoding the instructions for its own reproduction. Science may one day be able to answer the question how this occurred. But it is science, not religion, that will answer it.

As for the existence of a planet in which the elements abound in the quantities observed on planet earth, such a thing is again to be explained by science – though the science of astrophysics rather than the science of biology. The existence of the earth is part of a great unfolding process, which may or may not have begun with a Big Bang, and which contains many mysteries that physicists explore with ever increasing astonishment. Astrophysics has raised as many questions as it has answered. But they are scientific questions, to be solved by discovering the laws of motion that govern the observable changes at every level of the physical world, from galaxy to supernova, and from black hole to quark. The mystery that confronts us as we gaze upwards at the Milky Way, knowing that the myriad stars responsible for that smear of light are merely stars of a single galaxy, the galaxy that contains us, and that beyond its boundaries a myriad other galaxies slowly turn in space, some dying, some emerging, all forever inaccessible to us – this mystery does not call for a religious response. For it is a mystery that results from our partial knowledge and which can be solved only by further knowledge of the same kind – the knowledge that we call science.

Only ignorance would cause us to deny that general picture, and the evangelical atheists assume that religion must deny that picture and therefore must, at some level, commit itself to the propagation of ignorance or at any rate the prevention of knowledge. Yet I do not know a religious person among my friends and acquaintances who does deny that picture, or who regards it as posing the remotest difficulty for his faith. Dawkins writes as though the theory of the selfish gene puts paid once and for all to the idea of a creator God – we no longer need that hypothesis to explain how we came to be. In a sense that is true. But what about the gene itself: how did that come to be? What about the primordial soup? All these questions are answered, of course, by going one step further down the chain of causation. But at each step we encounter a world with a singular quality: namely that it is a world which, left to itself, will produce conscious beings, able to look for the reason and the meaning of things, and not just for the cause. The astonishing thing about our universe, that it contains consciousness, judgement, the knowledge of right and wrong, and all the other things that make the human condition so singular, is not rendered less astonishing by the hypothesis that this state of affairs emerged over time from other conditions. If true, that merely shows us how astonishing those other conditions were. The gene and the soup cannot be less astonishing than their product.

Moreover, these things would cease to astonish us – or rather, they would fall within the ambit of the comprehensible – if we could find a way to purge them of contingency. That is what religion promises: not a purpose, necessarily, but something that removes the paradox of an entirely law-governed world, open to consciousness, that is nevertheless without an explanation: that just is, for no reason at all. The evangelical atheists are subliminally aware that their abdication in the face of science does not make the universe more intelligible, nor does it provide an alternative answer to our metaphysical enquiries. It simply brings enquiry to a stop. And the religious person will feel that this stop is premature: that reason has more questions to ask, and perhaps more answers to obtain, than the atheists will allow us. So who, in this subliminal contest, is the truly reasonable one? The atheists beg the question in their own favour, by assuming that science has all the answers. But science can have all the answers only if it has all the questions; and that assumption is false. There are questions addressed to reason which are not addressed to science, since they are not asking for a causal explanation.

One of these is the question of consciousness. This strange universe of black holes and time warps, of event horizons and non-localities, somehow becomes conscious of itself. And it becomes conscious of itself in us. This fact conditions the very structure of science. The rejection of Newton’s absolute space, the adoption of the space-time continuum, the quantum equations – all these are premised on the truth that scientific laws are instruments for predicting one set of observations from another. The universe that science describes is constrained at every point by observation. According to quantum theory, some of its most basic features become determinate only at the moment of observation. The great tapestry of waves and particles, of fields and forces, of matter and energy, is pinned down only at the edges, where events are crystallised in the observing mind.

Consciousness is more familiar to us than any other feature of our world, since it is the route by which anything at all becomes familiar. But this is what makes consciousness so hard to pinpoint. Look for it wherever you like, you encounter only its objects – a face, a dream, a memory, a colour, a pain, a melody, a problem, but nowhere the consciousness that shines on them. Trying to grasp it is like trying to observe your own observing, as though you were to look with your own eyes at your own eyes without using a mirror. Not surprisingly, therefore, the thought of consciousness gives rise to peculiar metaphysical anxieties, which we try to allay with images of the soul, the mind, the self, the ‘subject of consciousness’, the inner entity that thinks and sees and feels and which is the real me inside. But these traditional ‘solutions’ merely duplicate the problem. We cast no light on the consciousness of a human being simply by re-describing it as the consciousness of some inner homunculus – be it a soul, a mind or a self. On the contrary, by placing that homunculus in some private, inaccessible and possibly immaterial realm, we merely compound the mystery.

It is this mystery which brings people back to religion. They may have no clear conception of science; no theological aptitude, and no knowledge of the arguments, down the ages, that have persuaded people that the fabric of contingency must be supported by a ‘necessary being’. The subtleties of the medieval schools for the most part make little contact with the thinking of believers today. Modern people are drawn to religion by their consciousness of consciousness, by their awareness of a light shining in the centre of their being. And, as Kant brilliantly showed, the person who is acquainted with the self, who refers to himself as ‘I’, is inescapably trapped into freedom. He rises above the wind of contingency that blows through the natural world, held aloft by Reason’s necessary laws. The ‘I’ defines the starting point of all practical reasoning and contains an intimation of the thing that distinguishes people from the rest of nature, namely their freedom. There is a sense in which animals too are free: they make choices, do things both freely and by constraint. But animals are not accountable for what they do. They are not called upon to justify their conduct, nor are they persuaded or dissuaded by dialogue with others. All those goals, like justice, community and love, which make human life into a thing of intrinsic value, have their origin in the mutual accountability of persons, who respond to each other ‘I’ to ‘I’. Not surprisingly, therefore, people are satisfied that they understand the world and know its meaning, when they can see it as the outward form of another ‘I’ – the ‘I’ of God, in which we all stand judged, and from which love and freedom flow.

That thought may be poured out in verse, as in the Veni Creator Spiritus of the Catholic Church, in the rhapsodic words of Krishna in the Baghavad Gita, in the great Psalms that are the glory of the Hebrew Bible. But for most people it is simply there, a dense nugget of meaning in the centre of their lives, which weighs heavily when they find no way to express it in communal forms. People continue to look for the places where they can stand, as it were, at the window of our empirical world and gaze out towards the transcendental – the places from which breezes from that other sphere waft over them. Not so long ago, God was in residence. You could open a door and discover him, and join with those who sang and prayed in his presence. Now he, like us, has no fixed abode. But from this experience a new kind of religious consciousness is being born: a turning of the inner eye towards the transcendental and a constant invocation of ‘we know not what’.

Distrust of organised religion therefore goes hand in hand with a mourning for the loss of it. We are distressed by the evangelical atheists, who are stamping on the coffin in which they imagine God’s corpse to lie and telling us to bury it quickly before it begins to smell. These characters have a violent and untidy air: it is very obvious that something is missing from their lives, something which would bring order and completeness in the place of random disgust. And yet we are uncertain how to answer them. Nowhere in our world is the door that we might open, so as to stand again in the breath of God.

Yet human beings have an innate need to conceptualise their world in terms of the transcendental, and to live out the distinction between the sacred and the profane. This need is rooted in self-consciousness and in the experiences that remind us of our shared and momentous destiny as members of Kant’s ‘Kingdom of Ends’. Those experiences are the root of human as opposed to merely animal society, and we need to affirm them, self-knowingly to possess them, if we are to be at ease with our kind. Religions satisfy this need. For they provide the social endorsement and the theological infrastructure that will hold the concepts of the transcendental and the sacred in place. The insecurity and disorder of Western societies comes from the tension in which people are held when they cannot attach their inner awareness of the transcendental to the outward forms of religious ritual. People have turned away from organised religion, as they have turned away from organised everything else. But the atheists who dance on the coffin of the old religions will never persuade them to live as though the thing inside were dead. God has fled, but he is not dead. He is biding his time, waiting for us to make room for him. That, at least, is how I read the growing obsession with religion and the nostalgia for what we lost when the congregations shut their Bibles and their hymn books, broke asunder and went silently home.

Jul 17, 2008 1:33 PM

Kill The Kid

Popout

Jul 17, 2008 12:00 PM

When Harry Met Skeptically

Here is my response to Harry’s comment on my last post, regarding 2 million people leaving Egypt. Harry is in italics.

The question you raise in the post is such an obvious one, it wouldn't have taken a millennium to ask it. Many if not most people are by nature skeptics. There would have had to be large numbers of people that just did not buy the sudden appearance of a Torah with such fantastic stories in it.

This is completely wrong. On the contrary, the history of religion shows that many if not most people accept the stories they were indoctrinated with at birth and hardly ever question or think about it. In a world where millions upon millions of people are convinced that Jesus is the Messiah, or Muhammed flew to heaven on a horse, or believe in Scientology, I don’t see how you can possibly claim thsat most people are by nature skeptics (at least when it comes to religion)

Also, there was no ‘sudden appearance’ of the Torah with ‘fantastic’ stories in it. There was a gradual evolution of a myth over hundreds of years. This has been documented in many other religions, and is certainly quite feasible.

Yet the skeptics in history are relatively few - far outnumbered by believers whose beliefs are transmitted by parents generation after generation going back to a time where the actual participants witnessed it. Those participants are the ones we ultimately rely upon plus the belief that our parents didn't make this stuff up.

If you are arguing that ‘number’ count, then we should all convert to Christianity, since ‘the Orthodox Jews in history are relatively few - far outnumbered by Christian believers whose beliefs are transmitted by parents generation after generation going back to a time where the actual participants witnessed it. ‘Those Christian participants are the ones we ultimately rely upon plus the belief that Charistian parents didn't make this stuff up.’

‘What possible reason would there be to make up such a ridiculous Exodus story? Why not simplify it so as to make it more believable? ‘

Every ancient religion created unbelievable myths. You think the Aztec myths are any better? Or the Summarian myths about half God half monster creatures battling it out, and then the world being created out of the skull of a dead monster? Or the world being supported by a giant Elephant (or is it a turtle?) What 'possible reason would there be to make up such ridiculous stories? Why not simplify it so as to make it more believable?'

You may want to read up on the history of mythology.

I could have thought up a much better story and had an easier time selling it than the one the Torah tells us... e.g. God created the universe billions of years ago populated it with millions of people at some point and then He appeared to all of them at one moment and gave us the rules and said 'Live by them or die - or what ever punishment applies to a given rule.' That is a much easier sell. No questions about fantastic stories, no miracles to worry about. Straight forward. Each generation would simply have a book of rules to follow given to us by God - and witnessed by - all of mankind early in the course of human history.

See above.

Instead we are told to believe a fantastic and impossible narrative. Don't you think someone would have said before now that 'the emperor has no clothes? And yet very few did.

Spinoza said it in 1500. Hiwi Al Kalbi said it in 900. Acher said it in 300. And I’m quite sure there were skeptics in 500 BCE too. And these are just the people we read about in religious literature. However religious coercion meant that a skeptic could be (and often was) put to death, and apart from the famous ones, the average skeptic didn't have books (or blogs). I’m quite sure there have always been plenty of skeptics throughout history. And anyway, are we playing the numbers game? Because OJ doesn’t win the numbers game.

The story must have had validity because only the most gullible would have believed such a story that suddenly appeared.

Again, it didn’t ‘suddenly appear’.

What explanation could they have given to all the skeptics? How did they explain the sudden late appearance of a book like the Torah? And why then?

It didn’t ‘suddenly’ appear! (except maybe for Devarim). There were ancient stories and fables which evolved and were transmitted orally over hundreds of years. Eventually these were written down in various versions, and eventually these were canonized into one version. Your argument that ‘people wouldn’t have believed it if it weren’t true’ is patently false, and is easily disproved by looking at any other religion. Many thousands if not millions of people believe in Scientology. And this is a ridiculous religion founded 50 years ago! Imagine what ancient people who had no TV, no newspapers, no Internet and no clue about Science would have believed!

What was it like for this nomadic homeless people before they had a Torah? What kind of cohesiveness did they have? Why were they persecuted and still stuck together for centuries before they came up with this book and the ridiculous stories in it?

They had their religious traditions. Just like everyone else. Eventually, when writing became feasible, they wrote these traditions down. Just like everyone else.

In the end it always comes back to the following:

Do we know for a fact that people have a tremendous ability to believe all sorts of crazy stuff, ESPECIALLY when it comes to religion? Yes.

Do we know for a fact that any of the miracles or stories in the Torah are true? No. In fact, they are contradicted by pretty much every archeologist, ancient historian and Biblical scholar, with the only people insisting they are true being the very people who are religiously required to believe so.

You do the math.

Jul 16, 2008 12:49 AM

The question that killed fundamentalist OJ

The question which truly does OJ in is the one about the 2 million.

The Torah is quite clear that 600,000 males between the ages of 20-60 left Egypt. Simple math shows that when you include women and children the total number of people must have been well into the multiple millions. Yet such a number is completely impossible, given the logistics and population sizes of the ANE.

Arguing that there was no evidence left in the desert because their clothes never wore out and they ate manna doesn't help. Firstly, camping remnants and other excretia would be huge for 2 million people. But even without any of that, an army of 600,000 men would have been unbelievable in the ancient world, where armies 20,000 strong were the largest seen. Not to mention the fact that the entire population of ancient Egypt was 4 million. 2 million people leaving would have left some kind of mark, but besides the Torah there is zero evidence of such an Exodus. And let's not even talk about the logistics of moving 2 million people overnight out of Egypt.

Even Hirhurim admits this question has no answer, he writes:

'The single largest question about the historicity of the Torah is how so many people could leave Egypt and stay in the desert for so long without leaving any trace....No historian accepts that figure and I don't have an answer to the question. But we don't die from a question. Much worse is pretending that the question doesn't exist.'

And the latest crop of OJ apologists and reconcilers don't even go near this question. Why not? Because while you can kvetch away in Breishis, in Shemos you are totally stuck. The narrative was handed to the Bnei Yisrael just after it happened, saying that it's metaphorical makes no sense at all. Plus, the placement of the narrative is way too sensistive. It's one thing to say ancient stories in the distant past like Gan Eden are allegorical. But Yetziat Mitzrayim, THE foundational story of our religion?! Might as well give up on OJ if that one is allegorical.

Some people argue that 'elef' means 'clan', or 'army troop', or similar. But this doesn't work when you look at the census later on, which gives detailed individual numbers. And to say that the story here is exagerated to teach some kind of lesson seems very bizarre, as the Dor Hamidbor would have known the truth. And anyways, that makes the census detail look even more crazy.

The only reasonable explanation here is that this whole story was written years later. Hundreds of years later. And totally exagerated (if it even happened at all).

It's ironic that the kiruv clowns use the 600,000 number as a proof that the Torah is true. In fact, it's just the opposite. The 600,000 number proves the Torah is false. That's the real Kuzari proof.

Hirhurim writes that a question won't kill you. That's correct. But it might kill your fundamentalist religion.

Jul 15, 2008 11:34 AM

Not very likely....or is it?

One of my chief arguments against fundamentalism has been that given all the evidence, it's just not very likely that God wrote the Torah, or that 2,000,0000+ people left Egypt, or that any of the other unbelievable claims of OJ are true.

eKvetcher blogs about Nassem Taleb's 'Black Swan' research, a topic I intended to write about myself (honestly). Taleb points out that all the really major events in history were completely unexpected, and that when we post analyze with hindsight claiming that in retrospect it was obvious, we are merely pandering to our bias in wanting things to conform to our view that history should be rational.

The other aspect of my argument against the fundies is that when they claim TMS is too unlikely to have just happened by natural means and therefore God must have done it, I always respond that unlikely things do indeed happen, just not very often.

Well, according to my own logic, and confirmed by Taleb, if unlikely things do indeed happen, then couldn't it be possible that OJ is true? So arguing that it's not very likely isn't as strong an argument as you might think, because not very likely things happen all the time.

Of course this argument works for all religions equally well, so it doesn't help the fundies much, except to provide some kind of generic pseudo intellectual cover for justifying beliefs in religion in general. Though it's hard to justify what would otherwise be termed immoral behavior, just by appealing to some unlikely belief.

But I think it does work for God (vague God, not a specifically named God). Nobody knows anything about God, and nobody knows (or could even comprehend) how the Universe got here. When atheists say that God is unlikely, there's really no argument there. He's just as likely as not. Actually you don't even need the Black Swan theory to say this. Since we know nothing about universe creation, we have no data to be able to state whether Gods are likely or not. It's simply an unknown.

Typically, when cornered, atheists will resort to utilitarian rather than logical arguments here; they will say that since nobody really knows anything about God, it's pointless to talk about Him (or Her). Well, once you are in utilitarian territory you have probably lost the argument, because then the fundies can arue that there is certainly a utilitarian point e.g. motivation for morality etc.

So in summary, I would say this:

It is certainly a fact that fundie religion is unlikely to be true, and basing your faith on the maxim that 'unlikely things do happen' isn't really much comfort here, since that's just as strong an argument for scientology (or Chareidism).

However, when it comes to God, all discussions of 'likely' vs. 'unlikely' are off the table. There's simply no data to base anything on. In that case, the discussion must by definition move to the realm of feeling and utility, in which case the Theists do have a reasonable argument. Not airtight, but they do have something. An indescribable, incomprehensible something.

Oh well.

Jul 15, 2008 12:44 AM

I finally found the truth, but I didn't really like it

Nobody knows anything about God and all religion is man made.

That has been my mantra for a while now, and it's damn depressing. Life is ultimately pointless and meaningless and we're all going to die. Even though we're young, life flies by pretty damn quickly, and before you know it, you're lying in the terminal ward dying painfully of cancer, or clutching your chest on the living room floor.

And that's if you're lucky.

So, given that, you might as well have faith. The gain of feeling intellectually superior to the silly fundamentalists is outweighed by loss of faith, meaning, community and much more. Obviously one can't force themselves to believe in the unbelievable, but in the realm of vague thoughts about God (whatever that means) and Divine Inspiration (whatever that means) there's plenty of wiggle room. Plus, in rare moments you can conceivably forget about all the reality and just go with the flow.

Everyone, extreme skeptics included, have faith in unproven things. The best example is the little god (free will). It's very rare to find someone who really, truly denies that particular prime mover, yet everything we know about the laws of physics makes it impossible.

So if you are going to believe in the little god because it makes sense, matches your feelings, and makes the world a more reasonable place, why not the big God? I guess some will argue that they do indeed deny the little god, but I don't believe it. And of course I'm not talking about the specific God of the Bible, or any such Deity, I'm talking about God, kaveyochol. Something bigger than we can understand.

Faith against the evidence is silly, to be sure. But a bit of faith in general religious ideals where no evidence exists either way can be quite healthy I think. Take away the silly ontological beliefs in Judaism and dig deeper into the underlying principles and it's pretty good stuff.

I don't think you can stretch this to say God wrote the Torah, or even something happened on Sinai (apart from a volcano and maybe a religious experience). But you can stretch it to say that God exists (kaveyochol), and the Torah is Divinely Inspired (kaveyochol) and play around with that.

I call it my Kaveyochol Theology.

Humans need religion, and will generally always gravitate to one form of religion or another. Science doesn't provide value, community, spirituality, leadership etc. And in the rare cases where it does, then science is simply the religion. Religion doesn't have to be supernatural, or include impossible beliefs. It's basically a worldview, lifestyle, and all the extras.

So it's not a question of rejecting religon or not. Pretty much everyone has a religion, the only question is which one will you pick; atheism or Judaism (or Scientism or Chareidism or Digitalism* or a million other varieties).

I think the best religion for me personally is some kind of Orthopraxy, with vague beliefs. That way I still have a religion, still have connections to my peers, family and community, yet can also still feel I am close to the truth. I also still get to feel a little intellectually superior to my fundie friends, without straying so far that I look back regretfully.

Luckily, there's quite a bit of material on the LW MO / RW Con border to work with, and with all the new forms of Conservadoxy springing up at places like Mechon Hadar, there's never been a better time to pursue this path. Also, I know a bunch of LW MO Rabbis, educators and relatives who basically think like this, though would never admit it.

So, apologies to everyone who was offended by the last year's worth of extreme skepticism, and now it's back to our regular radical LW MO Ignostic Reconstructodox programming.

* Digitalism: A religion based around small electronic objects. Worshippers read Gizmodo religiously, and will line up outside an Apple store just to get a 3G ipod.

Popout

Jul 14, 2008 1:47 PM

Holy Moly! Rav Dessler on Rabbi Louis Jacobs:

"You…cannot imagine the value of this Kollel [Gateshead Kollel]. In it are gathered the great exemplars of the country, who have fled having learned in the great Yeshivas, and…amongst them are numerous true greats…There is one young man [Louis Jacobs], a product of Manchester (he is the only native [Anglo] product), and it is no exaggeration for me to say that hitherto, I have never seen an ilui [Talmudic genius] of such depth together with the other strengths in any one … he is a truly great one...able to plumb the depths of thought."

Mikhtav Me-Eliyahu, 166.

[Quoted here]

So, either RLJ has a haskamah of one of the greatest Gedolim (and not stam a Godol, but someone recognuized to be a master of Machshavah / Hashkafah) of the 20th Century, or the Gedolim have no ability to judge other people. Either way this doesn't look too good for the Gedolim worshippers.

Jul 14, 2008 1:58 AM

A Troubled Cure For A Troubled Mind

I'm going to try the Divine Inspiration theory for a bit. From a purely skeptical POV, there is no good reason to believe in it. On the other hand, nobody really accepts pure skepticism le'maaseh, we (almost) all like to believe we have free will for example, and even those who claim to have ridden themselves of belief in the 'little god' still act for all intents and purposes as if human beings have to take responsibility for their actions. Seems like some things are just too important to jettison. Can a skeptic force (train?) himself to believe in something without good reason? We'll have to see. Talk amongst yourselves for a while.

Jul 10, 2008 11:23 AM

Why people become Conservative

Why do some of the finest products of the Orthodox Movement trend towards Conservative?

Let's look at a couple of examples:

Rabbi Louis Jacobs, Rabbi New London Synagogue (deceased)
Rabbi Jacobs studied at Manchester Yeshivah, and later at the kolel in Gateshead (Rav Dessler's Kolel. It doesn't get any frummer than that). Jacobs was ordained as an Orthodox Jewish rabbi at Manchester Yeshivah (The Manchester Rosh Yeshivah, Rav Segal, was widely acknowledged as one of the biggest tzaddikim and top gedolim anywhere. It doesn't get much frummer than that).

Rabbi David H. Lincoln, Rabbi Emeritus of Park Avenue Synagogue
Rabbi David H. Lincoln attended Gateshead Talmudical College in England (Gateshead Yeshivah is about 10 times frummer than Lakewood) and spent two years in rabbinical study in the Yeshivat Kol Torah in Jerusalem (Kol Torah is pretty darn frum too). He received the certificate of practice as Rabbi from the Office of Chief Rabbi in England, and was ordained at the Etz Chaim Yeshiva (very frum) and by the Ab Beth Din of London (very frum).

So what on earth made these two shining stars of Orthodoxy, educated at literally the finest (and frummest) Orthodox institutions anywhere, close talmidim of some of the most illustrious Gedolim of the 20th century, become Conservative?

What, they didn't like Chulent?

[Answer: They realized that OJ isn't true.]

Jul 9, 2008 4:06 PM

Yiras Shamayim

I am still very disturbed by Rabbi Jeremy Weider’s extremely disingenuous use of the term ‘Yiras Shamayim’, and it deserves another post.

Yiras Shamayim means fear of Heaven, or more specifically fear of God. What it should mean to convey is a person who fears God to the extent that they will not sin, for example they will not cheat, lie, steal, even in private when no one is looking, because they believe that God is always watching and judging. Of course ‘ahavah’ is better than ‘yirah’, but ‘yirah’ is better than nothing.

From a skeptical POV, ‘ahavah’ can be explained as follows: that a person should love good and hate evil so much that even in private they would never do evil. But this post is not being written from a skeptical POV. Even from a ‘faithful’ POV RJW’s comments are very wrong.

What on earth does Yiras Shamayim have to do with Biblical Criticism? If you become convinced that the DH was true, and that God did not write the Torah, how would Yiras Shamayim prevent you from accepting that?

On the contrary, if God did not in fact write the Torah, then someone with true Yirash Shamayim would refuse to continue to believe in TMS, since this would be an extreme insult to God, to ascribe authorship of some very strange material to him.

When RJW mentions Yiras Shamayim in the context of the DH clearly he means a very perverted form of Yiras Shamayim: basically a fear mentality of ever disagreeing with your religious indoctrination, or your leaders and peers. The lack of courage to accept the truth, and do what’s right. That’s the only type of ‘Yiras Shamayim’ that would prevent a student from accepting the DH, should it sound convincing to him.

But that’s not Yiras Shamayim. That’s more like ‘Ve vere only following orderz’.

Ridiculous.

[And please don’t tell me that RJW was lecturing to a chareidi crowd. He wasn’t. It was a mixed MO crowd, you can even hear questions from a girl at the end.]

Jul 9, 2008 2:04 PM

Responding to evanstonjew

ej writes pretty good comments, and here is one which raises a number of good (but wrong) points, so here is my response. ej in italics.

XGH... For the millionth time we do not know that God exists or that TMS is true. That is what emunah means …we believe but do not know. Are these beliefs held without adequate evidence, the paradigm being the evidence we have for common sense beliefs? Yes and Klal Yisrael ought to be grateful to you for pointing out to those of us who needed reminding that we do not actually remember being mekabel the Torah, despite the success of the shiduchim website Saw You At Sinai. My main problem with your repeating this point endlessly is that it assumes OJ requires epistemic probability. It doesn’t. It only requires epistemic possibility plus utility, a point which you yourself acknowledge when you present your explanation for why you choose Orthodoxy. Most of those engaged in apologetics only want to sugar coat the improbable so that emunah doesn’t become impossible. (I am not talking of the kamikaze types such as Jacob Stein or Rabbi Maroof, who if they didn’t exist you would have to invent.)

I don’t agree. The vast majority of those in ‘apologetics’, and the vast majority of OJs (not LW MO) really believe it is most probably true, or else they wouldn’t believe in it. More importantly, 'epistemic possibility' applies to every single religion, so it's not saying anything. Either this is most probably the one true religion, or else it is yet another man made system and should be treated accordingly.

Most Orthodox know there is no way of knowing that Torah is true; they just want to make it seem a little more plausible than a flat earth hypothesis. So they give in here and darshen there and change the topic when weather permits. I maintain they are doing the best they can with the material they have, and net-net are doing more right by Orthodoxy and by the Jewish people than this constant "it’s dumb, it’s silly, only an idiot would believe it" rhetoric you seem to favor. And the reason is they feel a responsibility first and foremost to keep up the way of life called Orthodoxy.

I don’t agree. I think the reason first and foremost is that they don’t have the intellectual objectivity to be able to be able to see that it’s false, nor the emotional and spiritual courage to deal with the consequences thereof. In fact I think that the skeptics like me feel more of a responsibility. I suspect that many of these people would just drop the whole thing if they ever felt it was false, whereas the community of skeptics here is very engaged despite the fact that we know it is false.

You OTOH would allow Orthodoxy to fall by the way side if necessary rather than forego the opportunity to destroy some apologist who doesn’t meet your standard of evidence. I am not saying you are like some others on this site who wish for the destruction of Orthodoxy, but rather you do not take into account that if widely accepted the destruction of Orthodoxy would be a probable if unintended consequence of your polemics.

Firstly, considering people's ability to believe in nonsense, I don't think OJ is in any danger of being destroyed any time soon. However there are a large number of people within OJ who would like to continue to have some kesher to OJ, but cannot believe it is true (and for good reason). These are the people who can benefit from a branch of OJ (or ever outside OJ) which is Orthoprax Reconstructionist. And, to enhance their 'acceptability' within mainstream OJ, it certainly helps if the reasons why they reject the beliefs OJ as false are well understood by all. This is my mission and I believe it is a good one.

I raise this point because it provides a context for why I feel more is required in this discussion that common sense, a clear mind and introductory philosophy. And I resent your dismissal of anything that requires more than 10 minutes of reading time as irrelevant to the conversation. ("Personally I couldn't give a monkeys about technical philosophical arguments … We all know what 'truth' means… The only people who attack 'truth' are the people who don't like what truth has to say.")

Seems I hit a nerve. Just to clarify: I think the philosophical discussions around ‘justified beliefs’ are in fact very relevant and important. I just have little patience for Chardal’s redefinition of ‘truth’ just to suit his religious preferences.

As a ben torah you know it is not for you to arrive at the end, and each pathway and byway of conceptual thought is worthy of endless attention. The task as I see it is to help those who have sefikot in emunah deal with these issues. I now fully accept the playing field has changed and the issues raised by the DH can no longer be summarily dismissed. But the goal remains the same. Given some particular version of the DH, not the generic cliff notes version you prefer, how are we best to understand the point and meaning of Orthodoxy?

Good question. This is the task I have been engaged in, but admittedly it’s not easy. Given the DH (any version), the point and meaning of Orthodoxy seems pointless and false, unless it is radically reconstructed.

I do not see the task as you do, find some bullshitter and make him look like an idiot for trying to make Orthodoxy look a little more modern than it really is.

Aww, come on. That provides comic relief to an otherwise existentially depressing subject.

There are many worse things in life than Rabbi Weider and YU intellegensia. The Reconstructionist Rabbinical College with 10 students of whom 8 are women and nine are lesbians is one.

Hello? What the heck is wrong with 8 women and 9 Lesbians? I thought you were more open minded than that. I am quite surprised at you.

And for my task of finding a way to help Jews strengthen their emunah you can never have enough philosophical ideas, analytic and boring, post modern and wild , old fashioned and archaic, all of it.

First you have to convince me that ‘strengthening emunah’ (emunah in what?) is the right task. On the contrary, I think weakening emunah is the correct task here.

Jul 8, 2008 5:48 PM

What is 'Truth' ?

Our favorite pomo fundalectual, Chardal, has this to say:

Many skeptics don't even realize that by defining truth as correspondence to reality, they are staking out a philosophical postion that is by no means established (this is what evanston Jew has tried to pound into their brains).

Funny. Personally I couldn't give a monkeys about technical philosophical arguments as to the definition of the word 'truth'. We all know what 'truth' means, and for all practical purposes we all accept pretty much the same working day to day definition of what 'truth' means, and 'correspondance to reality' is pretty much it. The only people who attack 'truth' are the people who don't like what truth has to say.

But let me be clear, 'Reality' is not by definition limited to the material world. It could certainly encompass spiritual reality as well as physical reality. It could also encompass Flying Spaghetti Monster reality too. As long as these things are 'real' in some sense, and not just the fantasies of some highly imaginative or delusional people.

But does spiritual reality exist? Nobody knows. People certainly have a capacity for 'spiritual' feeling, but that doesn't neccessarily mean that a seperate spiritual reality exists. As a matter of common sense, I think it would be prudent to expect more 'proof' of a reality than just the highly biased fantasies of your typical fundamentalist believer.

Also, nobody really knows what reality is anyway. Is it strings? Is it quarks? Is it doodles? From a certain very small vantage point, reality looks like a lot of nothing with some tiny energy fields. Is that reality? Could be.

The simplest way to debunk all these fundallectuals is this:

Do we know for a fact that ALL people have an extremely high capacity to delude themselves into believing entirely false ancient mythologies? Yes.

Do we know for a fact that most, (if not all), ancient mythological and religious beliefs are entirely false? Yes.

Do we know for a fact that God wrote the Torah? Or even that He exists? No.

You do the math.

Jul 7, 2008 10:37 AM

Silence of the Lamms: YU Apologetics

As the premier Modern Orthodox educational institution on the planet, I would imagine that YU has more Intellifundies, Fundalectuals and all round apologetics than anyone. My own Rabbi, who attended YU, told me that his Bible teacher told him that 'You can believe in a Redactor as long as his name was Moshe Rabbeinu (R standing for 'Rabbeinu'). Here is a fun list of other YU apologetics on Biblical Criticism, courtesy of a commenter 'Silence of the Lamms'.

David Zvei Hoffman demolished it.

Modern literary approaches offer a unity.

You can use Rav Breuer if you want.

You see, the critics were wrong- camels were known in the time of Abraham.

Look, the Daat Hamikra does use historical data.

Bar-Ilan is "orthopax" and you dont want to wind up like them.

Nahmanides, as interpreted by the Shem mishmuel, presents Devarim as a different voice.

We cant really do Pentatuch history but to question Abraham would be a post-modern attack against Judiasm [and Zionism].

One can pick holes in the theories of the minimalists.

Rebbe Tsadok had a historical apporach.

We can only do the Dead Sea Scrolls.

We understand the text through hazal or meforshim and then there are not real problems.

Using modern literary techniques to explain meforshim makes us very modern and up to date- unlike the Biblical critics who are still in the 19th century.

Rav Bin-Nun [or Leibtag] will be visiting in town next week, save your question and ask him.

Look, there is an entire cadre of Orthodox Bible scholars, like Grumet, Leibtag, Helfgot, Zornberg, and Carmy- if they are not bothered by your question then it is not a real question.

To which I would add this one from Rabbi Weider:

If you had Yiras Shamayim, these questions wouldn't bother you!

Any others?

Jul 7, 2008 10:37 AM

Rabbi Jeremy Weider on Academic Bible Study: Not Sexy

_I finally got around to listening to the Jeremy Weider's shiur on ‘Academic Bible Study’, since I had a long drive back from the beach (oooh a clue!) and had already listened to The Wall, the Dark Side of the Moon, the Final Cut and Wish You Were Here, and that was the only mp3 left on my player.

A few things stood out:

1. This was the first shiur I have EVER heard in my entire life where the maggid shiur used the word ‘sexy’ (as in ‘academic Bible study is not ‘sexy’). I almost fell off my chair, or would have done so had I not been wearing my seat belt. Is this the state of YU these days? What a shandah for the chareidim.

2. The second thing which struck me was how ridiculous his shiur was. The point of the shiur was (apparently) to defend Yeshivah college’s pratice of using ‘academic’ methods to study Tenach. Now of course Rabbi Weider and the Yeshivah hold of Torah Min Hashamayim just like the Chareidim do, so he wasn’t trying to justify any apikorsus here, and in fact he stressed his belief in the ‘ikkarim’ multiple times.

But in the course of the shiur he said quite a few statements which totally contradicted this. For example, at one point he said that we now have access to knowledge and facts that Chazal didn’t have (talking about the ‘psil’), and that this didn’t mean any disrespect to Chazal at all, but simply meant that we were fortunate to be the beneficiaries of new information that wasn’t available to Chazal. He also repeated multiple times that you cannot ignore the facts, and you have to adjust your theology to fit the facts, not the other way around. Also he said Chazal were not infallible. All this being true, why on earth then is he so convinced that that Chazals’ take on Torah MiSinai is correct? He never explains this, only saying that this is an ikkar emunah. But maybe Chazal didn’t have all the information?

(It was also pathetic that he talked about James Kugel but wouldn’t mention him by name. )

3. The shiur was poorly constructed. He started talking about 5 possible meanings of the word ‘academic’, but then never followed through on that. Then he launched into a defense of ‘academic Bible study’, but never really explained what exactly is academic bible study. He jumped around talking about Science and Torah a bit, mentioned the Slifkin ban, but then never really followed through on that either.

Ultimately it was just yet another silly, non rational Modern Orthodox attempt at reconciling the irreconcilable. If you are going to base you entire approach on ‘faith’ (and to his credit he did say that Nevuah was unprovable), then don’t give shiurim which try and give an aura of pseudo-academic respectability to your enterprise. Don’t say ‘we must face the facts’, but then say that you have ‘red lines’ (i.e. ikkarim) which cannot be crossed.

4. Finally, and most silly of all, was his explanation and defense of why academic Bible study in Yeshivah college is not necessarily harmful to everyone. His argument was that as long as someone has sufficient Yiras Shamayim (teacher and student), then there’s no need to worry. But if someone has more ‘chochmah’ than ‘yiraah’, it could be a problem.

What it does it mean when someone has tremendous Yiras Shamayim? In this context, it can only mean:

a) They really, really, really believe their religion is true

and/or

b) They would be really, really, really afraid of starting to think their religion is not true.

And for that type of person, it’s okay to teach academic Bible study!

Well DUH.

And what does it mean when you have someone where ‘chochmoso kodem leyirasoh’ ?

It means you have someone who is after the truth no matter what the consequences are, and wouldn’t be frightened of God if he figured out that his religion wasn’t true. For that kind of person, it could be dangerous to expose them to critical Bible study.

Well DUH again.

Jul 2, 2008 5:10 PM

Hirhurim endorses Breuer Samet

I've long wondered what Gil really thinks of the Documentary Hypothesis. I know he has a fondness for the 'new' School of Parshanut, i.e. Breuer and company, but I see now that he has said it explicitly:

'Single authorship is not going to win any academic battle because it only works if you assume divine authorship and the need for interpretation.'

In typical Gil style, his wording is rather (too) succint. But what he is saying is this:

If you believe God wrote the Torah, then all the contradictions, ommisions, repetitions, mistakes, different use of language etc etc were put there by God davkah to be interpreted. However if you regard the Torah as a human book, then it no longer makes sense as a unified text, since as a human book it looks like a messed up composite text, exactly as the academics see it.

I don't buy this explanation at all. For the following reasons:

1. It's just a convenient answer. If the book was perfect, you can be sure everyone would say 'See, look how perfect it is! Yes, I know Chazal themsleves made a lot out hay of (some of) the textual problems. Duh. Thoguh I guess Gil could argue that he's just taking Chazal's approach to the next logical (insane) level, but at some point it just becomes ridiculous.

2. Chazal's basic assumption when darshening the text is that the text is supposed to make sense. 'Dibrah Torah Keloshon Bnei Odom'. The answer above is basically saying that everything was written crazily just so we could darshan it. Those two statements don't seem to jive.

3. You can tell that even Gil and friends don't really believe this themselves, because they are always going to great lengths to try and show unity in the text. But if this theory was correct, why should you bother to try and show any unity? On the contrary, admit its a mess but then go darshen!

I think this answer is obviously a con. Whenever the believers can show unity, you can be sure they will. Whenever they fail, they just fall back on this answer. A typical example of an unfalsifiable religious answer, very similar to: 'God planted all the evidence of the ancient world' and things like that.

These answers technically do 'work', but at the end of the day you have to ask yourself what kind of God would plant false dinosaur bones, or create a Torah which davkah looks like it is a human composite text.

UPDATE: Gil writes:

'And for what it's worth, I much prefer R. Elchanan Samet's approach over R. Mordechai Breuer's. I don't buy the "multiple voices" theory.'

So how is Samet any different? And how could R Breuer, one of greatest Torah experts, be so wrong? And if the latest generation of Torah scholars and expert OJ Torah 'readers' can't even agree with each other on the basics (never mind the details) how do they expect to have any credibility at all???

Jul 2, 2008 11:10 AM

Quiz: Evolution to Chareidim is like Documentary Hypothesis to *what*?

(Answer: Modern Orthodox.)

Chareidim view evolution as one of the most heinous heresies ever, completely incompatible with Orthodoxy. When Pepsi ran an ad campaign in Israel showing the evolution from monkey to a Pepsi drinking man, the Chareidim went nuts, and that continues to this day with various bans and so forth.

Yet to the Modern Orthodox, evolution is no problem at all. Now this isn’t a halachic disagreement, but rather an intense disagreement due to very different perceptions. Chareidim have always believed that Man was literally created by God on the 6th day. They cannot conceptualize a Judaism which doesn’t include this belief. Shabbos only makes sense to them within this context. However the average Modern Orthodox person has always assumed that Man evolved, that God is behind it all in some way, and that the stories in Breishis were always allegorical, metaphorical and moshological, and that poses no issue to them at all. It’s all about perceptions and preconceived notions.

The same thing plays out with the Documentary Hypothesis. The RW Modern Orthodox freak out with it, can't conceive how OJ could be viable with it, yet there are plenty of LW MO and RW Conservadox who have no problem with it at all, still believe in the general Divinity of the Torah / Jewish people, are still committed to Halachah, and take a Halivni / Jacobs approach to the whole thing.

Just like the MO regard the Chareidim as being ridiculous and ignorant for rejecting evolution, likewise the LW MO/ RWC regard the RW MO as being ridiculous and ignorant for rejecting the Documentary Hypothesis, which is just as ‘proven’ (in a broad sense) as evolution is. Evolution also has some missing links, yet the broad consensus of all expert (non biased) scientists is that evolution is obviously true. Same thing with Biblical Criticism.

So are we ever going to see the RW MO accept the DH? Yes, when we see Chareidim accept evolution. In other words, probably not, since religious fundamentalism is quite a powerful force stopping people from being honest and accepting the truth.

Some people have spent much energy trying to persuade Chareidim to accept evolution (and similar science). I spend much energy trying to get MO to accept Documentary Hypothesis (and similar). Both of these activities of course produce tremendous amounts of conflict (not to mention hostility), but the goal is the same – to rid religion of ignorance and dishonesty, and to get people to accept reality.

The people working on the evolution side have a slightly easier task – there are various midrashim and Rabbinic snippets here and there which they can use to support their views. On the DH side, the picking are much slimmer. But still, there are some sources: e.g. Ibn Ezra’s ‘secrets’ line, sources about Ezra writing the Torah, Midrashim about how the Bnei Yisrael already had the Genesis stories in Egypt, some things from Rav Kook, and probably a few more besides.

I could imagine that someone could write a ‘Documentary Hypothesis & Torah’ book, (published by Yashar) which could make a (half) decent case for it. At the very least, an essay or paper. I know for a fact that there are respectable LW MO Rabbanim and others who believe this to be the case, so why don't they write something up? Are they worried that this will instantly 'passel' them? There are ways around that, for example present it as a 'hypothetical' theory, or disguise it as a dialogue, or other tricks like that.

I wonder if that will ever happen? Does anyone have any links to something in this genre? I guess Halivni and Jacobs come the closest, but of course they are not fully OJ.

Jul 1, 2008 10:52 PM

Why don't OJ Bible Scholars decisively squash the DH once and for all?

I mamash don't understand.

The DH is a bunch of nonsense, right? A stupid, illogical and absurd theory, originally concocted by a bunch of anti-semites, perpetuated only by dogma, bias and the inability to read hebrew and learn the meforshim.

Even an average Yeshivah Bochur can 'read' the Chumash better than the most senior professor of Biblical scholarship. Plus Orthodox Jews have the advantage of thousands of years of Biblical exegesis. And not just any exegesis, but the exegesis of the most holiest, best Bible reading people of all time: Chazal, the Rishonim, and the Acharonim. I mean if these people didn't know peshat in Chumash, then nobody does!

Now I understand why it might be beneath the dignity of the Gedolim to address the DH, they have more important things to ban do rather than write refutations of nonsense. But for the more Modern Rabbonim and Orthodox Bible scholars, surely this should be something they should focus on?

I mean, one only has to read all the blogs to see so many poor souls geshmaded through exposure to the DH. Imagine the kiddush Hashem it would bring if a bunch of Orthodox Rabbis & Scholars explained clearly and concisely why the DH was really a bunch of nonsense, and how the traditional Jewish reading makes much more sense!

Not only would all these poor skeptics be saved. but the implications for the rest of the world could be immense. Can you imagine the gains for OJ, when we simply show how the dominant Bible critics are all completely wrong?

I mamash don't understand why the Orthodox academics don't do this. And if you will argue that it would be bad for their careers, I would argue that only initially it would be bad. But once everyone read their books, they would see how poshut it all is.

And if you still want to argue that academia would just never accept it because they are just too biased, still at the very least shouldn't we publish the books for the sake of our own skeptics and would be skeptics?

And if the academics won't do it, then there is no shortage of Rabbonim and amateur scholars who could easily take up the task. Rabbi Shalom Carmy, Rabbi Yitz Etshalom, Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, Gil Student, even Ari Lamm. All these people are incredible 'readers' of the text (by definition), and showing the essential unity of the Torah, and showing how the DH is absurd nonsese, would surely be a trivial matter for them.

Why haven't they done it? Why don't they just do it?! Why is Yashar Books publishing silly tracts on philosophy and science, yet neglecting this most essential (and easy) endeavour?

It's mamash crazy!

Idiots.

Existential Angst June '08

2008-06-30T16:20:00.000-07:00

Jun 30, 2008 3:42 PM

Ari Lamm: Academia is biased, and out to destroy religion!

I finally got a response out of Ari Lamm about why he believes that academia is more biased (or maybe as biased) as religion when it comes to the DH, and why no serious school of single HUMAN authorship has arisen:

There are at least two reasons that I can imagine as to why the scholarly mainstream will never (or at least not soon) venture into "single authorship" territory:

1) Ironically (I suppose), academia - especially in the various fields composing the standard liberal arts curriculum - is most possessive of its orthodoxies. Once an academic field has established its own particular brand of orthodoxy, it becomes akin to a dogma just as in any religion. It is extremely difficult to let go, and that is one of the most basic reasons why it will take generations (if it ever does happen) and a monumental effort on the part of younger scholars to cast off the choke-hold of the DH. I don't see that sort of intellectual "reformation" (pun intended) happening any time soon.

2) Whether academia's cheerleaders like to admit it or not, much of DH scholarship is crucial in allowing the "enlightened" intelligentsia to ridicule the quaintly absurd views of "religious fundamentalists," and other brainless yahoos. If scholars - at least those hostile to religion (I don't have any numbers, but I'd say they AT LEAST make up a vocal minority) - were to come to a consensus whereby they might admit that the Bible (the relevant books, obviously) likely had one author, it would just be a matter of faith-preference to believe in a Divinely authored Torah, rather than a matter of "denying the scholarly consensus and all available evidence."

These, I believe, are the two stand-out reasons why single, non-Divine authorship is not an option for scholars. Does this reflect well upon scholars? No. But that's life... Academia has plenty of other wonderful things to offer (even in the field of "academic" Bible) and believing Jews should be grateful for that.

Absurd in the extreme. However biased academia might be, religions are orders of magnitude more so. Ari Lamm himself, being a religious fundamentalist whose entire lifestyle is based on asserting that God wrote the Torah, is of course tremendously biased. Only someone that biased would prefer to see a global conspiracy & bias in academia rather than admit the blindingly obvious fact that EVERYONE in the entire world can see (except of course for the religious fundamentalists themselves), which is that when you read the Torah, it looks like a composite text.*

If I were a fundie, I would take the following approach to this issue:

Yes, the Bible certainly looks like a composite text, and it is no wonder that academia has declared it such. However, we have a religion which requires it to be a unified text (or at least singler author), and therefore for religious reasons this is what we have to believe, and attempt to show.

That would be more honest at least.

* Just look at the two different responses that Hashem gives after the story of the Meraglim for a great example. Also about 100 other killer examples, including Noach, Korach, Breishis and much, much more. I haven't even read any books on the DH, I don't have much patience for long winded theories about priestly clans. I just read the Chumash (JPS edition). It's staring you in the face. Of course you can kvetch 'answers' to all these things, but kvetchy answers don't impress me.

Jun 30, 2008 10:47 AM

Is the Documentary Hypothesis credible?

Occam's Razor comes up a lot in believer vs. skeptic discussions. For example, skeptics often argue that the DH (or similar) explains most of the textual anomolies in the Bible, therefore it is simpler to believe in the DH rather than a Divinely written book, with all the associated issues. The believers twist the argument back around, arguing that the DH has now become so complex that Occam's Razor should compel you to reject it.

But is Occam's Razor really true? In this paper, the author argues that simpler theories are not neccessarily truer theories. And indeed, the universe itself isn't that 'simple'. If 'simple' was 'true', then the big bang shouldn't ever have gone anywhere. In a world which tends towards ever more complexity, I don't see how intuitively 'simpler' is more true.

Also, it is very hard to define 'simple'. Is God 'simple'? Depends what you mean. That's why I prefer to stay away from the debates about how comlex the DH is (or not), and instead focus on the nature of academic opinion and bias, and who has more credibility, the academics or the religious believers.

True, everyone is at least a little biased, and academics can certainly be wrong. However, when it comes to the fight about the DH (or any theory of composite authorship of the Torah), you really don't need to spend years studying the texts, or going through all the arguments, just like you don't need to spend years studying aerodynamics before you get on a plane.

Instead, all you need to do is look at the two sides in the debate and see which side has more credibility. What factors have to be considered in any analysis of credibility? Training, expertise, familiarity with the subject matter, level of consensus, maturity of theories, any over-riding biases etc etc. So, let's have a look here, and see what we find.

For simplicity (ha!) and accuracy, I'm not going to specify the DH, rather I will just focus on Single vs. Composite authorship. Note that you could in theory believe in Single HUMAN authorship, and likewise you could hold of Multiple 'Divine' authorship, in a Conservative sense that the Bible was Divinely Inspired at a general level, or represents Man's attempt to describe God, or there was some original revelation but it got messed up (Halivni etc). So, Composite authorship doesn't neccesarily destroy Judaism, but it certainly does destroy mainstream Orthodoxy.

Level of agreement

Academia: Global academic concensus that the Bible (first 5 books) are a composite work, composed of earlier works and oral traditions, redacted from 800-500 BCE. Lots of debate about the details though.

Religion: Concensus amongst certain religious sects, notable some sub sects of some Christian denominations, and Orthdox Jewry. However the vast majority of Jews have accepted Composite authorship, and other religions have never accepted the Divinity of the Bible in the first place and have no problems with composite authorship. Islam in theory accepts that Moses wrote the Bible from God, but claims Moses sabotaged it and changed some key stories (e.g. Yitzchak & Yishmael story), so they are not much assistance here.

Conclusion: A lot more agreement in Academia than in religion about the authorship of the Bible. In fact, since we are really only concerned with OJ's beliefs here, it makes sense to only consider Academia vs. OJ. This might seem unfair to OJ, since OJ is only a small subsect of a small religion, whereas academia is global, composed of many religions and cultures, but the OJers themselves insist on having it this way, so who am I to argue.

Expertise

Academia: Trained in linguistics, grammar and comparative religious texts.

OJ: Trained in reading natural hebrew, expansive knowledge of ancient Babylonian and Medieval Jewish (fundamentalist) commentators, expansive, intense, intimate knowledge of all the text.

Conclusion: There are definitely advantages to being able to fluently read Hebrew, and knowing all the meforshim. However, the meforshim, being (a) fundamentalists and (b) not knowledgable of 2000-1000 years of linguistic knowledge and techniques are only useful to a point. Also, OJers are typically not versed in other ancient texts (e.g. Summarian, Ugaritic etc), and therefore are at a significant disadvantage here in analyzing what is essentially an ANE text (eevn according to Chazal - Dibrah Torah Keloshon Bnai Odom). Finally, OJers are trained to read Bible in very specific (traditional) ways, whereas academics have a much broader analytic toolset at their disposal. OJers will argue that their ways of reading are the exact ways the Torah was intended to be read, but this is a matter of faith and certainly not at all provable in any meaningful or academic way.

Conclusion: At best a tie, but arguably the academics are much better placed to analyze the text due to their broader use of techniques, and acceptance of hundreds of years of improved analysis and knowledge.

Bias

Academia: The reigning dogma in academic Bible study is without doubt Composite authorship. In the past 100 years there have been no serious theories or schools which have proposed single (human) authorship. On the other hand, there is no specific reason per se why somebody couldn't propose this, (except that it doesn't look true!). So, while there might be some inertia here, I don't see any strong degree of inherent bias as to why academia couldn't accept single (human) authorship.

OJ: OJ requires belief in Single authorship. Not only that, but halachically you cannot question this. An OJ is educated from birth with an entire worldview which aboslutely hinges on the idea of Single (Divine) authorship. There is no question of an overwhelming bias issue here.

Conclusion: The bias of OJ in asserting Single authorship is overwhelming and cannot be denied.

Verdict
In the area of expertise there can be some debate. However when it comes to consensus and bias clearly academia has exponentally more credibility here than OJ. Therefore, the rational choice is to believe academia. It's a no brainer.

Jun 27, 2008 10:54 AM

Even if God doesn’t exist, I still believe in Him

What is God? Nobody can really describe Him. He is incomprehensible, and anything you say about God is wrong. So what do we love when we love God? What do we fear when we fear God? What do we believe in when we believe in God?

God is all the things that we as humans, and especially that we as Jews, find most important in life. God is the source of meaning, morality and spirituality. We affirm that life has meaning, and is not some pointless venture. We affirm that morality is important, and that we need to strive to be as moral and as ethical as possible. We affirm that we are more than just animals, and we strive for a higher, more spiritual state of being.

None of these things require the existence of a ‘God’ per se, but they do require a willingness to go beyond provable science and cold logic, and believe in something more. Provable science and cold logic shows that this universe is quite possibly (even probably according to some people)a meaningless accident. Yet most people, even many of the militant atheists, try to find meaning in life. The meaning is the ikkar.

Likewise, pretty much everyone promotes ‘morality’ (though of course everyone has a different idea of what morality is). Even the atheists promote morality; in fact many of the new atheist manifestos are full of moralizing and accusations that religions are immoral. Atheists might be fond of calling people ‘mammals’, but even they recognize that we need to be moral, even though from a purely scientific point of view, morality is simply the result of an evolutionary urge and nothing more than that.

Believers might say that they believe in objective morality whereas atheists only believe in subjective morality, but that makes little practical difference to the content of the morality itself, since everyone has a subjective view of what the objective morality code is. And there is no shortage of believers who commit sins against the moral code, or moral atheists. Again, the ikkar is the commitment to morality itself (and hopefully the ‘correct’ morality – but who could ever tell?).

Spirituality is somewhat different. While most people, societies and religions confirm the importance of morality and meaning, when it comes to spirituality, opinions are divided, and not always along religious / secular lines. Some people devote their lives to materialistic pursuits, some to more spiritual pursuits. And I’m not talking about kabalah, mysticism or ‘new age’ spirituality. I’m talking about what we call ‘ruchniyus’, a higher plane of being, where we lift ourselves up from being pleasure seeking materialistic animals, and realize that there are higher goals and pursuits in life. While everyday people might be content with their 50” plasma TV and a giant size bag of potato chips, most of the intellectual elite (and scientific research) confirms that the pursuit of higher ideals is what makes us human (and happier in the long run).

Someone who believes in ‘God’ (obviously with some incorrect image of a guy in the sky, or a fuzzy cloud, or something) can quite happily live a life devoid of any serious meaning, morality or spirituality. Conversely, you can have agnostics or atheists who are highly moral and even spiritual. The ikkar in all of this is the commitment to the ideals themselves, not beliefs in incomprehensible somethings.

I recently heard a speech by someone described as a ‘rising star’ in the MO world, and I was quite appalled. He was a lovely fellow, with great delivery and highly entertaining, and was talking about which religion is the one true religion. He said that while we have differences with other religions (Christianity specifically), and while he rejects AJ Heschels’s view that all religions have partial truth (that was the appaling part), he still thinks we can partner with Christians since we all believe in God (presumably as opposed to atheists or other more secular liberal types), and this is what unites us people of ‘faith’, the 'search for religious truth'. Ironically, he also mentioned how we must fight the radical Islamic Terrorists. Does he not realize that they too believe in God, in fact they probably have more faith than many of us, and are equally searching for religious truth?

This Rabbi is completely wrong. The people we must partner with are the people who share our commitment to meaning, morality and spirituality. The people whose values and morals are similar to ours, or at the very minimum people who have a commitment to values and morals. We have more in common with a moral atheist than with a radical Islamic believer.

Committing to Morality, Meaning & Spirituality is hard enough at the best of times. Committing to Morality, Meaning & Spirituality after you realize that nobody actually knows anything about God (including even God’s ‘existence’) is a hundred times harder. I believe that religious leaders, including our own MO leadership, take the easy way out here, by personifying God to make the concept more concrete. But at the end of the day our values are what is important, not the content of our belief claims. We value Morality, Meaning & Spirituality, and those are the fundamental ikkarim of Judaism too.

If you value these things, then you are with us. If you don’t, then you are not. As to your beliefs about ‘God’, I really don’t care. Whatever your conception of God is, it is entirely incorrect anyway, I guarantee it (certainly according to the Rambam), so it doesn’t really make much difference.

I think we need to move away from the ‘Theist’ / ‘Atheist’ way of looking at things. It’s stupid and irrelevant and completely meaningless. Instead, we should talk about Meaningists and Ameaningists. Moralists and Amoralists. Spiritualists and Aspiritualists.

And of course for all the people on the fence, we have the Agmeaningists, the Agmoralists, and the Agspiritualists.

Jun 25, 2008 11:44 PM

Bill Gates rants about how crap Microsoft is

[Ha! Talk about eating your own dog crap food]

From: Bill Gates
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:05 AM
To: Jim Allchin
Cc: Chris Jones (WINDOWS); Bharat Shah (NT); Joe Peterson; Will Poole; Brian Valentine; Anoop Gupta (RESEARCH)
Subject: Windows Usability Systematic degradation flame

I am quite disappointed at how Windows Usability has been going backwards and the program management groups don't drive usability issues. Let me give you my experience from yesterday. I decided to download (Moviemaker) and buy the Digital Plus pack ... so I went to Microsoft.com. They have a download place so I went there.

The first 5 times I used the site it timed out while trying to bring up the download page. Then after an 8 second delay I got it to come up. This site is so slow it is unusable. It wasn't in the top 5 so I expanded the other 45. These 45 names are totally confusing. These names make stuff like: C:\Documents and Settings\billg\My Documents\My Pictures seem clear.

They are not filtered by the system ... and so many of the things are strange. I tried scoping to Media stuff. Still no moviemaker. I typed in movie. Nothing. I typed in movie maker. Nothing. So I gave up and sent mail to Amir saying - where is this Moviemaker download? Does it exist?

So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated. They told me to go to the main page search button and type movie maker (not moviemaker!). I tried that. The site was pathetically slow but after 6 seconds of waiting up it came.

I thought for sure now I would see a button to just go do the download. In fact it is more like a puzzle that you get to solve. It told me to go to Windows Update and do a bunch of incantations. This struck me as completely odd. Why should I have to go somewhere else and do a scan to download moviemaker?

So I went to Windows update. Windows Update decides I need to download a bunch of controls. (Not) just once but multiple times where I get to see weird dialog boxes. Doesn't Windows update know some key to talk to Windows?

Then I did the scan. This took quite some time and I was told it was critical for me to download 17megs of stuff. This is after I was told we were doing delta patches to things but instead just to get 6 things that are labeled in the SCARIEST possible way I had to download 17meg.

So I did the download. That part was fast. Then it wanted to do an install. This took 6 minutes and the machine was so slow I couldn't use it for anything else during this time. What the heck is going on during those 6 minutes? That is crazy. This is after the download was finished.

Then it told me to reboot my machine. Why should I do that? I reboot every night -- why should I reboot at that time? So I did the reboot because it INSISTED on it. Of course that meant completely getting rid of all my Outlook state.

So I got back up and running and went to Windows Update again. I forgot why I was in Windows Update at all since all I wanted was to get Moviemaker. So I went back to Microsoft.com and looked at the instructions. I have to click on a folder called WindowsXP. Why should I do that? Windows Update knows I am on Windows XP.

What does it mean to have to click on that folder? So I get a bunch of confusing stuff but sure enough one of them is Moviemaker. So I do the download. The download is fast but the Install takes many minutes. Amazing how slow this thing is.

At some point I get told I need to go get Windows Media Series 9 to download. So I decide I will go do that. This time I get dialogs saying things like "Open" or "Save". No guidance in the instructions which to do. I have no clue which to do.

The download is fast and the install takes 7 minutes for this thing. So now I think I am going to have Moviemaker. I go to my add/remove programs place to make sure it is there.

It is not there.

What is there? The following garbage is there. Microsoft Autoupdate Exclusive test package, Microsoft Autoupdate Reboot test package, Microsoft Autoupdate testpackage1. Microsoft AUtoupdate testpackage2, Microsoft Autoupdate Test package3.

Someone decided to trash the one part of Windows that was usable? The file system is no longer usable. The registry is not usable. This program listing was one sane place but now it is all crapped up.

But that is just the start of the crap. Later I have listed things like Windows XP Hotfix see Q329048 for more information. What is Q329048? Why are these series of patches listed here? Some of the patches just things like Q810655 instead of saying see Q329048 for more information.

What an absolute mess.

Moviemaker is just not there at all. So I give up on Moviemaker and decide to download the Digital Plus Package. I get told I need to go enter a bunch of information about myself. I enter it all in and because it decides I have mistyped something I have to try again. Of course it has cleared out most of what I typed.

I try (typing) the right stuff in 5 times and it just keeps clearing things out for me to type them in again. So after more than an hour of craziness and making my programs list garbage and being scared and seeing that Microsoft.com is a terrible website I haven't run Moviemaker and I haven't got the plus package.

The lack of attention to usability represented by these experiences blows my mind. I thought we had reached a low with Windows Network places or the messages I get when I try to use 802.11. (don't you just love that root certificate message?)

When I really get to use the stuff I am sure I will have more feedback.

Jun 24, 2008 1:05 PM

Davening

I find it easier to daven for small stuff than for big stuff.

For example, have a look at this prayer dialogue:

Me: Hashem, please don't let X die
God: Why not? Everybody has to die.
Me: Yeah, but X could still live a few more years.
God: You won't want X to die in a few more years either. Anyway, what's so special about X?
Me: Well, I love X and I don't want X to die.
God: Sorry, everybody has to die.
Me: I guess. Thanks anyway.

And contrast it with this:

Me: For God's sake, please let this application work this time!
God: Why should I?
Me: Well, I tried everything. I followed all the instructions, I rebooted, I reinstalled, it really should work. I've done everything possible.
God: OK, fair enough.
Me: Thanks!

And I'm not even kidding.

Jun 23, 2008 11:57 AM

Prayer, or donation to Cancer Research?

Harry Maryles has posted about his grandson’s continued battle with cancer. This story just alternately breaks and warms my heart and we are all anxiously waiting and hoping that there is a happy ending and that the child should have a refuah shlemah. I cannot even imagine what the parents and grandparents are going through. Even though I recently lost a parent to cancer, I sense that having a child with cancer is much worse.

But Harry’s post, in which he asks us all to daven a special tefiloh this week for the child’s recovery, raises a number of intense theological questions for me. To me, this is where the rubber hits the road. We can argue all day long about abstract concepts of morality and ethics, and it's all very entertaining, but praying for a sick person is where fantasy becomes reality (or not).

Leaving aside the issue of whether God exists, and assuming He does (or might), how does this type of prayer work? Does God intefere with nature on a per-request basis?

The standard MO/rational answer (I assume) is that by praying, we become more spiritual, more aware of our deficiencies etc etc and ultimately become more deserving, and therefore maybe our prayers get answered. OK, I guess that kinda makes sense when we pray for ourselves. But how does it work when we pray for others? Even if I somehow improve myself through prayer, how can that help someone else recover from a serious illness? How does it make the other person more deserving?

Is God simply persuaded that if I have a lot of people ‘rooting’ for me, then He should listen? Perhaps it works in a very roundabout way – if many people improve themselves through prayer, then in general God deals more kindly with the world, and less people die from cancer, including (but not necessarily limited to or even directed to) the person you are specifically praying for.

However this put a lot of pressure on people – for every bit of self improvement we do though prayer (or presumably any other self improvement or world improvement activity), we can save someone from dying from cancer. If this is true, then shouldn’t we be davening our hearts out every second for every cancer victim everywhere?

If prayer can truly (or even possibly) help, how can I ever be silent?

Harry says he is sure that prayer has helped. But 100 or even 20 years ago this type of cancer would have been absolutely incurable, even with all the prayers in the world. What is clearly actually helping (we hope) is all the amazing advanced technology and cancer treatments. So, given the choice between praying or donating to cancer research, wouldn't the latter be a better option?

So here is my pledge, I will pray, with the belief (faith) of the possibility that it might somehow help, and I will also donate some money to cancer research, in the knowledge that that will definitely help, if not someone specific, then certainly mankind in general.

Jun 18, 2008 11:34 AM

Symposium: Why people become skeptical

_This is the first post in an ongoing series of guest posts by bloggers from across the Jewish spectrum about why people become skeptical. I left the question fairly open-ended so respondents can address the topic from their own perspectives.

Let me also add in advance, for those who are concerned about these things, that for better or for worse this is not a case of interdenomiskeptical dialogue. This is an example of listening to people with other perspectives, and then responding to those perspectives and then listening to them respond back, and then responding back again.

The first guest post in the series is from Blogger XGH.

People become skeptical when they realize that the global concensus of trained, objective experts in the fields of ancient near east history, egyptology, archeology, comparative religion and biblical studies is the following:

The Bible was composed in multiple layers over many centuries, by various competing priestly groups and others

An Exodus of 2 million people (or anything close) did not happen as described in the Torah

A massive conquest of Israel did not happen as described in Nach

Torah Shebaal Peh is a later invention, designed to explain away the anomolies between actual practice and the older received texts

The 'Messiah' is a later invention

The 'Afterlife' is a later invention

Then, said skeptics become even more skeptical when they discuss the above with Orthodox believers and they realize that the believers are almost all entirely intellectually dishonest when dealing with these issues, unwilling to face the obvious truth that an emotionally biased believer clearly has less credibility than the global concensus of more detached & objective academics.

Jun 17, 2008 3:25 PM

The Uberintellefundie

And the winner is: Tie between Rabbi Sacks and Rabbi Carmy!

Jun 17, 2008 3:25 PM

Subjective Objectivity

_Sonja: Let's say there is no God, and each man is free to do exactly as he chooses. What prevents you from murdering somebody?
Boris: Murder's immoral.
Sonja: Immorality is subjective.

Boris: Yes, but subjectivity is objective.

So we had this long discussion yesterday whether there is such thing as subjective immorality. FedUp claimed there was, but nobody, not even Deg 'I'm so contrarian I'm not' anev, believed him. Orthoprax said something interesting - that in theory there could be some ideal ral state that would be best for all mankind, and that a moral system could in theory be constructed which aims to achieve that ideal state, even though obviously people are subjective and will disagree as to what that ideal state is, and how to get there.

Personally I think this is probably wrong, and that by definition there can't be an ideal state, because who is the arbiter of what 'deal' is? Humanity, and by definition humans are subjective about these things. Claiming there is some platonic ideal state out there sounds suspiciously similar to saying there is a God.

But this isn't that far off from what I was proposing anyway - that we as Jews should believe in morality, and promote our morality as being true. I just wouldn't fool myself into thinking I was being objective. But subjectively objective? Yes.

Jun 15, 2008 12:33 AM

My new theology

I had a long chat with a LW MO Rabbi recently, and it was quite interesting.

[Note: I know quite a few LW MO Rabbis. You CANNOT guess who this is, so don't try. I promised I wouldn't quote him, so I will obscure any details]

He basically said that the academics make a very strong case for multiple authorship of the Biblical texts we have today, over many centuries, and it was dishonest (or maybe impractical) for (Modern) Orthodoxy to fight this. He thinks we would be better off just accepting this reality, and building from there (kinda like Rav Kook's statement about building the palace of Torah on top of science). We didn't discuss it in depth, but I guess he would go for some kind of 'Divine Inspiration' theory, whereby the core of the Torah is Divinely Inspired, but the texts we have today are composite and (mostly) human written.

Interstingly, a few commenters on Hirhurim mentioned this too: 'Greg' talked about the 'essential content' of the Torah being revealed at Sinai, and 'Moshe Cohn' said we all know that the Stone Chumash (which is in fact all Chumashim) wasn't the text which was given at Sinai, and then 'gray area' mentioned that many Orthodox academics and eductors are exploring ways to integrate all this modern scholarship about the bible and ANE history into OJ.

My sense is that Gil and his friends and authors and commenters and quite a few others either keep this option in 'their back pocket' , or in fact actually believe it themselves, but would never admit that in public. I have talked IN PERSON to a few well known OJ Rabbis who have admitted to me IN PERSON that they don't believe the text we have today is all from God, and that Har Sinai was some essential revelation but not more than that.

I used to think that should be our approach, but then I realized there's no good reason to believe any of that is true either.

And this is where I part with the LW MO Rabbi mentioned above. He thinks we can have a form of OJ where we admit to modern scholarship, but still claim the Torah originated from God and is 'evolving' as part of God's plan. Similar to the way Science & Torah nicks explain evolution.

I say, no. There's no good reason to believe this, and when pressed, he couldn't actually come up with one either, except to say that the Torah contained a lot of wisdom and was great.

Well, I agree the Torah has some good bits, and I think the OJ lifestyle has some very good bits. And I could even make an argument that we should keep halachah and not make any major changes, in the interests of the system and the culture and the benefits thereof.

However, I draw the line at claiming that the Torah is from God. All religion is obviously man made, and nobody knows anything about God. We can't base theology on baseless beliefs.

So my stance is follows (similar to Kaplan):

The God idea is foundational to Judaism. I don't think we can get rid of it and still claim to be Jewish. However 'God' has certainly evolved. In Biblical times He was just a local Deity. Later, He became the only Deity worth worshipping. Then He became the only Deity period. Then he became an abstract concept and certainly not a body.

I think now we all realize that God is incomprehensible, and simply stands for the idea that there is some purpose and meaning to life, and there is 'objective' morality and so on. We all like to personalize and anthropomorphise 'God' and maybe that's ok, but as the Rambam said, it's all ultimately completely and utterly wrong. God isn't like anything you could possibly imagine, and that goes for anything God 'does' too. So I'm OK with God talk, as long as we understand that.

Second, Torah Min Hashamyim is also a foundational belief, so we can't just jettison the whole concept. Instead we need to focus on the fact that there is a lot of good stuff in the Torah (in the broadest sense), and, in as much as that 'good stuff' is in sync with 'what God wants', (i.e. with the ultimate meaning and purpose and morality etc), then it's 'Divine'.

But that's as far as it can go vis-a-vis beliefs. Basically, we have faith that life has meaning, morality is 'objective' and spirituality is a worthwhile goal, and we have faith that Judaism, and especially Orthoprax Judaism, is a very good system which is in sync with those ideals.

I tried to convince a skeptic in shul today of this, but he wasn't buying it. He's too fixated on his new found realization that all religion isn't true and therefore must be thrown out. I think the problem is that when someone frum realizes that the beliefs of OJ are baloney, he starts to think that all Judaism is baloney and can only see the negative.

However you need to approach it from the opposite perspective, that of course all religion is completely man made. (DUH). Then, you look around and say 'Hey! For a system which originated with a bunch of farmers in the desert 3,000 years ago, it's not half bad. Actually it's pretty darn good (as religions go), and certainly much better than a lot of other religions (and secular lifestyles) I can think of.

Does this mean we have to keep every halachah religiously? No, but then you dont have to even if you are 100% frum. You choose to. And I wouldn't neccessarily recommend going crazy about all the details, especially with some of the ritual stuff. But I think there's a lot of a value in Shabbat, Yom Tov, Kashrut, Learning, Loshon Horah and really pretty much everything else too. But that's all the subject of another post.

Jun 14, 2008 11:33 PM

Intellectual Dishonesty of the (RW) Modern Orthodox

I continue to be amazed (and repulsed to be honest) by the intellectual dishonesty displayed by the (typically RW) Modern Orthodox. These are people who should know better, but since they are emotionally beholden to their beliefs, they spout the most utter nonsense.

Maybe 'intellectually dishonest' is the wrong word here - the emotional dependence and attachment to their beliefs forces them to defend what in reality is quite indefensible, hence the twisted contortions they have to resort to. But don't take my word for it, I have the evidence in black and white, and you can judge for yourselves. [All quotes taken from this post and associated comment thread].

Why bother with this? I dunno, maybe it's a kind of voyeurism. But a peek into the minds of fundamentalists is quite revealing, if a little scary. Makes me wonder if fundamentalist religion is somewhat dangerous. True, religious Jews have never really been guilty of anything heinous, at least no more so than the average, but the fact that religion forces you to 'check your brain at the door' is a cause for concern. Then again, religious fundamentalism can motivate people to be good, so maybe it all cancels out in the end. Tzarich Iyun.

Here is the quote from the post which started it all:

If you are willing to stipulate the likelihood of miracles in the biblical period, as most people considering religion are willing to do, then the probabilities change and the two options become fairly equal. In fact, given the lack of certainty inherent in the fields of history and archeology (discussed in the next chapter), perhaps some people will find the truth of the Torah to be more compelling than any other option.

This is quite an absurd point. The likelihood of miracles? Since when? Has anyone ever verified a bona fide miracle? Of course not. So given current evidence, what's the likelyhood of a given event being a miracle? Zero. Unless of course the event is absolutely completely undeniablly impossible under all known and possible laws of physics. But let's see what the commenters have to say.

[Note: On this thread were a large number of people using fake names. While most people use fake names on blogs, these names were particularly fake, since they were specifically constructed just for this thread, and sometimes they were using multiple different fake names on the same thread arguing the same point. I occasionally mightuse multiple fake names, but only if I want to make an irreverent comment using one name, certainly not ever to agree with myself, or argue the same point pretending to be two people, which is just disingenuous. ]

1. First, is this piece of silliness from 'Greg':

According to Rambam (say some of his interpreters) and Rav Soloveitchik, miracles aren't supernatural, so that entire line of argument is irrelevant.
Greg

Greg seems to make a career of explaining how amazing miracles mentioned in the bible are in fact not so amazing, since they really are all natural occurances. OK, but this doesn't help at all when discussing TMS, since God speaking to 600,000 people is certainly a supernatural event of the most supernatural kind. In other words, its a miracle.

Greg's response? This piece of lameness:

But there are reasonable grounds for a person to believe that the essential contents of the proposed revelation are in fact Divine. (i.e. their extraordinary nature and impact upon the world). So the fact that supernatural claims of an entirely different nature, i.e. miracles, have never been proven, is entirely irrelevant. [XGH: my bold]

Notice that Greg says 'the essential contents'. These are weasel words, because Greg, although seemingly Orthodox, doesn't actually want to commit himself to saying that the 5 books of Moses were given at Har Sinai. He would prefer to say something happened at Sinai, which is in fact a Conservative, not Orthodox Theology. What are these reasonable grounds? That the words of Torah are extraordinary?! Firstly, how are they extraordinary? Are all extraordinary books from the Divine? Greg never explains.

On another point, a commenter questions Gil's dismissal of questions on Genesis by saying it could be metaphorical by pointing out that nobody really ever took Breishsi metaphorically until recently, and certainly Chazal didn't take it all metaphorically. Greg responds:

Of course they all took it literally. So what? That's not a reason for us not to. They were supposed to take it literally, for it to have maximum impact.

Funny. When challenged that maybe the Exodus or even the story of Mattan Torah could be metaphorical, but 'They were supposed to take it literally, for it to have maximum impact.' Greg mysteriously dissapeared without a trace. [Although later, 'Sam' and 'Einstein' just as mysteriously appeared.]

Next we have these gems of silliness from Gil:

If you are truly open-minded then you will acknowledge that skeptics have not concluded the debate and that it could be the case that OJ is correct but not proven.

Yes Gil, it could be correct. As could Christianity, Islam and every other crazy religion. But they certainly don't look very correct. The dishonesty here is that however 'less than solid' the disproofs of OJ are, they are still 100 times more solid than the proofs. In other words, you certainly don't need a 100% solid disproof to disprove something which was never in any way proven in the first place! In fact the 'proofs' for TMS don't even get off the ground in the first place. Don't believe me? Try them on anyone not OJ (or fundamentalist Christian). They will look at you as if you are nuts. When this was pointed out to Gil, his unbelievable response was:

Which just goes to show that your empirical methodology leads up to a dead end.

Right. So since empirical (i.e. rational in this context) methodology doesn't provide any proofs for OJ (the 'dead end' in Gil's mind), we have to try another trick. And you can bet your bottom dollar that if somehow the empirical methodology did provide proof for OJ, the believers would be all over it. So dishonest.

Next we have Ari Lamm (any relation to Norman?). I found Ari particularly disconcerting, sicnce he seemed to be articulate and intelligent, but the claims he advanced were either plain nonsense, or quite factually incorrect, yet he wouldn't give an inch (of course).

In response to:

"No SOLID proof of any real miracle has EVER been furnished by anyone EVER. The rational position here is that impossible things don't happen."

Ari writes:

'All you are demonstrating is that religion is not mathematics. But obviously no philosopher - religious or otherwise - would accept this as proof of anything with regard to miracles...and no historian should either.'

Say what? No solid evidence of any miracle has ever been shown, but this is no proof of anything? Bizarre. Only a mind twisted by the demands of a fundamentalist religion could think this makes any sense. And then we have this gem:

''As I've said before, believing in Torah le-Moshe mi-Sinai takes no more Emunah than believing in the "documentary hypothesis."'

Right. Believing that God wrote the bible, with all the gazillion problems that brings, is no more strange than the dominant theory that the Bible is a many layered work composed over the centuries. What are these people smoking?! Answer: Fundamentalist religion of course. Since their 'going in position' and entire worldview is that 'of course' God wrote the Bible, any other position will naturally look unbelievable to them. They are incapable of freeing their minds and being objective.

Next the 'Intellefundies' arrived on the scene. People who have studied some philosophy and think they have the answers. Dfdf made this comment:

So tell me, do you, for instance, believe that other people feel pain as you do? If so, do you believe this because you have a good argument for this belief? Do you in fact have a good argument for the conclusion that other people in fact feel pain, rather than simply exhibit pain-associated behavior (that is behavior that you associate with pain). If you do have a good argument, I should like to hear it. If you don't, why do you believe it at all, given your chosen method of belief-forming which requires good, "hard facts and evidence"?

Haven't we discussed this a thousand times already? So because 'philosophically speaking' we can't prove other minds exist therefore anything goes? Good grief. The stupidity only gets stupider.

In the middle of all this, Gil actually said something hafway intelligent. Ari Lamm claimed that as more OJs enetered academia, academia's views would change. When someone pointed out how stupid this was, and based on the evidence of people like James Kugel and Larry Shiffman most likely the academics would 'change' Gil responded:

I agree [that if OJ's entered academia, OJ would change more than academia] except that it will include a reinterpretation of tradition rather than a negation of it, much like has happened in the Evangelical community.

Could be.

I'm running out of cheshek here.

Briefly we then had FKM claim that 600,000 people witnessed Har Sinai so it was a strong claim (duh, the 600,000 witnesses is itself a myth), and of course he dissappeared when countered.

We also had a number of people say 'Since philosophically God exists, it's only a short step to Miracles / Revelation'

This is plain wrong. Firstly, 'philosophically' the best you get is a prime mover / First Cause. That's not God or anything like God (and never mind that these 'proofs' are pretty shot to hell anyway at this point). Secondly, the 'step' to revelation, or any kind of Divine interference in this world has never ever been shown, so calling it a 'small step' is neither here nor there. Sure, it's a small step for God, because God can do anything. But by that logic Jesus Christ and Muhammad are also a small step.

Someone else said that one god was probable because of the 'unity of the laws of nature'. Then it was pointed out that presumably two Gods were sufficiently god like to be able to work together and construct a harmonized system. No good answer to that one.

Then we got onto an incredibly stupid tangent where the believers tried to claim that we skeptics are hypocritical, because we don't check our basic beliefs, e.g. who our parents are. Very briefly: most parents don't lie about that. (except in Jerry Springer ville). Therefore it's a good assumption, unless you have cause for concern (e.g. your parents are white but you're black. You find adoption papers hidden in a closet etc). In stark contrast, 95% (or maybe 100%) of all religions are false, so its quite likely that any religion your parents taught you is false. And of course there are gazillions of questions on religions too. And of course if someone brought you mounds of evidence that your parents were not in fact your parents, you would probably WAKE UP and take notice. This is just too silly for any serious discussion.

The question was asked 'Is TMS being a myth absolutely impossible?'

Nobody answered.

The question was also asked ' Since the global academic consensus of historians, archeologists and bible experts is that the stories in [and about] the Bible are not true, is anyone here claiming that a religious sect's view of these things is MORE credible than the entire academic community?

Again, nobody answered.

I will end with this probably unintentionally honest answer which gives the game away, (to the skeptics)

The question was asked:

'Why don't you accept the premise that you should start with no a-priori conclusions (except what we know for sure with solid evidence), and then evaluate which explanation is the most likely?

To which Gil responded:

Because our a priori assumptions are part of who we are and how we think. Additionally, that gives skepticism the upper hand because it is easier to knock something down and create doubt than it is to substantiate something and build it up.

Gil says it all right there. He has (baseless) a priori assumptions because that's who he is i.e. he's an Orthodox Jew with a priori assumptions. And why won't he start with a 'clean slate' i.e. with no a-priori beliefs in God and Torah and then evaluate all the evidence?

Because then the skeptics will win!

Gil actually admits that if we get rid of our prior biases and beliefs and just look at everything objectively, he couldn't make a strong case for Orthodox Judaism. What more needs to be said?

Maybe this debate wasn't such a waste of time after all.

Jun 13, 2008 12:34 AM

1:08 to 1:12 is how I feel about religion

Popout

(or maybe 0:36)

Jun 12, 2008 10:34 PM

So depressed about religion

_I debated on Hirhurim's latest post on religion, and now I wish I hadn't. So depressing, watching people stubbornly cling to the utmost nonsense and poor logic [and not being able to convince anyone of anything]. It's difficult to come to any other conclusion than that religous believers are fundamentally dishonest. Maybe not consciously, but their brains are just not capable of honest, objective thought.

For most of them (chardal gets a free pass here), it's simply the result of childhood indoctrination. Having grown up with a belief in God, miracles and TMS, all that seems prefectly reasonable and likely to them, and the DH, strange as it is, seems even less likely. They are incapable of stepping back and seeing things objectively, or even admitting that is the case.

And they believe that the entire academic world is biased and uninformed! Amazing. And these are supposedly 'Modern' Orthodox people. When it comes down to it, MO are just as delusional as the Chareidim, just with more sophisticated fundamentalism.

It's at this point that I get quite de-motivated to come up with some kind of Orthopraxic OJ. What's the point? I don't really want to mix with such delusional fundamentalists. Life's too short to deal with this nonsense. Maybe the LW MO are better. I think Hirhurim is about as relevant to me as Yeshivahworld.

Jun 11, 2008 4:17 PM

evanstonjew vs. Gail Sheehy

Just noticed this comment from ej on e-kvetcher's blog:

...XGH's theatrical method. He does it again and again...stop life! I/we are going to figure out if Torah is true, if TMS actually occurred. Before we can decide anything, stop the presses, we must figure out our purpose in life, and until we have it all figured out the only honest approach is to hold our breath and wait for the next post where maybe, maybe, all will become clear. As everyone knows life doesn't wait, and as we go through life we can and do reflect on how it is going, some more, some less. Mentalblogs does the same ...STOP! Judaism is totally corrupt and we/I must tear it all down and rebuild from scratch. Sensitive but moody genius at work. Stay tuned for details.

He was commenting on this other comment from himself, regarding my quest for meaning:

If you talk to older people, (check with your parents), they say something different. They ALL say "Where did it (the time) go. I was just 50, 30, a teen. I can't believe how quickly it went by." They don't say what is the meaning of it all, what is my purpose? They have all the meaning and purpose they need...they just want more life to do more of what they have been happy doing their whole life. The biggest tzadik who believes the purpose of life is to be davuk bahashem will do anything to delay the onset of that "ultimate meaning." Teen agers and belated adolescents want to know what they are going to do when they grow up (purpose) or what does it all mean (ideals and values worth living for or internalizing.) When you are grown up you generally almost by definition know what you are going to do or want to do, and hopefully you have a plan which integrates your ambitions and goals with your values and ideals. The basic mistake imho in looking for meaning as if it is something in front of you that you find or discover or create is that for the most part, meaning is behind you. As you age you see, you discover, what you did and what you didn’t do, and you find out what was in fact important to you and what was not. Did you marry, did you have that last child, did you take risks for the sake of X? You read/ interpret your own life and discover or maybe create its meaning. Were people more important than books, was looking good more important than money, leisure more important than experiences, which experiences do you cherish and which would you rather forget?

Why all this focus on ej? Well, he's about twice my age and I do believe wisdom comes with years. But I'm not sure I agree with him here, everyone is looking for meaning. I even know old people who question what's the point of it all.

But I do agree that the quest for meaning is somewhat age dependent. Gail Sheehy has several famous books, which I'm sure ej is aware of, about the various stages that men (and women) go through in their lives. Mid life for men is when they start to question their goals and meaning in life, and want to try and accomplish more than just getting married, having kids, or getting that promotion. This middle age crisis of meaning is especially tough on middle managers, though C-level execs are just delaying the inevitable lack of meaning angst till their retirement.

Also, throw in an OJ value stack where meaning is king ,while simultaneously pulling out the rug of OJ belief, killing off a close relative fairly suddenly and transitioning into mid life and middle management, and you have a full blown existential crisis with no end in sight. But your mileage may vary.

Jun 11, 2008 3:17 PM

Festschrift in honor of XGH's X0th birthday!!!

X0 years ago today I was born (hebrew date) and it's a biggie. My wife brought me a nice new PC with a giant 24" monitor, and I think I might get me a new camera or something else small and electronical.

But more importantly, a group of us are getting together to go see the new Indiana Jones movie to honor me with a compilation of essays about Orthodoxy / Skepticism in the modern world. All contributions are welcome, long or short, liberal or (slightly) fundie. If you don't contribute, I'll just have to search the archives for something written by you.

I would especially like contributions from evanstonjew, e-kvetcher (about time you said something yourself, rather than just snarky comments about everything else), RJM, Gil Student, david guttman, Deganev (ha), FedUp, Orthoprax, Anthony, and pretty much every other regular here.

This idea came to me when I realized that half the comments here (and elsewhere) were better than many recent books I have read (which shall remain nameless), and I think we could put together a pretty nice piece of work.

I would recommend writing on the subject of 'Why be Orthodox?', or at least 'Why be Jewish?', or failing that, 'Why be religious?'. And if you can't manage that, then 'Why be a secular humanist?' is good too. And if none of that works, then I guess I will accept 'Why be a hedonistic nihilist?'.,

Jun 11, 2008 11:08 AM

A great question

I'm still waiting for a religious believer to answer the following question:

Please describe the difference between the following two feelings / sensations / phenomena:

1. Strong feeling of belief in your religious beliefs

2. Strong feeling of intuition that your religious beliefs are correct.

Anyone?,

Jun 11, 2008 11:08 AM

Shavuot Round Up

So I got about half way through 'In the footsteps of the Kuzari' by Shalom Rosenberg, published by Yashar books / ATID, and then shul ended.

To be honest, I was dissapointed. It was mostly the same old stuff - Nazism & Communism were terrible, therefore God exists, or OJ is true, or something like that. Not particularly any more sophisticated than all the various Kiruv Clown books. Anyways, maybe the 2nd half, or 2nd volume, is better. I mean the guy is a philosophy professor (a real one, not like Gottleib), so he should have something clever to say, no?

Meanwhile, my Rabbi gave an awful speech in shul (there was a bar-mitzvah) where he said to the bar mitzvah boy that since he was born OJ he had no choice but to continue being OJ, and 'choice' was a Western concept that we OJ's don't believe in. Yuck. Then he ended off by saying that the boy should chose his destiny, which completely negated the rest of his drashah. Very strange, but that's what happens when you try and rationalize fundamentalism.

Also, I heard that the wizard of OZ (Rabbi Allen Shwartz), said that nobody should be called a kofer for denying the 8th, and likewise nobody should be called foolish for believing in TMS. I'm not sure whether he was saying it's not kefirah to deny the 8th, or whether he was just calling for people to be nice to each other (but not too nice, nudge nudge wink wink know what I mean).

Over the pond in the UK, the Chief Rabbi gave a long talk about Biblical Critcism. I don't have good notes, but I assume his spin cycle capability is good even at 3am.

Still, maybe I should take Rabbi Shwartz'es suggestion. I'll promise not to call you a fool if you promise not to call me a kofer. Deal?

Jun 11, 2008 11:08 AM

Chardal on why be OJ

Some guy called 'anon' (why can't people use their real names?) had a long argument with Chardal on Hirhurim regarding Chardal's 'intuition' claim, that he (and all other religious believers) have some kind of special intuition that their religion is true.

Anon argued that this 'intuition' was nothing more than good old regular faith / belief, and challenged Chardal (or anyone) to distinguish between the two feelings. Chardal couldn't.

In response, Chardal challenged anon to come up with some philosophical system which justified belief in science but not religion. anon couldn't .... be bothered, because it's not about clever philosophy - clever philosophy can disprove (or prove) anything. For any system out there, you can be sure there is some clever philosopher who has a theory to explain it.

Anyways, anon believes in the global consensus of qualified non-biased experts, and there is no such concensus when it comes to philosophy of religion, or philosophy of belief, or in fact any philosophy at all. The value of philosophy lies in the differing ways of viewing things, and sharpening the mind, and various cool ideas. And also it pay the salaries of philosophers. But there is no global philosophical concensus on anything much. Also not suprisingly, the philosophers most connected with justifying faith (Tillisch etc) are typically religious fundamentalists themselves.

anon summed it up as follows:

So far, all you have managed is to claim that you have an unexplainable feeling which is somehow different than belief (though you can't show how it's different) which enables you to know that an unverifiable concept is actually true, but you have no way of proving this, and furthermore have no demonstrable track record of using this intuition correctly. Plus, millions if not billions of other people use a similar argument of 'intuition' for all kinds of nonsense, including clairvoyance, Mormonism, Christianity and whatever else. I'm sorry but I just don't see anything credible here.

To which Chardal responded:

It's not nonsense if it gives people meaning and a structure with which to express their spiritual side and relate to the sacred in their lives. Nobody it today's day and age has the luxury of standing on a perch and saying" my religion is justified empirically while all the others fail. Heck, no philosophical system has such a luxury. If that is what you are looking for, you will fail.

Seems to me that chardal backed off somewhat on his claim to have some kind of special intuition, and ultimately ended up saying that he found OJ to be the most fulfilling religion all round. Well, I can't argue with that, I do too. I just wish it was all true, that's all.

Here is Chardal's final (?) comment which I think is quite good, all things considered:

I think that one can still make an argument that OJ has more credibility than, say Chrisitianity or Islam (or your favorite, mormonism). For anti-missionary purposes, it may even be necessary to make such arguments. But you are right that a major component of my acceptance of OJ is that I find it the single most edifying, emotionaly, intelectually, spiritually, and ethically endevour of my life.

Look, I was not born religious AT ALL. I spent most of my high school years being a millitant atheist. in college, I started searching philosophy and religion for more answers.

I investigated to the best of my abilities easern religion as well as the major western ones and can honestly say that Judaism is the best for me based on almost any criteria I actually care about. It is the only system that has a concept of balance. Its not all about love (x-anity) or percieved justive (islam). Its not all about the mystical experience (buddaism and eastern meditations) or communal ethics (secular humanism) but it tries to give a system where all these things find their proper place. It gives a way to analyze conflicting values and arrive at working conclusions. It can sanctify all areas of life in a manner that I have never seen anywhere else.

You are correct that this may only appealing to someone who is looking for such a lifestyle (as I was). But I think that what is special about the Jewish people is that many of us ARE looking for such a system. Part of the problem is that orthodox society does not always live up to the ideals the Torah puts in place for us. But I strongly believe that this is all temporary.

If you want empirical evidence for Judaism, the best such evidence is that we have survived every intellectual and physical challenge ever leveled at us, and we did so not by always building barriars but often by integrating that which is true and good in the culture that challenged us. In the long term, we always end up stronger for it. I see no reason to start betting against the Jewish people in the 21st century.

Jun 6, 2008 12:55 PM

Spiritual Intuition a.k.a. Baseless Belief

Religious believers will often claim that they have some kind of special 'intuition' that their religious beliefs are correct. What is this mysterious 'intuition' and how do we know it has any credibility? Unfortunately, they are generally unable to explain.

Why is this? Because their 'intuition' is a feeling. A feeling of knowledge, as opposed to actual knowledge. It's the feeling a true believer has about their beliefs. It's why beliefs are so compelling, because feelings always trumps reason, and if you have a strong feeling about a belief, that's even more compelling for most people than having strong reasons for that belief. All of this has been proven time and again in various studies. The book I referenced below is a good start.

Is intuition ever valuable? Of course! We all use intuition. But intuition isn't some kind of magic. Intuition is based on years of experience and some natural talents. Intuition happens in the deeper parts of the sub-conscious brain, but there's no magic there.

And I'm not even opposed to 'magical' intuition. If you have an unexplainable intuition about winning lottery numbers, and can show me a track record of success, heck, I'll run out to the lottery store immediately! I don't care. But believing your 'intuition' with no track record? That's just plain stupid.

Some people have great intuition, my wife for example. But if she was consistently wrong, then neither she nor I would then trust her intuition. That's pretty obvious.

This planet is full of people who claim a special 'intuition' about all sorts of things: the physical world past present & future, the spiritual world, God(s), the dead, the stock market and prettty much everything else. 99% of these people are charlatans with track records no better than you would get from guessing. This has been shown time and time and time again.

If you have a reliable intuition, then I would be glad to hear about it. Otherwise, 'intuition' is simply another word for 'baseless belief'.

Jun 4, 2008 10:31 AM

Showing feelings of an almost human nature

_
One tremendously important thing I have realized over the past few years is how much we are all driven by our emotions and feelings. Blaise Pascal famously said: 'The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing', and this is very true.

Emotion will always trump Reason, every time, for pretty much everybody.

Of course some people don't have strong emotions, but if they did it would be true of them too. Underlying emotions drive what we think about, how we think about it, and what conclusions we come too.

This fact pretty much explains all the confusing things about skeptics, BTs, Intellefundies and all the rest. Here is how it plays out:

True believers are always so emotionally invested in their religion that they cannot accept reality. This explains why the Intellefundies are able to hold onto their faith, even their arguments are so obviously lame. So why do some believers go OTD when faced with reality?

There are two basic scenarios:

1. The believer who goes OTD was never emotionally invested that much in their religion in the first place, so once they start analyzing it they are toast. This describes many of the skeptics I know, either they always had doubts, or else they just didn't 'connect' with their religion. Have a read of the many skeptic stories on the Internet, you see this pattern over and over again. This kind of skeptic typically goes totally OTD quite easily and happily.

2. The believer who goes OTD did indeed have an emotional investment in their religion, but their emotional investment in always being 'right', never being 'wrong', and not being a sucker over-rides their religious emotions. Some skeptics are like this. This type of skeptic cannot just let go of OJ even after he knows it's false, so he trys to come to some new theology or way of dealing with his new found lack of faith. Alternatively a huge emotional 'shock' to their system can cause this kind of believer to re-evaluate, e.g. if a respected religous authority figure turns out to be a fraud.

This also plays out with intellectual BTs. I know a few BTs who are extremely educated, even in Biblical Criticism, yet have come to believe in TMS. How can this be? The answer is straightforward. Their emotional attachment to spirituality and religion over-rides their attachment to rationality.

Note that this is neither good nor bad, it is just the way that humans are constructed. If emotions didn't drive our reason, most of us probably wouldn't get out of bed in the morning.

Does this invalidate our reasoning? It certainly can do, and it often explains why people who are most certainly and obviously wrong are still convinced they are right.

So how can a subjective individual ever be sure that they are thinking straight? Maybe all the skeptics are just driven by emotions, and in fact they are the ones who are quite wrong!

It's difficult, but if you make a huge (and often quite painful) effort to detach your emotions from your thinking, and at every turn act as an impartial objective analyst on your own thought processes to weed out any fallacious arguments, it can be done. You also have to have the ability to play devil's advocate with yourself, and also be able to see the opposing party's POV, and even switch sides in an argument and play both sides.

Luckily, I can do all of these things well, and that's how I know I'm correct here. YMMV.

You can see this quite clearly in the arguments of the skeptics and the believers. The believers almost always appeal to emotional arguments such as faith and loyalty, whereas the skeptics make a concerted effort to be objective. And then of course you have the obvious fact that believers are emotionally invested in their way of life much more so than a frum skeptic trying to figure out the truth. Of course skeptics have their emotional drivers too - usually an intense emotional based need to always be right, to not be a sucker, to get to the truth, and similar emotions.

So should we forget about all the debates? I don't think so. Although we are wired by our emotions, the lesson of Judaism is that we have to curb our emotions and desires for a higher good. Hashem says 'Borosy Yetzer Horoh, Borosy Torah Tavlin', which roughly translated means 'I created your emotions / desires, but I also created study / reason as the cure'.

This is why Judaism places so much emphasis on learning and studying - it has always recognized that study / intellect / reason is more important than anything else. Of course when Chazal said this they were operating under the assumption that the Torah was true, maybe nowadays they might see things a little differently. But the point remains true: If you want to know the true reality, you have to figure out a way to rid your thinking of all emotions. It's the only way.

So, in the spirit of being honest, let me talk about my emotional drivers, and what the effects are.

1. Drive to be 'right'
I have a fear of being wrong, or of making a mistake. I always try to be careful about what I say in a professional context, as I don't ever want to be the fool. I analyze and anlayze everything I think to be sure I am correct. Sometimes however, other emotional drives such as wanting to say something to look intelligent can over-ride this, and I say something stupid. Ironic!

2. Emotional attachment to religion
Yes, I'm quite attached to God and religion. This obviously conflicts tremendously with the above, which is why I'm so conflicted here.

3. Somewhat cynical
I can be quite cynical and pessimistic at times. Someone I know very well thinks that my cynicism is the root cause of my skepticism. I don't think so, but even if it is the key emotional driver behind my skepticism, so what? The skeptical version of reality is still the true version, as can be quite convincingly proven, so whether my personal emotional reasons for being skeptical are due to cynicism or not makes no difference!

4. Iconoclastic
I am quite iconoclastic / contrarian, it's a trait that runs in my family. If everyone goes right, I'm going left. Or vice versa. If everyone became skeptical, I would probably turn Chareidi again. This also explains why I have staked out my position as a total skeptic who still wants to be frum. At first, being a skeptic was kinda unique, but then everyone else I know got skeptical too, so where was the chiddush? So now I have to be skeptical but frum (or something else different).

So, where do my biases lie, and how do they effect my thinking? I think that if you analyze the above, you will see that I have an overall bias towards Judaism and OJ, and even Chareidi ways of thinking (ej, you are not the only one!). I can't help it. If I didn't have this bias, I would simply have chucked it all out the window a while back and would give OJ about as much thought as I give Mormonism. Which is precisely nil.

Jun 3, 2008 11:31 PM

Yet another kofer from Evanston!

What is it with these Evanston people? A bunch of koferim, the lot of them. This David Gruber guy though is awesome. Yes, I know he was on DovBear and Littlefoxling, but his true home is here. He has a good summary of why he no longer believes in OJ:

"The theory of monoauthorism, namely that the Torah was written by a single author, especially in the 13th Century B.C.E. (and certainly earlier), is a fantasy. At that time Hebrew script and writing did not yet exist. The Canaanite alphabet had barely been standardized, after the change from 27 consonants to 22 consonants, and it was still written right to left, left to right and vertically too. Archeology clearly shows that Israelite society, when it emerged, was not a literate society, while the Torah takes this as a given. This is only one of numerous anachronisms in the Torah that make it clear that it is not a 13th Century B.C.E. document. In the 13th Century B.C.E., for example, contrary to what is imagined by the biblical authors, there were no domesticated camels, no Philistines living on the Coast, no Chaldeans in Ur, no widespread use of iron and coinage, no kingdoms in Edom, Moab and Amon, and the cities of Dan (with that name), Nineveh, Beer-Sheva, Gerar and many others mentioned were not founded yet."

I think that's all mostly correct, but he might be wrong about the camels though. The JPS chumash says even though camels were not widespread as domesticated animals, they were known.,

Arggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggh

Here's Claire Torry to tell you about existential angst.

[WARNING do not watch any of these if:

• It’s the omer
• You don’t listen to Kol Ishah
• You don’t want to hear endless tracks of women screaming]

Popout

1. Claire Torry
2. Sam Brown
3. Melina Imhoff
4. Caroline all'azione
5. Aussie Pink Floyd
6. Dream Theatre
7. Bianca Antoinette
8. Beyond The Darkside
9. Which One's Pink
10. All in All
11. Unamed Berlin?
12. Unamed Venice
13. Carol?

I think Clare Torry's version is still the best, but Sam Brown is pretty good too. Melina Imhoff can sure belt out a tune but she's a bit scary looking. I'm not too keen in general on all the aussie Pink Floyd tribute bands though. 11 & 12 are pretty bad musically, but I think the anguished screaming works quite well.,

,Jun 3, 2008 5:30 PM

Modern Orthodox Shavuos Night Hashkafic Kefirah Tittilation Competition

How's that for a blog title?

MO shuls always advertise shiurim for Shavuous night learning with very interesting, semi-kefiradick titles. My shul does this every year, I assume to draw in the punters with the promise of some sensationalist, slightly naughty kefira-lite. 'Oooh look at us, we're so modern and daring, not like those intellectually backwards chareidim'. Trouble is, it's always a 'bait and switch', nothing too controversial is ever said (of course). However, I thought it would be fun to see whose shul has the most daring lecture titles. Winner gets to stay up all Shavuos night and take (mental) notes!,

Jun 3, 2008 4:30 PM

Conflicted about the future of my new theology

Astute readers may have noticed a certain conflict or contradiction in my approach to a new theology for Orthodoxy. And that's because I am conflicted. There are a few options here, and I keep changing my mind as to which one to go with. I'll roughly call them the Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist approaches, though that's just for kicks.

Approach 1: Conservative Approach a.k.a. divinely inspired
This approach is basically the Louis Jacobs approach that the Bible is man's account of man's encounter with the Divine. 'Something happened at Sinai' as one person I know put it. Sure, the Bible is a composite document, but Jewish history is too amazing, and the hand of God too clear to deny. Nobody could ever show that the Biblical writers were not inspired in some way. The advantage of this approach is that it can work very well if you spin it right. The disadvantage is that you still need quite a bit of spin.

Approach 2: Reform Approach a.k.a. God exists but religion is man made
This approach is that a classical God exists, but all religion is entirely man made, God has nothing to do with it. The value in any religion is just what we make of it, inasmuch as we think it might address what God wants. The advantage of this approach is that it requires no spin at all. However it lacks in motivation somewhat, especially to keep halachah.

Approach 3: Reconstructionist Approach a.k.a. There is no god and religion is culture
God doesn't exist per se, except perhaps in some strange sense. We do religion for man's sake, not for God's. Even less beliefs are required, and consequently there's even less motivation.

So it boils down to this: Once we agree that the ikkarim are bogus, how much belief in God and in His involvement in the world do we retain? This isn't something that history or science can ever really address (at least not currently).

Should we go with a ‘Divinely Inspired’ model? Should we just say all religion is man made, but let’s try and get a connection to God through our religion? Or should we say, all religious beliefs are entirely bogus (until some evidence appears). Depending on my mood and other influences, I can go either way on this, and often do.

I’m also conflicted about my conflict. Should I

(a) Admit I’m conflicted, continue studying and accept that I may keep changing my mind
(b) Try to come up with some theology/philosophy where being unsure about all this is actually part of the theology
(c) Just pick one derech and stick with it already
(d) Don't form any conclusions until after studying Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist theologies in depth for many years.
(e) All of the above
(f) Other (explain),

Jun 3, 2008 1:30 PM

History Min HaShamayim?

Hirhurim posts an article from the YU Magazine about Science & Torah "researchers". As someone commented there, the term "researchers" is rather suspect, given that it implies some kind of scientific reasearch, rather than research into 'lesser known views of Rishonim' and 'Acharonim', which is in fact the only type of research that these people really do (though kudos to them for at least doing that!).

Another comment quotes one of the "researchers" as saying: "I fully agree that only trained scientists are qualified to discuss the physical development of the universe" and "I can assure him that the global consensus of scientists trained in the relevant fields would endorse my views."

Yet the global concensus of trained arechologists, historians and biblical scholars is that the Torah is a composite man made document!

I can understand the value of faith/tradition, I'm just having a hard time understanding the epistemelogical methodology being used here. It seems to be: 'Hard Science' 'trumps' 'Faith/Tradition', but 'Faith/Tradition' 'trumps' 'Soft Science'. But how does this work? Is the global concensus of experts only relevant in the field of hard sciences, but not in the soft sciences? Why is this the case?

I assume the "reasearchers" would argue that anything other than 'hard science' can be more easily dismissed as 'biased' or 'non-rigorous'. I am eagerly looking forward to the day when one of them can explain why religious tradition is a less biased and more rigorous methodology for uncovering truth than the methods employed by the global community of trained historians, archeologists and biblical scholars. Everything we know about the world and religion would seem to indicate that religions have a high degree of bias and less rigor in the way they evaluate past history.

This OF COURSE is the absolute crux of the ENTIRE debate here. No one person in this modern day and age can possibly be expert in everything, or even a tiny slice of 'everything'. We have to rely on the experts.

And who are the experts? Religious "researchers", constrained emotionally, spiritually and of course halachically to believe in certain historical facts, facts which have been trasmitted down from ancient times where almost every belief has since been proven false, or the global contemporary community of trained academic researchers?

Isn't this a simple no-brainer?

Of course I know the answer, because it's an answer I lived with myself for many years. And the answer goes like this:

"The soft sciences are full of biased individuals. There is no hard evidence there. The history of the Jewish people is incredibly unique and only makes sense in the context of the beliefs being true. The academics can't see this because (a) they are too biased and (b) they don't really appreciate the incredible depth of the Torah. The true experts in Torah are only the Orthodox Rabbis, not some academics who can barely read hebrew! Of course where hard science contradicts Torah with absolutely solid evidence, AND it can fit into our tradition, then we will accomodate it. But we certainly will not change the fundamental beliefs of our 3,000 year old religion because of some biased academics in the soft sciences!

Wow, that was a pretty good answer actually. I almost convinced myself!

I think the truth is that if I personally looked at the Torah and saw some amazingly deep something, I would go with this answer too. However I look at it and all I see is an obviously composite man made document, with two thousand year's worth of 'layers' on top, and that all the myriad 'questions' that the believers have to answer all simply melt away once you take that approach. Sure, other questions arise, but these are just the normal everyday questions about how the text happened, and isn't that wording strange, and questions like that. On the other hand, I do look at the history of the Jewish people and see that it is quite amazing.

So bottom line: Amazing history, not so amazing text.

History min Hashamayim? Could be!,

Jun 3, 2008 11:29 AM

Are MO Rabbis failing their congregants?

I once told my Rabbi that I thought about 30% of our (MO) shul were Orthoprax, but he didn’t agree with me. Recently, Prof Marc Shapiro was at my house and I asked him what he thought: He replied '30%? No way, more like 60%!' (he was talking about MO in general). There is no doubt at all that a large number of people that I know do not believe in the ikkarim, certainly not in all of them. Let’s have a quick look at the ikkarim and see why:

1. G-d is the Creator and Ruler of all things.
2. G-d is One.
3. G-d does not have a body.
4. G-d is first and last.
5. It is only proper to pray to G-d.

OK, there’s no solid evidence either way on these, though it should be noted that (3) is a relatively late development in Judaism.

6. All the words of the prophets are true.
7. The prophecy of Moses is absolutely true. He was the chief of all prophets, both before and after Him.

I can agree that as far as Judaism is concerned, Moses was the greatest prophet. But again, no good reason to believe that everything (or even anything) that Moshe or othre Neviim ever said was true.

8. The entire Torah that we now have is that which was given to Moses.
9. This Torah will not be changed, and that there will never be another given by G-d.

Simply not true. Not just on a detail level (i.e. everyone agrees that there have been some minor changes), but even on a broad level, the overwhelming consensus from the fields of ANE history, archeology and literary analysis is that the Torah was compiled by various authors over hundreds of years. Life is tough enough as it is, how can people be expected to discount the global consensus? Because it’s not hard science?! I’ve got some bad news for you sunshine, religion isn’t exactly hard science either.

10. G-d knows all of man's deeds and thoughts.
11. G-d rewards those who keep His commandments, and punishes those who transgress Him.

Could be, nobody knows.

12. The coming of the Messiah.
13. The dead will be brought back to life when G-d wills it to happen.

Sorry, Moshiach is a late development, and Techiyas Hamaysim is nonsense. Even the Rambam had a hard time with it. Plus the afterlife is a late development too.

The bottom line in all this is that (a) Nobody really knows anything about God, (b) The global academic expert concensus is that the Bible is a composite man made document and (c) Techiyas Hamaysim and Moshiach are late developments in the (man made) evolution of Judaism.

Given all of this, and given Modern Orthodoxy’s (supposed) commitment to the modern world, how on earth can MO Rabbis expect their intelligent, educated congregants to believe in the ikkarim?

Now, don’t get me wrong here, this isn’t just about going with the goyim. In this not bad Cross Currents post Eytan Kobre quotes (Reform) Rabbi Jeffrey Salkin as follows:

“Real” Jewish men need to recognize a powerful truth: Judaism is a counterculture. “Real” Jews have a different way of praying, learning, studying, and seeing the world. Being a Jewish man is — or should be — different from simply being a “generic” man. For generations, Jewish men have found their “macho” in mastery of Torah, in heartfelt worship, and in feats of loving-kindness and charity. Jewish men have typically rejected the culture of “sowing wild oats” and “boys will be boys.”

And that’s a sentiment I agree with (especially since I’m naturally a bit iconoclastic and countercultural myself). But, I draw the line at scoffing at, contradicting, or otherwise ignoring the global academic consensus on ancient history. I am happy to be counter-cultural, but counter-historical, counter-scientifical and counter-reality, no.

Most intelligent, and more importantly educated, people know all this, and yet the MO Rabbis can’t acknowledge this. They are too busy looking over their right shoulders, worrying about whether the Chareidim are calling them apikorsim (with good cause: apparently recently some RW Rabbi in my community said that a LW MO Rabbi in my community was an apikores). I’m all for unity but not at the price of honesty.

I appreciate that the MO Rabbis are caught between a rock and a hard place. And in private, they are certainly great to talk to. In fact, my wife was recently planning an event, and she asked me who to invite. I thought about it and realized my favorite people are all MO Rabbis (and some hard core skeptics).

And if the MO Rabbis themselves want to believe in TMS or OH or ThM or whatever, for their own personal sentimental reasons, then fine. But you can’t expect your congregants to believe this stuff, and you can’t throw them out of shul either (at least I don’t think you can).

A RIETS chavrusoh of mine, who is now a Mechon Hadarnick once said to me one of the best things that anyone has said on this topic ‘ No religion has yet figured out how to deal with modernity’. I would say better, ‘mankind hasn’t yet figured out how to deal with modernity’. Science, globally accepted by billions of people, says we are simply carbon based lifeforms, evolving somewhat randomly, with no ultimate purpose or meaning. Billions of people also believe in various religions, which all add their own layers of meaning, based on ancient mythologies, none of which have even remotely ever been shown to be true.

I want my religion to deal with this reality. I understand that the Chareidi approach is to ignore this reality, and that is fine for them. But if Modern Orthodoxy wants to be about something more than just watching movies and TV, then they really do need to confront this reality.

But do MO really address this issues? Not that I’ve ever seen. All I ever see in my LW MO shul is the typical (and often very silly) ‘Kefirah Lite’ stuff. Someone will give their drashah a bit of a daring title, start off with a movie reference to show their modern ‘creds’, and maybe quote the Rambam (gasp!) about something, and everybody will feel mildly titillated and so proud of themselves that we Modern Orthodox are so ‘open-minded’, unlike the ‘intellectually dishonest’ Chareidim down the street. It’s pathetic, and an insult to the intelligence of half the shul. (Okay maybe a quarter).

Does nobody else see this? I guess everyone else has just given up, which may explain why so many people I know are outside shul looking after their kids, or just show up late for Kiddush. Or maybe don’t come at all. Such a shame.

I appreciate that for many people maybe baby steps need to be taken. But many of the class are already walking, and have been for months, and setting up the whole classroom for babies who barely have an interest in crawling just isn’t working.

So what are you going to do about it?,

Jun 1, 2008 12:59 AM

Shalom Rosenberg is da man!

Move over Rav Kook, Rabbi Berkovitz, and the Chief spinmeister Rabbi. Oh, and Ken Wilbur & RJM. We have a new spiritual guru - Shalom Rosenberg.

Who is Shalom Rosenberg? He's a professor of religion at Hebrew University. But best of all, he was a talmid of the fabulous Mr Shushani!!! It doesn't get better than that. I'm gonna have to read his book asap.,

Jun 1, 2008 12:59 AM

Giving up is not an option. The struggle continues!

[Bear with me here. This isn't all tied up neatly yet. Consider this the first draft of a framework. Subsequent iterations will refine the overall design and fill in the details. Right now this is all in shorthand. For all you technogeek readers (for some strange reason there seem to be a lot of you) think of this like a version 0.1 Software. Unless you are Yus, in which case in Microsoft units it's like a version 7.3 service pack 2 release.]

Morality, meaning and spirituality are undeniable features of human life. We all crave meaning, many of us crave spirituality, and most of us want morality (at least for the other guy). In fact, modern man is desperately searching for something. It's clear that fame and fortune does not supply what man is looking for, just read People magazine every week, and see how many stars are in rehab. [I said no, no, no].

So what are people looking for? Is it God, as religious believers would contend? I don't know, but since God is the source of ultimate meaning, that certainly does equate to what people are searching for.

Science is great, science is true, but science doesn't provide meaning (or morality or spirituality). So science isn't the answer to the human condition. Unless perhaps the scientists invent some meaning inducing drug which doesn't have any bad side effects and somehow they get the FDA to approve it. But until then, mankind needs more than science.

All this is somewhat independent of whether the God of the Bible exists or not. Even hardened atheists agree that people want meaning, morality and spirituality in their lives, they just argue about where to get it from, and why people actually want it. However all agree that a cold, pure scientific outlook on life isn't going to do society much good.

Now, there are certainly lots of different systems out there, all claiming to give you morality, meaning and spirituality. But how do they actually rate in practice?

The eastern religions certainly seem to give spirituality and a sense of inner peace to their adherents, but they don't seem to give much to the world in terms of social action, or a well defined moral code, or anything like that. I don't think anyone would argue for the moral brilliance of Islam. So what we are left with is Judaism and Christianity. [Yep, just like that we boil all the world's religions down to 2. But let's be honest, how many of the thousands of religions out there are actually well thought out and as rich as Judaism? And also supply meaning, morality and spirituality in spades?]

Christianity though has done away with Judaism's moral code, and instead substituted some platitudes. And more importantly, the behavior of its adherents throughout history hasn't been all that great.

Is Judaism's morality perfect, by 21st century standards? No. But there are two important things to think about here: Firstly, all morality is subjective, and secondly the very fact that Judaism expends enormous effort on ethics and morality, trying to code in the finest legal detail what is morally acceptable and what isn't makes Judaism one of the top dogs in this game. There's no way we humans could ever be convinced we have the perfect moral system anyway. The next best thing (and the only realistic thing) is to have a community of people committed to at least try. Incidentally, this is why Left Wing Modern Orthodox are more holy and moral than the Right Wing MO / Chareidim, because they try to right wrongs such as Agunah.

I am quite confident that I can make a good case for Judaism's morality (see: Neviim) and all that. But what about meaning?

Judaism is actually the ultimate in meaning, seeing 70 layers (and more) of meaning in an otherwise rather strange and unimpressive set of texts, seeing meaning in history, seeing meaning in pretty much everything. In fact Judaism introduced the world to the concept of a purpose and meaning to existence, with a Messianic utopia being the end game. Nobody does meaning better than Judaism.

Unfortunately there is an obvious problem here: The meaning is seemingly derived from untrue mythology - God written books and so on.

BUT, there is a workaround. The Neviim and Chazal were no fools, nor were they liars or delusional. So what on earth were they thinking? Seems to me they were somewhat reconstructionist/metaphorical in their outlook. When a Navi says 'Thus sayeth the Lord", he doesn't mean he heard it verbatim. Rather, he means he imagines this is what God, i.e. ultimate morality, meaning and spirituality (transcendence) would say, if He were asked. When Chazal say ' A bas kol says X', they can't mean they heard the voice of God. It has to be metpahorical. (In other words, Lunatic, Liar, or Metaphorical)

Yes, I know that centuries of traditional Jews have all taken this literally. But so what? The world evolves, religion evolves, and Judaism evolves. Possibly this is the way that God (if he exists) wants things to happen.

The great challenge of course is to make this work for all humanity. So far, Orthodox Judaism has been somewhat of a failure, which is exactly why Moshiach (a.k.a. the redemption of mankind) has not come. Why has OJ been a failure? Because they took the tofel over the ikkar. They focused on the literalness of certain unbelievable beliefs rather than the underlying message of meaning, morality and spirituality.

However, we must acknowledge that it's very, very hard to create a community of committed passionate people, devoted to morality, meaning and spirituality, yet not reliant on ancient untrue mythology. How many religions have achieved this?

Guess what - pretty much Judaism is the only one, with Reform Judaism (and most of Conservative Judaism too for that matter). Are Reform and Conservative perfect? Of course not, they have watered down the key messages far too much. But once again Judaism leads the way forward for humanity. [Unitarians are a relatively tiny sect of Christianity compared to Reform].

And anyway, Judaism doesn't need to be the absolute best system for meaning, morality and spirituality [which of course it would impossible to prove anyway, since it's all entirely subjective], it just needs to be a very, very good system, which expends effort on achieving these goals, which it certainly is.

The point is that giving up all religion and becoming profoundly secular gets you nowhere much. You haven't really solved the problem of how to get meaning, morality and spirituality (M, M & S). I guess you could try and put something together with personal meaning, secular ethics (based on what exactly?) and get-high spirituality, but you still lose out on community and life cycle ritual. Why do you think there are no large congregations of atheists? They are just not that motivated. Some of them will claim they don't need congregations to get M,M & S, but I don't believe it. Humans are social animals, you can't live as an island.

The obvious answer (for now) is that as thinking, feeling humans, we need to evolve towards a 'godly' society (i.e. one invested in M, M & S). Nobody has the perfect answer, but gold medals to those who try the hardest, which on a practical level clearly committed Jews stand a winning chance.

This is not to disparage other religions. Who knows? Maybe in the long run the perfect solution will come from some backwater no name cult (unlikely). But the fact is, we have been around for a long while, we've been in almost all the major civilizations, and we seem to be the obsessive focus of the entire world. (Not to mention possibly the most annoying group on the planet.) And with a very unique history. Something funny is going on if you ask me. All in all, putting my efforts into Judaism is certainly not a bad choice.

At this point you might be thinking that this is a great shpiel on behalf of Reform Judaism, but what does any of this have to do with Orthodoxy? Well, as we all know, most Reform Jews are entirely ignorant of their religion, and don't make a huge amount of effort to follow the ethical codes, though they do excel in social action. Clearly, we need to combine the sensitive morality and ethics of the modern orthodox with the social action of the Reform. The acceptance of the true nature of reality from Reform with the unbelievable commitment of the Orthodox to study. And throw in some good old Chassidic spirituality too.

On three things the world stands: On Torah, on Avodah, on Gemillut Chassadim. Torah is learning. Torah is intellectual. Torah is meaning. Avodah is Transcending your everyday life to have a conversation with 'God' (the ultimate M, M & S). Avodah is spirituality. Gemmilut Chassadim is Kindness. Gemmilut Chassadim is Morality.

The founding fathers of Judaism represent these three key aspects of life. Avraham stands for Chessed. Yitzchak stands for Avodah, and Yaakov stands for Torah. Why is Avraham first? Because the foundation of everything is chessed - morality. Without that, the 'Olam' i.e. civilization, fails. Next we have spirituality - the transcendance from material desires to a higher plane of being. Finally, we get to ultimate meaning. Talmud Torah Kneged Kulom - Meaning is the ultimate goal.

So how do we get rid of the tofel (the silly literalness of the beliefs) and get back to the ikkar? It's a struggle, certainly. Once you realize that all religion is man made, its very tempting to just say 'ah, the hell with it all', and live out your days with wine, women and song (or McDonalds, techno-gadgets and Blu-ray). But that would be giving up on the ultimate goal.

I read recently that many of the pioneers in AIDS research and treatment ended up totally crashing. One famous pioneer who saved many lives is now a drug addict and criminal. What the hell happened? Well, once the various AIDS drugs were perfected, and the lifespan of HIV positive people was extended, the immediate AIDS crisis was over. These people, who had the most meaningful jobs in the world at the height of epidemic, became less useful. They couldn't stand this new lack of meaning in their lives, and totally flamed out. Sad but true.

Various philosophers (and now neuroscientists and biologists) have argued about what man's ultimate drive is. Is it pleasure, meaning or what? I think it is clearly meaning. Nobody who spends their life devoted to this worldy pleasures dies happy. For whatever reasons (God given Neshamah or evolutionary driven spandrel depending on your POV) this is the reality of our situation. We need to find a way to give society M, M & S.

There is a ton of wisdom, practice and role models in Judaism embodying M, M & S. More so than in almost any other religion.

You couldn't pick a better place to start.

So what do we have to do? Some people try and synthesize the 'best' from multiple religions. I don't think that works very well. The various religions are too different, and what you end up with is frankenstinian. I think there's enough depth and breadth within Judaism to get everything you need from a one place (single vendor for you technogeeks).

Plus, and maybe more importantly, Judaism is the ultimate 'best of breed' religion anyway - we took all the best ideas from our various host cultures and worked them into one religion.

So, we have a ready made religion combining all of mankind's best religious ideas, tried and tested and proven in the most difficult of circumstances, what more could you ask for?

The beliefs are nor true, we know that now. But then again, I think Chazal, the Neviim and many of the Biblical writers probably knew that too. When the Priests wrote their Priestly code, and wrote "And God said ...", did they really think God actually said that to them? I doubt it. We have been using metaphor for 3,000 years. We need to recognize it for what it is.

These are the rough outlines of why we need to continue the struggle. Plus, there are all sorts of Post Modernish themes about identity which play into this, but I'll leave that to the experts.

Giving up is not an option. The struggle continues!,

Existential Angst May '08

2008-05-31T16:20:00.000-07:00

May 31, 2008 10:59 PM

I'm back!

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

Oh no, not again.

_

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

Pravda Ne'eman are back!!!

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

Is Gan Eden in Olam Habah?

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

Olam Habah domeh le'Osiris

_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

Orthologic!

_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

Rabbi Dovid Cohen, Tax Fraud, Child Molestation and the RCA (all the muck you need in one convenient place!)

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

Faith vs. Reason

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

Conservative Fundies!_

[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

Is Mechon Hadar the answer?_

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?_

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

True Conversations 54_

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

Skeptics, Nerds and Autism_

_
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

The TorahTrueMan Show_

_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

letsgopomo_

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

Let's agree to RJM_

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

The Bias of the Believers_

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

True Conversations IIVIX_

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

How do we know anything?_

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.],