See you in a few!Happy Thanksgiving.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Is morality subjective even if God does exist?
A few people completely misunderstood my previous post on racism.
Of course morality is subjective, and of course there's no way of proving that 21st Century Western morality is superior to 3rd Century Babylonian-Jewish morality, or 13th Century BC Canaanite-Israelite morality. My point was strictly that Adlerstein was indulging in apologetics, by pretending that there are no significant racist strands in Judaism.
When confronted with morality questions, there are two approaches. The Chareidi approach is to dismiss the question by saying that since God wrote the Torah, He knows best, and if 21st Century morality holds differently, then obviously 21st Century morality is wrong. A second approach, common in LW MO circles (and of course Reform, Conservative etc) is simply to acknowledge the problem, but say we have moved on since then and the religion has evolved.
RYA however is stuck in the middle. He doesn't want to claim that he doesn't care about what the Goyim (or liberal Jews) say about racism, that's too extreme for him. On the other hand, he's too frum to take the LW MO approach.
So like any typical RWMO, he has to argue that Judaism was never really racist (or whatever else) in the first place, and that any seemingly racist views were minority opinions which were ignored. But now he is distorting reality, and this is no longer a subjective morality discussion.
As for Objective Morality, some skeptics try and argue that without God you could still have Objective Morality, but they have never been able to show this. It's true that some philosophers have argued this, but no one finds it very convincing. I think it's pretty clear that without God all morality is subjective.
However, I started thinking that maybe even WITH God morality could be subjective.
Let's think about this.
Why should God make Morality Objective? Well, you could say that since God created the world, he can decide what is right and wrong. But why does that follow? What logical argument dictates that the creator of a universe can define right or wrong? I don't see it. So maybe the argument is not that God is the Creator, but rather that God is the most Wise and Good, and therefore there's no one better than He to decide right or wrong. I think this might work on a practical level, le'maaseh most people would defer to God's judgment. But it's still far from a watertight argument.
After all, morality judgments are based on values (and feelings) which are inherently subjective. So if someone decides for himself what is right and wrong, who can argue? His values dictate his morality, and you can't really claim that there is 'one true set of values', values are inherently subjective.
So, I think it's possible that morality is actually inherently a subjective concept (like conscious experience), and could never be otherwise, no matter whether God exists or not.
And even if you reject this argument, you still have problems. Because the only way that God's morality is the 'perfect' morality is if God is the ultimate good - Omnibenevolent. Being Omnipotent isn't enough (plenty of very smart, powerful people aren't very moral). Now, creating the Universe is a sign of Omnipotence, but where's the evidence of Omnibenevolence? There isn't any, it has to be taken on faith.
So, at the end of the day, even if you could prove God's existence 100%, you would still be stuck having to have faith in God's morality.
Of course morality is subjective, and of course there's no way of proving that 21st Century Western morality is superior to 3rd Century Babylonian-Jewish morality, or 13th Century BC Canaanite-Israelite morality. My point was strictly that Adlerstein was indulging in apologetics, by pretending that there are no significant racist strands in Judaism.
When confronted with morality questions, there are two approaches. The Chareidi approach is to dismiss the question by saying that since God wrote the Torah, He knows best, and if 21st Century morality holds differently, then obviously 21st Century morality is wrong. A second approach, common in LW MO circles (and of course Reform, Conservative etc) is simply to acknowledge the problem, but say we have moved on since then and the religion has evolved.
RYA however is stuck in the middle. He doesn't want to claim that he doesn't care about what the Goyim (or liberal Jews) say about racism, that's too extreme for him. On the other hand, he's too frum to take the LW MO approach.
So like any typical RWMO, he has to argue that Judaism was never really racist (or whatever else) in the first place, and that any seemingly racist views were minority opinions which were ignored. But now he is distorting reality, and this is no longer a subjective morality discussion.
As for Objective Morality, some skeptics try and argue that without God you could still have Objective Morality, but they have never been able to show this. It's true that some philosophers have argued this, but no one finds it very convincing. I think it's pretty clear that without God all morality is subjective.
However, I started thinking that maybe even WITH God morality could be subjective.
Let's think about this.
Why should God make Morality Objective? Well, you could say that since God created the world, he can decide what is right and wrong. But why does that follow? What logical argument dictates that the creator of a universe can define right or wrong? I don't see it. So maybe the argument is not that God is the Creator, but rather that God is the most Wise and Good, and therefore there's no one better than He to decide right or wrong. I think this might work on a practical level, le'maaseh most people would defer to God's judgment. But it's still far from a watertight argument.
After all, morality judgments are based on values (and feelings) which are inherently subjective. So if someone decides for himself what is right and wrong, who can argue? His values dictate his morality, and you can't really claim that there is 'one true set of values', values are inherently subjective.
So, I think it's possible that morality is actually inherently a subjective concept (like conscious experience), and could never be otherwise, no matter whether God exists or not.
And even if you reject this argument, you still have problems. Because the only way that God's morality is the 'perfect' morality is if God is the ultimate good - Omnibenevolent. Being Omnipotent isn't enough (plenty of very smart, powerful people aren't very moral). Now, creating the Universe is a sign of Omnipotence, but where's the evidence of Omnibenevolence? There isn't any, it has to be taken on faith.
So, at the end of the day, even if you could prove God's existence 100%, you would still be stuck having to have faith in God's morality.
British skeptic forbidden to get an aliyah!
This is unbelievable. A British reader has written to tell me that since coming out as a skeptic, the London Beis Din has forbidden him to get an aliyah in shul. He writes:
I myself asked a well known Dayan here in the US and he said that unless someone categorically denies that God exists (which 95% of Atheists don't do) it's not a problem, since lack of belief is not the same as denial.
Boruch Hashem we live in a modern medinah shel chessed, and not some Eurotrash backwater. One of the Rabbis in my shul has a father who is a Conservative Rabbi, and who holds of the DH etc. Do you think when he comes to visit he doesn't get an aliyah?! Of course he gets an aliyah!
I think the Chief Rabbi and London Beis Din need to brush up on their halachah. For shame!
Dear XGH,Isn't the Chief Rabbi the head of the London Beis Din? I think so. And if I recall correctly, wasn't there a brouhaha a few years ago when Rabbi Louis Jacobs was denied an aliyah in shul too? What's wrong with these people? Any fool knows that nowadays we don't pasken like that. For example, see here.
I recently made a public statement in my community (Birmingham, England) that "I don't believe anything in the Torah is actually true, nor in the existence of any god".
Result: the London Bet Din has ruled that I can't be sheliach tzibur, can't leyn, can't receive an aliya even when I'm the only levi present. (This has already happened once. But they don't actually call up the kohen again, he just says the brachot without call-up. This is to avoid causing me embarrassment.)
I am not sure what other rulings have been made, and am seeking clarification from the rabbi. (E.g. whether I can make kiddush for myself on grape juice that I squeezed myself before shabbat. I did this when I was abroad but was unsure if it was OK.)
I made clear that I accept these rulings. This is because I want to focus on what matters (truth) rather than relatively unimportant questions about aliyot etc.
I think this has interesting implications for observant (and semi-observant) skeptics.
Paul
I myself asked a well known Dayan here in the US and he said that unless someone categorically denies that God exists (which 95% of Atheists don't do) it's not a problem, since lack of belief is not the same as denial.
Boruch Hashem we live in a modern medinah shel chessed, and not some Eurotrash backwater. One of the Rabbis in my shul has a father who is a Conservative Rabbi, and who holds of the DH etc. Do you think when he comes to visit he doesn't get an aliyah?! Of course he gets an aliyah!
I think the Chief Rabbi and London Beis Din need to brush up on their halachah. For shame!
Monday, November 24, 2008
YU research shows that going to shul prolongs your life
The Jerusalem Post is reporting that a YU study shows that going to religious services regularly can prolong your life, assuming you are a post menopausal woman that is. But before any Kiruv Clowns get too excited, they also found that this applies to Christians, Muslims, Buddhists & Sikhs too.
But I don't think this is all that surprising - women who attend services regularly are clearly quite religious. And religious elderly women are more likely to be married, have children and a social support network, all factors which can increase life span.
If only YU could do some research on whether their religion is actually true or not, now that would be something to report on.
But I don't think this is all that surprising - women who attend services regularly are clearly quite religious. And religious elderly women are more likely to be married, have children and a social support network, all factors which can increase life span.
If only YU could do some research on whether their religion is actually true or not, now that would be something to report on.
Judaism & Racism
Rabbi Yitzchak Adlerstein has a nice post over at Cross-Currents decrying the racist attitudes that are common in Chareidi Judaism. The only problem is that it is typical apologetics, trying to pretend that Judaism has never been racist in anyway, when of course there is ample evidence that it has been. Not evil 'Ku Klax Klan put a Doc Martins thru your door' racism, but racist attitudes which by current Western 21st century standards are not acceptable.
(Footnote: Since when are current Western 21st century morality standards in any way relevant to Torah True Jews? But I digress.)
Normally a skeptic might provide the argument here, but this time I shall leave it to a Chareidi, the Bray from DB's blog, who writes (in an as yet unpublished comment):
Of course it is no surprise at all that ancient Judaism was racist, since the rest of the world was too. The point however is that according to the Chareidi 'Yeridas Hadoros / Chazal & Rishonim were near infallible' attitude, it's pretty hard to square this particular circle.
I wonder if in 200 years, RYA's great-great-great grandson will be inventing apologetics for why Orthodox Jews in the 21st Century were so anti homosexuality?
(Footnote: Since when are current Western 21st century morality standards in any way relevant to Torah True Jews? But I digress.)
Normally a skeptic might provide the argument here, but this time I shall leave it to a Chareidi, the Bray from DB's blog, who writes (in an as yet unpublished comment):
Torah Judaism is, by any fair definition of the word, a Racist ideology.Now, I hate to give anti-semites any ammunition, and it is certainly true that Judaism has never committed any racist atrocities, but there is no denying that ancient and medieval Judaism, (and even some strains down to the present day), have held or do hold attitudes (based on religious beliefs) which do not square with modern morality.
1. Does historical Judaism assign certain rights and privileges to those born of a Jewish Mother irrespective of postpartum performance?
2. Does historical Judaism assign certain rights and privileges to those born of Ahronic or Davidic patrilineal descent not available to others on the basis of merit?
3. Does historical Judaism prohibit conversion from members of certain nations, and is their national identity determined by genetic lineage?
4. Does historical Judaism mandate genocide of the nation of Amalek, a genetic construct...not a faith community?
5. Does historical Judaism require the return of tribal lands in Jubilee years to their original tribal owners, even if/when the buyers paid for these lands fair and square and the sellers sold them of their own volition?
6. Does historical Judaism create a double standard in monetary law for Jews and gentiles?
7. Do not all of these laws and traditions antedate the 15th-18th century movements of colonialism and nationalism?
8. Aren't each and every one of these components of historical Judaism at loggerheads with...and deeply offensive to, western sensibilities of racial equality and meritocracy?
Of course it is no surprise at all that ancient Judaism was racist, since the rest of the world was too. The point however is that according to the Chareidi 'Yeridas Hadoros / Chazal & Rishonim were near infallible' attitude, it's pretty hard to square this particular circle.
I wonder if in 200 years, RYA's great-great-great grandson will be inventing apologetics for why Orthodox Jews in the 21st Century were so anti homosexuality?
Sunday, November 23, 2008
The Kugelmeter: How choosing a scholar in residence can define your ideology
In a previous post I claimed that inviting Professor James Kugel to be scholar in residence for an entire Shabbos was a sure sign that a shul was Left Wing Modern Orthodox (LWMO), since Professor Kugel is famous for accepting the Documentary Hypotheis (DH). Since Professor Kugel was invited to United Orthodox Synagogues (UOS) of Houston last Shabbos, therefore the only conclusion was that UOS was LWMO.
I of course said this in praise of UOS. (Note: I did not claim UOS was Orthoprax (OP) - though in general LWMO is on average 50% OP anyways. )
Well, D.G.Myers, who is the Vice President of education at UOS, strongly disagreed and wrote as follows:
I spoke to a number of people about this, including a well known slightly left leaning MO Rabbi, who told me that he wouldn't have Professor Kugel as a Scholar in Residence in his shul because it would not be appropriate, though maybe he might be ok with having him on a 'panel', since 'you can invite anyone to a panel'.
I also spoke to one of Professor Kugel's star students, who told me that Jon Levenson is as much into the DH as Professor Kugel is, if not more so . And Halivni is hardly mainstream Orthodox, or even LW MO!
So what's going on here?
Why the strong reaction to being labeled LWMO? Was there perhaps an issue in UOS over Kugel being invited? Was Rabbi Gellman 100% okay with it?
Of course personally I'm 100% OK with Professor Kugel, except for the fact that he might be a little too fundamentalist for me. But I'm interested here in the social dynamics of the situation.
I suppose it could be that Houston is somewhat of a backwater, and people there are just not clued in to the dynamics of Modern Orthodoxy. But looking at Myers (and Rabbi Gelman's) backgrounds, I find this hard to believe.
Anyways, note to Myers and UOS: Being LWMO is a good thing. Be proud!
I of course said this in praise of UOS. (Note: I did not claim UOS was Orthoprax (OP) - though in general LWMO is on average 50% OP anyways. )
Well, D.G.Myers, who is the Vice President of education at UOS, strongly disagreed and wrote as follows:
I am vice president of education at UOS. As such, I am the person directly responsible for bringing Prof. Kugel to UOS. (He was in town for the Houston JCC Book Fair.)This is actually quite funny, since nothing screams LW MO more than 'we sit in a frum and eruv-enclosed neighborhood populated by shomer Shabbat Jews' followed by 'go read Jon Levenson and David Weiss Halivni'. (I don't know why Myers forgot to mention Tamar Ross and Louis Jacobs.)
Your assumptions are badly mistaken; your categories are rigid and irrelevant. Prof. Kugel was invited on the basis of his scholarship, not his religious views. As a scholar, he has (as I said in introducing him) revolutionized the study of the Hebrew bible.
As for whether the shul is LW MO. (What stupid terminology.) UOS sits in a frum and eruv-enclosed neighborhood populated by shomer Shabbat Jews. It is true that a majority of the membership are baalei teshuvah, but they have sought out UOS precisely because it encourages their best Orthodox instincts—and teaches them how to pursue them.
On the compatibility of the documentary hypothesis with Orthodoxy see Jon D. Levenson, The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), and David Weiss Halivni, Revelation Restored: Divine Writ and Critical Responses (Boulder: Westview Press, 1997).
I spoke to a number of people about this, including a well known slightly left leaning MO Rabbi, who told me that he wouldn't have Professor Kugel as a Scholar in Residence in his shul because it would not be appropriate, though maybe he might be ok with having him on a 'panel', since 'you can invite anyone to a panel'.
I also spoke to one of Professor Kugel's star students, who told me that Jon Levenson is as much into the DH as Professor Kugel is, if not more so . And Halivni is hardly mainstream Orthodox, or even LW MO!
So what's going on here?
Why the strong reaction to being labeled LWMO? Was there perhaps an issue in UOS over Kugel being invited? Was Rabbi Gellman 100% okay with it?
Of course personally I'm 100% OK with Professor Kugel, except for the fact that he might be a little too fundamentalist for me. But I'm interested here in the social dynamics of the situation.
I suppose it could be that Houston is somewhat of a backwater, and people there are just not clued in to the dynamics of Modern Orthodoxy. But looking at Myers (and Rabbi Gelman's) backgrounds, I find this hard to believe.
Anyways, note to Myers and UOS: Being LWMO is a good thing. Be proud!
Ivanka Trump converting to Orthodox Judaism!
Wow. Various outlets are reporting that Ivanka Trump, daughter of The Donald, and co-host of 'The Apprentice' is converting to Orthodox Judaism! And this is no dodgy conversion either, she is doing it at Manhattan's Kehilla Jeshurun (KJ) synagogue, the bastion of Modern Orthodoxy in Manhattan, with two Rabbinic stars in charge: Rabbi Haskel Lookstein and Rabbi Meir Soloveitchik! It doesn't get more MO than that.I know Rabbi's Lookstein and Soloveitchik quite well (not personally), and have heard them both speak a number of times recently.
So what's with this story? I assume it is true, it was also reported in the Jewish Week last week, as well as a number of other outlets. Why is Ivanka converting? Did she do a study of religions and decided that OJ is the one true religion? Was her life as a multi-millionaire, former model, TV show host and manager of her father's billion dollar real estate business not fulfilling enough?
Or..has she fallen in love with a Jewish guy and needs to get converted? Apparently the latter, since she plans to marry 'Modern Orthodox' businessman Jared Kushner next year.
Anyways, I think this is a good thing, lord knows we could use Ivanka Trump's genes in the OJ gene pool, for all sorts of reasons. Mazel Tov Jared!
But what does this say about Lookstein and Soloveitchik?
Why, that they are LWMO of course.
The Chief Rabbi on the value of religion
[From here]
In truth, the only cultures that will survive into the future are those capable of making sacrifices for the future – for the future of their children and for generations to come. That is why religions exist: why traditions exist; why there are moral restraints that are difficult to explain in terms of short-term consequences. Jean-Jacques Rousseau understood this perfectly. It is difficult, he said, “ for the individual who has no taste for any scheme of government but that which serves his private interest, to appreciate the advantages derived from the lasting austerities that good laws impose.” We think short-term. We do not naturally factor into our calculations effects beyond our lifetimes “It is this which has obliged the founders of nations throughout history to appeal to divine intervention and to attribute their own wisdom to the gods.” ... One of the vital tasks performed by religion is to encode and preserve wisdom of the past that would otherwise be forgotten, with disastrous results, in the present.
Almost the only surviving environment in which the virtues of marriage are still alive are religious communities and their faith schools. They teach fidelity, duty, respect for authority, commitment, sacrifice, self-restraint and the need at times to say No to desire. Indeed “No” has become the hardest word to hear in our post-modern culture. I once spent a day in a centre for young heroin addicts. What, I asked the director, does she give them that enables them to break the habit. She replied: “We are the first people they have met who give them unconditional love, and the first to care enough about them to say No.”
To be sure, the current conflict between religion and culture is not one-sided. Those who live in both wrestle with deep questions. Does tradition give equal dignity to women? Does it give space for children to grow? Does it accord with scientific knowledge? Does it respect those outside the faith? So disturbing can these questions be that people in traditions that have not faced them before can become defensive. They turn inward to a protected environment. Where their faith can thrive in safety. That is why and when self-segregation occurs: when the gap between religious and secular becomes a chasm. Each sees the other as a threat. Hostility grows. Society fractures and we lose the sense of being part of a single embracing order.
One of the vital tasks performed by religion is to encode and preserve wisdom of the past that would otherwise be forgotten, with disastrous results, in the present.
That is why few things could do more to aid the reintegration of religious and ethnic communities than our willingness to listen, rather than contemptuously to dismiss. When the Catholic Church defends heterosexual marriage, when Muslim women speak of their embrace of the veil as a protest against overt sexual display, when Orthodox Jews speak of modesty as a value and parenthood as a sacred responsibility, they are saying things we need to hear. And we need to hear them respectfully. It is no use saying that morality is relative, and at the same time refusing to give an intelligent hearing to those whose moral standards are different to our own. Moral relativism has an imperialism of its own and political correctness is one of its cruder weapons.
That is what happened to Ancient Greece and Rome. People lose an interest in having children. Their focus is on pleasure in the present, not happiness in the future.
What these faith communities and their secular counterparts are telling us is that the way we structure our lives around sex, love, marriage, childbirth and the care of the young are not marginal to the responsible life. They are central to it. The first experiences of a young child are of extreme dependency and vulnerability. It makes all the difference if that child experiences stability, attention and love, and if he or she is taught the rules of self-restraint through a consistent pattern of rewards and rebukes. He or she will learn, through a developing relationship with a mother and father, something about the differences between the sexes as well as the unique contribution of both.
Society that becomes sexually anomic, without rules and restraints, die. That is what happened to Ancient Greece and Rome. People lose an interest in having children. Their focus is on pleasure in the present, not happiness in the future. They lose a sense of being part of a narrative that began before they were born and will continue after they die. That is the paradox at the heart of socio-biology: selfish genes have an interest in producing selfless people. For selfish people will simply not reproduce themselves – at any rate not in an age in which there are effective birth control methods: today, the pill; in antiquity, abortion and infanticide.
So the discovery of sex in 1963 turned out not to be cost free at all. The cost may well be the demise of European civilisation, for no more profound reasons than that libertarian X cannot bring him- or herself to make a commitment to Libertarian Y for long enough to produce libertarian Z. As T.S.Eliot said: “This is the way that worlds end, / Not with a bang but a whimper.” That is why faith schools and religious communities are important. They protect endangered values. They are seedbeds of unfashionable virtues. Tocqueville saw this in nineteenth century America: “In the United States, religion exercises but little influence upon the laws and upon the details of public opinion; but it directs the customs of the community, and by regulating domestic life, it regulates the state.” It sanctifies marriage. Therefore, it preserved society. If marriage is to be renewed in our society, it will be, not least, because of our religious counter-cultures.
At some stage it will begin to dawn on thoughtful people that what we are doing to our children by the deconstruction of marriage is harmful, irresponsible and ultimately unconscionable.
Religions are agents of personal and social change, the only such agents in an age of consumerism, managerial politics and society-as-hotel. As such they deserve support not for their sake alone but for the common good. They are vital, dissenting voices in the democratic conversation. They enlarge our intellectual horizons, enrich our moral vocabulary and remind us of truths we are otherwise minded to forget. Cultural diversity is as important as biodiversity. It helps retain within society the antibodies and immunities we need to protect us against social ills. Faith in a transcendental order is a form of resistance against worship of the status quo. At some stage it will begin to dawn on thoughtful people that what we are doing to our children by the deconstruction of marriage is harmful, irresponsible and ultimately unconscionable. The sanctity of marriage, the need for sexual restraint, and the responsibilities of parenthood, especially fatherhood, will be recovered, because there are in our midst communities that have done their best to preserve them, at the very least as ideals. That is the power of tradition in an untraditional age and religion in a secular society.
In truth, the only cultures that will survive into the future are those capable of making sacrifices for the future – for the future of their children and for generations to come. That is why religions exist: why traditions exist; why there are moral restraints that are difficult to explain in terms of short-term consequences. Jean-Jacques Rousseau understood this perfectly. It is difficult, he said, “ for the individual who has no taste for any scheme of government but that which serves his private interest, to appreciate the advantages derived from the lasting austerities that good laws impose.” We think short-term. We do not naturally factor into our calculations effects beyond our lifetimes “It is this which has obliged the founders of nations throughout history to appeal to divine intervention and to attribute their own wisdom to the gods.” ... One of the vital tasks performed by religion is to encode and preserve wisdom of the past that would otherwise be forgotten, with disastrous results, in the present.
Almost the only surviving environment in which the virtues of marriage are still alive are religious communities and their faith schools. They teach fidelity, duty, respect for authority, commitment, sacrifice, self-restraint and the need at times to say No to desire. Indeed “No” has become the hardest word to hear in our post-modern culture. I once spent a day in a centre for young heroin addicts. What, I asked the director, does she give them that enables them to break the habit. She replied: “We are the first people they have met who give them unconditional love, and the first to care enough about them to say No.”
To be sure, the current conflict between religion and culture is not one-sided. Those who live in both wrestle with deep questions. Does tradition give equal dignity to women? Does it give space for children to grow? Does it accord with scientific knowledge? Does it respect those outside the faith? So disturbing can these questions be that people in traditions that have not faced them before can become defensive. They turn inward to a protected environment. Where their faith can thrive in safety. That is why and when self-segregation occurs: when the gap between religious and secular becomes a chasm. Each sees the other as a threat. Hostility grows. Society fractures and we lose the sense of being part of a single embracing order.
One of the vital tasks performed by religion is to encode and preserve wisdom of the past that would otherwise be forgotten, with disastrous results, in the present.
That is why few things could do more to aid the reintegration of religious and ethnic communities than our willingness to listen, rather than contemptuously to dismiss. When the Catholic Church defends heterosexual marriage, when Muslim women speak of their embrace of the veil as a protest against overt sexual display, when Orthodox Jews speak of modesty as a value and parenthood as a sacred responsibility, they are saying things we need to hear. And we need to hear them respectfully. It is no use saying that morality is relative, and at the same time refusing to give an intelligent hearing to those whose moral standards are different to our own. Moral relativism has an imperialism of its own and political correctness is one of its cruder weapons.
That is what happened to Ancient Greece and Rome. People lose an interest in having children. Their focus is on pleasure in the present, not happiness in the future.
What these faith communities and their secular counterparts are telling us is that the way we structure our lives around sex, love, marriage, childbirth and the care of the young are not marginal to the responsible life. They are central to it. The first experiences of a young child are of extreme dependency and vulnerability. It makes all the difference if that child experiences stability, attention and love, and if he or she is taught the rules of self-restraint through a consistent pattern of rewards and rebukes. He or she will learn, through a developing relationship with a mother and father, something about the differences between the sexes as well as the unique contribution of both.
Society that becomes sexually anomic, without rules and restraints, die. That is what happened to Ancient Greece and Rome. People lose an interest in having children. Their focus is on pleasure in the present, not happiness in the future. They lose a sense of being part of a narrative that began before they were born and will continue after they die. That is the paradox at the heart of socio-biology: selfish genes have an interest in producing selfless people. For selfish people will simply not reproduce themselves – at any rate not in an age in which there are effective birth control methods: today, the pill; in antiquity, abortion and infanticide.
So the discovery of sex in 1963 turned out not to be cost free at all. The cost may well be the demise of European civilisation, for no more profound reasons than that libertarian X cannot bring him- or herself to make a commitment to Libertarian Y for long enough to produce libertarian Z. As T.S.Eliot said: “This is the way that worlds end, / Not with a bang but a whimper.” That is why faith schools and religious communities are important. They protect endangered values. They are seedbeds of unfashionable virtues. Tocqueville saw this in nineteenth century America: “In the United States, religion exercises but little influence upon the laws and upon the details of public opinion; but it directs the customs of the community, and by regulating domestic life, it regulates the state.” It sanctifies marriage. Therefore, it preserved society. If marriage is to be renewed in our society, it will be, not least, because of our religious counter-cultures.
At some stage it will begin to dawn on thoughtful people that what we are doing to our children by the deconstruction of marriage is harmful, irresponsible and ultimately unconscionable.
Religions are agents of personal and social change, the only such agents in an age of consumerism, managerial politics and society-as-hotel. As such they deserve support not for their sake alone but for the common good. They are vital, dissenting voices in the democratic conversation. They enlarge our intellectual horizons, enrich our moral vocabulary and remind us of truths we are otherwise minded to forget. Cultural diversity is as important as biodiversity. It helps retain within society the antibodies and immunities we need to protect us against social ills. Faith in a transcendental order is a form of resistance against worship of the status quo. At some stage it will begin to dawn on thoughtful people that what we are doing to our children by the deconstruction of marriage is harmful, irresponsible and ultimately unconscionable. The sanctity of marriage, the need for sexual restraint, and the responsibilities of parenthood, especially fatherhood, will be recovered, because there are in our midst communities that have done their best to preserve them, at the very least as ideals. That is the power of tradition in an untraditional age and religion in a secular society.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
LWMO Survey: Chicago
[Hat Tip: Anonymous]
Here in Chicagoland we have the following:
1) Anshe Sholom - Lopatin's shul. Located in Lakeview, where mostly yuppie types live. Lopatin is LWMO, intellectual, awesome guy. Will be making aliya soon.
2) Hillel minyanim @ Northwestern and U of Chicago. Mostly students - don't know much about these - I don't think they are really part of the Chicago scene.
3) KINS - fairly centrist MO (R Matanky)
4) Young Israel of Rogers Park (Rabbi Elisha Prero, BS philosophy, JD, jewish rock band member) - don't know much about this shul. I'd guess there is a fair share of LW MO types.
Skokie
Or Torah - typical modern orthodox (moderately left wing - lots of machers)
Kehilat Chovevei Tzion - new shul - typical modern orthodox (split from Or Torah)
Skokie Valley Traditional - LW MO/ traditional
Young Israel of Skokie - rabbi is fairly centrist MO/maybe even black hat. Crowd is eclectic. Probably fertile ground for orthoprax, secret skeptics.
Shira Chadasha type Egal minyan - never been there. Don't know much about them - fairly left wing crowd - outer fringe of LWMO
[XGH: Wow, Chicago sounds like LWMO Central]
Here in Chicagoland we have the following:
1) Anshe Sholom - Lopatin's shul. Located in Lakeview, where mostly yuppie types live. Lopatin is LWMO, intellectual, awesome guy. Will be making aliya soon.
2) Hillel minyanim @ Northwestern and U of Chicago. Mostly students - don't know much about these - I don't think they are really part of the Chicago scene.
3) KINS - fairly centrist MO (R Matanky)
4) Young Israel of Rogers Park (Rabbi Elisha Prero, BS philosophy, JD, jewish rock band member) - don't know much about this shul. I'd guess there is a fair share of LW MO types.
Skokie
Or Torah - typical modern orthodox (moderately left wing - lots of machers)
Kehilat Chovevei Tzion - new shul - typical modern orthodox (split from Or Torah)
Skokie Valley Traditional - LW MO/ traditional
Young Israel of Skokie - rabbi is fairly centrist MO/maybe even black hat. Crowd is eclectic. Probably fertile ground for orthoprax, secret skeptics.
Shira Chadasha type Egal minyan - never been there. Don't know much about them - fairly left wing crowd - outer fringe of LWMO
[XGH: Wow, Chicago sounds like LWMO Central]
The Myth of Nihilism
Nihilism, as classically expressed in the existential stories of Camus, Beckett, and Vonnegut for example, is itself a culminating mythology of a long skeptical tradition that says that there is no meaning in an otherwise objective or neutral universe without purpose. Ironically, the myth of a meaningless universe is itself a way of infusing meaning into the experience of meaninglessness. Nihilists have their own employments of experience. According to this myth, we gain authenticity, dignity, and meaning by honestly and bravely accepting that the universe is without intrinsic meaning. The myth tells us that we are superior to those who live false, inauthentic lives by believing in one myth or the other, whether that myth be the American Dream or a socialist revolution [or the myth of religion]. There's nobility and art in creating meaning in an other-wise meaningless universe. Paradoxically, a mythic strategy is effective for investing life with meaning even when the myth is telling us there is no meaning.
From 'The Search For Meaning' by Dennis Ford
This post will be deleted in a few hours
Spot the difference
Dear Rabbi Orthodoxman, shlita,
Shalom u'vrachah, I hope you are well.
I recently acquired your newly published book, "Orthodox Judaism". It was with great surprise that I saw that it includes the essay of several years ago, "Torah MiSinai: Issues and Perspectives," which asserts that the Torah we have today is entirely unchanged from its original form. This was even though a number of (non Orthodox) rabbis and many thousands of academic scholars publicly pointed out the many, many factual errors and serious flaws that our current Torah contains.
Especially disturbing was that in describing the "kefiradick view" that Chazal occasionally erred in their statements about the history of their own religion, you omitted any mention of the more than three thousand further proofs that they erred, which I sent to you a few years ago, in a library full of peer-reviewed academic research to which you never responded.
I was also surprised that you chose to re-ignite this debate at a new level, by introducing it to the domain of supposedly Modern Orthodox Jews, when even you yourself acknowledge that this is probably the issue most damaging to the credibility of Orthodoxy and to its leaders in recent memory.
But since you chose to do so, I have decided to respond in kind, and I will publish a complete book about the issue. This is something that I refrained from doing until now, but the publication of your book, along with the publication of the appalling “13 Ikkarim of Judaism” by Rabbi Moses Maimonides, has helped me decide that it is the appropriate course of action. Actually, I think it will be of great help in helping people make informed decisions about where in the Jewish world they should align themselves.
Sincerely,
XGH
Dear Rabbi Orthodoxman, shlita,
Shalom u'vrachah, I hope you are well.
I recently acquired your newly published book, "Orthodox Judaism". It was with great surprise that I saw that it includes the essay of several years ago, "Torah MiSinai: Issues and Perspectives," which asserts that the Torah we have today is entirely unchanged from its original form. This was even though a number of (non Orthodox) rabbis and many thousands of academic scholars publicly pointed out the many, many factual errors and serious flaws that our current Torah contains.
Especially disturbing was that in describing the "kefiradick view" that Chazal occasionally erred in their statements about the history of their own religion, you omitted any mention of the more than three thousand further proofs that they erred, which I sent to you a few years ago, in a library full of peer-reviewed academic research to which you never responded.
I was also surprised that you chose to re-ignite this debate at a new level, by introducing it to the domain of supposedly Modern Orthodox Jews, when even you yourself acknowledge that this is probably the issue most damaging to the credibility of Orthodoxy and to its leaders in recent memory.
But since you chose to do so, I have decided to respond in kind, and I will publish a complete book about the issue. This is something that I refrained from doing until now, but the publication of your book, along with the publication of the appalling “13 Ikkarim of Judaism” by Rabbi Moses Maimonides, has helped me decide that it is the appropriate course of action. Actually, I think it will be of great help in helping people make informed decisions about where in the Jewish world they should align themselves.
Sincerely,
XGH
Monday, November 17, 2008
LWMO Survey: Houston, TX
Let's start our survey with Houston Texas. The MO shul in Houston is the United Orthodox Synagogues of Houston. They state:
So is there any reason to think that this place is radically LW MO?
Yes! According to Prof James Kugel website, he was there last Shabbat as Scholar in Residence. I have tremendous respect for Prof Kugel, since rather than being a faker, he is on the record as saying that he believes in the DH, and he is one of the few Orthopraxnicks in existence who isn't terrified of admitting in public to the bleedin obvious.
But how can an MO shul, which is affiliated with the OU, with YU, with a Rabbi who is a member of the RCA, possibly host someone as a scholar in residence who is famous for accepting the DH?
There is only one possibility here. The shul is LW MO.
United Orthodox Synagogues believes in the philosophy of Torah u'Mada, commitment to Torah, halakhah, and the quest for kedushah, holiness and spiritual growth. Like other Modern Orthodox institutions, UOS values open intellectual inquiry and expression in both the secular and religious arenas; engagement with the social, political and technological realities of the modern world; recognition and deep appreciation of the religious significance of the State of Israel; and the unity of the Jewish community at large. UOS is affiliated with the Orthodox Union and Yeshiva University and other major Orthodox institutions in the United States.Sounds typically MO, though the phrase 'Open Intellectual Inquiry' might be a flag for LW MO, then again, the same kind of phraseology is often used by RW MO types trying to sound sophisticated and modern, when in reality they are as fundie as the next guy. The Rabbi, Rabbi Barry Gelman, is a YU grad.
So is there any reason to think that this place is radically LW MO?
Yes! According to Prof James Kugel website, he was there last Shabbat as Scholar in Residence. I have tremendous respect for Prof Kugel, since rather than being a faker, he is on the record as saying that he believes in the DH, and he is one of the few Orthopraxnicks in existence who isn't terrified of admitting in public to the bleedin obvious.
But how can an MO shul, which is affiliated with the OU, with YU, with a Rabbi who is a member of the RCA, possibly host someone as a scholar in residence who is famous for accepting the DH?
There is only one possibility here. The shul is LW MO.
James Kugel
So I had a brief chat with Professor Kugel recently, and I asked him if he had a personal theology which accepted the Documentary Hypothesis whilst providing a reason for Halachic observance. He didn't have much time to answer, and he didn't know my background, so it's quite possible that his answer doesn't reflect the full breadth of his views, also he said he was considering writing a book on the topic. But he basically said that he doesn't see a tie between halachah and the authorship of the Torah, and that Orthodox Jews keep minhag and derabonons with equal commitment as de'oraysahs, and we don't go around saying this is from God and this isn't. So basically there is a continuum from Divinely mandated Halachot all the way to human created halachot.
Of course this answer has some issues:
1. Halachah does actually differentiate between De'Oraysah, De'Rabonon and Minhag.
2. The reason why Orthodox Jews commit to even de'rabonons is because they hold that Chazal were given the divine mandate to create halachaha, and hence even a de'rabonon is Min Hashamayim to some extent.
3. But the biggest issue here is that one can certainly come up with all sorts of theological reasons to keep Halachah, and if Judaism had never posited TMS we would be fine. But the problem here is that Chazal made TMS a cornerstone of the religion, and once you say TMS isn't true, that really calls into credibility the entire Rabbinic Enterprise. If Chazal could have gotten that wrong, how can anything they say be credible?!
(Interestingly, I asked this last question to a Rabbi I know, and he said Chazal is not the reason why he holds of Judaism, but rather the Neviim are.)
Anyway, I'm sure Professor Kugel has thought of these questions and more besides, so I look forward to reading his new book.
Of course this answer has some issues:
1. Halachah does actually differentiate between De'Oraysah, De'Rabonon and Minhag.
2. The reason why Orthodox Jews commit to even de'rabonons is because they hold that Chazal were given the divine mandate to create halachaha, and hence even a de'rabonon is Min Hashamayim to some extent.
3. But the biggest issue here is that one can certainly come up with all sorts of theological reasons to keep Halachah, and if Judaism had never posited TMS we would be fine. But the problem here is that Chazal made TMS a cornerstone of the religion, and once you say TMS isn't true, that really calls into credibility the entire Rabbinic Enterprise. If Chazal could have gotten that wrong, how can anything they say be credible?!
(Interestingly, I asked this last question to a Rabbi I know, and he said Chazal is not the reason why he holds of Judaism, but rather the Neviim are.)
Anyway, I'm sure Professor Kugel has thought of these questions and more besides, so I look forward to reading his new book.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Left Wing Modern Orthodoxy / Orthopraxy Survey!
This is what we need to do. A survey of where Orthopraxy is at across the USA (and globally too if possible). I know people all around the East Coast, so I myself can survey at least the North East and the South East USA. But I need help, especially in the Mid West and the West. All surveyors can be entirely anonymous.
I would like to answer the following questions:
What is the state of LWMO/OP in your region / city?
Are there any LWMO/OP dominated shuls?
Are there any LWMO/OP famous scholars / rabbis / institutions?
Do you see any movement to (or from) LWMO/OP?
Lets get cracking! This is important! By next weekend I want the whole USA mapped out.
IMPORTANT UPDATE:
The Lord moves in mysterious ways! I just met a guy who, it turns out, just ran a conference for all the new independent Ortho-Egal minyanim (Mechon Hadar, Shira Chadashah etc), and he has a directory! He himself is LW MO (I didn't get to ask him his full views), and he attends what he described as a 'traditional / egalitarian' minyan - there is a mechitzah, but women can lead davening (and I assume leyning?). Many of these minyanim are attended by LW MO types, others are perhaps more Conservadox, but they all exist in the gray area between RW MO and RW Conservative, and they all seem committed to some type of halachah.
I would like to answer the following questions:
What is the state of LWMO/OP in your region / city?
Are there any LWMO/OP dominated shuls?
Are there any LWMO/OP famous scholars / rabbis / institutions?
Do you see any movement to (or from) LWMO/OP?
Lets get cracking! This is important! By next weekend I want the whole USA mapped out.
IMPORTANT UPDATE:
The Lord moves in mysterious ways! I just met a guy who, it turns out, just ran a conference for all the new independent Ortho-Egal minyanim (Mechon Hadar, Shira Chadashah etc), and he has a directory! He himself is LW MO (I didn't get to ask him his full views), and he attends what he described as a 'traditional / egalitarian' minyan - there is a mechitzah, but women can lead davening (and I assume leyning?). Many of these minyanim are attended by LW MO types, others are perhaps more Conservadox, but they all exist in the gray area between RW MO and RW Conservative, and they all seem committed to some type of halachah.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Losing the Dox
Here's an interesting quote:
A friend of mine went up to Asher's [Rabbi Asher Lopatin] wife Rachel later, and asked her what she thought the difference was between Orthodoxy and the Conservative movement. Rachel Tessler Lopatin has a masters in Judaic Studies from JTS, so her response wouldn't have surprised me. But it certainly surprised my friend. The rebbetzin told her that there isn't much of a difference. That there are Conservative Jews who are more observant, and ostensibly Orthodox Jews who are less observant. She clearly did not see any ideological difference between them.
The reason she didn't see any ideological difference between them is because there is no difference between the ideology of her version of Orthodoxy and the ideology of the Conservative movement. The only differences seen by the leftist extreme "Modern Orthodox" are ritual and social. They've completely lost the "dox" in "Orthodox".
A friend of mine went up to Asher's [Rabbi Asher Lopatin] wife Rachel later, and asked her what she thought the difference was between Orthodoxy and the Conservative movement. Rachel Tessler Lopatin has a masters in Judaic Studies from JTS, so her response wouldn't have surprised me. But it certainly surprised my friend. The rebbetzin told her that there isn't much of a difference. That there are Conservative Jews who are more observant, and ostensibly Orthodox Jews who are less observant. She clearly did not see any ideological difference between them.
The reason she didn't see any ideological difference between them is because there is no difference between the ideology of her version of Orthodoxy and the ideology of the Conservative movement. The only differences seen by the leftist extreme "Modern Orthodox" are ritual and social. They've completely lost the "dox" in "Orthodox".
Orthoprax Beliefs
I see a number of options regarding what beliefs Orthoprax (OP) should have, and I keep vacillating between them. Perhaps my illustrious readership can help.
Option 1: No Beliefs
This option says that OP by definition should have no required beliefs at all, since we assume that all religion is man made and even if God does exist, nobody knows anything at all about God anyway, so it's pointless talking about Him.
Option 1a: No Beliefs Allowed
A variation of the above, this option goes one step further and actually frowns upon religious beliefs, encouraging its adherents not to hold any.
Option 2: God only
This option holds that a belief in (some kind of) God is required, but no other beliefs are.
Option 3: God and Divine Inspiration
This option holds of God and 'Divine Inspiration' (also called Liberal TMS), similar to Heschel or Louis Jacobs, that the Torah evolved over the centuries, but it's writers were truly Divinely Isnpired, and hence the Torah (and Halachah) does (in general) represent the Will of God.
Option 4: Non Disprovable Ikkarim
This option will hold of any non disprovable ikkarim, i.e. ikkarim about God, Olam Habah and the like are ok, but no, 8 (TMS) is not.
Option 5: Beliefs are irrelevant.
Another option is to just say 'no comment' when it comes to beliefs. We hold that practice, not beliefs is what is important, and beliefs are irrelevant. Anyone can believe anything they like, it is not a topic of discussion.
Here's my opinion.
I think 1a is going a bit too far. 1 is ok, but I might be more comfortable with some kind of God idea or concept (i.e. 2). I keep changing my mind on 3. On the one hand, a vague 'Divine Inspiration' is really non falsifiable, so why not? On the other hand, I don't see any good reason to believe in it, especially once you have admitted that all the other foundational beliefs and stories of Judaism are false. Likewise 4, I would have a problem believing in Moshiach and Olam Habah (though I certainly hope there is an afterlife), and Techiyas Hamaysim is just plain weird. A lot of people seem to like 5, but it's too fuzzy for me. I need definition!
So I'm leaning towards 2 or 3, with the occasional day when I think 1. Obviously being OP we would be tolerant of anyone with any belief (as long as it was moral), but I'm talking about the core philosophy of the movement.
Option 1: No Beliefs
This option says that OP by definition should have no required beliefs at all, since we assume that all religion is man made and even if God does exist, nobody knows anything at all about God anyway, so it's pointless talking about Him.
Option 1a: No Beliefs Allowed
A variation of the above, this option goes one step further and actually frowns upon religious beliefs, encouraging its adherents not to hold any.
Option 2: God only
This option holds that a belief in (some kind of) God is required, but no other beliefs are.
Option 3: God and Divine Inspiration
This option holds of God and 'Divine Inspiration' (also called Liberal TMS), similar to Heschel or Louis Jacobs, that the Torah evolved over the centuries, but it's writers were truly Divinely Isnpired, and hence the Torah (and Halachah) does (in general) represent the Will of God.
Option 4: Non Disprovable Ikkarim
This option will hold of any non disprovable ikkarim, i.e. ikkarim about God, Olam Habah and the like are ok, but no, 8 (TMS) is not.
Option 5: Beliefs are irrelevant.
Another option is to just say 'no comment' when it comes to beliefs. We hold that practice, not beliefs is what is important, and beliefs are irrelevant. Anyone can believe anything they like, it is not a topic of discussion.
Here's my opinion.
I think 1a is going a bit too far. 1 is ok, but I might be more comfortable with some kind of God idea or concept (i.e. 2). I keep changing my mind on 3. On the one hand, a vague 'Divine Inspiration' is really non falsifiable, so why not? On the other hand, I don't see any good reason to believe in it, especially once you have admitted that all the other foundational beliefs and stories of Judaism are false. Likewise 4, I would have a problem believing in Moshiach and Olam Habah (though I certainly hope there is an afterlife), and Techiyas Hamaysim is just plain weird. A lot of people seem to like 5, but it's too fuzzy for me. I need definition!
So I'm leaning towards 2 or 3, with the occasional day when I think 1. Obviously being OP we would be tolerant of anyone with any belief (as long as it was moral), but I'm talking about the core philosophy of the movement.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Should we try and build an Orthoprax (sub) Community?
A few people have recently asked me the same question. Here it is from Spinoza the blogger:
I do see the value in having correct views and also being intellectually honest, but what I am having trouble understanding is why, if you are satisfied with the OJ lifestyle, and also you are in a community which allows you to express your unorthodox views without an issue, why do you still have issues and the need to start your own community?
A second, related question goes like this:
Since Orthoprax basically practice the same practice as (LW) Modern Orthodox, how does being Orthoprax change anything? At the end of the day, you're the same as everybody else!
So here is what I think.
1. I don't like being part of a silent minority (majority?) Although nobody would ever bother me in MO about my beliefs, and nobody (even in UO land) goes around heresy-hunting anymore, I still feel a need to keep somewhat quiet about my beliefs. I don't like that. Why should I feel inferior about what is obviously the emmes? Having OP be more out in the open means I can more openly talk OPish.
2. Even though MO is fairly tolerant, the kinds of drashos and shiurim that we are exposed too are sometimes just as ridiculous as anything you will hear in Chareidi land. This Shabbat, my left wing Rabbi who in general is pretty balanced, mentioned a midrash about how Sarah Imeynu had no womb. I don't want to hear that nonsense. By accepting the fact that half the community is OP, that may save us from the truly ridiculous drashos. Seriously.
3. I think that some things about OJ do need to change, and OP can help. People in fundamentalist religions are always way too sure of their 'rightness', because after all, that's what God wants. OP can serve as a counterbalance to this kind of dangerous thinking.
4. Although my community happens to be quite tolerant, this is not true all over the US, or all over the world. By creating a more OP sub community here, we can make life easier for other OP'ers in other places. Perhaps we can create a model (sub) community.
5. Halachah probably needs to change in some cases. Although boruch hashem my life circumstances are such that no halachah bothers me personally, I fully appreciate that there are some people who are very troubled by some halachot. I don't necessarily have a clear opinion on the matter, but certainly if some halachah is definitely morally wrong, it should change somehow. OP will provide a counterbalance in those discussions.
Note: As it happens, I am not convinced that any halachot that we practice NOWADAYS are morally wrong (please don't mention the Amalekite babies - they're all dead and buried). Since values are entirely subjective and circular, I can't say whether I think this because ultimately I have OJ values, or whether because objectively I have good reasons.
However I remain unconvinced that women and men should have identical roles in religion for example. For those people who find such a concept unnaceptable, then I say don't be OJ! (or OP!) Nobody is saying you HAVE to be OP / OJ. It's a lifestyle choice. If the lifestyle is not for you then don't choose it. Of course you can also stay on the inside and fight for what you believe in. That's perfectly fine too, and in fact is what I'm doing to some extent. However the bottom line is that I personally remain unconvinced that identical religious roles for men and women are a 'must have'. But it's certainly up for discussion. Same deal goes for homosexuality. Obviously it's not acceptable to stone gay people to death, but nobody is suggesting that we do so. At least not in LW MO! So the question is rather about policy. Should we fully embrace homosexuality (as a community) or continue to insist it be hidden somewhat in the closet? Currently, I see the value in the latter, but of course I'm open to persuasion. I also of course accept that if I or someone close to me were to become gay in the future, I might feel differently. Whether that means that current me is biased, or future me would be biased, I can't say. But since values are inherently subjective to a large degree, bias seems inevitable. In the meantime, you can always just get the injection.
6. MO is moving to the right. The difference between RW MO and LW UO is diminishing. MO believes in the same fundamentalism and has the same halachah as UO, and isn't really that different, no matter how bitterly people may fight on Hirhurim about it. It's the narcissism of small differences. Meanwhile Conservative and Reform are going way left. Soon we will be completely polarized, either wacked out fundies or secular humanists with nothing in the middle. I think it's important to maintain a center - one where modern scholarship and ideas are completely acceptable, but that traditional practices and values are maintained as much as possible. Only OP (and the last remnants of Conservadoxy) provide this center. Of course LW MO also provides this, but that's because LW MO is 50% OP and and the last remnants of Conservadoxy.
7. No man is an island. And although I enjoy being iconoclastic, I would like to be part of a chevrah with similar beliefs. By having OP be more visible, I can get more of a chevrah, and not have to have hushed conversations at the back of shul with the secret skeptics.
8. I think that many OPers have some very interesting ideas about life and religion. However they are forced to keep quiet, and not share their views. Except on blogs. By making OP more public, we could have OP shiurim and social events. This would lead to a flourishing OP culture. Who knows, perhaps we could create quite a nice theology / ideology which doesn't require too much fantasy thinking (or maybe one in which fantasy thinking doesn't become intellectually dishonest).
So, these are some (not all) of the reasons for wanting OP to be more visible. If you have any more, please contribute. Thanks.
I do see the value in having correct views and also being intellectually honest, but what I am having trouble understanding is why, if you are satisfied with the OJ lifestyle, and also you are in a community which allows you to express your unorthodox views without an issue, why do you still have issues and the need to start your own community?
A second, related question goes like this:
Since Orthoprax basically practice the same practice as (LW) Modern Orthodox, how does being Orthoprax change anything? At the end of the day, you're the same as everybody else!
So here is what I think.
1. I don't like being part of a silent minority (majority?) Although nobody would ever bother me in MO about my beliefs, and nobody (even in UO land) goes around heresy-hunting anymore, I still feel a need to keep somewhat quiet about my beliefs. I don't like that. Why should I feel inferior about what is obviously the emmes? Having OP be more out in the open means I can more openly talk OPish.
2. Even though MO is fairly tolerant, the kinds of drashos and shiurim that we are exposed too are sometimes just as ridiculous as anything you will hear in Chareidi land. This Shabbat, my left wing Rabbi who in general is pretty balanced, mentioned a midrash about how Sarah Imeynu had no womb. I don't want to hear that nonsense. By accepting the fact that half the community is OP, that may save us from the truly ridiculous drashos. Seriously.
3. I think that some things about OJ do need to change, and OP can help. People in fundamentalist religions are always way too sure of their 'rightness', because after all, that's what God wants. OP can serve as a counterbalance to this kind of dangerous thinking.
4. Although my community happens to be quite tolerant, this is not true all over the US, or all over the world. By creating a more OP sub community here, we can make life easier for other OP'ers in other places. Perhaps we can create a model (sub) community.
5. Halachah probably needs to change in some cases. Although boruch hashem my life circumstances are such that no halachah bothers me personally, I fully appreciate that there are some people who are very troubled by some halachot. I don't necessarily have a clear opinion on the matter, but certainly if some halachah is definitely morally wrong, it should change somehow. OP will provide a counterbalance in those discussions.
Note: As it happens, I am not convinced that any halachot that we practice NOWADAYS are morally wrong (please don't mention the Amalekite babies - they're all dead and buried). Since values are entirely subjective and circular, I can't say whether I think this because ultimately I have OJ values, or whether because objectively I have good reasons.
However I remain unconvinced that women and men should have identical roles in religion for example. For those people who find such a concept unnaceptable, then I say don't be OJ! (or OP!) Nobody is saying you HAVE to be OP / OJ. It's a lifestyle choice. If the lifestyle is not for you then don't choose it. Of course you can also stay on the inside and fight for what you believe in. That's perfectly fine too, and in fact is what I'm doing to some extent. However the bottom line is that I personally remain unconvinced that identical religious roles for men and women are a 'must have'. But it's certainly up for discussion. Same deal goes for homosexuality. Obviously it's not acceptable to stone gay people to death, but nobody is suggesting that we do so. At least not in LW MO! So the question is rather about policy. Should we fully embrace homosexuality (as a community) or continue to insist it be hidden somewhat in the closet? Currently, I see the value in the latter, but of course I'm open to persuasion. I also of course accept that if I or someone close to me were to become gay in the future, I might feel differently. Whether that means that current me is biased, or future me would be biased, I can't say. But since values are inherently subjective to a large degree, bias seems inevitable. In the meantime, you can always just get the injection.
6. MO is moving to the right. The difference between RW MO and LW UO is diminishing. MO believes in the same fundamentalism and has the same halachah as UO, and isn't really that different, no matter how bitterly people may fight on Hirhurim about it. It's the narcissism of small differences. Meanwhile Conservative and Reform are going way left. Soon we will be completely polarized, either wacked out fundies or secular humanists with nothing in the middle. I think it's important to maintain a center - one where modern scholarship and ideas are completely acceptable, but that traditional practices and values are maintained as much as possible. Only OP (and the last remnants of Conservadoxy) provide this center. Of course LW MO also provides this, but that's because LW MO is 50% OP and and the last remnants of Conservadoxy.
7. No man is an island. And although I enjoy being iconoclastic, I would like to be part of a chevrah with similar beliefs. By having OP be more visible, I can get more of a chevrah, and not have to have hushed conversations at the back of shul with the secret skeptics.
8. I think that many OPers have some very interesting ideas about life and religion. However they are forced to keep quiet, and not share their views. Except on blogs. By making OP more public, we could have OP shiurim and social events. This would lead to a flourishing OP culture. Who knows, perhaps we could create quite a nice theology / ideology which doesn't require too much fantasy thinking (or maybe one in which fantasy thinking doesn't become intellectually dishonest).
So, these are some (not all) of the reasons for wanting OP to be more visible. If you have any more, please contribute. Thanks.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
A very important statement about labels
I always find it amusing when people say 'I refuse to call myself Orthodox, labels are bad', or 'Why must you label things?'. Usually the people saying this type of thing are people who don't like their assigned label, or alternatively people who are desperately trying to avoid being labeled something, or people who are desperately trying to retain a label which in truth no longer applies to them (e.g. DovBear and 'Orthodox'). But, in deference to these people, in this post I shall try and avoid labels.
In this post I want to say something very important about Modern Orthodox Judaism. However, 'Modern' Orthodox is clearly a label, so let's just talk about Orthodox Judaism. Orthodox Judaism isn't true. But wait a minute - should I really be labeling people as Orthodox? Doesn't such labeling decrease achdus in klal yisrael? I think it does. So let me instead talk about Judaism in general. Judaism isn't true. Well, actually that depends on what type of Judaism we are talking about, which would require the use of labels. So let me just say that some Judaism isn't true. But wait! Why should I label some people as Jewish? That seems unfair, especially since the boundaries are fuzzy. (We learn that from the heap. Some say we learn that from the beard). So let's talk about religion in general. Actually, even religion is a label, so let's talk about human endeavor in general. But 'human' and 'endeavor' sound suspiciously like labels to me (gosh, amazing how many words can be used as labels). So let's instead talk about ... errr... stuff. Stuff is not true. Actually some stuff is true, but some is not. Though labeling things as 'true' strikes me as a bit labelish, possibly very labelish indeed. So let me just say that stuff is stuff and leave it at that.
In this post I want to say something very important about Modern Orthodox Judaism. However, 'Modern' Orthodox is clearly a label, so let's just talk about Orthodox Judaism. Orthodox Judaism isn't true. But wait a minute - should I really be labeling people as Orthodox? Doesn't such labeling decrease achdus in klal yisrael? I think it does. So let me instead talk about Judaism in general. Judaism isn't true. Well, actually that depends on what type of Judaism we are talking about, which would require the use of labels. So let me just say that some Judaism isn't true. But wait! Why should I label some people as Jewish? That seems unfair, especially since the boundaries are fuzzy. (We learn that from the heap. Some say we learn that from the beard). So let's talk about religion in general. Actually, even religion is a label, so let's talk about human endeavor in general. But 'human' and 'endeavor' sound suspiciously like labels to me (gosh, amazing how many words can be used as labels). So let's instead talk about ... errr... stuff. Stuff is not true. Actually some stuff is true, but some is not. Though labeling things as 'true' strikes me as a bit labelish, possibly very labelish indeed. So let me just say that stuff is stuff and leave it at that.
Are you Intellectually Honest?
One of the terms frequently bandied about is ‘Intellectual Honesty’ (IH), or its opposite, ‘Intellectual Dishonesty’ (ID). Everyone always claims to be IH, and that their opponents are ID. But what does being IH or ID entail? Wikipedia writes:
Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or clearly misleading, or is the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to insure the truthfulness of the position.
That’s a little vague for my liking, but here is another definition I found on the web:
Intellectual dishonesty is the creation of misleading impressions through the use of rhetoric, logical fallacy, fraud, or misrepresented evidence. It may stem from an ulterior motive, haste, sloppiness, or external pressure to reach a certain conclusion.
That’s more like it. So IH is about using recognized forms of logic and evidence to advance a position, and ID can result from ‘ulterior motive’ or ‘external pressure’, or just general sloppiness.
Now let's look at some examples of IH & ID
1. Requiring belief in certain beliefs
Many religions require belief in certain things. For example in OJ, sociologically, this has been defined nowadays as the ikkarim. Of course one can mount very valiant (and often substantial arguments) about the validity of the ikkarim, about the various Rishonim who disbelieved or disagreed with the ikkarim, and all sorts of other arguments in this vein. But none of these arguments are particularly relevant, since the ikkarim are what defines OJ today in terms of belief (for better or worse). If you publically deny the ikkarim, you won’t get a job as a Rabbi in an OJ shul, nor likely as a Torah teacher in an OJ shul. MO tends to be pretty tolerant, and there are certainly pockets of LW MO where you can get away with such things, but in general not.
So, considering the ikkarim, we immediately see the problem. This is certainly a case of external pressure to believe in something. And even without the ikkarim, it seems clear from Halachah that one must believe in God, in one God, and cannot believe in idolatry. You can try making a case for saying that no beliefs are mandated by halachah, only actions stemming therefrom (see Kellner’s book ‘Must a Jew Believe Anything’), but the case is weak, especially since the foundation of OJ rests on the assumption that Halachah is the will of God.
Now, some of the ikkarim (the first few) are metaphysical notions which are not subject to proof or disproof, so you may be able to argue that requiring belief (or faith) in such things is beyond the realm of ID and IH. I’m not going to fight that argument here, so OK. However certain other beliefs, especially no. 8 (TMS) are well within the range of evidence, being that TMS is essentially a claim about history. Again you can try and argue that the core belief underlying TMS is not so much the historical event per se, but rather that the Torah we have today is ‘Divinely Inspired’ in some way. However this doesn’t appeal to me very strongly because a) It’s a deliberate kvetch and b) OJ is pretty clear about Har Sinai.
And more than that, beliefs about Moshiach and Techiyas Hamaysim can easily be traced from their inception, and it can be shown that such beliefs were ‘late’. This doesn’t necessarily make them untrue per se, but it does show that such beliefs evolved late, and were just human additions.
(Of course an analysis of all religion overall shows that religion is most likely man made in its entirety).
The bottom line is that any system which requires a belief in something amenable to actual evidence is ID straight off the bat. Plus of course once somone feels pressure to believe a required belief, his ability to then think objectively and rationally about that belief is severely compromised. See next point.
2. Believers are ID because they are biased
In general, many if not most religious believers are ID. This is because they haven’t truly investigated their beliefs, and usually have no intention of doing so. Furthermore, most believers are significantly invested in their beliefs – financially, spiritually, emotionally and in every other aspect of their lives too. The cost of leaving the religious society, or alternatively trying to stay with non-belief, is very high for most people. The subconscious (or conscious) bias that this produces usually ensures that most religious people are not capable of being objective and honest about their beliefs. In this area, it turns out that Chareidim are actually more IH than MO, since Chareidim are so sheltered, brainwashed and generally ignorant of reality that they can be excused for their ID. However MO types who should know better, yet insist on trying to rationalize their baseless beliefs, have less of an excuse.
3. Apologists are ID because they intend to be
Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or clearly misleading, or is the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to insure the truthfulness of the position.
That’s a little vague for my liking, but here is another definition I found on the web:
Intellectual dishonesty is the creation of misleading impressions through the use of rhetoric, logical fallacy, fraud, or misrepresented evidence. It may stem from an ulterior motive, haste, sloppiness, or external pressure to reach a certain conclusion.
That’s more like it. So IH is about using recognized forms of logic and evidence to advance a position, and ID can result from ‘ulterior motive’ or ‘external pressure’, or just general sloppiness.
Now let's look at some examples of IH & ID
1. Requiring belief in certain beliefs
Many religions require belief in certain things. For example in OJ, sociologically, this has been defined nowadays as the ikkarim. Of course one can mount very valiant (and often substantial arguments) about the validity of the ikkarim, about the various Rishonim who disbelieved or disagreed with the ikkarim, and all sorts of other arguments in this vein. But none of these arguments are particularly relevant, since the ikkarim are what defines OJ today in terms of belief (for better or worse). If you publically deny the ikkarim, you won’t get a job as a Rabbi in an OJ shul, nor likely as a Torah teacher in an OJ shul. MO tends to be pretty tolerant, and there are certainly pockets of LW MO where you can get away with such things, but in general not.
So, considering the ikkarim, we immediately see the problem. This is certainly a case of external pressure to believe in something. And even without the ikkarim, it seems clear from Halachah that one must believe in God, in one God, and cannot believe in idolatry. You can try making a case for saying that no beliefs are mandated by halachah, only actions stemming therefrom (see Kellner’s book ‘Must a Jew Believe Anything’), but the case is weak, especially since the foundation of OJ rests on the assumption that Halachah is the will of God.
Now, some of the ikkarim (the first few) are metaphysical notions which are not subject to proof or disproof, so you may be able to argue that requiring belief (or faith) in such things is beyond the realm of ID and IH. I’m not going to fight that argument here, so OK. However certain other beliefs, especially no. 8 (TMS) are well within the range of evidence, being that TMS is essentially a claim about history. Again you can try and argue that the core belief underlying TMS is not so much the historical event per se, but rather that the Torah we have today is ‘Divinely Inspired’ in some way. However this doesn’t appeal to me very strongly because a) It’s a deliberate kvetch and b) OJ is pretty clear about Har Sinai.
And more than that, beliefs about Moshiach and Techiyas Hamaysim can easily be traced from their inception, and it can be shown that such beliefs were ‘late’. This doesn’t necessarily make them untrue per se, but it does show that such beliefs evolved late, and were just human additions.
(Of course an analysis of all religion overall shows that religion is most likely man made in its entirety).
The bottom line is that any system which requires a belief in something amenable to actual evidence is ID straight off the bat. Plus of course once somone feels pressure to believe a required belief, his ability to then think objectively and rationally about that belief is severely compromised. See next point.
2. Believers are ID because they are biased
In general, many if not most religious believers are ID. This is because they haven’t truly investigated their beliefs, and usually have no intention of doing so. Furthermore, most believers are significantly invested in their beliefs – financially, spiritually, emotionally and in every other aspect of their lives too. The cost of leaving the religious society, or alternatively trying to stay with non-belief, is very high for most people. The subconscious (or conscious) bias that this produces usually ensures that most religious people are not capable of being objective and honest about their beliefs. In this area, it turns out that Chareidim are actually more IH than MO, since Chareidim are so sheltered, brainwashed and generally ignorant of reality that they can be excused for their ID. However MO types who should know better, yet insist on trying to rationalize their baseless beliefs, have less of an excuse.
3. Apologists are ID because they intend to be
Finally, there is the phenomenon of religiousapologists who seem to be consciously ID. For example, the well known blogger who writes “I will believe no matter what the evidence”, or "As long as my religion isn’t conclusively proved to be false, I have no reason not to believe it". With these statements, there is clearly no effort to be IH. Rather, the believer is so sure of his beliefs (typically for emotional reasons), that he sees no reason to be IH. He 'knows' his beliefs are true, therefore there is no reason to assess or take too much notice of the evidence, since by definition it must be mistaken. This kind of conviction can only be turned by 100% solid scientific evidence, and sometimes not even that will do the trick.
I have had hundreds of debates with believers, and haven't yet found any to be completely IH. The closest anyone has ever come was a Rabbi and a blogger who both freely admitted that they have no good reason to believe in TMS, but they do so due to their upbringing (i.e. indoctrination). However I wouldn't really call this 'Intellectual Honesty', it's more like 'Emotional Honesty'. But it's a start.
Monday, November 10, 2008
A 'Modern Orthodox' shul with NO mechitzah! Flying pigs start to swarm
Wow, tonight is really getting crazy. Seems there is still an MO affiliated shul, that describes itself as 'Modern Orthodox' (and was even OU until recently) and yet they don't even have a mechitzah! I quote:To accommodate the diversity of worshippers, the synagogue has both a main sanctuary with mixed seating and a chapel with a mechitzah for separate seating.
But wait, there's more! Wikipedia explains that:
The previous rabbi, Daniel Cohen, left in 2005 after failing to convince the congregants to separate men's and women's seating and install a mechitza.
And Daniel Cohen is none other than the older brother of our Jesus friend Binyamin!
Hareidi becomes an Meretz MK. Flying pigs everywhere rejoice.
This is totally bizarre. A hareidi sheitel clad woman becomes a Meretz MK. (Don't worry, it's not a sexy sheitel). For those who don't follow Israeli politics (which includes me), Meretz is about as secular as you can get. Think 'Shulamit Aloni'.So what gives? Is she really Chareidi? Or is she one of those closet kefira spouting Orthopraxnicks that the whole jblogosphere is suddenly writing about?
UPDATE: Yep, just as I thought, she's totally Orthoprax. She even lives in Har Nof. Some relevant quotes:
"I do not think there are rabbis living today that I have to follow. My test is whether the rabbis are advancing the interests of their followers. I do not think they are looking out for their communities. They are doing the exact opposite. They are damaging their communities.
"They made a colossal and unforgivable mistake before the Holocaust. Instead of directing their followers to Palestine before the war, they said it was prohibited. All those people died"
Greenfield sent her five children to religious Zionist schools. She could not accept haredi education, she says, because it over emphasizes adhering to the letter of the law at the expense of good deeds. But she is proud to report that all her children are leftists like their mother.
Asked why she remains Orthodox, rather than choosing a Reform or Conservative path, she answered, "I believe in continuity. I feel close to Jewish tradition and history. I am committed to Halacha. It is a big honor for me to belong to the chain of generations of Jewry. But in any place where I see that the Halacha hurts people, does things that are not right in my eyes, I do not accept it. I know that Halacha was decided by people in other times and situations and contexts."
I must add her to the list.
Should Orthpraxnicks stay in the Closet?
Wow. Seems like my posting on how the Orthoprax should come out of the closet has touched a nerve with a bunch of people. FedUp writes:As I wish to see more unity and not less, XGH's new sect is no good.
Which is strange, since yesterday FedUp himself wrote:
In my opinion, the Orthodox lifestyle is oppressive and horribly wrong in many respects.
So much for unity.
Anyway, my new Orthoprax sect (or rather sub sect of a sub sect) is not about attacking unity. On the contrary, good fences make good neighbors and all that. It's simply a recognition of the fact that 50% of MO (especialy LW MO) are indeed Orthoprax. So let' stop pretending and get out of the closet.
Someone emailed me the following:
I've been looking at your blog and enjoying it. One area in which we may part ways is in publicly identifying people you assume to be fellow travelers in your blogroll. One of the nice things about modern orthodoxy is that we don't spend time demanding that people identify their beliefs publicly. If you keep kosher, I can eat in your house--whatever your beliefs. Outing people who don't want to be outed violates this ethic, in my view.
Let me just be clear - I don't intend on outing any individuals! Of course not. But it's surely no secret that LW MO (and places like YCT) are very Orthoprax. Didn't Rabbi Lamm or someone like that make a public comment to that end a few years ago?
Modeh BeMiktzas though did have a good comment. He writes:
From what I read, you're interested in creating an OP community that interacts freely with MOJ. As by your admission OP and MOJ interact freely as it is now, all you seek to do is out all the kofrim so that they can be honest in their relationship with the MOJ. Right so far?But aren't you afraid that by removing the cloaking device you'll cause the schism that nobody cared about before? What I mean is, at the moment, MOJ and even UOJ know or don't know that there are kofrim or people who don't ascribe to the party line. They may even know some personally. But they tolerate them because they are not a threat in that they play by the same rules (at least in public) as everyone else. But once your OP movement seeks to legitimize itself, as if to make itself like just another minhag, then MOJ and UOJ will have no choice but to expel you. It'd be like founding a Lubavitch that proudly announced itself as being based in kefirah! (Insert Lubavitch joke here). You'd be like Karaites or Christians. And all you'd end up doing is screwing up the tolerable status quo.
This is a good argument. However I must disagree. MO is tolerant of people with different beliefs. They may not accept it, and they will draw boundaries. For example Rav Aharon Lichtenstein publically callled Tamar Ross a 'kofer' for her views on continuous revelation. However even RAL wouldn't kick Tamar Ross out of the community. We are not Chareidim. And even the Chareidim, with their recent bans, didn't actually put anyone in cherem. Rather they attacked certain books. Nowadays people don't get excommunicated. So no, I don't think that this will cause a schism.
However, I can understand that educators and others who need to appear Orthodox will have difficulties if they come out of the closet. So for those guys, sure, stay in the closet. I'll still be friendly.
But as for me, as Kramer once said (in a slighty different context), I'm out baby, and I'm lovin it!
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Should we label ourselves Orthoprax?
Seems like everyone is posting about Orthopraxy. And just after I started my new blog! (Funny how that works). Anyway, in two posts / comments today people have expressed the idea that it's a mistake to label ourselves Orthoprax. EvanstonJew writes:
Some Orthodox Jews have doubts about specific ikrim, some occasionally or frequently violate halacot that are generally observed.I feel it is not useful to single out those who have thelogical doubts and give them a special label Orthoprax, for a number of reasons.
Most cases of skepticism are also accompanied with changes in other attitudes and behavior. If you believe the DH you are likely to reject chumras and daas torah as the final word. Mitvot become habits and regularities, like driving on the right side of the road, and not obligatory norms.
Just as we don't divide Orthodoxy between those whose behavior is perfect and those who are less so, so too we shouldn't divide OJ according to the degree of emunah. Belief is never all or none, paying lip service is not exactly emunah, there are differences between conscious and unconscious beliefs. To give just one example...I am inclined to say that someone who goes on and on how TMS is false but accepts and performs halacha in the RWMO-Charedi style might unconsciously believe in the traditional charedi worldview. It is a Bradley effect in reverse. Why single out asa special subclass those who have the inclination (or is it chutzpa) to tout heresy.
In labelling people Orthoprax you stigmatize philosophical thinking and encourage lip service to ikrim that are not fully understood.
And then we have FreethinkingUpstart, who writes:
Besides for a few extremists like Jacob Stein, the Orthodox Community is not suggesting witch hunts to discover who amongst them adheres to the party line. And so it is that the label Orthopraxy is counter productive. Slowly, slowly, pluralism can spread even within Orthodox Judaism. There's no need to jump the gun and hang yourself. My advice to those that are satisfied with the Orthodox Lifestyle but dissatisfied with some or all of the 13 principles of faith, is to be patient, talk to your Rabbis, talk to your chavrusas, but there is no need to be confrontational or to rock the boat, especially on silly issues like the authorship of the Torah. And there is certainly no need to label yourself a heretic. It's counterproductive.
I can understand where these people are coming from, but I think they are making a mistake. Orthodoxy is a fundamentalist sect, there's no question about that, and it's probably not going to change, at least not anytime soon.
Orthodoxy realizes that nobody is prefect, and that everyone commits 'aveiros', and that many people have 'doubts'. But the fundamental of the Orthodox sect is that you officially commit to all halachah and all beliefs, including belief in God, TMS and probably the rest of the 13 ikkarim too (more or less). This is expected of all Orthodox people. Having doubts is of course 'permitted', even expected, and Rabbis will generally have sympathy for people plagued with doubts. 'Doubts' are the equivalent to 'aveiros', both are recognized as inevitable, though without question 'wrong'. Someone can slip up and break shabbos (or succumb to temptation), and someone can have doubts. But just like someone who says they don't hold of Shabbos at all won't be considered Orthodox, likewise someone who says they hold of the DH.
Should things be this way? Well that's a ridiculous question. However things ARE this way, and I don't see any value in pretending to be something you're not. Even worse, I think it's a negative to pretend to believe in nonsense. On the contrary one should state very definitely what they believe. If you don't believe in the ikkarim (which I and my people don't), then we should say that. It's not about 'doubts' as evanstonJew says, on the contrary, I have very little doubt. Once in a while I may get a bit of a doubt, and think 'what if it's all true after all?' but then I go learn a little and my doubts completely disappear.
Some Orthodox Jews have doubts about specific ikrim, some occasionally or frequently violate halacot that are generally observed.I feel it is not useful to single out those who have thelogical doubts and give them a special label Orthoprax, for a number of reasons.
Most cases of skepticism are also accompanied with changes in other attitudes and behavior. If you believe the DH you are likely to reject chumras and daas torah as the final word. Mitvot become habits and regularities, like driving on the right side of the road, and not obligatory norms.
Just as we don't divide Orthodoxy between those whose behavior is perfect and those who are less so, so too we shouldn't divide OJ according to the degree of emunah. Belief is never all or none, paying lip service is not exactly emunah, there are differences between conscious and unconscious beliefs. To give just one example...I am inclined to say that someone who goes on and on how TMS is false but accepts and performs halacha in the RWMO-Charedi style might unconsciously believe in the traditional charedi worldview. It is a Bradley effect in reverse. Why single out asa special subclass those who have the inclination (or is it chutzpa) to tout heresy.
In labelling people Orthoprax you stigmatize philosophical thinking and encourage lip service to ikrim that are not fully understood.
And then we have FreethinkingUpstart, who writes:
Besides for a few extremists like Jacob Stein, the Orthodox Community is not suggesting witch hunts to discover who amongst them adheres to the party line. And so it is that the label Orthopraxy is counter productive. Slowly, slowly, pluralism can spread even within Orthodox Judaism. There's no need to jump the gun and hang yourself. My advice to those that are satisfied with the Orthodox Lifestyle but dissatisfied with some or all of the 13 principles of faith, is to be patient, talk to your Rabbis, talk to your chavrusas, but there is no need to be confrontational or to rock the boat, especially on silly issues like the authorship of the Torah. And there is certainly no need to label yourself a heretic. It's counterproductive.
I can understand where these people are coming from, but I think they are making a mistake. Orthodoxy is a fundamentalist sect, there's no question about that, and it's probably not going to change, at least not anytime soon.
Orthodoxy realizes that nobody is prefect, and that everyone commits 'aveiros', and that many people have 'doubts'. But the fundamental of the Orthodox sect is that you officially commit to all halachah and all beliefs, including belief in God, TMS and probably the rest of the 13 ikkarim too (more or less). This is expected of all Orthodox people. Having doubts is of course 'permitted', even expected, and Rabbis will generally have sympathy for people plagued with doubts. 'Doubts' are the equivalent to 'aveiros', both are recognized as inevitable, though without question 'wrong'. Someone can slip up and break shabbos (or succumb to temptation), and someone can have doubts. But just like someone who says they don't hold of Shabbos at all won't be considered Orthodox, likewise someone who says they hold of the DH.
Should things be this way? Well that's a ridiculous question. However things ARE this way, and I don't see any value in pretending to be something you're not. Even worse, I think it's a negative to pretend to believe in nonsense. On the contrary one should state very definitely what they believe. If you don't believe in the ikkarim (which I and my people don't), then we should say that. It's not about 'doubts' as evanstonJew says, on the contrary, I have very little doubt. Once in a while I may get a bit of a doubt, and think 'what if it's all true after all?' but then I go learn a little and my doubts completely disappear.
Friday, November 7, 2008
The Shidduch Crisis
Reading this recent article by Shmuly Boteach on the shidduch crisis has motivated me to post yet again on this timeless topic. Why is there a shidduch crisis? Shmuly Boteach pins the problem on the dynamics of chareidi shidduch scene, and suggests that we need more and better shadchanim.
Here is my take on the matter. I think there are 3 main reasons why there is a shidduch crisis:
1. It's too easy to get a date
In the real world, men & women mix freely. But dating is more difficult. You have to work up the courage to ask someone out. You probably won't ask just any girl, and you will be careful about asking a friend. In the OJ world, getting fixed up on a blind date is easy as pie. There are so many desperate singles, and so many wannabe 'shadchanim', that you can get a date every night of the week. Of course this leads to serial dating, desensitizing (as Shmuley correctly points out), and pickiness, where each date is compared and contrasted to the hundreds of other dates. Plus, with 3 or 4 people potentially in play at any one time, it's hard to focus.
2. There's no intimacy
OJ daters try and be shomer negiah. Of course this is better than being overly sexually promiscuous, but it does create a serious lack of intimacy. It's not natural for a couple to be non intimate. Rabbi Schwartz of Ohab Tzedek on the Upper West Side regularly lectures his many single congregants on the dangers of Negiah. He tells the girls that if they would just 'hold out', the guys would be quicker to propose. In my opinion, it's exactly the opposite. The ultra shomeret negiah girls lack a capacity for intimacy and end up single longer. Of course there may be some sampling error here - maybe the ultra shomeret negiah girls are davkah the girls with intimacy issues to begin with.
3. Picky Picky Picky
Many singles, and certainly most older singles, are just too picky. In the past, you simply had to get married, so people overcame their pickiness and just sealed the deal. Nowadays, it's more acceptable to be single longer, especially in the MO world. The older singles have such long lists of requirements that nobody ever fits the bill. Even the ones who claim they are not looking for Mr Right, just Mr Right For Me, are missing the boat. Mr Right For You doesn't exist, when 'Right For You' is a long list of must have attributes. Add in the lack of intimacy and desensitization, and it's never going to click.
So what can be done about it? I'll leave it to the Gedolim to fix the problems in the Chareidi world, maybe they can ban being single over 25, calling it kefirah and ervah for good measure. That should do the trick.
But in the MO world I'm going to take the exact opposite position from Shmuley and say that we need less shadchanim, and not more. If there were no 'setups' on the UWS, people would be forced to make their own dates. This would raise the value of a date, and serial dating would decline. People would date less, and become more sensitive. As for the intimacy issue, that's a tough one. But maybe Rabbi Schwartz can start by changing his tune. Finally, the only thing that can be done about pickiness is constant lecturing to the singles. You're too picky! It's not about settling, it's about realizing that you are just TOO PICKY.
Here is my take on the matter. I think there are 3 main reasons why there is a shidduch crisis:
1. It's too easy to get a date
In the real world, men & women mix freely. But dating is more difficult. You have to work up the courage to ask someone out. You probably won't ask just any girl, and you will be careful about asking a friend. In the OJ world, getting fixed up on a blind date is easy as pie. There are so many desperate singles, and so many wannabe 'shadchanim', that you can get a date every night of the week. Of course this leads to serial dating, desensitizing (as Shmuley correctly points out), and pickiness, where each date is compared and contrasted to the hundreds of other dates. Plus, with 3 or 4 people potentially in play at any one time, it's hard to focus.
2. There's no intimacy
OJ daters try and be shomer negiah. Of course this is better than being overly sexually promiscuous, but it does create a serious lack of intimacy. It's not natural for a couple to be non intimate. Rabbi Schwartz of Ohab Tzedek on the Upper West Side regularly lectures his many single congregants on the dangers of Negiah. He tells the girls that if they would just 'hold out', the guys would be quicker to propose. In my opinion, it's exactly the opposite. The ultra shomeret negiah girls lack a capacity for intimacy and end up single longer. Of course there may be some sampling error here - maybe the ultra shomeret negiah girls are davkah the girls with intimacy issues to begin with.
3. Picky Picky Picky
Many singles, and certainly most older singles, are just too picky. In the past, you simply had to get married, so people overcame their pickiness and just sealed the deal. Nowadays, it's more acceptable to be single longer, especially in the MO world. The older singles have such long lists of requirements that nobody ever fits the bill. Even the ones who claim they are not looking for Mr Right, just Mr Right For Me, are missing the boat. Mr Right For You doesn't exist, when 'Right For You' is a long list of must have attributes. Add in the lack of intimacy and desensitization, and it's never going to click.
So what can be done about it? I'll leave it to the Gedolim to fix the problems in the Chareidi world, maybe they can ban being single over 25, calling it kefirah and ervah for good measure. That should do the trick.
But in the MO world I'm going to take the exact opposite position from Shmuley and say that we need less shadchanim, and not more. If there were no 'setups' on the UWS, people would be forced to make their own dates. This would raise the value of a date, and serial dating would decline. People would date less, and become more sensitive. As for the intimacy issue, that's a tough one. But maybe Rabbi Schwartz can start by changing his tune. Finally, the only thing that can be done about pickiness is constant lecturing to the singles. You're too picky! It's not about settling, it's about realizing that you are just TOO PICKY.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Rav Elyashiv bans sheitels!
Finally! A Gedolim ban I can agree with.
Rav Elyashiv bans sheitels because they are 'ervah'. Of course the halachic nitpickers are squabbling about whether it is actually ervah, or just very, very similar to ervah as makes no difference. But either way, I think Rav Elyashiv is right on the money this time. Sheitels are ridiculous. What is the point of being 'modest', just to spend $2000 and cover your hair with a sexy sheitel?
The whole sheitel phenomenon is representative of all that's wrong with modern day Orthodoxy - keeping the letter of the law but trampling all over the spirit of the law.
Sexy Sheitel what have you done
You made a fool of everyone
You made a fool of everyone
Sexy Sheitel ooh what have you done.
Sexy Sheitel you broke the rules
You layed it out for all to see
You layed it out for all to see
Sexy Sheitel oooh you broke the rules.
One sunny day the world was waiting for some ervah
It came along to turn on everyone
Sexy Sheitel the greatest of them all.
Sexy Sheitel how did you know
The world was waiting just for you
The world was waiting just for you
Sexy Sheitel oooh how did you know.
Sexy Sheitel you'll get yours yet
However big you think you are
However big you think you are
Sexy Sheitel oooh you'll get yours yet.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Would Chazal have been anti DH?
I heard an interesting thought about the famous Chazal that anyone who says even one word of the Torah is not written by Moshe loses his chelek in Olam Habah. The thought was that the intention of Chazal was not to discredit the DH per se (though of course Chazal had no clue about the DH and would probably have rejected it anyway), rather the spirit of Chazal's statement was to rail against people who would throw away parts of the Torah by saying 'this piece is not Torah'. However, someone who basically commits to Halachah, but buys in to the DH with some kind of 'Divine Inspiration' theory, is not really contravening the spirit of Chazal's dictum at all.
Credible Orthoprax theology? Or a kvetch worthy of a Kiruv clown?
Personally I think there is some truth to this. Chazal were obviously polemicizing against some threat, and presumably that threat was coming from people who were picking apart the Torah and rejecting things they didn't like. However I don't think this explanation ultimately helps our cause much, since I think Chazal would regard rejecting literal TMS itself as throwing out important aspects of Judaism.
If Chazal were alive today, what would they say about the DH? Well clearly, Chazal were great reformers, so if they were alive today they would obviously be Reform. Just like the Rambam. And Avraham Avinu too.
OK, so I'm kidding with that last part, but Chazal were indeed huge reformers (Mis-nagid's famous post: Chazal: The original Reform Jews). The big difference is that back then, people had no clue about history, and were therefore able to reform, evolve and progress while retrojecting their new beliefs and practices back into the past.
Nowadays though, we are very conscious about history, and self-conscious evolution just doesn't work as well in a traditional setting, so we have stagnated. Is there any solution to this? Some people think that if you change slowly enough you can still make it happen, because people tend to forget after a years what the past really was like. A great example is how quickly we have mythologized life in the heim, only 60 years later.
I'm not so sure this can apply to things clearly written down in Sefarim, but I guess old sefarim wither away and new ones appear, so it might work. But someone will definitely have to come up with a non fundamentalist version of Artscroll.
Some people will say this isn't sustainable. One wag commented that if someone were to write the 'Toldos' of XGH it would go like this: 'Eleh Toldos XGH. XGH. Period.' I used to worry about that sort of thing, but no longer. I worry about me and my generation, not the next. It's impossible to predict how your children will turn out anyway, and it's impossible to predict what the coming years will bring. Maybe there will be a global economic meltdown followed by the collapse of Western civilization, and all our offspring will be scapegoated in the next Holocaust (chas vesholom). Or maybe everyone will end up in Kollel while robots do all the work. Nobody has a clue, so I'm not going to worry about it.
And this is in accordance with Chazal, who say:
'Don't worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow you may die, and then you will have worried about a world that isn't yours'.
Credible Orthoprax theology? Or a kvetch worthy of a Kiruv clown?
Personally I think there is some truth to this. Chazal were obviously polemicizing against some threat, and presumably that threat was coming from people who were picking apart the Torah and rejecting things they didn't like. However I don't think this explanation ultimately helps our cause much, since I think Chazal would regard rejecting literal TMS itself as throwing out important aspects of Judaism.
If Chazal were alive today, what would they say about the DH? Well clearly, Chazal were great reformers, so if they were alive today they would obviously be Reform. Just like the Rambam. And Avraham Avinu too.
OK, so I'm kidding with that last part, but Chazal were indeed huge reformers (Mis-nagid's famous post: Chazal: The original Reform Jews). The big difference is that back then, people had no clue about history, and were therefore able to reform, evolve and progress while retrojecting their new beliefs and practices back into the past.
Nowadays though, we are very conscious about history, and self-conscious evolution just doesn't work as well in a traditional setting, so we have stagnated. Is there any solution to this? Some people think that if you change slowly enough you can still make it happen, because people tend to forget after a years what the past really was like. A great example is how quickly we have mythologized life in the heim, only 60 years later.
I'm not so sure this can apply to things clearly written down in Sefarim, but I guess old sefarim wither away and new ones appear, so it might work. But someone will definitely have to come up with a non fundamentalist version of Artscroll.
Some people will say this isn't sustainable. One wag commented that if someone were to write the 'Toldos' of XGH it would go like this: 'Eleh Toldos XGH. XGH. Period.' I used to worry about that sort of thing, but no longer. I worry about me and my generation, not the next. It's impossible to predict how your children will turn out anyway, and it's impossible to predict what the coming years will bring. Maybe there will be a global economic meltdown followed by the collapse of Western civilization, and all our offspring will be scapegoated in the next Holocaust (chas vesholom). Or maybe everyone will end up in Kollel while robots do all the work. Nobody has a clue, so I'm not going to worry about it.
And this is in accordance with Chazal, who say:
'Don't worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow you may die, and then you will have worried about a world that isn't yours'.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Why do Orthodox Jews stay On The Derech?
Three Jews, Four Opinions asks 'why would a serious biologist write such a piece?' in reference to the mabul post below. FrumHeretic writes that his 'Mabul Crapometer' went off the scale when considering Dr Babbach's theories on the mabul.The question though is larger than the mabul, or even Torah & Science. The question is, why do Orthodox Jews believe in such nonsense in the face of seemingly overwhelming evidence to the contrary? And not just Orthodox Jews of course, but all religious fundamentalists?
Skeptics often have a hard time understanding these people, thinking they are ignorant, delusional, deceitful or all of the above. I myself have been guilty of such name calling in the past, and it can be truly frustrating and baffling when arguing with an otherwise intelligent religious fundamentalist.
But the reality is that these people are not delusional, deceitful or ignorant (at least not willfully). What is going on is that they are subject to some very powerful drives and emotions which distorts their thinking. And in fact it's a rare individual who would not succumb to such distorted thinking.
I believe that some or all of the following very powerful forces are at play. Many of these are intertwined in multiple ways, but I will try and tease out some themes, in order of importance (most powerful drivers first):
1. All Encompassing Worldview
EvanstonJew once posted a fantastic comment on my old blog on this topic. (The old comments are still existent in Haloscan, but I can't find it). To paraphrase and extend EJ, he basically explained that when one has an all encompassing worldview, to which every fact and facet of life fits into, it is inconceivable that such a worldview could be wrong. For the religious believer, especially those who have spent their whole life being religious, religion informs every aspect of their lives. The thought that it could all be untrue or a lie is quite literally inconceivable - the thought cannot be seriously entertained in their brains. This is true to some extent in skeptics too - the possibility that Science is all wrong is inconceivable to them, though of course in the case of skeptics, they have actual evidence on their side.
2. Fear & Guilt
Fear & Guilt are two extremely powerful emotions which come into play as soon as a believer starts to consider that maybe his religion isn't true. I have experienced this fear and guilt so I know what I'm talking about - it's not pleasant at all. The fear can take many forms, but the most common forms are as follows:
Fear of the 'abyss of meaninglessness' - religion gives meaning to life. There are few existential things more painful than loss of meaning. If God doesn't exist or if the Torah isn't true....then what? What, what, what? Then nothing. A big empty nothing. Everything is a lie. But this cannot be!
Fear of punishment / hell - Believers are brought up to believe that going 'Off The Derech' is truly bad. They will get punished, they will lose Olam Habah, bad things could happen to them or their families. Why risk it?
Fear of becoming 'lost', a 'proster person' - Halachah and OJ provides THE foundation of morals, ethics and drives for a frum person. It defines his whole life. Without this solid bedrock a person is lost, and fears he will drift into depravity. What would he do? How would he behave? Where does he get his moral compass from? Surely without God everything is permitted!
Fear of becoming a 'goy' - frum people are taught to disdain secular Jews, goyim and especially people who go OTD. The frum person considering such an action will be very fearful of ending up like that - the kind of person he himself subconsciously disdains.
And of course, in parallel to all these fears is a very healthy load of Jewish guilt. Your ancestors were moser nefesh for this, and you are going to throw it all away?! 6 million died in the Holocaust, and you are going to give Hitler (yimach shemo) a posthumous victory?! You will make your parents sit shivah / roll in their graves!
3. Identity
Identity is quite a strong motivator - often people will stick with 'But this is just who I am!' rather than face the unappealing idea of having to try and re-invent themselves. A frum yid is a frum yid! How can he change that!?
4. Commitment to Halachah
A believer is committed to Halachah, and Halachah states that one is simply not allowed to consider Kefirah. I place this 4th on the list, not because I question people's commitment to Halachah, but rather because the first 3 drivers are so much more powerful. In fact driver 1 by itself is probably sufficient for most people, and certainly 1 paired with 2 is a very powerful combination.
5. It works
This is somewhat tied to 1 above, basically a believer feels that religion 'works' for him. Halachah, the culture, the ethics, it all 'fits'. Becoming an unbeliever entails a new lifestyle - and who is to say that the new lifestyle will 'work'? Maybe it will be a case of 'out of the frying pan into the fire'? The current lifestyle is good, it works well. If it ain't (seriously) broke, don't fix it.
6. Peer Pressure
Finally, on top of everything else, is peer pressure. Nobody is an island (or lives on one), everyone has parents, children, relatives, friends and community. You cannot simply change your life without there being serious ramifications for the people around you. It's just too difficult.
However, having said all this, ultimately the brain is at it's core a rational tool. It can be persuaded with reason. Even the most hardened believer, when forced to confront the facts, can be swayed. It just takes time. Sometimes, a lot of time.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
It's all about meaning
Bruno Bettelheim: "Our greatest need and most difficult achievement is to find meaning in our lives."
Michael Novak: "The experience of nothingness is now the point from which nearly every reflective man begins his adult life."
Robert C. Solomon: "The world is no longer ours. The old habits keep us moving, robot-like through the paces of life, but we are not wholly there. The `why' has no answer and that is the singular fact that now defines our existence. . . . I believe that it [the absurd] is still the dominant philosophical conception of our time. It is not a philosopher's invention. It follows with merciless logic from our most everyday thinking."
James E. Edwards: "Thus nihilism—the self-devaluation of our highest values—seems the secret logic of Western culture: the worm was in the bud all along."
Wilfred Cantwell Smith: "The intellectual problem of the modern world is how to be a relativist without being a nihilist."
Viktor Frankl: "We have heard that man is a being in search of meaning. We have seen that today his search is unsatisfied and thus constitutes the pathology of our age."
Erich Fromm: "Once skepticism and rationalism were progressive forces for the development of thought; now they have become rationalizations for relativism and uncertainty. Doubt is the starting point of modern philosophy."
Richard Tarnas: "Our psychological and spiritual predispositions are absurdly at variance with the world revealed by our scientific method. We seem to receive two messages from our existential situation: on the one hand, strive, give oneself to the quest for meaning and spiritual fulfillment; but, on the other hand, know that the universe, of whose substance we are derived, is entirely indifferent to that quest, soulless in character, and nullifying in its effects. We are at once aroused and crushed. For inexplicably, absurdly, the cosmos is inhuman, yet we are not. The situation is profoundly unintelligible."
From 'The Search for Meaning' by Dennis Ford. An awesome book.
Michael Novak: "The experience of nothingness is now the point from which nearly every reflective man begins his adult life."
Robert C. Solomon: "The world is no longer ours. The old habits keep us moving, robot-like through the paces of life, but we are not wholly there. The `why' has no answer and that is the singular fact that now defines our existence. . . . I believe that it [the absurd] is still the dominant philosophical conception of our time. It is not a philosopher's invention. It follows with merciless logic from our most everyday thinking."
James E. Edwards: "Thus nihilism—the self-devaluation of our highest values—seems the secret logic of Western culture: the worm was in the bud all along."
Wilfred Cantwell Smith: "The intellectual problem of the modern world is how to be a relativist without being a nihilist."
Viktor Frankl: "We have heard that man is a being in search of meaning. We have seen that today his search is unsatisfied and thus constitutes the pathology of our age."
Erich Fromm: "Once skepticism and rationalism were progressive forces for the development of thought; now they have become rationalizations for relativism and uncertainty. Doubt is the starting point of modern philosophy."
Richard Tarnas: "Our psychological and spiritual predispositions are absurdly at variance with the world revealed by our scientific method. We seem to receive two messages from our existential situation: on the one hand, strive, give oneself to the quest for meaning and spiritual fulfillment; but, on the other hand, know that the universe, of whose substance we are derived, is entirely indifferent to that quest, soulless in character, and nullifying in its effects. We are at once aroused and crushed. For inexplicably, absurdly, the cosmos is inhuman, yet we are not. The situation is profoundly unintelligible."
From 'The Search for Meaning' by Dennis Ford. An awesome book.
Atheist turns Frum Again
Anne Rice, bestselling vampire novelist, has returned to Jesus after 40 years of being an atheist:Always over-the-top and beyond the rational, she writes that her return of faith was preceded by a series of epiphanies -- many while on travels to Europe's cathedrals, Israel and Brazil. In one episode, when she visited the giant Jesus statue above Rio de Janeiro, she writes that she felt "delirium" as the clouds broke and revealed the statue.
"My objective is simple: It's to write books about our Lord living on Earth that make him real to people who don't believe in him; or people who have never really tried to believe in him," she said.
She pressed the point:
"I mean, I've made vampires believable to grown women. Now, if I can do that, I can make our Lord Jesus Christ believable to people who've never believed in him. I hope and pray."
Too true, too true.
YU on the Mabul
How Many Animals Were There On The Ark?YU Parashah Perspectives
By Dr. Harvey Babich
At the age of 480, in the year 1536 (2225 BCE), Noach was commanded to build an ark. The ark would serve as a refuge for Noach and his family as well as selected representatives amongst the animals during the subsequent flood. The ark was to house Noach, his wife, their three sons and their wives, and a male and female of each min (type) of non-kosher animal and seven pairs of males and females of every kosher min of animal. The dimensions of the ark were approximately 180 yards in length, 30 yards in width, and 18 yards in height. The obvious question is how all the animals were able to fit into this limited space. For example, there are over 800,000 species of insects, 35,000 species of spiders, 8,600 species of birds, 6,000 species of reptiles, and 2,200 species of frogs and toads.
Yeah, that's the obvious question. How did the animals fit in the ark?! Not how could there be a 480 year old man. Not how could there be a global flood when all the geological evidence in the world shows it never happened. Not how come we find evidence of continuing habitation and culture stretching back 15,000 years. Not that it's genetically not possible that all the world's population (not to mention language and culture) is from a single ancestor 4,500 years ago.
The Ramban (Bereishis 6:19) is troubled by the problem, and concludes that fitting the animals into the ark was itself a miracle.
Wow. A miracle? Who woulda thunk it!
Rabbi Dovid Brown has a unique theory regarding the numbers of animals brought aboard the ark. First, whereas a zoologist classifies animals according to phyla, the Torah’s classification is simply beheimos, chayos, sheratzim, and dagim. There is no correlation between the zoologist’s classification and the Torah’s classification of animals. For example, the Torah’s category of sheratzim includes insects, reptiles, and some mammals (e.g., weasel and mouse). According to a zoologist, these animals are categorized in three different phyla. Second, the zoologists’ terms genus and species have no equivalent in Torah terminology. Instead, the Torah uses the term min to identify discrete groups of animals. At ma’aseh bereishis, Hashem created distinct minim, which, after relatively short time periods, diversified to yield different genera and species.
Rabbi Brown postulates that Noach took aboard the ark two animals of each min, rather than all the varieties that developed from each min since ma’aseh bereishis. This interpretation fits very well with the verses: “Of all living creatures, of all flesh, two of each you shall bring to the ark to keep alive with you, a male and a female. Of the birds to their minim, of the beasts to their minim, of all the creepers on the ground to their minim, two of each will come to you to maintain life.” Based on this interpretation, the number of creatures brought on the ark is greatly reduced. Apparently, these specific minim contained all the necessary genetic information, so that postdiluvian diversification yielded the different genera and species of animals recognized by today’s zoologists.
Yes! It's the Postdiluvian Diversification theory. So scientific sounding! Yet 100% Torah True. But wait, what about all the other questions? Well, I think using The Rabbi's theory, we can easily figure out some answers.
How did people live to be many hundreds of years old? Especially at a time when there was no medicine? The answer is that people had much greater kochos before yeridas hadoros, and therefore were able to age gracefully and slowly. Its the Postdiluvian Gentrification Theory.
How did the Kangaroos get to Australia so quickly? The answer is poshut. Clearly back then, animals, just like people, had much greater kochos. So it's no surprise that Kangaroos could hop much higher and faster. It's the Postdiluvian Hoppification Theory.
What about all that geological evidence showing no flood at all? That one's easy. The mey hamabul were not normal waters! They were miraculous waters. They wiped everything out, but left cave painting and buildings intact (though of course with radically altered carbon dating characteristics), and likewise left no evidence at all. Of course a trillion gazillion tonnes of regular water suddenly appearing would have knocked the Earth from it's orbit. Yet we see the earth still orbits the sun (Well at least since the 16th century anyways). So clearly, since the Earth is still in orbit, the water must have been miraculous water. It's the Postdiluvian Miracle-Waterification Theory.
And finally, what about the seemingly continuous civilization and habitation in various parts of the world going back many thousands of years? Again, not a problem. When the post mabul people spread out over the world's surface, they found the remnants of all the destroyed civilizations, and immediately adopted the same cultures, pottery, building styles and even skin color and genes. Some of this may have been miraculous, but it was all part of the many miracles of the mabul. Yes! It's the Postdiluvian Bizarre-Miracles-That-Conveniently-Wipe-Out-All-Evidence-Of-There-Ever-Having-Been-A-Floodification Theory.
This series is a project of the Yeshiva University Center for the Jewish Future–RIETS. You can find more articles on the weekly parashah at the Marcos and Adina Katz website (www.YUTorah.org), which is the online home for Torah articles from Yeshiva University and its affiliates. Dr Harvey Babich is the Professor of Biology at Stern College for Women.
So what does any of this have to do with Modern Orthopraxy? I think it very well explains why we exist.
[I apologize for the tone of this post, but Parshas Noach Science & Torah stuff is just way too tempting to resist! Initially I was surprised at seeing this coming from YU, but then I remembered.]
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
1.jpg)
Posts
