Sunday, March 29, 2009
Better know a Frum ModernOrthopraxnick
Better know a kofer
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
You’d think that people would have had enough of silly faith based beliefs
But I look around me and I see it isn’t so.
Some people want to fill the world with silly faith based beliefs.
And what’s wrong with that?
I’d like to know,
cause here I go, again
I believe in You, I believe in You
I believe in You, I believe in You
I can’t explain the feelings plain to me, say can’t you see?
Ah, it gives me more, it gives it all to me
Now can’t you see,
What’s wrong with that
I need to know, cause here I go again
I believe in You, I believe in You
Faith doesn’t come in a minute,
Sometimes it doesn’t come at all
I only know that when I’m in it
It isn’t silly, no, it isn’t silly, faith isn’t silly at all.
How can I tell you about the ultimate One?
How can I tell you about the ultimate One? ?
Some people want to fill the world with silly faith based beliefs.
And what’s wrong with that?
I’d like to know
I’m starting to see the value in having a certain amount of faith. Not faith in specific unbelievable historical events, but rather faith in an overall religious worldview. Faith that life is meaningful, that spirituality has value, and that morality is ‘objective’ (kaveyochol).
I’m also starting to appreciate something that Mis-nagid once said – that The Torah is the sacred text of our people. In fact, I’m starting to see that the Chareidi approach to Torah might make more sense than the MO approach.
Even scarier, I find myself agreeing with Sholom Carmy, in his latest Tradition article, decrying the tendency amongst the MO today to analyze the Avot (for example) as very human characters:
An educational mission dependent on the fleeting morbid pleasures of debunking, relying on the desperate stimulation of reflexive skepticism cannot stand. It cannot “endear the Torah and those who study it.” Let us not deliberately, coldly, indifferently, cheapen the characters of the Avot or the integrity of the Torah.But how so? Surely the Avot weren’t really malochim who learnt Torah all day as the Chareidim maintain? Isn’t it more historically accurate to treat the Avos as regular people?
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Beliefs, Values & Practices: The core of religion
- Beliefs
- Values
- Practices
Friday, March 20, 2009
Don't give up! Famous Kannoi gets 8 years
NEWYORK, March 19 (Reuters) - A former executive at a New York mortgage lender was sentenced to more than eight years in prison on Thursday after pleading guilty to defrauding Fannie Mae (FNM.N) in a $44 million home refinancing scheme.
Leib Pinter, 64, was also ordered to pay more than $43 million in restitution. Prosecutors say that Pinter's scheme left Fannie Mae holding about that amount in unpaid principal of refinanced mortgage loans through his scheme.
The sentence was handed down by U.S. District Judge Sandra Townes in Brooklyn, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York said in a statement.
A lawyer for Pinter was not immediately available for comment.
Pinter, a former executive of Brooklyn mortgage lender Olympia Mortgage Corp, pleaded guilty in September 2008 to conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
Meanwhile, his Artscroll book, 'Don't Give Up' seems to have been pulled from the Artscroll website. I couldn't find it there anymore. I guess they were waiting for the sentencing?
Anyways, I bet Pinter is wishing he was an Eved Ivri right now.
The value of Biblical slavery
One of the favorite anti-Judaism arguments of the skeptics, especially Born Again Skeptics (Who can be as annoying as BTs to be honest), is that of slavery. 'Oh how terrible is Judaism' they cry, it condones slavery!Thursday, March 19, 2009
Chareidim do it better
Stolow has recently completed his latest book Orthodox By Design, a volume 15 years in the making. The forthcoming book, with the University of California Press, closely examines Brooklyn-based ArtScroll, the largest and most important Orthodox Jewish publishing house in the English-speaking world. His investigation probes methods ArtScroll has used to shape the ways readers interact with the books: how books are acquired by communities, their extensive catalogue (which includes cookbooks, adventure novels and legal guides), all the way down to typesetting and illustrations.Say what you want about Artscroll, but they're definitely good at what they aspire to do. Meanwhile the MO world, especially in the US, hasn't gotten its act together anywhere near as well.
“ArtScroll is a major cultural force in contemporary Jewish public culture and it has often courted controversy as a ‘fundamentalist’ entity, an example of a more wide-scale ‘slide to the right’ in Jewish religious life," Stolow notes.
His study challenges easy conclusions about the ways so-called religious fundamentalist messages actually function in today’s media-rich environment. He argues the public life of ArtScroll books provides an instructive case study for exploring how religious movements today are defined by their efforts to claim authority, manage desire, de-legitimize competitors, win followers, and cultivate a market niche; in this case, the rapidly growing religious book market.
"The lessons are relevant not only for modern-day Jewish society, but for a wide range of cases in which religion is being redefined in and through its engagements with modern media,” he says.
And it's not just in book publishing. Aish and that genre do a great job of meeting their goals. Even the local Kiruv Kollel does an awesome job at getting rich secular Jews to part with their money.
So what gives?
I suppose it could be siyatah dishmayah. Or more likely a critical factor for sucess is focus, passion and commitment, which are all traits that religious fundamentalists have in spades.
Book Review: The 7 Tablets of Creation by Dr Nathan Babylonianson

I don't claim to have an expertise in this subject. I certainly haven't read all of the many attempts at reconciliation -- whether Jewish or Babylonian. But I have read R. Natan Nikfils's critique of those attempts in his book, The Challenge of Creation, and I read Dr. Babylonianson's book with those criticisms in mind.
Dr. Babylonianson takes the general approach that the 7 tablets of Creation reflect seven eras of cosmological development and evolution. R. Nikfils critiques this "Day-Age Approach" on pages 186-189 of his book. He lists a few objections that can be raised against this approach:
- What is the primeval Apsû described in the first tablet of Creation?
- The monsters and scorpion-men appear on the first and second tablets, before the monster-vipers were clothed with terror on the fourth day.
- The heavens were created on the fourth tablet, after the god Marduk split Tiamat's skull in two, as the verse says: 'He split her up like a flat fish into two halves; One half of her he stablished as a covering for heaven..'. But Science tells us that outer space is not formed from the split skull of an ancient demon god.
- The stars were created on the fifth tablet, as it says: 'He (Marduk) made the stations for the great gods; The stars, their images, as the stars of the Zodiac, he fixed.., and in the second tablet it says that 'She hath exalted Kingu; in their midst she hath raised him to power'. According to modern science, Marduk and Kingu are simply ancient Babylonian mythical characters.
As should be clear, Dr. Babylonianson does not see the monster-vipers and scorpion men of the third and fourth tabelts of Creation as the monster-vipers and scorpion men of the planet earth. Rather, he considers them to be references to the universe in its mythical formation.
The creation of the heavens from the split skull of Tiamat on the fourth tablet are not their actual creation, suggests Dr. Babylonianson . Rather, it means the newfound visibility to the earth as the atmosphere became transparent.
Dr. Babylonianson has offered a number of suggestions on how to interpret the enuma elishian text in light of the findings of science. Mainly, he tends to take the babylonian terms non-literally while preserving the general outline of the narrative. It is not clear to me that his suggestions are ultimately viable from a textual perspective but I suspect that many will find his thoughts interesting.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
The 13 Values of Judaism
Value God. Agnostics and weak atheists, have no fear, this isn't the big daddy in the sky god. This is the projection of morality, meaning and spirituality, wrapped up with the awe of existence, with a good measure of thankfullness to boot, loosely based on the god of the philosophers, and ultimately incomprehensible and unknowable. But very useful as a religious concept. I'll b''n post on Judaism's plug and play, multi layer GOA (God Oriented Architecture) soon.
Included in this value:
- Yirat shamayim (fear of heaven)
- Ahavat Hashem (love of God),
- Commitment to a meaningful existence
- Commitment to avoid any kind of avodah zarah
2. Torah
Value the combined wisdom of the Jewish people, as expressed in their various writings over the ages. All of it is Divinely Inspired by God. (Skeptics: remember the religious language game).
Included in this value:
- Bat Torah or ben Torah (dedicated to Torah),
- Dedication to studuying torah (and education in general)
- Commitment to 'derive' values, ethics, practices etc from Torah
- Torah Li-Shmah (Torah for Torah's sake),
3. Kedushah (holiness)
Value the concept of kedushah. Includes:
-Commitment to spiritual pursuits
-Reduction of purely materialistic pursuits
-Tznius (modesty) for men and women
4. Am yisrael ve'eretz yisrael
Value the Jewish people and their historical homeland. Includes:
-Commitment to achdus and klal yisrael
-Commitment to loving Eretz Yisrael (not neccessarily Greater Israel though)
-Commitment to local comunity
5. Ethics & Morals
Value the traditional ethics and morals of Judaism. Including:
- Family Morality, taharat mishpachah
- Straight Monogamy: ideal family is husband + wife + kids
- Jewish Business ethics (not Madoff or Spinker though)
- Jewish Medical ethics (e.g. Lord Jacobowitz)
6. Halachah & Mitzvah
Value the traditional practices and rituals of Judaism. Includes:
- Commitment to maintaining the traditions and halachah
- Commitment to the halachic process for changing halachah
Note: This doesn't mean you have to make yourself crazy keeping every detail & chumrah. Use your judgement, however be aware that the system will fail if you don't make your best effort.
7. Shabbat & Holidays
Value the Shabbat day. Goes above and beyond keeping the halachah. Includes:
- Making Shabbos special
- Pursuing family and and spiritual pursuits
- Also includes Yom Tovim, Fast days, Jewish lifecycle events
8. Tikkun middot
Value making oneself better. Includes:
- shemirat halashon (guarding one's tongue)
- hovot halevavot (duties of the heart)
9. Am Levodod Yishcon
Value the concept of 'particularism' (to a sensible degree). Commit to maintaining the Jewish people as a defined entity. Includes:
- Kashrut (eating kosher)
- Chucas Hagoy (not doing)
- No intermarriage
10. Tikun Olom
Value the concept of 'universalism' (to a sensible degree). Includes:
- Commitment to tikkun olam and social action
11. Chessed
Value chessed. Includes:
-Tzeddakah
-Bikkur Cholim
-etc
12. Avodah
Value spiritual practices. Includes:
-Tefilah
-Certain rituals
13. Justice & Middas Hadin
Value justice (with mercy). Includes:
-Honest business dealings
-Do the right thing
-Stand up for rights
[Note: I only have a short amoun tof time for this importamt post. This is obviously just a rough first draft and it needs much more work. But you get the basic idea.]
Monday, March 16, 2009
From 13 principles of faith to 13 principles of value
What are the top 13 values that we, as OJ / OP, should value?
B''n I'll post my 13 tonite, but feel welcome to post your own in the comments. Thanks.
UOP in the media
Why can't we all just embrace Orthodoxy in one form or another, win eternal life, and ensure Jewish survival while we're at it?
He then explains why for most Jews, Orthodoxy is not an option. Here's the money quote:
In the Amidah for Shabbat and Chagim (holidays) we pray "ve-taher libenu le-avdekhah be-emet." O Purify our hearts, that we can serve You in truth. Our sense of truth, the truths of history (such as we can reconstruct it), of metaphysics (such as it remains), of ethics (such as we cannot live without it)--are for many of us regularly at variance with the answers of conventional Orthodoxy.
Interestingly, he says the 3 primary obstacles are historical truth, metaphysics and ethics, but doesn't mention the cost (of being OJ), or the burden of keeping halachah.
He then goes on to give his idea for the future of Judaism (and in a sense Orthodoxy):
The Future of Orthodoxy
I have no real answers here, but perhaps the makings of a way of thinking.
Jewish life proceeds through a vocabulary of ideas and practices. When we think of terms such as yirat shamayim (fear of heaven), bat Torah or ben Torah (dedicated to Torah), kedushah (holiness), mitzvah (commandment), shemirat Shabbat (keeping the Sabbath), or Ahavat Hashem (love of God), shemirat halashon (guarding one's tongue), tikkun middot (making oneself better), Torah Li-Shmah (Torah for Torah's sake), gemilut hassadim (good deeds), hovot halevavot (duties of the heart) or Tsu zayn a heilige Yid (being a good Jew), we immediately grasp that we have here a vocabulary that more accurately captures the texture of our religious lives and etches our religious horizons more than do any statements of doctrine, halakhic ideology, or denominational affiliation.
Compared to them the word "Orthodoxy" is leaden, flattening, even frightening. For now, it's the term to describe a world and the term much of that world uses to describe itself. I think it would be good for all of us--the Orthodox included--to move beyond that specific term and back to that earlier vocabulary.
Aside from "Orthodoxy" and beyond a certain point, the bloodless terms we use to capture modern Jewish life such as 'identity' and 'ethnicity' simply don't work, they break on its specificity and complexity. "Jewish identity," increasingly seems to me less a meaningful term than a kind of linguistic ghost; with the death of metaphysics and ethics their residual meanings drain into this amorphous thing we call "Jewish identity," a grab-bag for everything from Steinsaltz to Seinfeld.
Even the more full-blooded terms such as 'nation,' 'people' or even civilization don't quite do it (though it may, in its semi-transcendence, come close), and neither does 'faith;' though 'faithfulness' might. Because while the faith I have in something stays with me, I am faithful to something or someone, and my faithfulness must find expression or it isn't faithful at all.
How to shape our lives around kedushah, or Yirat Shamayim, Torah li-Shema, or Kiddush Ha-Shem--and that last term even in its most extreme meanings--after Enlightenment, after Holocaust, after Zionism, and after Orthodoxy? How to learn and live Torah after and through all our shatterings?
Can we reshape these terms into a new constellation balancing freedom and faithfulness, autonomy and authority, one that is neither radically tribal nor exclusivist, yet still with a beating heart? Can Torah be what Taylor calls the "inescapable framework," which makes sense of our lives?
Among a number of modern Jewish thinkers we find, at times explicitly at others between the lines, calls for a new halakhah, one with the commanding power of the old, persuasive to we who have come after, who see ourselves as coming after.
I increasingly think that if there will be a new halakhah it will not be formulated by a committee, or even a new Sanhedrin. Rather it will emerge from below in myriad practices and reflections on practices, in the mix of study and practice that is one of Judaism's most distinctive features relative to other traditions. The batei midrash of the new halakhah will come in many forms; some of them will have bookshelves, others will be hospitals, workplaces, public spaces, the laboratories of the new halakhah for democratic societies. Can the new truths, as Tehillim hopes (85:12), grow up from the ground as justice looks down from Heaven?
The only way to know is to try. I have hope.
It's like I have said many times: the ikkar is values. And the way to concretize values it to create practices and rituals which embody and promote those values. And that's halachah.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Introducing...The Ultra Orthoprax!!!
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
How could God do this to me?
But the problem of evil is why many cultures (and even some strains of Judaism) found it difficult to accept the idea of one omnibenevolent God, and instead opted for a 2 god model, one evil god and one good god. This solves the problem of evil, though perhaps it violates occams razor, but that's a 'logically satisfying' tradeoff to be sure.
So what do the intellefundies respond? Probably some pseudo-philosophy-junk about how there can only be one first cause, not two. In which case I would simply respond, Quantum Soup was the first cause, and then after that came 2 gods, one good and one evil, and the rest, as they say, is (highly unlikely) history.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Pick yoUR own axIoM day!!!
Don't you just love the way that fundies (and sometimes skeptics) just invent axioms? And bs arguments of every shape and form? Deganev is a master at that. But what's wrong with inventing axioms anyway? After all, every epistemilogical system has unprovable axioms as its foundation! (See how easy it is?!)
So, let's invent away! Me first.
Do you know how extraordinarily unlikely it is that I, XGH, who hadn't written a single piece of English prose since high school (over 20 years ago) should have a successful blog? It's mamash unbelievable. The only possible explanation is that it's min hashamayim, that God wanted my message to get out there. But why would Hashem want that? The only logically satisfying explanation is that I'm a latter day Navi. And if you don't believe that, you are clearly biased.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Why the Chareidim are smarter about God than the MO
God is an orientation towards the world, and is ultimately a symbolic projection of meaning, morality and spirituality. We have become so used to the idea of God as an ontological concept that we tend to forget this. It's true that the Torah presents God in a very concrete form, but since the Rambam we have evolved from that idea to something much more abstract. And even in the Torah itself we see a marked diversion from the traditional path of creating God statues and the like.
There are no rational arguments for the existence of God which actually work. And of course there are no rational arguments for God's non existence either. This is for two reasons: Firstly, none of these arguments work in the slightest, and secondly, it's not a rational concept anyway - it's pretty hard to create an argument for the 'existence' of an incomprehensible something.
Witness the following discussion:
Believer: God created the Universe!
Skeptic: How do you know that?
Believer: First Cause.
Skeptic: But that only proves a first cause, it doesn't say anything about God
Believer: Well the argument from design shows that the universe must have had a designer
Skeptic: It equally well shows that God must have had a designer. Anyway, the argument from evolution shows that design proceeds from simple to complex without a specific designer.
Believer: Ahh, but the universe is so fine tuned for life.
Skeptic: In one tiny planet out of an infinite number!
Believer: OK, but still
Skeptic: OK, but maybe there are multiverses, and we just happen to live in the life sustaining one.
Believer: There's no evidence for that!
Skeptic: There's no evidence for God either!
Believer: Well who created the Multiverse then?
Skeptic: Well who created God then?
Believer: God, by definition, doesn't need to be created.
Skeptic: Well the Multiverse, by definition, doesn't need to be created.
Believer: So how does a Multiverse create itself?
Skeptic: In a similar fashion to the way God creates himself.
Believer: But that's incomprehensible!
Skeptic: Exactly!
Or, in slightly shorter form:
Believer: God created the Universe.
Skeptic: But God is incomprehensible!
Believer: OK, an incomprehensibl something created the Universe
Skeptic: You shouldn't really use the word 'Created'
Believer: OK. The cause of the universe is an incomprehensible something.
Skeptic: OK, I can agree with that!
See? A complete waste of time. Some intellefundies will argue that it's 'reasonable' or 'intellectually defensible' to believe in God, but usually what they really mean to say is 'I'm not crazy'.
And the truth is they aren't crazy, because what 'God' really is, is an extremely powerful emotional / psychological / spiritual concept, which we humans are quite possibly rather wired for. So not only is it not crazy, it is in fact very, very normal, and scientifically provable to be rather beneficial to society. Of course I am talking about God here, not fundamentalist religion which is quite possibly very dangerous to society.
Where the MO trip themselves up is with their ultra-rationalist approach to things. God is inherently not a rational concept. On the contrary, it's an emotional concept, best served by the emotions. The chareidim do a good job at developing and harnessing those kind of emotions. But as one of my (LWMO) Rabbis said to me, MO creates a bunch of emotional cripples.
Now, as with everything, we need a balance. Too much emotion is as bad, if not worse than, too muh cold reason. And since this a highly subjective topic one could well argue that the Chareidi balance is no good, or maybe the Reform balance is the best. But I tend to think that the Chareidi approach of 'Emunah Peshutah', which in reality is a recognition that we believe due to emotions and loyalty rather than philosophical proofs, is far more accurate and honest than the psuedo-intellectual junk being profferred by some of the MO Intellefundies.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Isn't it ironic
"Reasoned intellectual discourse relies on integrity," [Proffessor Lawrence Schiffman] said.
"When an individual, in seeking to advance a particular view, engages in ... falsehood, he or she undermines the precepts of higher inquiry."
From here
Thursday, March 5, 2009
I still haven't found what I'm looking for
There is no solution to this dilemma.
Rejewvenate!
Reasonable religionists don't practice Judaism because God did or did not appear on a specific mountain or split some sea on a particular date. Those are important stories about the human conception of God's actions in this world, and they shape our interaction with God, but really, the story of religion is the human attempt to interact with the Divine, as best as we can understand that incomprehensible concept. The stories are archetypal, but we breathe life into them by remembering them, mimicking them, and studying them.
Well then you've relegated virtually all religionists from RWMO and rightward to being 'non reasonable religionists'. With what are you left? LWMO? That is merely a shadow of what Judaism has always been to the vast majority of its adherents.
Everyone from RWMO and on rightward are fundamentalists. I don't mean that disparagingly, every religion needs its fundamentalists, and ours generally don't blow up buildings or hijack airplanes, or go on crusades.
As to the issue that this is a different Judaism than what Judaism was to most of its adherents, I'll say three things.
First, there were periods in Jewish history and communities whose Judaism was more like the one I'm describing (Provence and Spain, for example).
Second, prior to halachic codification and the printing process, Judaism, Jewish philosophy and Jewish practice were incredibly diverse. The Karaites, for example, have been read out of normative Judaism, but that community and faith tradition lasted for about 1000 years!
Third, the Enlightenment was clearly a game-changing event. 90% of Jews walked away from observant Judaism. The Enlightenment simply broke the power of religion in the Western world.
The Holocaust, tragedy though it was, gave us some reprieve from the spiritual threat the Enlightenment presents, because it gave people a real, provable, no-doubt-about-it historical touchstone for Jewish identity, which, when combined with the 'redemption' of the founding of the state of Israel, made it possible to believe in Torah in some more literal fashion.
But time's up.
Though everyone from every Jewish denomination sees remembering the Holocaust as a critical part of Jewish identity, it doesn't drive Jewish practice. In order for Judaism to survive, it needs answers to the challenge of the Enlightenment. Those answers will differentiate our Judaism from that of our ancestors, just as the writing of the Mishnah, or the Talmud, or the Shulchan Aruch, or Kabbalism or Hassidism changed the Judaism of our ancestors, and preserved it for us. So too must we preserve Judaism for our children, and theirs.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
I can't fight this feeling anymore
Scandie Fundies
By PETER STEINFELS
Phil Zuckerman spent 14 months in Scandinavia, talking to hundreds of Danes and Swedes about religion. It wasn’t easy.
Anyone who has paid attention knows that Denmark and Sweden are among the least religious nations in the world. Polls asking about belief in God, the importance of religion in people’s lives, belief in life after death or church attendance consistently bear this out.
It is also well known that in various rankings of nations by life expectancy, child welfare, literacy, schooling, economic equality, standard of living and competitiveness, Denmark and Sweden stand in the first tier.
Well documented though they may be, these two sets of facts run up against the assumption of many Americans that a society where religion is minimal would be, in Mr. Zuckerman’s words, “rampant with immorality, full of evil and teeming with depravity.”
Which is why he insists at some length that what he and his wife and children experienced was quite the opposite: “a society — a markedly irreligious society — that was, above all, moral, stable, humane and deeply good.”
Mr. Zuckerman, a sociologist who teaches at Pitzer College in Claremont, Calif., has reported his findings on religion in Denmark and Sweden in “Society Without God” (New York University Press, 2008). Much that he found will surprise many people, as it did him.
The many nonbelievers he interviewed, both informally and in structured, taped and transcribed sessions, were anything but antireligious, for example. They typically balked at the label “atheist.” An overwhelming majority had in fact been baptized, and many had been confirmed or married in church.
Though they denied most of the traditional teachings of Christianity, they called themselves Christians, and most were content to remain in the Danish National Church or the Church of Sweden, the traditional national branches of Lutheranism.
At the same time, they were “often disinclined or hesitant to talk with me about religion,” Mr. Zuckerman reported, “and even once they agreed to do so, they usually had very little to say on the matter.”
Were they reticent because they considered religion, as Scandinavians generally do, a private, personal matter? Is there, perhaps, as one Lutheran bishop in Denmark has argued, a deep religiosity to be discovered if only one scratches this taciturn surface?
“I spent a year scratching,” Mr. Zuckerman writes. “I scratched and I scratched and I scratched.”
And he concluded that “religion wasn’t really so much a private, personal issue, but rather, a nonissue.” His interviewees just didn’t care about it.
Beyond reticence, Mr. Zuckerman found what he terms “benign indifference” and even “utter obliviousness.” The key word in his description of their benign indifference is “nice.” Religion, in their view, is “nice.” Jesus “was a nice man who taught some nice things.” The Bible “is full of nice stories and good morals, isn’t it?”
Beyond niceness came utter obliviousness.
Thoughtful, well-educated Danes and Swedes reacted to Mr. Zuckerman’s basic questions about God, Jesus, death and so on as completely novel. “I really have never thought about that,” one of his interviewees answered, adding, “It’s been fun to get these kinds of questions that I never, never think about.”
This indifference or obliviousness to religious matters was sometimes subtly enforced. “In Denmark,” a pastor told Mr. Zuckerman, “the word ‘God’ is one of the most embarrassing words you can say. You would rather go naked through the city than talk about God.”
One man recounted the shock he felt when a colleague, after a few drinks, confessed to believing in God. “I hope you don’t feel I’m a bad person,” the colleague pleaded.
Social conformity or not, Mr. Zuckerman was deeply impressed with the matter-of-fact way in which many of his interviewees spoke of death, without fear or anxiety, and their notable lack of existential searching for any ultimate meaning of life.
A long list of thinkers, both believers and nonbelievers, have posited something like an innate religious instinct. Confronted by the mystery of death or the puzzle of life’s ultimate meaning, humans are said to be hard-wired to turn to religion or something like it. Based on his experience in Scandinavia, Mr. Zuckerman disagrees.
“It is possible for a society to exist in which most people don’t really fear death all that much,” he concluded, “and simultaneously don’t give a great deal of thought to the meaning of life.”
Are these Scandinavians out to prove that Socrates was wrong and the unexamined life is definitely worth living? Mr. Zuckerman emphasizes that his interviewees were in no way despairing nihilists but “for the most part, a happy, satisfied lot” who “generally live productive, creative, contented lives.”
André Comte-Sponville, the French philosopher whose “Little Book of Atheist Spirituality” (Viking, 2007) was discussed here two weeks ago, maintains that individuals can live well without religion but that society, or even humanity as a whole, needs a set of bonds that might be considered “sacred,” at least in the sense of something “that would justify, if necessary, the sacrifice of our lives.”
A fidelity to inherited values, a “nonreligiousness” that is “more than just an empty shell or an elegant form of amnesia,” is Mr. Comte-Sponvilles’s atheist answer to his own question, “What remains of the Christian West when it ceases to be Christian?”
He might find reassurance in Scandinavia and in Mr. Zuckerman’s description of the “cultural religion” that he discovered there. The interviewees affirmed a Christianity that seems to have everything to do with “holidays, songs, stories and food” but little to do with God or Creed, everything to do with rituals marking important passages in life but little to do with the religious meaning of those rituals.
Others may be puzzled or even repelled by the apparent dissonance, but Mr. Zuckerman, comparing it to the experience of many Jews in the United States and Israel, strives to make sense of it, and he suggests that it deserves much more study all around the world.
This cultural religion may partly explain aspects of Denmark and Sweden that he admires.
At one point, he queries Jens, a 68-year-old nonbeliever, about the sources of Denmark’s very ethical culture. Jens replies: “We are Lutherans in our souls — I’m an atheist, but still have the Lutheran perceptions of many: to help your neighbor. Yeah. It’s an old, good, moral thought.”
Scientific Faith vs. Religious Faith
Now of course it's true that scientists are only human. There's a certain amount of bias in everyone. Some of Science is politically or agenda driven. Some areas of Science are very new or under-researched for various reasons and there is much debate (e.g. String theory). Some areas of Science are 'softer' and more subject to opinions and bias, e.g. historical analysis, textual analyis. Some areas of Science are really more of a psuedo-science e.g. Diets & Psychoanalysis.
So how much faith / belief should we have in Science? Well, the rational thing to do is to have a level of faith / belief which is proportional to the credibility / success of the area in question.
The hard sciences have been acumulating proven knowledge (and the corresponding global concensus) for about 200+ years now. One study I read says that scientific knowledge is doubling every decade (which is an exponential curve). Clearly there are good reasons to have a lot of faith in the hard sciences. And in fact, everyone does, including the most extreme fundamentalists.
The Soft Sciences are less solid, but there has been some convergence. For example, while there is still much disagreemet about the exact authroship and composition of the Bible, there is global agreement amongst Biblical Scholars that the text is indeed composite, and has developed over hundreds of years.
So, my view is that where there is global agreement on something (based on evidence and reason), it is reasonable to consider it 'proven' science, (or at least as proven as possible), and have some faith in it. Where there are still huge areas of disagreement, it makes sense to reserve opinions, since clearly nobody has proven their case yet.
With religion, there really hasn't been any global agreement on anything much, except perhaps the idea that there is 'something' more out there than the physical plane (but I'm not sure if this is based on any real evidence, or just feelings). Not only is there no agreement, but there is no corresponding body of knowledge that has been created. In fact, the sum total of verified knowledge that has been created by religion in the last 3000 years is about zero (though religious opinions have certainly proliferated and continue to do so).
So when it comes to religion, I don't have a lot of faith in anything anyone says. If there was more agreement, I might. But even within Orthodoxy you have major disagreements about what the right derech is, and what God wants, so clearly no one really knows.
Does this mean that all religion is bunk? Not at all. Religion serves importat functions. It is the vehicle for values and ethics. It has ritual and community. It provides meaning (as long as you believe in it). But the claims of religion, whether historical or metaphysical claims, are something which require a huge amount of faith, because there's simply zero evidence, and more than that, the processes, credibility and past successes (as you find in Science) are essentially non existent.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Is this Kiruv Clowny or not? I can't quite decide
We owe a debt to the British Humanist Association for its advert on buses: “There’s probably no God.” It is thought-provoking in a helpful way, because it invites us to reflect not only on God but also on probability.
One of the discoveries of modern science is the sheer improbability of the Universe. It is shaped by six fundamental forces which, had they varied by an infinitesimal amount, the Universe would have expanded or imploded in such a way as to preclude the formation of stars. Unless we assume the existence of a million or trillion other universes (itself a large leap of faith), the fact that there is a universe at all is massively improbable.
So is the existence of life. Among the hundred billion galaxies, each with billions of stars, only one planet known to us, Earth, seems finely tuned for the emergence of life. And by what intermediate stages did non-life become life?
It’s a puzzle so improbable that Francis Crick was forced to argue that life was born somewhere else, Mars perhaps, and came here via meteorite, so making the mystery yet more mysterious.
How did life become sentient? And how did sentience grow to become self-consciousness, that strange gift, known only to Homo sapiens. So many improbabilities, Stephen J. Gould concluded, that if the process of evolution were run again from the beginning it is doubtful whether Homo sapiens would ever have been born.
You don’t have to be religious to have a sense of awe at the sheer improbability of things. A few weeks ago James le Fanu published a book Why Us?. In it he argues that we are about to undergo a paradigm shift in scientific understanding. The complexities of the genome, the emergence of the first multicellular life forms, the origins of Homo sapiens and our prodigiously enlarged brain: all these and more are too subtle to be accounted for on reductive, materialist, Darwinian science.
A week later Michael Brooks brought out 13 Things That Don’t Make Sense, the most important being human free will. The more science we learn, the more we understand how little we understand. The improbabilities keep multiplying, as does our cause for wonder.
And that’s just at the level of science. What about history? How probable is it that one man who performed no miracles and wielded no power, Abraham, would become the most influential figure who ever lived, with more than half of the six billion people alive today tracing their spiritual descent to him?
How probable is it that a tiny people, the children of Israel, known today as Jews, numbering less than a fifth of a per cent of the population of the world, would outlive every empire that sought its destruction? Or that a small, persecuted sect known as the Christians would one day become the largest movement of any kind in the world?
How probable is it that slavery would be abolished, that tyrannies would fall, that apartheid would end and that an African-American would be elected President of the US? Everything interesting in life, the Universe and the whole shebang is improbable, as Nicholas Taleb reminds us in The Black Swan, subtitled “The Impact of the Highly Improbable”. The book’s title is drawn from the fact that people were convinced that, since no one had ever seen a black swan, they did not exist — until someone discovered Australia.
One interesting improbability is that the man who invented probability theory, a brilliant young mathematician called Blaise Pascal, decided at the age of 30 to give up mathematics and science and devote the rest of his life to the exploration of religious faith.
Faith is the defeat of probability by the power of possibility. The prophets dreamt the improbable and by doing so helped to bring it about. All the great human achievements, in art and science as well as the life of the spirit, came through people who ignored the probable and had faith in the possible.
So the bus advertisement would be improved by a small amendment. Instead of saying “There’s probably no God”, it should read: “Improbably, there is a God”.
