Did Yonah really get swallowed by a fish?

I once asked this question to an expert in shul on Yom Kippur, and he looked at me as if I was stupid and said 'Of course not! Don't be stupid'. So I guess the answer is no.

But if that's not true, is the story of Yonah at all inspiring? So this year I asked the same expert to inspire me about Yonah - and this is what he said.

He said, what's the message of Sefer Yonah? I replied, Teshuva. He said, go on. I said, err, that Yonah didn't want Nineveh to do Teshuvah because it would make the Bnai Yisrael look bad. He said that was a high school answer. So I said, you tell me. So he said, the point is that Yonah didn't care about Nineveh. Presumably because they were goyim. And the entire message of Sefer Yonah, especially at the end with the moshol of the kikayon is that God says how can you not care? The whole book is very universalist.

I suppose that's true, and it's a good message for chareidim, but I found the book to be rather enigmatic, like most Biblical books. First of all, nowhere does the story actually give any reason why Yonah fled in the first place, why he didn't want to go to Nineveh, and why he was upset when they did Teshuvah. The medrash fills in the back story about embarrassing the Bnai Yisrael (or alternatively Yonah knew that the Assyrians would attack Israel in the future), but it's not in the written story, or at least not the version we have.

Secondly, the story of the kikayon is strange. After the plant dies, God asks Yonah if he is upset about the loss of the kikayon, and Yonah says yes, so upset he could die. And then God says, so if you are so upset about a kikayon which only lasted a day, how can I not be upset about a great city, with many cattle too. But this is a strange metaphor, because of course Yonah wasn't upset about the kikayon at all. He was upset because he lost his shade, and it was very hot. He couldn't give a damn about the actual plant. So the analogy doesn't really work.

Finally, for quite a moving story with an interesting ending and good moral message, why on earth did the original writers have to bring in the wacky swallowed by a fish motif? I mean, the story would have been perfectly good and quite Biblical without it. Very strange. (Chareidim: It's so strange it must be true!)

Bad Intellifundie Arguments

Here are two typical Intellifundie arguments that I have heard many times, most recently from Moshe.

1. You take many things on faith, for example your existence, so why not God?
2. I have intuition that God exists (or that TMS is true).

And here is why these arguments don't work.

1. This can be countered in two ways, each of which is independantly strong enough to reduce the argument to naught:

1a. A secheldic person takes nothing on faith. I think therefore I am. But I don't have faith that I exist in any actual way. I could be a brain in a jar, a figment of my imagination, a thought in the mind of God (or an alien), or in the matrix. Even according to Science what am I exactly? A collection of vibrating strings? And what are srtings made of? It's turtles (or strings) all the way down. The truth is since I'm thinking I can say I exist, but only because the definition of existence for me is to think. Any aspects of my existence apart from that are really an illusion, even (and especially) according to science. Solids are not actually "solid" and blue things are not actually "blue". So bottom line, I don't have any faith in any specific type of existence.

1b. Assuming I exist, and other minds are real, are basic assumptions that everyone has in order to function. However taking that basic assumption and then saying that we can also assume God, gods or the Loch Ness Monster exists is simply unwarranted. By the same logic we could assume anything exists. (Some Intellifendues will actually accept that just to win the argument).

A lot of skeptics go with 1b, but I think 1a is actually closer to the truth, certainly for me. I don't assume or have faith in anything where there is no evidence, unless it's from a biased perspective. Also, this argument doesn't really help the believers. Once you go radically skeptical, then nothing is real, and certainly not God.

2. Intuition is an interesting concept. What is it exactly? At some level, it is just a reflection of someone's experience and expertise. At another level, you could argue it's some kind of spooky ESP or something. But either way, it's idiotic for anyone to claim they have intuition unless they have a proven track record of being right. If I say I have intuition about who will win the World Series, and I get it right year after year, then I have something credible. If I say I have intuition but I have never gotten it right, or this is first time, then it's hit or miss. For people to say they have intuition that God exists, or that TMS is true, is simply another way of saying that they feel God exists or TMS is true. In other words bias! Now if they have a track record of being correct about the existence of supernatural entities then that would be another matter. But of course they don't.

I find it funny how the Intellifundies can't step out of their subjective brains for a second, look back at themselves from a more objective standpoint and just admit their bias. I guess that's hard to do, because that would open up a can of worms for them, which could be quite painful.

A few intellifundie's agree they are biased, but then say 'so is everyone'. There are two responses to that:

1. No, many people are not that biased, and attempt to discern the truth from an objective standpoint as possible. You're not even trying.

2. Everyone speaks loshon horah too, does that mean you should?

Bottom line: Of course all these faith based beliefs are due to bias i.e. emotionally wanting these beliefs to be true due to extranaeous reasons. And that's not neccessarily bad or wrong.

10 years of research at Columbia University proves what the yidden have known since 1200 BCE

Family Day – A Day to Eat Dinner with Your Children is a national movement launched by The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University in 2001. More than a decade of research by The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University has consistently found that the more often kids eat dinner with their families, the less likely they are to smoke, drink or use drugs.

To learn more about Family Day and to join parents all across America in taking the Family Day STAR pledge, log on to www.CASAFamilyDay.org.

I believe with complete bias that "God" exists

Is Faith just another word for bias? Of course it is! Duh. And what's wrong with that? I'd like to know, cos here I go again....

Bias is an issue for scientific facts. but talk of the supernatural is not scientific. I'm not sure what it is, but it's not about facts. It's about a certain orientation to life. So when it comes to asserting that life has meaning and value, and that the ground of all being is defined by "13 attributes of mercy" I see nothing scientific or factual about that at all. It's a subjective value statement, just like morality. And when it comes to morality, it's all about bias. And there's nothing wrong with that at all.

So what about TMS? Well, the historical fact of certain things being written at certain times by certain people is certainly factual (or not), and therefore "bias" could be an issue. But when it comes to asserting that certain texts (or rather ideas in the texts) are Divinely Inpsired, again, this is a value statement, and is of course subject to bias, as it should be.

Now please excuse me, I have to go and work so that I can afford to spend 60% of my salary on biasing my kids for the next 15 years. And I'm fine with that (though I wish it was more like 10%).

True Conversations

Believer: The DH hasn’t been definitively proven, and until it has, I will continue to have faith in TMS.
Skeptic: That’s ridiculous, why would you have faith in something which doesn’t look very likely?
Believer: Because I see that TMS is true, for many reasons.
Skeptic: So if you have all these reasons, why do you need faith?
Believer: Err, I have faith that my reasons are good.
Skeptic: So without faith your reasons are crappy?
Believer: Err, no, but without faith the evidence is inconclusive
Skeptic: So if the evidence is inconclusive, why would you believe 100% in TMS?
Believer: Because I have faith!
Skeptic: But if the evidence is inconclusive, why have faith in TMS being 100% true? Why not have faith in TMS being 100% false. Or better yet why not just admit that the matter is inconclusive?
Believer: I have faith that TMS is true, despite the inconclusive evidence, for many reasons.
Skeptic: So if you have all these reasons, why do you need faith?
Believer: Err, I have faith that my reasons are good.
Skeptic: So without faith your reasons are crappy?
Believer: No, without faith it could go either way. But with faith, I believe.
Skeptic: So if you could go either way, why do you believe?
Believer: Because I have faith!
Skeptic: But why do you have faith in the first place?
Believer: For many good reasons
Skeptic: Then it’s not faith, its reasons!
Believer: Yes, but they're not reasons which would hold up as evidence.
Skeptic: So what kind of reasons are they?
Believer: More personal. Not objective scientific reasons.
Skeptic: Personal reasons? You mean bias?
Believer: No, not bias. Just reasons of a more personal nature.
Skeptic: I don't get it. Either they are good reasons or bad reasons.
Believer: They're good reasons, but I wouldn't necessarily expect other people to be convinced by them.
Skeptic: Why not? Because they're not very convincing?
Believer: Not to someone else. But to me they are.
Skeptic: Why would they be convincing to you, but not someone else?
Believer: Because they are more emotional than intellectual. They're hard to explain.
Skeptic: Emotional personal reasons sounds exactly like bias
Believer: Well, everyone is biased, including you.
Skeptic: So if you have the same bias as everyone else, and you have emotional personal reasons for believing TMS to be true, in what way do you have faith?
Believer: Well, I do believe in TMS.
Skeptic: Yes, but you believe for good reasons!
Believer: OK, so I don't have faith then. I have reasons. Happy?
Skeptic: So why have you written all these silly posts about faith?
Believer: For other people who may not have good reasons
Skeptic: But if they don't have good reasons, why should they have faith?
Believer: Because they should have faith in our tradition
Skeptic: Ahh, faith in. OK, so why should they trust our mesorah and not someone elses?
Believer: For many reasons.
Skeptic: So if there are good reasons to trust our Mesorah as reliable, then why do they need faith?
Believer: Reason can only get you so far. After that, you need faith.
Skeptic: So can reason get you to the point where TMS is true or not?
Believer: I believe it can.
Skeptic: So why do you need faith?
Believer: I personally don't. But other people might.
Skeptic: But why can't reason get them any further, like with you?
Believer: Everyone is different.
Skeptic: So let me get this straight. You have reasons why TMS is true. Good reasons. But they are personal, non biased reasons which are difficult to explain to other people. Therefore you encourage other people to have simple faith, if they can't see sufficient reasons. Is that it?
Believer: Err, something like that, I guess.
Skeptic: Hmmmm.

Hirhurim: Faith is a Four Letter Word

What is faith?

Let's analyze. If faith was based on sound evidence and/or good reasons then it wouldn't be called faith, it would be called knowledge or reason. Nobody says I have faith that 2=2=4, or that things fall down, not up. And nobody, except possibly sme exrteme Christian irrationalists, is going to argue that faith based beliefs are more true than evidence based beliefs.

And likewise, on the opposite extreme, if the belief was absolutely invented fantasy apparent for all to see, then likewise no normal person would call it faith either. They would agree that it's fantasy. Nobody really believes in the FSM for example.

So faith clearly lies in between stories which are obviously invented with zero reasons to believe in them, and things which have good evidence and/or reasons.

So, why would someone believe in something if the evidence is lacking? Sure, they have reasons, but we have already established that those reasons can't be that good, because if they were, then it wouldn't be faith.

So, mimah nafshach, when Gil Student (for example - I like Gil and I don't have it in for him, but he's the guy who keeps posting about faith) says that he has faith in TMS (for example), what is he talking about?

If he has good reasons why, given ALL the evidence, TMS is most likely true, then he has Reason to believe TMS, it's not Faith. And if the evidence (and any other logical reasons) doesn't show that TMS is most likely to be true, then why is he believing it? After all, he doesn't believe KMS, or MMS or any other religious claim. So why is he believing this claim, despite the lack of good evidence?

There's only one possible answer. And that's BIAS. He wants to believe it for reasons which have nothing to do whether it is true or not. This is called BIAS my friends. Or possibly (misplaced) loyalty. Or any one of a number of emotions, all of which are the common cause of bias.

Gil will probably get round this by saying the evidence is inconclusive either way, and he has subjective reasons to think that TMS is true. But why would he think the evidence is inconclusive, yet still believe 100%? The only possible answer is again bias. You don't see him believing in anything else 100% with no clear evidence either way.

The bottom line is that when you dig into anyones faith based beliefs you will always uncover the following - ALWAYS - a layer of not so great (or truly awful) "reasons" which the believer places way too much emphasis on because he wants to believe for exrtaneous reasons i.e. BIAS.

This is ALWAYS the case, I absolutely guarantee it. Why? Because if the reasons were great that the belief was actually most likely true, then it wouldn't be faith. And if there was no reason whatsoever, nobody in the right mind would believe it.

So is all faith bad?

I think there's one element of faith which is good. And that is the element of optimism. You could easily look at the world and think it's all pointless, and you may as well just enjoy yourself or give up.

Faith in the world, in humanity, in the future, in yourself, in your family: That's all a good type of faith. Even if the evidence shows things might not turn out so well. That kind of optimism is valuable and important.

But while I think it's good to be "optimistic" about the future, being "optimistic" about the past i.e. that past history actually conforms to your religious version of history - well, that's not really optimism. That's just bias.

And bias has 4 letters (in case you didn't get it).

Hartman Institute tackles the Ikkarim

One of my friends/Rabbis - actually many of my friends are Rabbis - go figure (perhaps they are following the old adage, keep your friends close and your enemies closer) is on the Hartman Scholars Circle group, and their project for this year is something to do with "Ikkarim". It's an eclectic group, with a mix of OJ/Conservative/Reform Rabbis/Academics and others, see here for names. I suggest that they abolish the ikkarim completely, but I'm not sure that is the goal of the project. Anyway, as a world class expert on the ikkarim, I expected to be invited. I see Yehudah Kurtzer is on there - that guy stole my Bronfman award and now he got onto the scholars circle too. No fair!

Mussar from Moshe

I would take issue with the apparent assumption that religion, and specifically Judaism, is supposed to make one feel "good". To the contrary, the prophet tells us "Woe to those who are at ease in Zion". To be religious is first and foremost to be a partner with God in repairing the world under his sovereignty, and to do that you have to be concerned first in foremost with the needs of others. There is an old hasidic saying to the effect that most people are concerned with their own physical needs and other people's morality, when in reality it should be the other away around.

How can I be a religious person if I am first and foremost mainly concerned with my own pleasure? Should I be worrying mainly about my "highs" in a world where:

-mass murder is still being committed in places
-billions of people are denied basic democratic freedoms
-millions of people in the USA have inadequate health care
-a few can make billions of dollars themselves, while in the process nearly drive the world's economy into a depression with impunity
--thousands of Jewish families have to nearly impoverish themselves to obtain a Jewish education
--a madman threatens the extinction of the State of Israel and is pursuing the means to make that threat a reality
--many more thousands of Jewish children do not receive any sort of proper Jewish education
--thousands of senior citizens are living lonely lives in old age homes, rarely visited by anyone
---Rabbinic leaders commit brazen criminal offenses and thus shame the Jewish people.

I could go on. My point is that I am not at all convinced that feeling good is God's first priority for us down here, as far as I can tell from the sacred texts of Judaism. Certainly, asceticism is not encouraged either. But neither is a vapid quest for pleasure. One need go no further than read the upcoming haphtorah for Yom Kippur to see what we are truly called upon to do.

So if one wants a true religious "high", may I suggest trying one or more of the following:

1. Visit a lonely senior in an old age home.
2.If you are financially able, pay for a month of yeshiva for a poor Jewish child
3.Say a kind word to someone in your shul whom you don't get along with so well.
4. Refrain from using insulting epithets against commenter to your blog with whom you disagree.
5. Increase your tzedakah giving, and take the time to study and become familiar with the organizations whom you donate to, to make sure the money is well used.
6. Hire a needy person to build your succah and pay him more than the job is worth.
7. Don't sit down to your yontif meal without making adequate provisions for a poor family to eat at least as well as yours is.
8. Write your elected representatives and tell them that it is a disgrace that people should be driven into bankruptcy in a rich society because they are struck down by an unexpected illness.
9. Attend a rally protesting Iran's nuclear ambitions.

We say in the Yomim Noraim liturgy "Seek God where He is to be found." And where is that? "Close is God to those who are broken in spirit". Raise the spirits of the lowly, the oppressed, and the downtrodden, and your spirit will be made "high" in the process.

Getting High on Religion

There's a fascinating article on pot in last week's New York magazine. I only tried a joint once, and I didn't inhale, so I'm no expert, but the article made me think about getting high.

Seems to me there's a variety of "highs":

Runners High

I assume this applies to swimmers, cyclists and climbers too - the rush of endorphins creates a real high. I've never experienced this, when I run all I get is nauseous.

Sexual High

Again probably due to endorphins or some similar chemical. Errm, I guess as a married man with kids it would not be inapropriate to admit that I have experienced this. All with the correct kavanahs of course.

Drug Induced High

Never felt this unfortunately, but I hear it's gooooood.

Art Induced High

Mabe this doesn't qualify as a high - but some people can get very moved by music, or I guess even a book, a painting or a movie. Personally I think some good music can certainly enhance the high of a situation, but it's rare (at least for me) that music by itself can induce a high. Unless it's the thrill of discovering some new song, like wot happened to me last week when I chanced upon Me & Bobby McGee.

Religious High

Then of course there's the religious high. Mystics feel this most intensly, and there are some interesting personal accounts around, mostly from kabalists and the like. Were these people on drugs? Or was it a genuine spiritual high? (Same question could be asked about the Neviim). I personally have felt a spiritual high, so I can see how its possible.

Is there any difference between these highs? Are they all just chemical states in the brain? Seems probable that chemicals have something (or more probably everything) to do with it, as one can easily induce religious type experiences with various drugs.

But the real spiritual high (I think) isn't just a great feeling, a religious orgasm. I think a real spiritual high is a feeling of oneness with the world, a feeling of morality, of altrusim, of joy, of awe, of all good things.

Can certain types of drugs induce similar feelings? I'm not so sure. Yes, some drugs make you feel very connected, but then you don't actually go and do anything about it. Rather you just sit around in a daze feeling all connected with everyone (or so I've read). Only the religious high seems to motivate someone to actually go do good deeds.

Were the ancients experts at inducing highs? Was religion just a way of tapping into some higher consciousness, without a lot of tedious messing around with bongs? Could be. But it seems to me that they were onto something, and skeptics are missing out here.

Can a skeptic reach a religious or spiritual high? I hope so. My Rabbi says that the Modern Orthodox are spiritually stunted, and I agree. I don't see a lot of highs in shul. And of course there are some advantages of keeping cool and level headed at all times. But surely a high once in a while would be good, especially if it motivates you to do good things.

I want the high!

Oru oru, ad hayesoyd boh: Moiradick Mussar Min Hashomayim

A few weeks ago we had some flooding in our basement, so I called the local OJ Mr Fixit and he assured me it was just an external drainage problem, and there was nothing more seriously wrong than that. So I paid him to fix the drainage, and lo and behold the flooding stopped.

For a week.

This week, with all the rain (a clue!) the flooding came back with a vengeance, ruining half my basement carpet. I analyzed the situation and decided that the problem was in the basement walls. So I started ripping off the sheetrock. As I was doing this I thought, man this is crazy, I'm ripping away at the foundations of my house, do I even know what I'm doing? Do I have any experience at this? But my gut told me to persevere.

As the sheetrock started to peel away, I found the problem. And it was serious. The synthetic stucco (another clue!) that covers my house had been compromised, and the external wall was rotten and mouldy. True, fixing the damage and rebuilding will be painful and costly, but what choice do I have? The OJ Mr Fixit was wrong, trying to paper over serious foundational issues with band aids which did nothing except make the problem worse as the rot spread.

Sometimes you have to tear down to rebuild. And this my friends is the moiradick mussar. The foundations of our religion have become rotten with age. It's nobody's fault, these things happen. But foundational issues are serious, they cannot be papered over with kvetches. Some serious rebuilding must be done. There's no other choice. Yes it will be painful. Yes it will be costly. But what else can we do? We need a house to live in, and we can't afford to move. And even if we could afford to move, I wouldn't want to move. We have our friends and community here.

I don't talk enough about mussar, but I should, because mussar is one of the crown jewels of Judaism. (And it turns out that Bibi's shverre is a genuine Nevardoker! Plus he's my relative. Just had to get that it in there.)

So anyway, I must go now to Home Depot. To buy some milk of course.

New Year, New Start

I'm wondering if there's much point in my "Orthoprax & Proud" movement, at least in my neck of the woods, considering that the Baal Keriah in shul both days was a fully fledged published Heteredox guy, and plenty of OPs got major kibbudim, even Maftir. Heck, even the page turning guy was OP :^)

So maybe it's time to get back to theology again. I read Louis Jacobs book "Faith" in shul, and he had some good insights. I also started to read Ian Pear's book, the Accidental Zionist. Pear is the Rabbi of Shir Chaddash in Jerusalem, and the Pears sound like a cool couple. His book was a little kiruvy, but he too had some good ideas.

Of course nobody actually knows anything about God, but major Jewish thinkers agree with this. For example, the Kabbalists never talk much about Ein Sof, because there's nothing to say about Ein Sof. The most you can talk about is God's manifestation in the world. And when you limit your discussions to God's manifestation in the world, you're not really talking about God at all, but rather about stuff in the world.

Pre Rosh Hashanah Mussar For Skeptics

Shanah Tovah!

How should Orthopraxers behave?

Some people seem to have misunderstood my previous posts, so lets get a few things straight.

1. I do not advocate being rude to people or making fun of other people's beliefs (in real life). On the blog I will go after Intellefundies who deserve it.

2. I did not say that LWMO should declare itself OP, or that people should become OP. What I said is that the OP element in LWMO, which I estimate at roughly 50% - including Heterodox, should stand up and be proud.

3. By "stand up and be proud" I mean not be in the closet and be ashamed. That doesn't mean try and convert OJ people, nor does it mean be rude to anyone. It means stand up for your beliefs.

Now some people advocate more of a "lie low and don't make any trouble" strategy. I'm not out to make trouble specifically (not in real life), but neither am I willing to live in the closet.

Amazing Shailah and Teshuvah on the Age of the Universe

Here's one for the record books:

A shailoh from HaGaon (sic) R Leib Tropper to Reb Chaim Kanievsky:

Question

There's a woman who want to convert, and to sincerely accept the yoke of Torah and Mitzvos, yet in conversation with her it turns out that she believes God created the Universe, but thousands or even millions of years ago, and she's not inclined to believe our estimation of the age of the world [~6000 years old]. Can she be converted? And, if she was already converted, is the conversion valid?

Answer

It is forbidden to convert her, and even if she was already converted it requires analysis to determine if the conversion is actually valid.

Does this make me mad? Not at all! This woman dodged a bullet. Anyways, why is she asking Leib Tropper to convert her? Silly woman, if you really must convert to a fundamentalist religious sect at least go to a nice MO Rabbi. But make sure he's on the RCA, is not a YCT nick, and he's well accepted. Just to be safe.

Up Next: Can you give Maftir to someone who thinks the Mabul was local?

Are Orthopraxers Parasites?

An Orthopraxical guy that I know, let's call him H (H for Heterodox of course!), left the following comment:

"Orthopraxy cannot survive without orthodoxy. Ergo, your truth cannot survive without their lies. You are a parasite, in effect.

Now, it is okay to be a parasite; but it is counterproductive for you to either (1) try to kill off your host body by insisting that it is built on lies and self-deception, or (2) provoke the host body with name-calling and strident criticism to the point that it feels the need to purge itself of parasites like you.

To be clear: I'm a parasite too, just like you. But I recognize that parasites are more likely to survive if they aren't either too successful or too much of a nuisance."

So let's analyze this. I think there are two or three different points to discuss here.

1. Are the OP parasites?

2. If they are not, is there still a moral problem in proclaiming OP?

3. If it's not a moral problem, is it still a practical problem?

Let's start with 1. I don't really agree with the whole parasite analogy, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, in my shul, and I would assume in most LWMO shuls, and even a few centrist MO shuls, and even a few Chareidi BT style shuls, you have a large population of Heterodox and Orthoprax. Certainly in LWMO the Heterodox/Orthoprax ratio is quite high, I think roughly 50%. When you have 50% of a community being OP, you can't call them parasites! It's half the dues paying members!

So maybe you'll argue that even if half the membership is OP, the fact is the OPs aren't shochtim, Rabbis, Baalei Keriah, Mechanchim and so on. They need the OJ to supply all those services. But I don't buy this argument either. Firstly, the same argument applies to MO as a whole. How many MO shochtim are there (in this country)? How many times do we hear that MO schools are full of UO Rabbeim, because of the shortage of MO Rabbeim? This isn't being a parasite, it's just market economics, supply and demand. The MO (or the OP) don't want to perform these functions, the OJ and the UO do. [Also, I know quite a few secretly OP Rabbis.]

Now we can move onto 2. Maybe the issue is not so much being a parasite per se, but rather that since the OJ and the OP are in the same shul, the OP shouldn't go insulting the OJ for their beliefs. And I would say, of course, if you happen to have an OJ/UO Baal Tefilah for example, then it would be rude to go up to him in shul and call him an idiot for believing in TMS. But I'm not advocating that anyways, and never have. What I am advocating is that OPers don't need to be embarrassed and in the closet. They should be out and proud. I may be a bit rude sometimes on the blog, but it's just a blog. I try not to be like that in real life. Well, not too much anyways.

Finally, number 3, the practical issue. And maybe this is really what H meant to say with his whole "parasite" analogy. Practically speaking, since we are in bed with the MO, and practically speaking, since there are not that many OP shuls around (if any), and since we don't really want to go daven with the Conservatives, then we shouldn't rock the boat. MO, even LWMO is constrained by what they can accept, and a "don't ask, don't tell" policy is best for all. I hear this argument, and I have heard it from H a number of times.

But, I have to disagree. MO, and especially LWMO, claim to be in the modern world. Well, for anyone with a half a brain, the notion that TMS and many other fundamentals of Judaism are not exactly proven science shouldn't be much of a chiddush. And more importantly, the notion that Biblical Criticism and ANE History have something important to say should not exactly be a heretical notion either. LWMO needs to come to grips with reality. And the reality is half of LWMO are OP, and that's nothing to be ashamed of. In fact, it's something to be proud of.

I think what really motivates people like H is fear. These people live in the closet, and like to portray themselves as straight up MO types. Maybe they're even embarrassed to admit that they are skeptics. But I say, be skeptic and be proud! What's to be ashamed of? On the contrary, you are on the side of truth.

So maybe H and company will say, that's all very well, but OJ being as it is, there's a very real danger that if you push too hard then MO will have no choice but to throw you out, however proud you are. But I don't think there's much danger of that. LWMO, and certainly my shul, isn't throwing anyone out (at least not since we got our new Rabbi har de har). Heck, even the local Chareidi shul has a policy of welcoming absolutely everyone. If MO kicked us out we could always go there :)

No, I think what really bothers H is not the future of Orthopraxy, but rather his own embarrassment at being labeled a heretic by the fundies. I say, be heretical and be proud! What's to be embarassed about? And anyway, if you are frum and openly OP, everyone will just write you off as an eccentric and ignore you. It's no biggie.

But more seriously, I think we have an issue similar to that in Israel, where the only type of religion allowed is OJ religion and Reform and Conservative are not an option. This results in Chilonim being completely alienated from Judaism. I think there's a somewhat similar thing going on here - to be observant you have to be OJ, and you have to (at least publicly) pretend to be a believer. And that turns people off. But if there was a movement for observant OPs, that would provide more choice in the marketplace. [And in fact there is a movement for observant OPs, it's called LWMO. But it's kinda hush hush.]

Finally, Moshe says well why don't you just be honest and call yourselves Observant Reconstructionist. Well I do! (Actually I call myself Chareidi Reconstructionist). Moshe also suggests that instead of harassing LWMO, we should just go and join a Reconstructionist Shul. But that's not a great solution, because I want to create a community of Observant Reconstructionists, and there's a lot more of them in LWMO than there is in any Reconstructionist Shul.

Aha! say the skeptics. See? You can't create a sustainable OP community. Thats why there are no Observant Reconstructionists in Reconstructionist Shuls. And I say tosh! (Not the Rebbe). Stop being so obsessed with sustainable communities. Worry about yourself and your children. And leave the rest to HakodoshBoruchHu. Or Free Market Economics. As Chazal say, don't worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow you may be dead, and then you will have worried about a world which isn't yours.

[Aaah, but what if you are davkah worrying about dying tomorrow? Then what do Chazal say? Nu, it's a kashye. You won't die from a kashyeh. Though you might die from worrying.]

The Myth of Orthodox Resilience

Commonly accepted wisdom, at least in the jblogosphere, is that only Orthodoxy has staying power, because only in Orthodoxy is there a fundamental underlying reason to be Observant - namely that an all powerful God commands you to observe, and will severely punish you if you don't practice.

But if you look around, you'll see plenty of non believing Jews practicing out of love, devotion, a sense of meaning and value and all sorts of reasons, none of which are that they have to practice because God said so. And in many walks, apart from Judaism, you will find people doing all sorts of things, even sacrificing their lives, for all sorts of ideals and causes, none of which have anything to do with God.

No, the idea that Judaism can only survive with Orthodoxy comes from the Orthodox themselves, who mostly would give everything up if they didn't have to keep it, because the only reason most of them are keeping it in the first place is because they were either forced or brainwashed to, or more commonly forced and brainwashed.

Some Orthodox might point to the vast wave of assimilation and non observance in the 18th, 19th and early twentieth centuries as proof that you can only remain Jewish if you remain Orthodox. But that shift to non observance and assimilation is as much an aberration to the Orthodox viewpoint as it is to any other. What happened back then? It was a combination of historical factors, few of which apply nowadays.

Some skeptics (and Orthodox) might point to the recent shift to the left of the Conservative movement as proof that Orthopraxy can't last. But the Conservative movement was never fully Orthoprax. They barely practiced anything, and certainly did not fill their congregants with a sense of commitment and loyalty to tradition and traditional rituals and culture.

Instead, a much better analogy is to marriage. How many people marry a fantasy version of their wives? I would bet almost everybody, even those people who date for months and years. You can never really know someone until you live with them as husband and wife. Then you see that the fantasy you married has a different reality. And even if your appraisal of your spouse was on the mark, who doesn't change after a few years of marriage, a few kids, and the other trials and tribulations of getting older?

The fact is, most people, after a few years, will admit that the person they thought they married is actually someone else completely. Does this mean that everyone should get divorced? Well, some do, unable to accept the reality. But most don't. True, some people are stuck in loveless marriages, but most people will tell you a different story. While some of the things they originally thought about their spouse turned out to be untrue, they have discovered other (and perhaps even better) character traits that they never even knew their spouse had.

For example, I had no way of knowing what type of mother (or proffessional) my wife would turn out to be. When we married, she had no kids and was just out of school. Yet she turned out to excel in both. Likewise we have built a home together and had children. The love, loyalty and commitment that arises from a shared life together cannot be measured, and is far stronger than any false fantasies we had originally.

I see the same thing with Judaism. True, we now realize that a lot of the founding stories are actually myths, told over by over-eager "shadchanim". But was the marriage a mekach tous? Not at all! We have now been "married" for 2500 (or more) years. What couple gets divorced on their 80th wedding anniversary because it turned out that some of the things they thought about each other in 1930 turned out to be false?!

We have been married to God and Torah for so long that how can we do anything else! We are committed and loyal to our rich culture and tradition, which certainly has much of value in it.

Some skeptics, on finding out that their wife is not actually a natural blomd, or maybe she gets moody sometimes, feel they have to divorce, that they've been sold a false bill of goods. But those of us who have been married a while know that true value goes deeper than superficial things.

Meanwhile, those Orthodox who stay married out of fear of punishment or greed of reward, they're going to be somewhat dissapointed. It's not about some mythical incomprehensible future afterlife - it's about the here and now. Your life is now - so live it. And living life certainly includes paying due attention and mindfulness to tradition and culture. Not traditional beliefs, which have been all but proven false, but traditional practices, values, culture and rituals.

Not only that, I feel we have a duty to keep passionate committed Judaism alive for the non Orthodox. Why should the false OJ version have the monopoly on "authentic" Judaism? Sure, they have the monopoly on authentically FALSE Judaism. In fact of all the various Jewish sects Orthodoxy is the most demonstrably false by far. It's not even a contest. But "authentic Judaism"? No way. Authentic Judaism didn't believe in things which were provably false. On the contrary, authentic Judaism railed against provably false Gods made of stone, or provably false practices such as witchcraft. Authentic Judaism was about values and morals, which we can still keep today.

I think this emphasis, from both skeptics and believers alike, that "if it's not true I'm not doing it" comes from the general narcissistic culture we find worldwide today (even in the frummest communities). It's gotten so bad that some academics are even calling it the "narcissism epidemic", on par with obesity or H1N1. Everybody is most concerned with themselves, even the frum crowd. That's why nobody could be bothered to commit or sacrifice unless there was some eternal reward for it.

Is that authentic Judaism? On the contrary, Chazal say that we should be like servant who serve out of love (of mitzvos) not out of greed for reward or fear of punishment.

So this Rosh Hashanah, if you are Orthoprax, you should be triply proud. Firstly, you are keeping Judaism for all the right reasons, with pure motives. Secondly, you have truth on your side. And Thirdly, you are the true authentic Jew!

The Nobility of Orthopraxy

A while back, I was desperate to be included amongst the Orthodox. And I know some skeptics who still desperately try to claim the title Orthodox, through various twisted logic or outright fakery.

But I've come to realize that the Orthodox label is actually somewhat of a booshah. And this is not because of the Orthodox child molesters, tax fraudsters and other scandals, but rather because the very concept is an embarrassment in this day and age.

Orthodoxy is basically fundamentalism, i.e. the holding of certain beliefs no matter what the evidence. And this is a rather silly position, certainly when the evidence does not support your claim, and even more so when all the evidence is against your claim.

Why do people (even some secular Jews) think that there's something noble about Orthodoxy? What's so noble about forcing yourself and those around you to believe in things that are most likely untrue? The answer is that what people are really impressed by is the sacrifice, the loyalty to tradition, and things like that.

But in reality, all that is good and noble about Orthodoxy applies in far greater ways to Orthopraxy. The Orthodox keep halachah because they sincerely believe that an all powerful God, with a long history of severely punishing sinners and heretics, will "get them" if they don't. Plus, even better, if they do keep halachah, they can be guaranteed an eternally blissful afterlife. What kind of person wouldn't want that? What kind of person would commit an aveiroh knowing that they were rebelling against an all seeing all knowing God? Only a retard would do that. Or someone who just isn't a very good person.

The Orthoprax on the other hand keep halachah out of sheer duty and love. They don't expect a reward for doing so, and they don't fear a punishment for not keeping halachah. They do it out of much purer and much more noble motives than the Orthodox. I'm not saying they have perfect motives, but they have purer motives.

But not only are the Orthopraxers much bigger tzaddikim in their halachic practice than the Orthodox, they score much better in another key area.

Chazal teach that "Chosamo shel hakodosh boruch hu emes" - The seal of God is Truth. And even if you don't believe in God, there's no question that every culture values truth. Yet, by any reasonable standard of evidence and reasoning, the evidence does not point to OJ. That doesn't necessarily mean that OJ is 100% false, but it certainly does not look very likely to be true, given the evidence.

But what do the Orthodox counter to this? Basically, apart from arguments which go nowhere, they always fall back on "you gotta have faith". And even worse, they insist that their children must believe in all this, and punish them in various ways if they don't. And even worse, I know many Orthodox Rabbis and educators (mostly MO) who in private will admit that they don't believe in many of the ikkarim, but would never say so publicly. So they are promoting things that they don't even believe! There is no way that the evidence is on the side of OJ.

And what about tradition, and loyalty to the tribe? Well, both groups would seem to have a certain amount of loyalty. But again, the Orthoprax win. Because with the Orthodox, much of the motivation for loyalty and tradition is in reality fear of punishment and greed for reward. But with the Orthoprax, it's much purer loyalty and tradition.

Whichever way you look at it, the Orthoprax are better. They are more emmesdick, they are more loyal, their motives for sticking with tradition are purer, and their halachick observance is with lishmoh motivation, not out of fear or greed.

So this Rosh Hashanah, if you are Orthoprax, be proud! You know you have truth on your side. It's the Orthodox who should be worried.

A Torah True Lifestyle in a Torah True Neighborhood with Torah True Neighbors and Torah True Values

All this can be yours in Stepford Waterbury, Connecticut

http://www.blueridgewaterbury.com/video.html

Note: Non Torah True people need not apply.

Is Teaching Emunah "Education"?

In this month's Mishpachah Magazine (and probably shortly to be in Cross-Currents) Jonathan Rosenblum writes about the problem of kids and adults going OTD because they were never "taught" emunah.

He quotes Rabbi Sapirman:

"A large percentage of our youth are religious only because they were brought up that way, and they believe only because that is what religious people do," ... "The average bochur in his late teens, for instance, says he believes, "but truthfully he neither believes nor disbelieves. He is simply moving along the conveyor belt that leads him from cradle to kollel"

He goes on to say that teachers must not be afraid of questions, and that everything (of course!) has an answer:

"As the great mashgiach of our generation Rabbi Shlomo Wolbe used to say, "There is no such thing as a heretical question, only a heretical answer... Any question that will be asked has already been discussed in one of the classic Jewish Texts"

[I bet I can think of a heretical question! And where does a "Classic Jewish Text" deal with the DH, or the fact that Geogology disproves the Mabul?]

The whole article is of course blissfully and ironically and incredibly unself aware, as are many of JR's articles, and as are all OJ articles on this particular topic ('We must let our children ask questions, that way they won't go OTD!').

But what does it mean to teach someone emunah? Will someone have emunah just because you go through all the details of the ikkarim with them? Can you make someone believe something just because you teach them about it? Of course not. We are not talking about teaching them the details of the ikkarim, like we would teach the details of the Declaration of Independance. We are talking about indoctrination in beliefs. Young kids are impressionable, and if you indoctrinate them heavily enough from a young age, with charismatic teachers, peer pressure etc etc it will probably stick. But it's not about education. It's about indoctrination.

I find it funny that many MOs squirm at the use of the word "indoctrination" to describe Jewish edcuation. But what else can it possibly be? MO are certainly not educating children from a pluralistic standpoint (e.g. OJ says this but Reform says that), as a head of a local community (non Orthodox) school once told me he does. No, we're telling them Moshe wrote the whole Torah and anything else is kefirah.

That's not education.

Living in the past

I seem to be living in the past these days. I just got an old car. New cars are too "blobby" and lack character. My 'new' digital camera is from 2001 (which is virtually prehistoric in digital camera years) but they don't make those kind of cameras anymore. New cameras (non DSLR) are too small and plasticky. (OK, the E-P1 is the exception). I exclusively listen to music from the 60s, 70s and 80s. I can't think of a single group or singer who did anything particularly good in the 90s or 2000s and I detest virtually all modern music (though I do like Kate Nash). In terms of Jewish Music, I like early MBD, London School of Jewish Song and Diaspora Yeshivah, all of which were produced in the 70s and 80s. My next music purchase will be the Beatles in Mono, and if I had the money, I'd buy vinyl and get a turntable. Even TV seemed better back then. I'd rather watch a rerun of Monty Python (or even Rowan and Martin's Laugh In) than 99% of the TV shows on nowadays. There's actually nothing I like from the 90s and 2000s at all. Well, except for smartphones with GPS and modern medicine. Also, people seem more stressed these days. Have I turned into an old fogey? Or am I trying to recreate a happier time, when ignorance was bliss and nobody I knew was dead. Or maybe things really have gone down hill since 1990. Maybe I'm pessimistic, but I think we are witnessing the beginning of the decline and fall of Western Civilization. Well, either that or ikvasa demeshichah.

Does the Rav deserve to be worshipped?

I was chatting with some folks about Hirhurim's Google Manipulation debacle (even worse than the Harry Potter Epistemic Uncertainty post, but not quite as bad as "Reshimu is the future") and we got to talking about how the RWMO get particularly upset when anyone besmirches the Rav.

But how great was the Rav? Few people read or understand his books, and his solutions to the problems of modern life are virtually non existant, having famously said "I have never been bothered by Biblical Criticism, Science, Evolution or anything else" (or something like that).

The Rav doesn't seem that great to me. So why do the RWMO worship him so? I guess when you only have 1 Godol, you gotta worship him big time (har har). Personally, I think the Chief is way better. Though ultimately a bit of (actually a lot of) an intellifundie.

So who should be the Godol of choice for the LWMO/Orthoprax ? Mordechai Kaplan is the obvious choice, but I don't know too much about him personally. I need my Gedolim to be tzaddikim as well as giants of Torah. I guess I'll have to read Mel Scult's book to see what he was like.

Who else could we worship? Rabbi Avi Weiss? Rav Kook? Zalman Shachter Shalomi? Neil Gilman? Eugene Borowitz? Sherwin Wine? Could we even worship Chareidi Gedolim (assuming we can find any who are tzaddikim)?

We gotta worship someone.

How to deal with kannoim: Throw 'em out the window

This is a strange story. Leib Tropper, one of the kannoim in the Science & Torah debate, accused Brazilian billionaire Guma Aguiar of threatening to throw him out of the window, apparently because Leib Tropper testified against him at some trial. In return, Guma Aguiar is claiming that he gave Tropper $10 million to distribute to various charities, but the money wasn't given. What's the real truth? I have no idea. But he wouldn't be the first kanoi called Leib to be taken down.

So who is this Guma Aguiar guy? Apparently he gave a lot of money to Nefesh BeNefesh, March of the Living and Betar Yerushalayim. And this was all because he made a fluke natural gas discovery near Houston, and that made him realize that God was behind everything, and he became a BT and made aliyah. See here.

Authentic Judaism

RW MO is Authentic Judaism
RW MO is Authentic Judaism
RW MO is Authentic Judaism
RW MO is Authentic Judaism
RW MO is Authentic Judaism
RW MO is Authentic Judaism
RW MO is Authentic Judaism
RW MO is Authentic Judaism
RW MO is Authentic Judaism
RW MO is Authentic Judaism
RW MO is Authentic Judaism
RW MO is Authentic Judaism
RW MO is Authentic Judaism
RW MO is Authentic Judaism
RW MO is Authentic Judaism
RW MO is Authentic Judaism
RW MO is Authentic Judaism

And so is LW MO / Orthoprax.

Authentic or Spoof?

Hirhurim brings this rather crazy blog to our attention. It's standard RWUO hashkafos, though it's written in such an absurdly insulting tone that it's hard to believe that the author is serious. Or maybe the author is 15 years old. Or maybe he is mentally ill like a certain other blogger I could mention. I think it might be a spoof, kinda like one I once did, though it's an awful lot of content for a spoof. Anyway, Gil's plan to lower its Google ranking is very silly. And Gil isn't that silly, so I suspect Gil has ulterior motives in bringing it to our attention. Anyway, it's an enjoyable read. But beware, the whole thing might be an ip address phishing exercise, so be warned!

Do the Copenhagen/Sheffield Schools harm the credibility of Biblical Scholarship?

Yes and no. Let me explain.

(Note: I got this from an expert. And when I say expert, I mean someone who knows Tenach forwards and backwards, and can read it in Hebrew, English, Greek, Summarian and Akkadian and probably a few other languages too. Also I am reconstructing this from memory, so I might have some of the names mixed up, but the basic essence is correct).

So the whole thing started in 1992 with a book by Davies where he proposed (purely as a possibility) that contary to popular academic opinion, the Bible was not redacted in the 500-600 BCE range but rather by post exilic Israelites returning from Babylon, and anxious to prove their "history" in the land. This theory then got further expanded by Tommy Thompson (not the former secretary of the DHHS) who argued that it was redacted even later, in the Greek/Hellenistic period. Then Blenkinsop went even further, and proposed that it wasn't even redacted by former Israelites, but rather Persians (or Hellenists?) who returned to Israel, or who were anxious to cement their grip on Israel, redacted (or invented) a bunch of ancient mythologies to create a history in the land, and that the real Israelites (if there even were any) long since disapperared due to war and exile. So according to that we are not even Jewish! Later, Davies seemed to move away from his initial hypothesis, possibly as a result of Finklestein. The whole thing has also become very politicized, because the claims of the minimalists play well into the radical left wing pro Palestinians. Here is a sample article of the genre.

Anyways, the point is that there is significant debate about who redacted the final version(s) and when and why. But everyone agrees that (a) it's late (i.e. later than 600) and (b) there were multiple versions which were redacted together. Some people argue that the multiple versions evolved over time and in different geographies, while the minimalists argue that the different versions could have been written by different scribal schools in similar times and places.

So, when it comes to who wrote which strand and why they wrote it, and when it was all redacted, I have to agree, there are a lot of theories out there, so that certainly does harm the overall credibility of that particular enterprise. But when it comes to the basic fact that there clearly are different strands that have been redacted, everyone, even the people who radically argue about the date of redaction and the motives, agrees that there are different strands.

And when I say everyone, I mean everyone except for people with a religious bias i.e. fundamentalist Christians and Jews. Also, Kenneth Kitchen is an Egyptologist, not a Bible Scholar.

And of course, as I always say, you don't need to read a single book to see all this for yourself. Except for one. The Bible. Just read it! It's staring you in the face.

Inglourious Intellifundies: A response to Gil Student and Y Aharon

It's very hard (if not impossible) to ever get an intellifundie to admit they're full of it. However if you push them hard enough you can get them to make mistakes, contradict themselves, and in general lose arguments (though they might never admit it).

Let's take the recent debate on Hirhurim as an example.

Gil wrote that even IF the preponderance of evidence showed multiple authorship, the fact is that it's far from proven, so just like Harry Potter (??!!) you are "free" to believe what you want. Despite the fact that this is a truly bizarre argument, it spawned some excellent debates.

First off, it is pretty obvious that if the evidence for the DH was completely crap (as some fundies would say), then Gil wouldn't even need to write the post. So clearly Gil is concerned that the evidence for multiple authorship is at least half way decent. In fact, I would imagine that in private Gil considers some of it quite good (though no doubt he will have to deny that in public).

Secondly, Gil contradicted himself. In response to a question as to what he would consider to be good evidence, Gil replied that if they found individual JEPD manuscripts that would be good evidence. So does this mean that if they found JEPD Gil would no longer be a believer? And doesn't this contradict another Gil where he wrote he would believe no matter what? No doubt Gil can easily wriggle out of this by saying that he was conjecturing that JEPD would be good evidence, but even then he personally would still believe.

Finally, and most importantly, Gil got cornered on the bias issue.

This is key so please pay attention.

It is a FACT that there is no modern day bible studies school which holds of early (i.e. c1200 BCE) single authorship. This is not debatable, it is a simple fact. People may mention Umberto Cassutto, but (a) He's been dead for 50 years, (b) he has no existant Talmidim (apart from fundies), (c) his analyses was rejected by pretty much everyone (apart from fundies) and (d) he didn't actually hold of early single authorship either. He just didn't agree with the DH theory.

The ONLY modern day school which even holds of single authorship is the Copenhagen/Sheffield school. But before you get too excited you should know 2 things (1) These guys are not mainstream, and more importantly (2) they hold the entire Torah was completely fabricated by post exilic Jews c500 BCE, trying to invent a national history to justify their occupation of Israel. In short they are extreme revisionists / Biblical minimalists. Hardly the type of people you want on your side. Plus they hold of very late authorship so they are no help anyway.

There are of course individual scholars who hold of Single authorship, but these are all fundies, like Shiffman, Kenneth Kitchen and other Orthodox Jews or evangelical/hard core Christians. But not even all Orthodox Jews hold of Single Authorship, I know a few MO Bible Professors who agree with the DH (though of course fundies will say that by definition they cannot be Orthdox).

Bottom Line: There are no prominent (non fundie) individuals who hold of early single authorship.

Now, the intellifundies throw a red herring at this point. They say "Of course academia doesn't hold of single authorship, because they cannot accept Divine Authorship". But this is a false argument, because academia could certainly hold of EARLY SINGLE HUMAN authorship, without saying anything about the Divine. So why are the ONLY people pushing EARLY SINGLE authorship the Intellifundies? Why does NO ONE else agree with that?

The most obvious answer is that a non biased reading of the text clearly shows late multiple authorship. NOTE: late multiple authorship does NOT mean a specific JEPDR - there are lots of theories about who wrote what and when. Trying to untagle a text which has evolved over hundreds of years is next to impossible. It's not like they had "Track Changes" turned on. See Jacques Berlinerbrau's book for more details.

However it's clear that EVERYONE (apart from fundies) thinks the text looks (a) LATE and (b) Multiple Texts joined together, and the ONLY holdouts are the fundies, who are religiously required to believe in early single authorship.

OF COURSE this does NOT PROVE that the fundies are wrong. However, when you have a debate where the only holdouts are clearly motivated by strong external reasons, it screams bias. Another good example is the Young Earth Christians, with their crazy theories.

So what do the fundies answer to this? There are basically two answers. I will call them the "Y Aharon" and the "Gil Student" answer, since those were the people who most recently presented them.

Y Aharon Answer
Y Aharon (YA) responds that academia is biased too. How could this be? He brings various proofs of dogmatic thinking in science, and claims that bible scholars are just as biased as anyone else. I find this very hard to believe. Sure, everyone has their biases. But lets compare.

Academic Bias - Presumably due to fear of being the "odd one out", fear of going against the regnant theory or fear of being labelled a crackpot. OTOH, if you are right, glory and riches await you. Also, there are indeed respected people (e.g. Kenneth Kitchen) who do go against the grain.

Religious bias - a fundie's entire life is based on believing TMS. All the fundies pushing TMS did not come to that conclusion based on analyzing the text, rather they had a prior belief in TMS, usually indoctrinated in them from a young age, and now they seek to justify it by whatever means possible. For a fundie to lose faith in TMS is very painful, and could potentially have disastrous and negative consequences on him and his family.

It's simply way too far fetched to claim that all the world's bible scholars have been fooled by some incorrect dogma, and are more biased (or as biased) as religious fundies.

Gil Student Answer
Gil takes a different approach. He combines the question of Divine vs Human authorship with the question of Single vs Multiple authorship. NOTE that these are two different questions, and there are people who believe in every combination. For example:

• Single Divine: Orthodox Jews and Hardcore Christians
• Single (Late) Human: Copenhagen/Sheffield School
• Multiple Divine: Kugel, Heschel, Jacobs (kinda), much of JTS/RW Conservadoxy, some of LWMO, some of YCT
• Multiple Human: Secular Jews

However, Gil says like this: Since academia generally has an "anti-Divine" bias or methodology (true, you can't just say "God did it"), that forces them into multiple authorship. How so? As Gil writes:

"You do not seem to recognize that a single Divine author would be significantly different from a single human author -- in terms of knowledge, goals and abilities."

In other words, a Single HUMAN author is not credible, based on a reading of the text. This is why academia goes with Multiple authorship. But if you allow the possibility that there could be a Divine Author, then single Divine author becomes more possible.

How is this? Because a Single Divine Author has different "knowledge, goals and abilities." What does this mean? So a simple meaning could be that one of the reasons why academics posit late authorship is because of the many seemingly prophetic statements and other historical anachronisms in Tenach. Since academia don't hold of Divine prophetic authorship, they are forced to say that these statements were in fact written much later by humans, and are not prophetic at all. However if you say Divine, this becomes a non problem as God could forsee the future.

While this is nice, it's really misleading, because there is way way more evidence for multiple late authorship than just the few historical anachronisms and prophecies in Tenach. There are doublets, contradictory passages, different writing styles and more. I always say you don't need to be a Bible professor to notice this, just read the text! So how does the fact that "God has different knowledge, goals and abilities" answer these problems?

You are forced to say the rather Chareidish answer that we don't know how God writes, and maybe God davkah wrote the Torah this way to test our faith, teach us lessons, provide fodder for droshos or any other far fetched explanation.

This answer is remarkably similar to the "God planted the dinosaur fossils" or "God created the world fully formed" argument. It's just totally lame. It's an answer that works for anything and everything (and hence nothing). Hey, the Koran doesn't look like KMS? No problem, God wrote it that way! Hey, The Book of Mormon doesn't look like MMS? No problem, God wrote it that way! It's just a conveniently constructed answer. It also makes no sense, becasue if God didn't write the Torah "normally", how can we darshemn anything out of it? God could be sayign anything? It makes parshanut impossible, unless you claim you have a kabalh miSinai or ruach hakodesh. And in fact, we do see that the Torah is so infinitely malleable and contradictory that Christians, Jews, Neturei Kartah and Reform all read whatever they want into it.

The real reason Gil believes in TMS, and the real reason he is fighting the Late Multiple Authorship is clear. And even Gil admits it. He writes:

"I never said that I don't have a good reason to believe. I have very good reasons. What I don't have are proofs. For emotional reasons like tradition and instinct I choose to believe. "

In other words, when Gil says "reasons" he doesn't mean "scholarly reasons". What he means is tradition and instinct. Well, the "tradition" reason is absolutely worthless from a scholarly POV. Clearly, the "our fathers wouldn't lie to us" argument is not a credible argument for anyone except the most sheltered hard core fanatic. And even Gil would admit that had he been brought up Mormon he would no doubt be believing in that. As for the "instinct" reason, that too is completely worthless. Of course he has "instinct" that TMS is true, he's OJ! And every Moslem has "instinct" that Islam is true. And every Christian has "instinct" that Christiantity is true.

"Instinct" is just another word for emotional bias brought on by indoctrination. And this is CLEARLY statistically provable.

Sine Gil will admit that he believes for "emotional reasons", and since Gil no doubt will insist (at least in public) that he will believe no matter what, I'm not sure what the point is of all his intellectual shenanigans. To convince others? It's not working on me. Still, I guess I am happy that at least he is acknowleding the existence and implicit credibility of modern day Biblical Scholars, and doesn't just ignore them as a bunch of uneducated morons.

So I guess I shouldn't criticize him too much and just let him be. After all, even if he did go for Multiple Divine Authorship I still wouldn't be happy, would I?

The Epistemic Uncertainty of Gil Student

Hirhurim discusses the issue of Epistemic Uncertainty (translation: being unsure about stuff). Gil asks:

"This raises the question of what to do when you have inconclusive evidence. Should you follow the direction of the predominance of evidence, even if you know that you are missing significant pieces to the puzzle? Should you remain without an opinion? Or should you choose whichever outcome you want, as long as it can somehow fit in with the evidence currently available? "

And finally he concludes (after bringing several raayos from Harry Potter):

"Until we have all of the information, even the predominance of evidence might be misleading. There might be some significant mising piece of information that will entirely change the picture. The message ... is that when there is uncertainty then within the realm of rationally viable possibilities you are free to choose which to believe based on emotion (i.e. non-rational) reasons."

This is a classic example of the bizarre lengths that intellifundies have to go to in trying to justify their baseless beliefs. True, there is no "rule" (how could there be) that every person MUST only believe in things based on evidence. And certainly there have been many cases of highly unlikely things turning out to be true (Who would have thought that Jaycee Duggard would turn up alive and well after all these years?).

But the point is that if all the evidence points in one direction, at the end of the day it's pretty silly to have 100% faith in the opposite direction. And I would bet that in every case where someone is having 100% faith in some unlikely possibility, they are doing so for emotional, not rational reasons. Is this forbidden? NO, of course not. But usually it's pretty silly, and of course, most likely wrong. Sure, you might take great comfort in your irrational faith, and of course there's always the slight possibility that it might just turn out to be true. But I wouldn't bet on it.

If I was Gil, I would cut out all the pseudo philosophical BS and Harry Potter narishkeit and just be straight up and honest:

I, Gil Student, have to admit that the preponderance of evidence might point to Multiple Authorship of the Torah (Divinely Inspired or purely Human Authored). However, it's not been conclusively proven, and there's a small possibility that it might be Single Authorship, however unlikely that seems. Since (I perceive that) the entire basis of my lifestyle is based on TMS being true according to the 8th Ikkar, and furthermore, since giving in on this issue will mark me as an apikores for life, ruin my good standing in the (RW)MO community and quite probably have severe negative social and professional ramifications for me and my family within the (RW)MO community, I am completely emotionally biased to hope that Single Authorship is indeed true, and I will (pretend that I) have complete faith in the 8th ikkar until absolutely conclusively proven wrong (which is of course impossible).

Now Gil, was that so hard?