Are there secular reasons? Of course not.

Awesome review of a new book about how it is impossible to make policy decisions (and laws etc) without some non scientific / emotional / theological / philosophical / non rational basis.

And OF COURSE, that is entirely true. You cannot have any "oughts" without some subjective value decision. I see this play out all the time. Obama talked about making policy decisions purely based on the science, but that just isn't possible.

Let's consider one recent example. Science showed that a vaccine was safe and effective against H1N1. OK, so far so good. But producing and distributing the vaccine cost several billion dollars, maybe much more. So what science in the world is going to "prove" that the money was well spent doing that versus something else? Plus of course all the myriad details about which at-risk groups should get priority, risks of mist vs shots etc etc. All courses of action ALWAYS boil down to values based (subjective) judgments.

I absolutely, positively, guarantee it.

And militant skeptics who think otherwise are sadly as delusional as the fundies are. Now, a lot of the commenters there seemed to be missing the point. They were arguing that religious reasons are in fact secular reasons, since religious reasons are just based on what ancient people believed or thought to be true, not on God or anything else. But of course that is the whole point of the book - all values, whether couched in religious terms (tznius) or secular terms (liberty and equality) are not based on pure science, but on subjective human values.

Sure reason plays into it - we all want to be happy and equality can make more people happier (or at least equally miserable) therefore equality is good - but that can never be the whole story.

So some skeptics will admit that's true, but they will still insist that secular values are better than religious values, because we can make our best efforts at analyzing what our secular values should be, whereas religious values are always constrained by tradition and imaginary gods.

But that assumes that there is a best set of values, which I'm not sure is true. Also, fundamental values (equality for example) seems obvious to us, but whose to say that's not because of biblical religion? Do Asian cultures have the same values? No!

Skeptics who insist that secular values are the best values are just fundamentalists of another type - they are convinced that their 21st century western values are THE best values.

Atheist Rosho Scientists Say Darwin Got it Wrong

From Salon:

Creationism isn't the only doctrine that’s heavily into post-hoc explanation. Darwinism is too. If a creature develops the capacity to spin a web, you could tell a story of why spinning a web was good in the context of evolution. That is why you should be as suspicious of Darwinism as of creationism. They have spurious consequence in common. And that should be enough to make you worry about either account.

"We are being absolutely killed on the Internet"

From the Jewish Week:

"According to one source in Rabbi Weiss’ yeshivas, the ordaining of Rabba Hurwitz (first as something called “maharat,” then more explicitly as “rabba”) has created a situation in which “we are being absolutely killed on the Internet,” in Orthodox blogs. “Where are the moderate and moderating voices in the Orthodox community?” the source asked."

I assume the "source" is primarily talking about Hirhurim (and maybe VIN etc). The moderate voices do appear in Hirhurim comments, in fact I would say that Gil took a lot of criticism in the comments, but Hirhurim itself is RWMO tending towards LWUO. I guess the "source" doesn't read the comments. But it's true that there is no major LWMO blog. And that begs an interesting question, how come there are numerous Yeshivish blogs, numerous RWMO type blogs (the whole Avodah / Areivim crowd), but almost no major LWMO blogs?

My answer would be that LWMO types are generally less interested in the topics that drive traffic to the OJ blogs. Hirhurim readers get all wound up about Woman Rabbis, YU vs UO politics, Homosexuals, Gedolim and all sorts of other narishkeit, and the average LWMO person couldn't care less about any of that.

Likewise, the average LWMO person couldn't care less about woman Rabbis. Maybe some larger shuls e.g. Avi Weisses shul could use one, but the average smaller MO shul isn't going to get a woman rabbi (at least not by herself - there may be the phenomenon of husband-wife rabbi couples). Similarly, LWMO couldn't care less about Gedolim, YU Politics and all the rest. They just don't care. Even I don't care all that much, it's all bs anyway. I just like to stir it up a bit.

You Tube Video of a Rosh Yeshivah Smashing A Computer

http://www.youtube.com/user/n977ll#p/a/u/0/-7A6nKuvuk0

Awesome! I like the accompanying nigun too. I can't say I ever smashed a computer, but I did once smash my HP Bubble Jet printer which never, ever worked at exactly the times when I most needed it, and smashing it gave me more hanooh than any alternative I could think of.

Seriously though, this particular incident seems too crazy to be true. Surely they could have sold it for tzedaka? I shall be dan lekaf zechut and assume it was running Windows Vista, and was therefore absolutely worthless.

Still, please can someone tell them that they could have switched it to Ubuntu Netbook edition for free, and given it a new lease of life.

We’re all going to die!

I recently happened to see four movies, each of which had a rather apocalyptic theme.

In Knowing, humanity gets entirely destroyed due to a massive Solar flare – only some children rescued by aliens (angels?) survive, on a new planet. (I think the big tree in the final scene is supposed to represent a new Gan Eden).

In Avatar, the earth has “destroyed all of the green” (whatever that means), and seems to be a pretty miserable place (though we don’t see it).

In Idiocracy, only fools (and fundamentalists) procreate to any large degree, and so the society of the future is entirely populated by idiots, and the world has gone to pot.

In Children of Men, a worldwide pandemic of infertility has stopped all new births for 18 years. The implications are profound and horrifying – no children, no future, no hope.

Children of Men addressed the impending doom with the most intelligence and detail, As the book in which it is based on observes: "It was reasonable to struggle, to suffer, perhaps even to die, for a more just, a more compassionate society, but not in a world with no future where, all too soon, the very words 'justice,' 'compassion,' 'society,’ 'struggle,' 'evil,' would be unheard echoes on an empty air."

In other words, once people became resigned to the fact that no new children were going to be born, and that humanity was therefore going to die out, many people lost hope. The movie also depicted many new religious sects offering repentance (or suicide).

We all know that the Sun is currently about half way through its projected 10 billion year lifespan, and as many people have calculated, there are not that many places in the universe which are hospitable to human life, even if we could travel the vast distances required (which is far from clear). I also recently attended a conference which in part addressed the H1N1 virus and pandemics in general, and the outlook there isn’t too rosy either. Plus of course terrorists, global warming (or cooling or nothing), North Korea (a nation of extreme racist dwarves according to Peter Hitchens), earthquakes, melting ice-caps, rogue asteroids – and the reality that humanity’s entire existence is just a tiny blip on the history of the universe, and modern civilized society a tiny blip on that, and things look a little scary.

Still, we all need hope, and luckily hope seems to be an innate part of the human condition, at least for people with healthy brain chemical balances / psychological makeup. Still, there is no doubt that just as we all harbor deep (and maybe hidden) fears of our own personal demise, likewise we also fear for the demise of all humanity.

Smurfahontas!

Wow. I figured it would just be some typical Sci-Fi movie with maybe some nice 3d effects. Plus I heard all the jokes - Dances With Smurfs, Smurfahontas, Last of the Smurfahicans (actually I made that last one up).

But it blew me away. It has by far the best special effects that I have ever seen in any movie ever. Absolutely stunning, and I highly recommend it.

Martin Grossman, Zecher Tzaddik Livrocho

I have purposely waited to post on the Martin Grossman case as I wanted to see how things played out. Here's my take:

Firstly, let me say that I'm generally against the death penalty, for a number of reasons:

1. I don't believe there's good evidence that the death penalty deters violent (or any other) crime.

2. Sentencing guidelines are subjective and change over time.

3. Very few (if any) rich folks get the death penalty. It's almost always the poor shlubs who can't afford a good defense attorney.

4. There's too often the possibility of a mistaken verdict.

5. I don't like the idea of a civilized country putting people to death in a calculated manner where there is seemingly little or no gain.

If there was a truly evil non-repentant person who was an absolute menace to society (think Hannibal Lecter) then maybe. But many cases on Death Row don't fit those criteria.

As for Martin Grossman, I would likewise argue that he didn't deserve the death penalty and I would support some kind of petition or other sensible action to save him, and anyone else in that position, BT or not. If it was my daughter who got killed would I feel differently? Of course. But that's the whole concept of nogeah bedovor.

Some people have argued that it was ridiculous and hypocritical for the chareidi kehilah to go crazy trying to save a brutal killer just because he (supposedly) became a BT, especially when that same kehillah is generally pro death penalty, and you can bet your bottom dollar that if some goy was on death row for having killed a yid, they would all be screaming for blood.

So all that is true enough, yet I still think that the frum outcry was maybe a good thing in the long run. Why is that? Because when the next case occurs, even if the guilty party is not a BT, maybe the frum olam will have second thoughts, and remember their own arguments and feelings in the Grossman case. Maybe some light bulbs might go off, and the standard pro-death penalty reaction of the chareidim might be tempered somewhat.

After all, the Torah is pretty blood thirsty when it comes to the death penalty, so the sight of the Agudah and co arguing for leniency was somewhat heartwarming, even if their driving motivation was the fact that this particular individual had returned to the one true derech.

Holy Crap - another scandal

Oy Vey. And yet again I personally know  the people involved, I was even at the chasnah. Which means I probably shouldn't blog about it or else I'll get in trouble. What can I say? You think you know someone but you never know. A big shame all around, which could have been prevented (somewhat) if only people had listened to ME. I'm always right, you should all know that by now.

Fake Semicha vs. Women Rabbis

I tried to engage Hirhurim last week in a debate about fake semichas but he wouldn't play.

So just what is a fake semicha? I don't mean someone who pretends that he has semicha but really doesn't, I mean semicha which was granted for parnasah / kovod purposes, but not on the basis of any qualifications in yoreh deah or similar. I didn't know such things even existed, but they do.

In fact I personally know two people, both universally called Rabbi, who have these fake semichas. And this isn't just limited to the Modern Orthodox world, it happens in the Chareidi world too. In both of the cases I know, friends of the individual arranged the semichah to be granted, on the grounds that the individual in question was a teacher or some other kind of role model, or just needed the designation for parnosoh purposes. In at least once case, the individual in question knows nothing much about halachah, and probably has never opened a yoreh deah in his life.

Yet Gil refused to condemn such practices. But if he is so concerned about the institution of Semicha (as evidenced by his opposition to Women Rabbis), shouldn't he be opposed to fake semichas too? Isn't he being hypocritical?

I think this is a legitimate question.

If women are ordained as Rabbis, you know what's gona happen ??????

I love this exchange:

Gil: The issue today is of a MAJOR societal change that will greatly impact the future of our community. If it was just one person then no one would care except for the absolute purists. The issue is not Sara Hurwitz. It's what is going to happen 15 years from now when there are a hundred of her.

S: What's going to happen?

Gil: The way our community operates will change.

Oh no! Oh My God! Things will change! Must be ossur then.

To be honest though, I don't like change either. Who does? At my last company they went through lots of change, but to make up for it they forced everyone to read "Who moved my cheese". I read the book, embraced change, and quit.

Call me Rabbi!

Gil Student, on being asked why is he so opposed to women "Rabbis" considering that nowadays anyone who teaches, or who is in kiruv, gets to be called "Rabbi", even when they know bubkes about halachah, and Gil seems to have no problem with that:

Gil: "Calling someone "rabbi" who doesn't have semikhah is simply a shorthand convenience that is based on the assumption that someone knowledgable has semikhah."

Err yeah, that makes sense. So much for Gil's three "qualifications".

Henceforth, please call me Rabbi XGH. I'm male, so there shouldn't be a problem.

More on the Cosmological Argument

After reading all the comments here, and also Harry Maryles's post on the topic, it seems to me that the best way of approaching the Cosmological argument isn't really as a straight up fomral argument and then picking holes in it (like Rebecca does and how I did in the last post), but rather as an exploration of different possibilities, with pros and cons assigned to each. So, here is my second attempt to deal with this in a reasonable way.

Premise: The Rule of Causality

The argument starts with a premise, that every "thing" must have a prior "cause". I am going to define "thing" very broadly, to mean any kind of "thing" that can have the attribute of existence applied to it. A tree is a thing, an idea is a thing, a universe is a thing. "Cause" will also be defined broadly, it does not neccessary have to mean a cause in time, but rather a dependant cause.

Now, before we even get to the rest of the argument we have to stop and ask, how do we know this premise? Is it even true? And isn't the premise already assuming way too much? Very possibly. So lets see what the argument is and then we can get back to these questions.

Argument: The Universe Must Have A Cause
Since every thing must have a cause (from the premise), and the universe is a "thing" (from the above definition of "thing"), THEN the universe must have a cause too.

Now this argument obviously only works if 2 things are true:

1. The premise is true
2. The universe is a "thing" (or at least the same kind of thing that the premise was talking about).

So the question at this point is, are these two points true?

We can already sense a flaw in this argument, because the rule of causality, which seems pefrectly intuitive to us, is based on our experience WITHIN the universe. However the universe itself, taken as an object, is slightly different. This is beyond debate - everyone agrees that inside the universe is different from outside the universe. Let's look at the differences:

Inside the Universe:
Time, Space and the Laws of Physics apply. Everything (that we know of) is 'Physical".

Outside the Universe:
There is no Time, Space or Laws of Physics (at least that we know of).

Now, it is entirely possible that the Laws of Physics (at least in some form) do apply outside of the universe, and possibly there are some some Multiverse theories that assume that. But then again, it is entirely possible that they do not. We have no way of knowing. So can we infer from inside to outside the universe? Can we say that the law of causality, a law that we have intuited based on our experiences within the universe, applies to outside the universe? It would seem that we really should not infer that from a strictly logical standpoint.

HOWEVER, I am prepared to concede this point at least for the moment, since it is a natural human intuition that every "thing" really should have some cause, unless you can think of a very good reason why it doesn't have to. And since there's no immediately apparent reason why the universe shouldn't have to have a cause, let's agree with the argument (at least for the moment) that the universe ideally should have a cause.

Now we get to the meat of the argument. To recap, we have posited a rule that every "thing" should ideally have a cause. We have argued that this rule makes intuitive sense, and that ideally the universe should have a cause too. This being the case, the obvious question is, what is the cause of the universe?

What is the cause of the universe?
There are multiple options to answer the question. Let's lay out the options first, and then see which options strikes us as most reasonable.

Option 1: The universe always existed, it was uncaused.
Option 2: The universe caused itself.
Option 3: An infinite chain of causes is behind everything.
Option 4: A uncaused first cause caused the universe.
Option 5: The rule of causality does not apply to the universe

Option 1: The universe always existed, it was uncaused.
This option was probably the standard atheistic option until the Big Bang theory gained prominence. People just assumed that the universe must have been around forever (much like God). In fact, some Monotheistic philosophies assumed this too, and it is not entirely clear whether the Rambam would have insisted on disagreeing with this. There are some views that the ancient Israelites (and possibly people until the Rambam's time) held that the universe was infinite, and that God co-existed beside it, or even that God took pre-existing matter (Tohu VoVohu) and then formed it into the universe. But either way, since the advent of the Big Bang theory, this seems a less likely option, since we know our current universe began at a point in time, and therefore positing that the universe is in fact eternal no longer seems viable.

Now, we could get around the Big Bang issue by positing some kind of Multiverse theory. The details are not important, but we could say that the real Universe is actually a (possibly infinite) collection of sub-universes, of which our universe is but one sub-universe. The real universe has always existed, and hence is uncaused. The Big Bang (or whatever caused the Big Bang) is just a feature of the real, and eternal universe. With that kind of theory (and it is just a theory), this option could be back on the table. However once you posit the Multiverse, you are basically positing Option 4: An uncaused first cause - i.e. the multiverse becomes the uncaused first cause.

Option 2: The universe caused itself
Most people reject this option for being logically impossible. How can something not existent cause itself to exist? It seems to be impossible. Of course we canot prove it's impossible, and furthermore the fact that we cannot comprehend it does not neccessarily make it so. For example, we can't comprehend God either, but we don't say God is impossible. However for the sake of logical argumentation, this options seems very difficult.

Option 3: An Infinite Chain of Causes is behind everything.
Most people reject this option too. Although people tend to have no problem with the concept of infinity in principle (for example an infinite God), an infinite chain of causes does bother people. Possibly because of the heuristic principle known as Occams Razor, people don't like to have extra steps when they are not neccessary.

Option 4: A uncaused first cause caused the universe.
This is the option that the argument wants you to pick. Since the rule of causality states that everything must have a cause, and since the universe seems like it is a "thing" and should have a cause too, therefore the universe must (really should) have a cause. We don't want to say the universe always existed because of the Big Bang theory, and it seems illogical to say that it caused itself, and we don't like infinite chains of causes either for some reason, so the best option is to say that there must be some kind of thing (external to the universe) which breaks the Causual Rule and in fact does not need a cause itself.

Now this argument can be attacked from many different directions, including the premise of the law of causality (it's just not true), or that we cannot infer from inside the universe to the outside, or alternatively that the rule of causality is in fact good, and therefore the first cause MUST have a cause too, there can be no exceptions.

However, I think it's fair to assume that:

• the law of causality seems reasonable
• ideally the universe should have a cause (and I say this primarily because of the big bang)
• if we have to, I could make an exception to the law of causality (but the exception shouldn't be the known universe since that would seem strange)

So, I'm not going to argue on any of the above points. They all seem reasonable enough. So the question really boils down to this: Since it seems fair to assume that the universe ideally should have a cause, what kind of cause should/could that be?

At this point Harry Maryles makes the typical mistake of immediately jumping into a discussion of "spiritual" vs "physical". But this is clearly nonsense. How on earth could we possibly know that the ultimate existence is comprised of two states or planes - physical and spiritual? There is no way to know that. The most you can infer from this argument (if you even accept that the argument has any merit) is that something external to our known universe caused our universe to be. What is that something? Theoretically, it could be the Multiverse (or as I like to say, "Quantum Soup", mostly because I like soup).

As far as I can tell, the cosmological argument (taken by itself) IN NO WAY whatsoever leans towards a "Spiritual" first cause more than any other type of first cause. The only thing we can say about the first cause is that it is a first cause, and that the first cause is not the universe itself, but it could be a multiverse, quantum soup, or any one of an infinite number of other incomprehensible possibilities. And Harry, a non Rose by another name (for example a car) is not a Rose.

As many people have noted, the cosmological argument does not in fact do very much by itself (and that's if it even works in the first place, which is highly questionable). You need other arguments to tell you anything at all useful about God. So I guess in conclusion, I think the cosmological argument seems somewhat reasonable, but is ultimately completely useless for our purpose.

Verdict
Achieves nothing.

Day 1: The Cosmological Argument

1. Everything that exists must have a cause.
2. The universe must have a cause (from 1).
3. Nothing can be the cause of itself.
4. The universe cannot be the cause of itself (from 3).
5. Something outside the universe must have caused the universe (from 2 & 4).
6. God is the only thing that is outside of the universe.
7. God caused the universe (from 5 & 6).
8. God exists.

FLAW 1: can be crudely put: Who caused God? The Cosmological Argument is a prime example of the Fallacy of Passing the Buck: invoking God to solve some problem, but then leaving unanswered that very same problem when applied to God himself. The proponent of the Cosmological Argument must admit a contradiction to either his first premise — and say that though God exists, he doesn't have a cause — or else a contradiction to his third premise — and say that God is self-caused. Either way, the theist is saying that his premises have at least one exception, but is not explaining why God must be the unique exception, otherwise than asserting his unique mystery (the Fallacy of Using One Mystery To Pseudo-Explain Another). Once you admit of exceptions, you can ask why the universe itself, which is also unique, can't be the exception. The universe itself can either exist without a cause, or else can be self-caused . Since the buck has to stop somewhere, why not with the universe?

FLAW 2: The notion of "cause" is by no means clear, but our best definition is a relation that holds between events that are connected by physical laws. Knocking the vase off the table caused it to crash to the floor; smoking three packs a day caused his lung cancer. To apply this concept to the universe itself is to misuse the concept of cause, extending it into a realm in which we have no idea how to use it. This line of skeptical reasoning, based on the incoherent demands we make of the concept of cause, was developed by David Hume.

COMMENT: The Cosmological Argument, like the Argument from the Big Bang, and The Argument from the Intelligibility of the Universe, are expressions of our cosmic befuddlement at the question: why is there something rather than nothing? The late philosopher Sydney Morgenbesser had a classic response to this question: "And if there were nothing? You'd still be complaining!"

So it's interesting that Goldstein uses this version of the Cosmo argument. Most people tend to put it another way:

1. Every "thing" must have a cause.
2. No "thing" can cause itself
3. There cannot be an infinite causal chain of "things"
4. Therefore, a First Cause must exist.
5. The First Cause is God

And the problems with this argument are many. In fact pretty much every line above has a problem. Let's see.

1. Every "thing" must have a cause.

Lots of problems here.

P1: What's the definition of thing? Is it any possible thing? If so, then God is a "thing" too, so He must have a cause. But obviously people using this proof are saying God doesn't need to have a cause, so therefore the first line must be corrected to say "some (or many) things must have a cause", which of course kills the proof. Now you might say "every physical thing has a cause", but how do you know that? And the opposite of physical is not "spiritual", but rather "non physical" - so maybe a non-physical (but not God) caused the universe, for example Quantum Soup. What's Quantum Soup? It's the not God, not physical thing which caused the universe.

P2: Forgetting about the definition of thing, ask a more basic question. How do we know this? Why must everything have a cause? Because we cannot understand otherwise? But we cannot understand God either, yet we accept His existence! Since when does not being able to understand something make it impossible? And if you argue that we see empirically in this universe that everything has a cause, then you're really in trouble, because inside the universe is different from outside the universe, and just because inside the universe everything has a cause tells us nothing about the outside. In fact it's more logical to say the opposite - inside is davkah different than outside, because inside we have time, space, physics etc, whereas outside none of these exist (we assume).

2. No "thing" can cause itself

P3: Says who? Why not? So people will say it's logically impossible. But it also seems logically impossible for something to have existed forever (i.e. God), so why is self-causation any worse?

3. There cannot be an infinite causal chain of "things"

Same as above. Why not? Because it's illogical/impossible/incomprehensible/whatever. But then so is an infinitely existing being.

5. The First Cause is God

Complete non sequitur. The First Cause could be anything, including Quantum Soup.

Also of course, the proof contradicts itself. The premise is everything has a cause, and the conclusion is no, there are exceptions. A very strange argument.

My Comment

I think in reality this proof rests on two things:

1. People are more comfortable with the idea of God than with an infinite causal chain

2. People are more comfortable with the idea of God creating the universe from nothing than with the universe creating itself from nothing (or Quantum Soup creating the Universe from "nothing").

Now with respect to number 1, I too feel this way. God seems like a reasonable concept, an infinite causal chain does not. However I'm not so sure this is in any way rational. Perhaps we have just been culturally conditioned to think/feel this way? From a pure logic standpoint, both would seem equally impossible (or entirely possible). I don't know why an infinite causal chain is somehow "worse" than an infinitely existing being. Possibly some kind of Occam's Razor intuition is at play?

Secondly, even if by some feat of logic you manage to make an argument for an uncaused first cause, it says nothing about God. Some fundies admit to this, but argue that the first cause must be non physical. But there's no way of knowing that. Who says a physical thing MUST come from another physical thing? Maybe the first cause COULD be physical? And what does physical mean anyways? When we are arguing about such abstract notions as the cause of the universe, we are talking about things OUTSIDE the universe. The label "physical" (or spiritual) simply don't apply. Quantum Soup is as likely as God.

Conclusion

This argument is certainly appealing. I think most people feel it makes some kind of intuitive sense, but it is unclear to me why this is so, since from a logical perspective it seems to be entirely flawed. But I also think the point is moot (and this is why I famously gave in to RJM a while back), because it really doesn't matter if by some feat of logic you can somehow argue for a first cause over an uncaused cause or an infinite chain, because the first cause could be anything at all, including Quantum Soup, and so this argument achieves nothing. A few fundies will accept this but will claim that the Cosmological argument just establishes a first cause, and that other arguments then tell you the nature of that cause. Maybe so, we'll have to see.

36 Days of Rebecca

Rebecca Goldstein has a new novel out called "36 Arguments for the Existence of God" which includes an appendix listing the 36 arguments, and the flaws of each. This sounds very cool, I had toyed with doing that for a long time, but could never be bothered (the appendix, not the novel).

So who is Rebecca Goldstein? I had never heard of her, but it turns out that she's now married to Steven Pinker, and is also somewhat connected to OJ. Her brother, a Rabbi Newberger, is frum (anyone know him?), as is her nephew (also a Rabbi). She sent her kids to MO schools (not sure why), though they seem to have since gone OTD (hardly surprising considering her books). Here's an interesting interview with her daughter Yael from one of Gil's old Reshimu blogging buddies.

Anyways, I thought it would be worthwhile to go through each argument, one a day, and discuss it. The edge website has them all listed, so let's see how far we get. I say we make it to number 3 before we get bored and move on, but who knows?

Rabosai: The Chareidim are no longer the enemy, the real enemy are the Right Wing Modern Orthodox II

Though I like the idea of Klal Yisrael all davening together in perfect harmony, there comes a time to draw lines and kick people out. And Rabosai, that time is now.

The Right Wing Modern Orthodox, thinly disguised Chareidim at best, are distorting the values of Modern Orthodoxy. I mean for goodness sake, just because you can quote a 12th century Rishon doesn't make you MODERN! On the contrary, if the only reason you allow yourself to hold of modern Science is davkah because the Rambam said it was OK then you're decidedly NOT Modern Orthodox.

(Cue humorous post: You might be Right Wing Modern Orthodox if....)

The values of Modern Orthodoxy are to ENGAGE with modernity. And I mean ENGAGE. That doesn't mean learning about the DH JUST to SHLOG IT UP. That doesn't mean holding of Modern Science only because the Rambam made it OK.

Things are really getting ridiculous when the primary Modern Orthodox Blog author admits he lives in a Chareidi neighborhood, sends his kids to Chareidi schools, dresses and acts like a Chareidi, but he's Modern Orthodox because he went to YU and reads Christian Evangelical Faith Books?

Come on, enough with the pandering to the fundies. Don't let the RW MO try and kick out the LW MO. On the contrary, the LW MO should kick out the RW MO back to Chareidi land where they belong.

Leave Modern Orthdoxy to the people who have the COURAGE to actually try and live with modernity, not just shlog it up.

Holy Moly - I paid $200 to go to a religious cult indoctrination event

No, I'm not talking about the Aish Hatorah Dinner, I'm talking about this. I thought something was off -the constant references to Falun Dafa, the multiple vignettes about religious persecution, the song lyrics about Divine Beings. Now I'm really mad.

The Truth about God

Nobody knows anything about God. There is no data and zero evidence. There are arguments for and against. There are arguments and holes in all the arguments. Some people say it's reasonable to believe in God. Maybe, but it's equally reasonable not to believe in God, so that gets you nowhere. On the other hand, billions of people passionately believe in some kind of God, and recent research seemed to show that children will invent a God idea on their own. Some people claim to have good explanations for why this is so, (for example Dennet, Boyer, Dawkins etc), but none of those theories have any solid evidence either. Yitzchok Adlerstein claims that since billions of Chinese don't believe in God, then clearly God belief cannot be a natural human condition, which directly contradicts Reb Elchonon Wasserman's theory that everyone naturally believes in God. So basically, like I said, nobody knows anything about God. And furthermore, nobody knows why billions of people passionately believe in God.

And that's the Truth about God.