Hilchos Epistemology: Perek Aleph

ej writes:

"I fail to see why morality is subjective while your epistemic rules for acceptance of beliefs are objective. There are many possible epistemic rules as well as many ideas as to what we are aiming for when we try to understand the world using a definite set of epistemic rules. In recent decades there have been attempts to define epistemic rules as instantiating certain virtues or as a subset of moral obligations. Your view that everyone ‘must’ obey your badatz conception of hilchot epistemology seems eccentric at least to me, and runs up against the values of tolerance and pluralism."

My gut reaction - what a load of pomo nonsense. But I respect ej so I will attempt an answer:

True or False are objective (in theory). Yes, there are different definitions of "truth", but beyond philosophical speculation the reality is that the one definition that everyone really really truly holds of is the correspondence to reality theory. Even the philosophers know this.

Deep down, we all know what true means.

And when it comes down to it, biases and indoctrination aside, we all know what it takes for something to be true. That's why no fundies EVER really justify themselves with pure faith. It's always pure faith for a GOOD REASON. That's also how Beis Din and Halachah work.

But when it comes to morality, there is no true/false. There's only subjective reasoning. Even the fundies agree to this, they just think they happen to have God's POV on the matter. But without God's opinion, it's back to subjectivity.

So, unless someone can show me a reliable approach to truth which doesn't involve evidence and reason, that's the halachah for now.

My Ikrei Emunah - and they should be yours too.

ej correctly points out that when it comes to beliefs, I have quite a chareidi / kanoi approach. And why not? Correct beliefs are important, and I cannot abide stupidity, hypocrisy or willful ignorance. So here are my ikrei emunah. I do not believe these based on blind faith (which is absolutely worthless), but rather based on careful research.

Not only do I believe these to be true, but I insist that you believe them too (based on evidence and logic of course).

1. I believe with complete knowledge that some (currently) unknowable incomprehensible cause was the cause of the universe. Some people call that cause "God". Anything at all I say about God could just as easily be wrong as right, and in reality I (and everyone else) know absolutely nothing at all about "God", and probably never will. Having said that, there's nothing much wrong with an abstract belief in an ultimate good reality, as long as it doesn't cause you to crash planes into buildings.

2. I believe with complete knowledge that the bible is a composite man-made document, which evolved from oral and then later textual traditions, and was later edited into a book (or rather a set of scrolls). All the currently available evidence points to this truth, though it is always possible that this theory might be revised in the future.

3. I believe with complete knowledge that Judaism has evolved over the past three thousand years, and most likely will continue to do so. There is no such thing as "authentic" Judaism.

4. I believe with complete knowledge that Chazal were just ordinary people. Although there is no proof of that, there is also zero proof that they were anything but normal, hence the burden of proof is on those who say that they were special in some way. Rabbinic Judaism happened to beat out the other sects at the time, but that is just an accident of history.

5. I believe with complete knowledge that the idea of an unbroken mesorah stretching back to Sinai is a myth. Tenach itself is ample evidence that the mesorah was broken, plus it's quite likely that Sinai itself was a total myth.

6. I believe with complete knowledge that the idea of Moshiach was a later development in Judaism, and was originally based on the very natural idea that the Kingdom of David would be restored.

7. I believe with complete knowledge that the idea of Techiyat Hamaysim was a later development in Judaism, possibly influenced by Greek or Zoroastrian philosophies, and is a rather wacky idea anyway.

A complete waste of time

[What my previous post would have said had I not been writing nonsense out of pure frustration]

One of my Rabbis said something interesting last week - he said he only preaches to the choir, and is not interested in debating with people who don't share his premises. At first I thought he was wrong - surely the entire point of debating is davkah with people who exactly don't share your views. What's the point of preaching to the choir? Isn't that too self reinforcing?

But on reflection, debating with people who don't share my views does seem to be a bit pointless. Sure, I might turn a few folks my way, but (a) that was never really my plan anyway, and (b) it can just as easily turn people off. I have had a warning on my blog ever since its inception (see the right hand bar) but that's not enough. I need to "just do it" in ej's words, and not be bothered by the RW MO or any of the other groups I have been ranting and raving about. That's a destructive path which won't win me any friends.

At this point, everything I write is read by plenty of people who know me, either just my identity, or know me in real life. That really inhibits the things I can write about. Being anonymous at this point is almost completely pointless. I know I've said this all before so many times that people think it's just a ratings ploy, but it really isn't.

Besides the venting and the occasional entertainment post, my real objective is as its always been (at least ever since I went to the dark side) - to figure out an approach, a theology, a philosophy (or something) to make sense of this existence - and by "this existence" I don't just mean life in general, but the life of a person within a fundamentalist religion who can't just ignore academic research, science etc.

Some people in my situation do indeed get by by just ignoring science and modernity. Others get by by pretty much ignoring religion. Others lead bifurcated lives, or have some strange (or maybe unique) personal philosophy which somehow works for them. None of these things have so far worked for me.

Another problem is that those people who have got something figured out, are usually very reticent to share it in public. One of my Rabbis has some interesting ideas, but even those I can't blog about, because since people know me, they can figure out who he is, and then he gets upset because those ideas are not for public consumption. (In fact I probably shouldn't even have written that last sentence. A Rabbi with interesting ideas? Oy vey! Stone him!)

I suppose could try an insanely private blog, where every member reveals their true identity and is a fully trusted person, but that really stifles innovation.

Clearly, I have spent 4 years now looking for something and I haven't found it. All I've gotten is more and more frustrated. My quest has been an abject failure. Actually, if it was just a failure, that wouldn't be so bad. The negative consequences have been much worse than an abject failure.

The definition of insanity is trying the same exact thing twice while expecting different results, so could be I'm just insane at this point, since this is not just the second time, but probably the fourth or fifth time I've tried this.

I'm all out of ideas. Anyone got anything? If not, maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy. Or maybe I should just give up or ignore religion. Or maybe just give up and ignore modernity. Or maybe just give up and lead a bifurcated life. Or maybe just give up and create a strange and possibly unique philosophy.

[Oops, I see I'm back to writing nonsense out of sheer frustration. Like I said, a complete waste of time.]

Just do it!

[From a comment by ej]

Almost all major creative changes that have occurred in Jewish life happened because a person or group just decided to do it.

The Rambam and Saadya Gaon didn't ask a heter to import ideas from Muslim philosophy. The mechaber or group that wrote out the Zohar didn't ask the Moetzel Gedolei Hatorah of their time if their ideas were acceptable. The century after Shabbsai Tzvi, which must be the craziest century in all of Jewish history, was populated by people who just did it, to use the Nike slogan.

Reb Yonason and Reb Yaakov Emden were both mad bulls in a china shop, headstrong, somewhat deceptive, with the consequence that most of European Jewry was put in cherem by one side or the other. Rav Noson Adler, the rebbe of the Chasam Sofer and the Ramchal were both excommunicated. As were the chassidim. Each group followed their own ideas, cherem or no cherem. And if we are to believe modern research even the circles around the Vilna Gaon were compromised by heresy.

In the 19th century millions of Jews left Orthodoxy and took up many different ideologies, many of which, like secularism, Zionism and socialism proved quite successful. In our time Hadar, Shirah Chadashah, Conservadox, Carlebach and independent minyanim just did what they wanted to, with no rabbinic cover and no fighting. Same for neo chasidus and Jewish Renewal.

The only group that got nowhere were the maskilim. They stayed around and tried to convince the backward uneducated Orthodox masses to become enlightened. Not only did they for the most part fail, they were insulted and mocked, humiliated and disgraced until today. A life devoted to correcting Orthodoxy usually leads to frustration. Over time you become like the group you fight with.

Shavuot Leining: Yet more proof for the DH

Ever pay attention to the leining? Shavuous day is a classic.

Let's talk about the build up to Matan Torah. It's kinda strange: (Shemot 19)

21 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Go down, charge the people, lest they break through unto the LORD to gaze, and many of them perish. 22 And let the priests also, that come near to the LORD, sanctify themselves, lest the LORD break forth upon them.' 23 And Moses said unto the LORD: 'The people cannot come up to mount Sinai; for thou didst charge us, saying: Set bounds about the mount, and sanctify it.' 24 And the LORD said unto him: 'Go, get thee down, and thou shalt come up, thou, and Aaron with thee; but let not the priests and the people break through to come up unto the LORD, lest He break forth upon them.' 25 So Moses went down unto the people, and told them.

So what's going on here? Hashem already told Moshe a few pesukim ago to warn the people not to go onto the mountain:

12 And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying: Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it; whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death; 13 no hand shall touch him, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live; when the ram's horn soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.'

SO why is he telling Moshe again in pasuk 19 the exact same thing? And then Moshe's reply is even stranger, basically he says, I already took care of that God. And then God's reply is even stranger still, where He basically says, just go and tell them. SO Moshe goes and tells them. What a mess. Anyways, what happens next? Does Moshe go and tell them? No! What happens next is is the aseret hadibrot!

Then, only after the aseret hadibrot, do we read:

14 And all the people perceived the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the voice of the horn, and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled, and stood afar off. 15 And they said unto Moses: 'Speak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die.'

Say what? They just heard the aseret hadibrot, did they not? So why are they saying they don't want to hear God speak? It makes no sense.

HOWEVER, if you cut out the aseret hadibrot, which is an obvious cut and paste it all makes perfect sense. Let's read straight through from before the aseret hadibrot to after.

21 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Go down, charge the people, lest they break through unto the LORD to gaze, and many of them perish. 22 And let the priests also, that come near to the LORD, sanctify themselves, lest the LORD break forth upon them.' 23 And Moses said unto the LORD: 'The people cannot come up to mount Sinai; for thou didst charge us, saying: Set bounds about the mount, and sanctify it.' 24 And the LORD said unto him: 'Go, get thee down, and thou shalt come up, thou, and Aaron with thee; but let not the priests and the people break through to come up unto the LORD, lest He break forth upon them.' 25 So Moses went down unto the people, and told them. [CUT] 14 And all the people perceived the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the voice of the horn, and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled, and stood afar off. 15 And they said unto Moses: 'Speak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die. 16 And Moses said unto the people: 'Fear not; for God is come to prove you, and that His fear may be before you, that ye sin not.' 17 And the people stood afar off; but Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.

Makes perfect sense. Moshe goes down the mountain, the people are frightened, they say we don't want to hear God, so Moses goes back up the mountain to get God's message himself. And what is that message? Not the aseret hadibrot, but really just the first commandment:

18 And the LORD said unto Moses: Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel: Ye yourselves have seen that I have talked with you from heaven. 19 Ye shall not make with Me--gods of silver, or gods of gold, ye shall not make unto you. 20 An altar of earth thou shalt make unto Me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings, and thy peace-offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen; in every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come unto thee and bless thee. 21 And if thou make Me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stones; for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast profaned it. 22 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto Mine altar, that thy nakedness be not uncovered thereon.

Then of course you have another massive cut and paste of Mishpatim, and then finally in chapter 24 we get to the end of the actual story:

1 And unto Moses He said: 'Come up unto the LORD, thou, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and worship ye afar off; 2 and Moses alone shall come near unto the LORD; but they shall not come near; neither shall the people go up with him.' 3 And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice, and said: 'All the words which the LORD hath spoken will we do.' 4 And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the mount, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 And he sent the young men of the children of Israel, who offered burnt-offerings, and sacrificed peace-offerings of oxen unto the LORD. 6 And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins; and half of the blood he dashed against the altar. 7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the hearing of the people; and they said: 'All that the LORD hath spoken will we do, and obey.' 8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said: 'Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you in agreement with all these words.' 9 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; 10 and they saw the God of Israel; and there was under His feet the like of a paved work of sapphire stone, and the like of the very heaven for clearness. 11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel He laid not His hand; and they beheld God, and did eat and drink. {S} 12 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Come up to Me into the mount and be there; and I will give thee the tables of stone, and the law and the commandment, which I have written, that thou mayest teach them.' 13 And Moses rose up, and Joshua his minister; and Moses went up into the mount of God. 14 And unto the elders he said: 'Tarry ye here for us, until we come back unto you; and, behold, Aaron and Hur are with you; whosoever hath a cause, let him come near unto them.' 15 And Moses went up into the mount, and the cloud covered the mount. 16 And the glory of the LORD abode upon mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days; and the seventh day He called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud. 17 And the appearance of the glory of the LORD was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel. 18 And Moses entered into the midst of the cloud, and went up into the mount; and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights.

And this is without even getting into all the differences between this version of the story and the one in Devarim.

Atheists Can Be Stupid, Too

[Great article from here]

Atheists don't all have clipped British accents and a staggering command of some seriously graceful logic. Some atheists are unremittingly normal. Some people don't bother to call themselves atheists, they just don't particularly care about the idea of God. The term "atheist" can't possibly live up to the hype (both smugly confident and malicious) surrounding it. Just as the term "religious" can't live up to its own hype. Maybe it's time to stop pretending there's really a vicious battle raging between these two supposedly cohesive groups.

I conduct video interviews for the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue, and I called the leader of a thriving atheist group here in New York City to see if he'd be interested in talking about his work with me. He disliked me immediately. As soon as I mentioned the name of the publication I represent, he bristled. I wanted to do a piece on clergy members, and when I used those words, he began to accuse me of being stupid. He told me I didn't know the first thing about either the clergy or atheism, and he suggested that even to imagine that I might be able to have a conversation with him about these subjects was hopelessly naïve on my part.

"Anyway," he said. "I'm going on vacation. Call me in a month if you think of something better, and stop it with the intellectual masturbation. Because that's what you people are doing."

"You won't consider meeting with me?" (I decided not to further discuss masturbation with him.)

He laughed gruffly. "Absolutely not! Wouldn't think of it. Feel free to quote me, though. You might want to work with that. Might help you."

So there, I'm using it. It's helping me.

He hung up. I hung up. I didn't know whether to cry (I'm not used to such painful rudeness) or laugh. If he had asked me, maybe he would've learned that I am both a lay clergy member and someone who does not believe in God. But he heard the word religion, and assumed he was talking to the enemy. And I guess, in a way, we are intellectual enemies.

It's foolish to imagine that atheists own concepts like pragmatism, intellectualism, and thoughtfulness. Or that religious people own concepts like spirituality, awe, inner peace, and even prayer. The debate about God, belief, and religion shouldn't be divided into believers and atheists. It should be divided into people who are willing to listen, and people who aren't.

[Actually I think it should be divided into people who try to be objective and people who don't. Which maybe is what she's saying].

It's often assumed by many that all the reasonable people are either in the atheist camp or the religious camp.

Like this: "If you're reasonable enough, then you don't need to rely on the idea of God to explain everything about the world to you."

Or: "If you're reasonable enough, then you realize that the mysteries of the universe are much too large to justify the categorical denial of the existence of God."

These arguments take us around and around and around (I could say it a few more times for emphasis) in circles. And ultimately, the only people who "win" are the ones who happen to be better at debating. Being good at debating is a particular skill that doesn't necessarily have much to do with objective facts or the truth (however we're defining that these days). My fiancé was the captain of his debate team in college. Getting in an argument with him is brutal for my self-esteem, even when I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about.

As Greg Epstein, the humanist chaplain at Harvard, will tell you, there are a lot of other positions between devout religious believer and atheist. As many people who don't define themselves as atheists but don't consider themselves religious will tell you, "I just don't talk about it." The right language hasn't been developed to accommodate these people's ontological orientations.

[Sure it has. Reconstructionist Chareidi. Or maybe Left Wing Modern Orthodox]

I'm tired of people being surprised when some atheists turn out to be jerks. Or turn out to be obviously unintelligent in some way. As though only smart people can choose not to believe in God. Because religion is perceived as inseparable from dogmatism, and dogmatism is obviously equated with thoughtlessness. So then, belief is easy, whereas doubt is much more complex and difficult. Simplifications of religiousness and atheism like this just don't cut it, though. There are too many ways to be religious and too many ways to be non-religious to allow for this sort of uneducated, underdeveloped assessment of either. Even belief and doubt aren't really opposites.

So in defense of the blatantly rude and ignorant man I spoke with over the phone about his role in the atheist community in NYC, atheists are people, too. And people can be pretty ridiculous, regardless of whether they've aligned themselves with the camp that's supposed to be more intellectual or not.

Maybe we need some new terms for the camps. How about this: "people who are willing to have a conversation," and "people who just want to hear themselves talk."

[I agree with the above, though generally speaking, fundies do tend to be stupider than atheists. Just saying]

Hirhurim agrees with me!!!

I have been saying for a long while that an agnostic, and even a hard core skeptic, is not a kofer as long as he doesn't absolutely deny the existence of God. I heard this from R Yonah Reiss (head of RIETS) and other sources. And of course no rational skeptic (and all true skeptics are indeed rational) would ever deny categorically the existence of God, since that wouldn't be rational.

Now I see that Hirhurim agrees with me, quoting Rav Kook:

Chazal judged as a heretic only one who denies outright, i.e., one who reaches the opposite determination. This antithetical determination cannot possibly be found in Israel in any individual who is not an absolutely wicked man and intentional liar. For even the greatest wickedness can cast doubts only among the weak-minded. He who dares to say that he denies with certainty must be an absolutely wicked man, who is rightfully judged with all the punishments explicitly assigned to him.

And I agree with that. To categorically deny that any kind of "God" exists is not only irrational, but I think also indicative of a certain moral failing.

Life on Mars with Lady Gaga and Pirchei New York

There was a recent show on ABC called “Life on Mars”, the premise of which is that a modern day NYPD detective wakes up one day and finds to his surprise that its 1973, with hilarious consequences. He’s still a detective with the NYPD, but of course interrogation methods in 1973 make for much more exciting TV (CSI style DNA testing in the crime lab gets kinda boring after a while). There’s lot of cute contrasts between modern day attitudes with those of the ancient past. It also turns out that the entire show is a rip-off (err I mean trans-Atlantic transplant) of a similar show from the BBC set in Manchester, England.

As I age however, I increasingly feel like I’m a transplant from the ancient past to today. Maybe not 1973, but certainly 1983. The world keeps changing but, apart from maybe better cell-phones and digital cameras, I sometimes wish it wouldn’t. At least not so much.

Take rock/pop music for example. I’ve always prided myself on being Modern Orthodox (ha!), and as my Rabbi says, Modern Orthodoxy is Lechatchilah. (actually it isn’t. Chareidi Reconstructionist is Lechatchilah, everything else is bdieved. But that’s a whole ‘nother blog). I grew up listening to Pirchei Miami/New York/London AND Elton John/Michael Jackson (Supertramp and Pink Floyd came in Yeshivah). But the songs nowadays are unbelievable. Maybe I sound like an old fogey, but I really don’t want my kids listening to the disgusting lyrics that passes for mainstream music these days.

When the Beatles first came out, there was a lot of opposition. But “I wanna hold your hand”, despite being a problem of Negiah, sounds positively tame compared to “I kissed a girl” (not that there’s anything wrong with that for consenting adults yadda yadda) or some of Lady Gaga’s lyrics.

My wife thinks I’m nuts. She says that forcing my carpool to listen to Pirchei will mark my kids as nebuch cases amongst their friends, and kill their social status. But I refuse to listen to Lady Gaga in my van. So what happened this morning? I tried to compromise, and put on some Raya Mehemnah instead. But that didn’t go down too well either.

And maybe I’m completely out of touch with today’s Jewish Music scene anyways. Do the yeshiva kids of today even listen to Pirchei any more? Or even MBD? Perhaps now it’s all Lipa and who knows what. The lyrics I am sure are still 100% kosher (probably 110% kosher), but maybe the “beat” isn’t what it used to be.

Oh well, back to Mars.

The Rambam's 13 principles miss the most important one of all!

It's amazing how something can be staring you in the face, yet you can completely miss it.

Let me ask you a question -what is the fundamental principle of faith that defines Orthodoxy?

Clearly, most people would say TMS - Torah Min Hashamayim. Yet that is very vague and insufficient. Christians also believe in TMS, and so do Kairites. The real fundamental of Orthodoxy is in fact that Torah Shebal Peh AS INTERPRETED BY CHAZAL, is ultimately Min Hashamayim (even if not from Sinai).

It's not for nothing that we are called followers of Rabbinic Judaism. And it's also not for nothing that in the recent Science and Torah fight, the Chareidim and Gedolim were most concerned about the perceived (or perhaps real) attacks on Chazal's infallibility and authority.

As has been pointed out numerous times, the Chareidim don't care about interpreting the Torah literally. They probably don't even care about an ancient earth or evolution. What they really care about is Chazal, because they recognize that our entire religion (or at least our version of it) is completely and utterly based on Chazal's interpretation of Torah SheBaal Peh.

The academics call this "the myth of the two Torahs". Nowadays, we are used to debating the DH and Torah Shebichtav. But back in the day, everyone accepted the written Torah, and the fights were about the Oral Torah.

So, having said all this, if I asked you to name the fundamental belief of Orthodox (or Tradiional) Judaism - it really is belief in Chazal and Torah She Baal Peh. Everything else (even our belief in one God) all flows from that.

So it's somewhat surprising, even mind-boggling, that not only is belief in Chazal and Torah ShebaalPeh NOT number 1 in the ikkarim, it barely even gets a mention. Where is the ikkar that Chazal are the only interpreters of God's word? Where? Nowhere, that's where! Rambam didn't even mention it. He says something about Moshe receiving explanations of the Mitzvot along with the Torah, but he doesn't even make that a seperate principle.

Why is this? How could the Rambam have made such a glaring omission?

Well, I think that the Rambam didn't actually have as much respect for Chazal as you might think. He famously writes in the Moreh about a certain comment of Chazal "Would that all their sayings be so wonderful!" What a chutzpah! The Rambam also famously writes that now that we have his Mishneh Torah, we can stop learning Gemarah, it's no longer necessary.

Now of course the Rambam believed in TSBP, but he just didn't seem to think very much of Chazal. Or certainly not as much as we tend to think of them today. I guess he could say that, but we can't. It's also ironic that the way things turned out, our 13 fundamental's of faith basically miss the most important one of all.

Oh the irony!

Men are from Mars, Women Rabbis are from Venus

I had an interesting conversation today with a Rabbi who is also a sci-fi fan. He was wondering how Judaism would work in outer space, or on other planets. When would Jews in Space keep Shabbat? Does Yom Tov apply on Mars? Would our religion function entirely differently on Uranus? Heck, maybe we could even have Women Rabbis on Venus!

And what if we met up with aliens? Steven Hawking recently said that we probably don't want to meet aliens, because they probably want to kill us. I guess either because they are evil SOBs, or because they will think we are. Or maybe because in their culture killing people is a good thing.

But not knowing when Shabbat starts on Jupiter, or meeting nasty aliens on Saturn, is not the biggest threat that outer space poses to Judaism. I think the real threat is as follows: We meet some aliens, and they have a different religion. They have a different Holy Book, given to their ancestors by a completely different God.

OK, so big yawn right?

Except here's the twist: They have rock solid proof, because video recording on their planet was actually invented BEFORE the revelation. Ooops.

Who really really really REALLY wrote the Bible. I mean really!

This new book, Who really wrote the Bible, looks awesome! It totally debunks the DH.

As Rabbi Daniel Lapin writes:

"This bold and brilliant book dazzlingly defeats two hundred years of spurious scriptural scholarship and rolls back the sly secular struggle to demystify the Bible and diminish its influence on Western civilization. Rav-Noy and Weinreich strike a compelling blow in the crucial cultural debate whose outcome will sculpt our society for generations. Regardless of religious background, every reader who cares about freedom, goodness, and light will gain insight and inspiration from this wonderfully lucid and edutaining volume."

And as the authors themselves claim:

"The book breaks through the fog of intellectual condescension of the so-called experts to reveal text-based clues that conclusively demonstrate the literary unity of the Five Books of Moses."

Or even better, as they write on Amazon:

With impeccable scholarship Eyal Rav-Noy and Gil Weinreich reveal the supreme literary talent behind the Bible's single authorship and show that it is the "modern" academics who are behind the times.

- Learn how university scholars and clergymen were deceived, and even seduced from their faith, by bad scholarship and flawed assumptions.

- See as never before the pristine unity of the Bible in stunning literary patterns that had to have emanated from a single mind.

- Learn how the multiple-authorship theory depends on a simple misconception of the Hebrew names for God.

- See how abandoning single authorship has driven Bible scholars to ever more absurd misreadings, turning the profound into the nonsensical.

- Grasp the beauty and power of the dominant literary pattern in the Torah, the chiasmus.

I'm amazed that Gil hasn't been trumpeting this book from the rooftops. Perhaps it has something to do with this line:

- See how an easily discernable Bible code underscores important teachings, debunks the Bible critics, and can bring you to an ever richer and more powerful understanding of the foundational text of Judeo-Christian civilization.

Bible code? Anyways, such awesomeness! We can no longer claim that contemporary Orthodoxy has no response to the DH! Or at least, we can no longer claim that contemporary Jews for MenachemMendel-doxy has no response to the DH.

Of course it might be a bit more credible if the authors were not Chabad BTs with no serious background in Bible study (or probably Torah study), but what the heck, I bought the book anyway. How could I not?

You Can't Threaten People Into Believing Something

Guest Post by Rabbi Rational

Contemplating the various theological debates of the last few years, the following thought has repeatedly occurred to me. When those on my right insist that it is unacceptable to believe X (where X is anything from the world being millions of years old to Chazal being mistaken to the flood not being global to Torah not being divine to there not being a God), what do they believe the result of that to be?

It seems pretty clear to me that in many or even most cases you can't threaten someone into believing something. Much as those grappling with challenges may want to be a good Jew, they are not likely to suddenly start believing X because you tell them that one has to believe X in order to be a kosher Jew, especially if they are much more knowledgeable than you about the matter under question.

If someone has a strong education in Biblical studies and has concluded that the Documentary Hypothesis is true, he is not going to stop believing that because a rabbi tells him that it is incompatible with Judaism. What will happen instead is that they will be deeply tormented and will either (a) reject the rabbi as a representative of Judaism, (b) conclude that Judaism must be no good, or (c) feel that they are bad Jews and eventually detach themselves from the Jewish community.

Now, in some cases this may be unavoidable. I simply don't see how it's possible to, for example, grant the legitimacy of someone denying absolutely the existence of God, or denying any value to Torah (in its broader sense) in some significant sense, without fundamentally compromising Judaism. (Although if someone has such beliefs, it can still be possible to help them be part of the Jewish community, if they so desire.)

But in other cases, is this what those to my right really want? That someone should feel that Judaism is not for them? Is it really so terrible if they say, "Look, I don't believe that the Documentary Hypothesis is true, and in my view it is really contrary to Torah belief, but I must let you know that there are LW Modern Orthodox rabbis who believe otherwise"? Is that really worse than the alternative?

I wonder if those who negate other approaches even think about the consequences. I imagine that in some cases, they just assume that if they insist loudly enough that others must conform to the expected beliefs, then people will acquiesce. In other cases, they are just maniacally driven to denounce those perceived as enemies of the faith (such as myself), regardless of the consequences for those with questions that I am trying to help. And in other cases, I suspect that they might be battling their own personal demons.

Whatever their motivation, I think that they would be well advised to think about the consequences of their declaration that various beliefs are unequivocally incompatible with Judaism.

Do Chareidim actually understand why non frum jews are non frum?

I sometimes wonder if Chareidim actually understand why non frum Jews are actually non frum. Even supposedly sophisticated Jews like Eytan Kobre of Cross Currents seem to avoid stating the obvious - namely that non Orthodox Jews are not Orthodox because they don't believe for a second that Orthodoxy is true and that God wants them (or demands of them) to be Orthodox.

Now, like most people in all religions and all walks of life, it's true that most non Orthodox Jews have never done any real personal analysis of their beliefs, and just accept the non truth of Orthodoxy because that's what they were taught from birth, kinda like the way most Orthodox Jews accept that Orthodoxy is true, or that other religions are false.

But the leaders of the Non Orthodox movements and the educated non Orthodox laity certainly are forming their beliefs based on some analysis. Right or wrong, they simply don't believe that Orthodoxy is true. Yet you never really see this point discussed or accepted. In the infamous book "One People, Two Worlds" there were pages and pages of discussion about why Orthodoxy was better (or not) than Non Orthodoxy, but almost no discussion of the fundamental point of debate, namely that non Orthodox Jews believe that Orthodoxy just simply is not true, not even remotely true. And you rarely see any acknowledgement of this fact on Cross Currents or similar.

I find this bizarre.

Even more bizarre is that in my experience, if you ask Orthodox Jews what they would hypothetically do if they found out that Orthodoxy wasn't true, many of them reply that they would give it up. And even if they cannot conceive of a response to such a hypothetical, they all seem to agree that Orthopraxy is ridiculous. So what on earth do they expect non Orthodox Jews to do? Believe in something false? Practice Orthopraxy? What?!! Very strange.