Tuesday, May 31, 2011
And the most honest answer is ...
I see that Hirhurim has dredged up the 'teiku' discussion again. The issue is, when there's no good answer to a question, is it better to just say 'teiku' - you don't die from a question, or better to try and answer? Personally I have always been conflicted over which response is the lesser of two evils - the Chareidi response of teiku (or just dismissing science completely), or the MO response of saying Torah is allegorical (which is just as fake an answer). I guess the fact that after 5 years I still can't decide shows (at least to me) that each approach is equally dishonest in its own way. Of course the most honest answer is sometimes 'Yeah, I guess the religion I happened to be born in to might not be the one true religion', but you won't be hearing that one anytime soon, it's bad for business.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
111 comments:
Choice # 3:
Of course most of what's in the Torah isn't literally true - it's ancient oral myths adapted into a human-written Torah. But I still value the Torah as "sacred myth", and gain spiritual fulfillment from observant Judaism, so I stick with it, without being conflicted.
While I may not subscribe to either approach, I still don't think that saying the Torah is allegorical is just as bad as a "teiku" approach. The latter refuses to engage empiricism, the former at least tries.
Take the mabul, for instance. The Charedi approach denies logical evidence & insists that there was one, the MO approach at worst misinterprets a piece of literature, without insisting there was a global flood.
Philo,
I think you're missing the point. Whether or not there was once a global flood is far less important than the insistence of the divine origin of the torah
So, XGH, if some yeshivah kid somehow came across you and asked you his questions, you'd just tell him that Judaism is false? What exactly do you think that would accomplish?
What's important is that the Tanach comprises the sacred texts of the Jewish people. I leave dogmatic ideas about the origin of these texts to others so inclined as to wonder about such matters.These are ancient writings which inform our sense of holiness and our relationship to the Divine.The fact that they may have strong similarities in style and content to the writings of other neighboring cultures does not diminish their centrality to the experience of being "Jewish."In other words,savor the beauty of a "Shir Hamaalos" and allow youself to appreciate the psychological depth of the story of Joseph and his brothers.Leave the issue of "authorship"to academicians and religious fundamentalists.Yiddishkeit is a lot more than debating Torah min hashomayim or doing textual comparisons with other semitic cultures.
JJ,
"What exactly do you think that would accomplish"
whats wrong with telling someone the truth? maybe they can lead and live a very productive life without wasting it on narishkeit
Most people would just dismiss him and continue to be tormented by the question and be unsure whether to accept modern science. As for those that would accept what he has to say - if they are married with kids and settled in the orthodox community, is it really a good idea to convince them that it's all bogus? Is that what XGH wants to do, to convince all OJs that revealed religion is bogus? And after that, the Christians? Methinks that the downside, of wrecking people and families and communities, bears serious consideration.
"So, XGH, if some yeshivah kid somehow came across you and asked you his questions, you'd just tell him that Judaism is false? "
What do you want? I should lie? But it makes a difference who, how old etc. I'm not going to go around telling other people's kids the truth.
The problem is that "teku" is often used when there actually IS a very good answer, but said answer does not fit within the daled amot of present day OrthoDOX ideology.
>whats wrong with telling someone the truth? maybe they can lead and live a very productive life without wasting it on narishkeit
So for the sake of your truth, you would destroy some sheltered kids life???
"What do you want? I should lie? But it makes a difference who, how old etc. I'm not going to go around telling other people's kids the truth."
I assume that XGH wrote that comment. In which case I don't understand the point of this post. You yourself wouldn't tell these people the truth (as you see it).
JJ -
If some yeshivahs kid goes up to xgh for answers, he (since your premise cleay excludes she-people) is probably looking for enlightenment. If they come to you instead, you can tell them all the myths you like.
True, if they were to approach him. But XGH was criticizing the responses of Charedi and MO rabbis. And then he admitted that if he were to be in their position, he wouldn't do anything different.
Hh, why is telling someone the truth "destoying" their life?!?!?
So only somone that lives a Sheltered life in orthodox judaism has a successfull like, but if she/ he is shown the falsehoods therein, you destroy them?
Thats some weird stuff you are smoking
"And then he admitted that if he were to be in their position, he wouldn ' t do anything different ."
Wow, talk about twisting my words. I said no such thing.
XGH
Bad for who's business? If you think it's false, you should tell people it's false.
Maybe if enough people do that, they will start to actually educate you Luddites in NY.
I never enjoyed Jewish Life, or Jews in NY. These blogs give me reasons for my biases.
Wow, talk about twisting my words. I said no such thing.
My apologies. So what would you do, if you were suddenly transported into their shoes?
Anonymous 6:21 -
It is so sad that Jewish life (and may I assume specific sets of Jews) have been spoiled for you. I hope your spending time on this blog and others is part of a search for a reason to reconnect. Like all other systems/cultures/communities, we yidden have many flaws. At the same time there are powerful, sustaining elements in jewish life and culture like the intense attention to children, education and family, as well as a truly distinctive questioning self-critical ethic that are ennobling and enriching. Heck, we also have a hilarious sense of humor!
I hope you can find something in the mix to connect to.
I don't know which is worse, either. With their intellectual dishonesty, MOs might be doing even more harm. At least if you're a chareidi kid who decides you want a real answer, you're likely to find the real answer. If you're an MO, maybe the whole idea of searching for truth has been so mixed up by the fraud of intellectual Orthodoxy that you don't know how.
It's hilarious and disturbing how Orthodox people prefer skeptics to lie to their children. HH if you want to tell my (hypothetical) children what you believe, I wouldn't freak out nearly as much as you would if I told yours what I believe. What do you think that says about our levels of confidence in our respective beliefs?
XGH - What is so wrong about saying the Torah is allegorical? Perhaps your issue with MO is the additional underlying assumption of TMS. However, the compilers/redactors of our holy books made the choices they did b/c they wanted particular messages to come across. Your MO rabbi can accept science and live on the faith in allegory + TMS; your OP rabbi sees science as close to truth and sees the allegory of Torah as something compelling about Yahadut.
>Hh, why is telling someone the truth "destoying" their life?!?!?
Um, look at how XGH has been pretty miserable for quite some time, over his discoveries. I went through a point of great misery. Many many people do.
You can't just have a knee-jerk reaction to tell people the truth. You have to think of the consequences to this persons general life. ESPECIALLY if someone young comes to you.
Jewish Atheist
What are you saying, that truth is always the ultimate goal no matter what?? I want to see how this will affect them. Admittingly, an atheist does not lead a sheltered life. An orthodox to varying degrees does. If I know this will harm his life, than truth is a secondary. I know you like to think of yourself as a sophisticated, progressive person. But lets so how all that progress holds up when some naive boy in a black hat comes to you with a question. Are you going to look at him and just tell him its all B.S without thinking of what it will do to him?
>What do you think that says about our levels of confidence in our respective beliefs?
It says nothing. It is sometimes easier to destroy than it is to build.
HH:
I agree that it's not always best to just unleash the truth on a kid, especially if it's someone else's kid, but as an adult you should realize that if your beliefs are so fragile that they can't compete in a free marketplace of ideas, then they probably aren't true.
>So only somone that lives a Sheltered life in orthodox judaism has a successfull like, but if she/ he is shown the falsehoods therein, you destroy them?
We aren't talking about ice-cream flavors here. You are talking about a persons entire life. What he was raised in. All he knows. If I am to rock the boat. I indeed better know that he is very much prepared for what will happen next.
>but as an adult you should realize that if your beliefs are so fragile that they can't compete in a free marketplace of ideas, then they probably aren't true.
But thats not what I was talking to right? That isn't what I was responding to Ksil right? I was talking about "children" right? So why do you always have this gut instinct to attack anything I (the orthodox, coincidentally) have to say???
Isn't the truth very much subjective? Didn't Heisenberg demonstrate that?
Actually what HH is saying is even more true for an adult who is married with kids. The consequences can be even more disastrous.
>Actually what HH is saying is even more true for an adult who is married with kids. The consequences can be even more disastrous.
It can be true for anyone.
Can someone please explain why telling someone that santa claus does not exist is "disasterous"??
And anyway, we are just talking about telling someone, a kid perhaps that some people believe as he or she does and others (me) dont believe it....
I think its a great lesson to teach a kid - better than them having the rug pulled out from under them when they are a married adult with kids
"It's hilarious and disturbing how Orthodox people prefer skeptics to lie to their children. HH if you want to tell my (hypothetical) children what you believe, I wouldn't freak out nearly as much as you would if I told yours what I believe. What do you think that says about our levels of confidence in our respective beliefs?"
Congratulations on winning the Internet.
My two cents, if someone's kid came over to me and asked me questions about God, I would say ask your parents. That would be my response through age 21. After 21, if someone is asking the question, they deserve to know the truth. Not that I would necessarily do the right thing.
BSD, it's hard to do the right thing. It's hard to even tell a friend that an outfit makes her look fat (even when she asks for the truth, she may not really want to hear it). Kal vechomer telling someone that his cherished beliefs are myths.
"… the study of the Book of Books must constitute a mature intellectual challenge,…. It is predicated upon the profound conviction… that the findings of modern biblical studies, in all their scholarly ramifications, provide the means to a keener understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures… Far from presenting a threat to faith, a challenge to the intellect may reinforce faith and purify it.…
Literalism involves a fundamental misconception… of the narrative which skewers the meaningful and enduring in it and destroys its relevancy… Another misapprehension, shared alike by [skeptics and fundamentalists is] that… [the assertion of a] non-unitary origin of the Pentateuch must be destructive of faith…. But is it not to circumscribe the power of God in a most extraordinary manner to assume that the Divine can only work effectively through the medium of a single document, but not through four?…
[S]ource differentiation, as important as it is, is not the quintessence of wisdom. In fact, it alone is inadequate to the appreciation of the Bible as a religious document.… Spiritual insight and sensitivity are as indispensable a scholarly ingredient as a faultless methodology. It is not unreasonable to demand, surely, that an awareness of the existential human predicament be an essential prerequisite for the understanding of the biblical message that addresses itself precisely to this predicament. Such a demand is no less scientific than to expect the musical critic not to be tone deaf…"
--Nahum Sarna, Understanding Genesis.
If this mature view was the approach of our religious education, there would be no need to "hide" anything. Uber-Frummies and skeptics alike are guilty of misunderstanding the essence of the text, in their common assumption that the text must either be "literally" true and, therefore, valid, or not literally true, and, therefore, a "lie". This fundamental misunderstanding is the source of much unnecessary angst.
HH:
"But thats not what I was talking to right? That isn't what I was responding to Ksil right? I was talking about "children" right?"
It's along the lines of what the original post was about.
"So why do you always have this gut instinct to attack anything I (the orthodox, coincidentally) have to say??? "
I disagree with you strongly, so I'm voicing (typing) that disagreement. Is that so crazy? Aren't you on this blog in the first place to disagree with (and "attack") XGH?
You're sitting here explaining why we skeptics should lie to both children and adults and you get upset when someone points out how fragile your beliefs are?
I think convincing an Orthodox kid or adult will send that person through a traumatic experience, but at least for those who are able to leave (this category includes all kids and many adults) I think most would be grateful.
I feel grateful towards the various authors and posters who convinced me that OJ was untrue back when I was Orthodox. I would rather have the truth than a pleasant fiction even if those were the only two choices, but in reality being OTD is quite pleasant (the transition was admittedly rough) and I don't have to lie to myself or others to maintain my beliefs. I consider that a win-win.
Moshe:
It's not fair to say that skeptics think that the text is a lie. We say that various parts are untrue, just as you do. We also say that various beliefs fundamental to OJ are untrue, just as you do.
>It's along the lines of what the original post was about.
I was making a very specific comment to Ksil about going gungho without carrying about the consequences. So then whats the point of bringing me into your using comments about how week OJ people are regarding beliefs.
>You're sitting here explaining why we skeptics should lie to both children and adults and you get upset when someone points out how fragile your beliefs are?
My beliefs aren't fragile brother. Sorry. But some people's are. THAT is what I am talking about.
>I think convincing an Orthodox kid or adult will send that person through a traumatic experience, but at least for those who are able to leave (this category includes all kids and many adults) I think most would be grateful.
Ok, so we are in agreement then right? Didn't I say that you have to know whether a person can handle it or not?
>I consider that a win-win.
Well good for you then.
but at least for those who are able to leave (this category includes all kids and many adults) I think most would be grateful.
But most are NOT able to leave. And even if they are, they might leave a broken marriage and family behind them. So do you still think it's a kindness to try to convince these people that it's all false?
I feel grateful towards the various authors and posters who convinced me that OJ was untrue
Good for you. But why do you assume that most other people are like you? XGH certainly doesn't seem happy or grateful. And he's got the benefit of a wife and community who don't care. Most other Orthodox Jews would not have that.
JJ:
Perhaps I was wrong when I said "most" adults. One of the most insidious parts of OJ is how it makes it so hard for people to stop practicing, basically holding their spouses, kids, and community hostage. It's very cult-like if you think about it.
On the other hand, it's hard to know, especially online, whose spouse would leave them for going OTD, whose would be reasonable, and whose would follow them right OTD. It's not unheard of. I have friends where the wife followed the husband OTD. Also, even if they choose to stay Orthoprax, they won't necessarily be miserable and they might make it easier for their children or their children's friends to go OTD if they choose to. Or to be open if they're gay, etc. etc.
Would all of you suggesting that we stay silent or lie to people stuck in OJ say the same for Mormons or Muslims? Or is there a bias towards OJ here?
Would all of you suggesting that we stay silent or lie to people stuck in OJ say the same for Mormons or Muslims? Or is there a bias towards OJ here?
The only bias is insofar as OJ seems to be a fairly good way of life. I'd say the same about Mormons and Amish. Not sure about Muslims, there's that whole terrorism thing.
Anyway, I'm glad to see that you apparently concede that for many people, telling them the truth as you see it could be very harmful. Either XGH disagrees, in which he is out of touch with reality, or he agrees, in which case his post is wrong. Probably he never even thought about it, and just leaped at the opportunity to beat up on charedim and MO, as usual, without even thinking about what the alternatives are.
Not sure about Muslims, there's that whole terrorism thing.
Not sure about OJs, there's that whole harassment-arson-attempted murder thing. As a percentage of adherents to the religion, it's probably similar.
You must be joking. But if you're serious, OK. So are you saying that one should in fact try to convince all OJS to become skeptics, and that the potential for harm caused is justified by the need to stop them supporting arson etc.?
>One of the most insidious parts of OJ is how it makes it so hard for people to stop practicing, basically holding their spouses, kids, and community hostage. It's very cult-like if you think about it.
You do realize (I after all these years blogging, I would hope you do realize) that OJ, is way too broad a term. You have LWMO on one side and ultra chassidim on the other. You do realize (again) that not all (probably not even most) of OJ do what you just said.
You must be joking.
I'm only joking to the extent that I don't view Islam as a worse way of life than Amish or Mormonism, or OJ either. There are crazy extremists in every group; Islam has more partly because it's a much bigger group.
So you're saying for most Orthodox adults, I don't have to worry about that? Sweet!
JA,
"It's not fair to say that skeptics think that the text is a lie. We say that various parts are untrue, just as you do. We also say that various beliefs fundamental to OJ are untrue, just as you do."
1. Not literally true does not mean untrue. Yeats was not lying,e.g. when he wrote "Sobriety is a jewel" (a skeptic might want to see such a gem), nor did William Carlos Williams, when he wrote "The alphabet of trees" (are trees letters?). And neither did the Torah,e.g. when it described the origins of humanity in terms of Adam and Eve.
2. Some people say wearing a black hat is "fundamental". I submit that, properly understood, the tradition says otherwise, and the same holds true with respect to requiring such "literal" beliefs.
HH and JA -
our sages teach that if someone unknowingly makes a bad purchase and tells you about it, you should be sensitive and not pull the emotional rug out from under him. Similarly, at a wedding we sing kalah na'eh even for a conventionally unattractive bride because there are some ways that she is na'eh (her midot, intelligence, or just in her groom's eyes). Hence Truth is not the whole point.
So too, I posit, for the person who buys into OJ or who is wedded to it. Make a judgement call on what you think is an appropriate answer if they ask - the Truth, a brush off, maybe even a convoluted answer or a teiku.
And despite your kefira (as applicable) you are within halachah. Gotta love that.
"literally" true and, therefore, valid, or not literally true, and, therefore, a "lie". This fundamental misunderstanding is the source of much unnecessary angst"
The angst does not come from the realization of the lie, its a social angst
Moshe, you believe its nit literally true, but its.....what now?
I wonder how hyrax the holy would deal with his 7 year old son who comes home crying after someone at school told him that santa is not real.
How could someone do that!?!?! It could be diaasterous!!!!
Ksil...you remind me of the blogger OTD: Dealing with a lot of issues when leaving orthodoxy causing him to be rash, immature, and no life wisdom whats so ever.
Yes, even for some kids, some unwanted stranger telling them santa is not real can be very hurtful, but don't be stupid enough to compare it to the whole of religion. Something that your whole lifestyle is based on.
Ksil,
"Moshe, you believe its nit literally true, but its.....what now?"
The Divine revelation, as perceived by the prophets, of the fundamental moral truths that govern our existence.
" Zaphod Orthoprax said...
Anonymous 6:21 .."
You completely misunderstand me. I live in Israel, and stay far away from all you crazy NY based Jewish communities. I hang out with my Moroccan buddies and have an amazing rich and fulfilling Jewish life, and conversations. I just can't believe people think of NY as some sort of Jewish Hub.. sounds more like an anti-Jesus Christian hub.
Moshe:
I agree that the Adam and Eve story isn't necessarily intended to be literal. My quarrel isn't with the stories in the Torah per se, but with Orthodoxy's interpretation of them.
I know Orthodoxy doesn't require a belief in a literal Adam and Eve, but for example, it does require a belief in the Exodus. Not to mention the belief that Moshe (and maybe Joshua) wrote the Torah. Those things are just not true.
Solomon:
I agree about the judgment call.
hyrax, you do similar. it is not necessarily disasterous to have a conversation with your child about these things. in fact, it could bring parent and child closer together.
i'll tell you what is bad for that relationship and potentially disasterous: lying. especialy lying for the sake of not-rocking-th-boat or whatever reason you think its important to keep crucial life-altering information from your kids.
>hyrax, you do similar. it is not necessarily disasterous to have a conversation with your child about these things. in fact, it could bring parent and child closer together.
If its your child...perhaps. But thats not what the initial question was to XGH. It's if someone else comes to you. Even if its your own son, you still should be careful. I mean, do you care for his happiness or your own happiness?
>i'll tell you what is bad for that relationship and potentially disasterous: lying. especialy lying for the sake of not-rocking-th-boat or whatever reason you think its important to keep crucial life-altering information from your kids
Maybe, maybe not. As you can see, there are plenty of orthoprax people that love the lifestyle and see no issue keeping their own private beliefs to themselves.
Everything has to be done appropriately. That is all I am saying.
"do you care for his happiness or your own happiness" nice spin...make it look like someone that may disclose to a religious person that they do not believe is "selfish"
man, you are such a tuchus
if asked, there is nothing at all wrong with telling someone that you do not believe it is true. sorry you think that this would be disasterous or inappropriate.
Agree with ksil. If someone outside my own family is asking specifically me, they are picking me for a reason. There is nothing wrong with telling the truth.
It's moot anyway ... people don't walk around asking about theological beliefs. People ask for a hearts-of-palm-salad recipe, ask where you got the dress for your last simcha, ask who did the amazing bangs on your sheitel ... they don't ask about theology.
(Among men, I bet they ask about electronic gadgets, car leases, and favorite single malts - am I anywhere close?)
I think you misunderstood me.
If someone tells someone they don't believe in it (even a someone young), then fine.
I'm against someone ACTIVELY trying to SHOW someone their beliefs are BS without knowing the consequences.
Big difference.
Sorry if that was not clear before.
Anon 8:29
I resemble that remark.
Kudos to you for living a true Jewish life in the Jewish homeland. I hope XGH doesn't give too much of it away for you.
JA,
"it does require a belief in the Exodus. "
We may not possess, at least at present, conclusive proof that the Israelites left Egypt en masse as the Bible describes. What we do have, though, are several indications of the Exodus’ historicity, and ample evidence that the biblical account is entirely plausible.
It is a simple matter to claim that lack of clear, decisive external confirmation of the biblical account is itself a disproof, but no rational person believes that what has not been proven is false. What can be stated with certainly, however, is that there is no consensus that the Exodus is a myth.
-Lawrence H. Schiffman, Ethel and Irvin A. Edelman Professor in Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New York University, quoted at http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/Exodus.htm
"Not to mention the belief that Moshe (and maybe Joshua) wrote the Torah. "
As I have commented here b/f, some of our great Rishonim did not so hold.
"07666 said...
I hope XGH doesn't give too much of it away for you."
Can you explain that sentence please?
Still, to XGH, this whole idea of "Orthoprax" is Christian nonsense. Get out of galut, go home, and stop pretending you just escaped from the ghetto. And you can leave those christians, erm I mean chabad, guys in your LWMO community back in the states.
Just a tongue-in-cheek reference to xgh's next post on Jerusalem.
Moshe,
"but no rational person believes that what has not been proven is false. "
so you believe in Jesus, then? interesting....
Moshe:
And you think Schiffman's claim is representative of the field? Or are you just scholar shopping to find one who kind of agrees with you? Obviously you can find random scholars to agree with pretty much any hypothesis, especially if a major religion is involved. The question is if that's an honest way to go about it.
Let's say you wanted to know whether vaccines cause autism? Would you shop around until you found a doctor who claims they do?
As I have commented here b/f, some of our great Rishonim did not so hold.
Yeah? Which ones held that large parts were written hundreds of years after Moshe supposedly existed?
>Let's say you wanted to know whether vaccines cause autism? Would you shop around until you found a doctor who claims they do?
Either Schiffman has a point, or he doesn't. It's irrelevant if he is representative of the field or not. Vaccines can be empirically checked. History is another question.
JA,
"And you think Schiffman's claim is representative of the field?"
What HH said. I would only add that the various theories of biblical scholars have shifted so much for so long, that any pretense to definitive conclusions is belied.
"Which ones held that large parts were written hundreds of years after Moshe supposedly existed?"
The supposed doctrine as commonly understood, and as summarized by you above, is that one must believe that every word of the Torah was written down by Moses, with the possible exception of the last several verses, which may have been written by Joshua. I would first point out that the author of the supposed doctrine, Maimonides, did not make allowances in his formulation for Joshua's involvement. Thus, one would have to conclude that, if the common understanding of the doctrine is correct, then he who posits that Joshua wrote the end of the Torah is a heretic. This would have to include the rabbis in the Talmud who subscribed to that view! This is one clue that the common understanding of the doctrine is incorrect.
Even if we say that the supposed doctrine does allow the possibility of Joshua writing the end, but excludes any further development thereafter, it can be demonstrated, as Prof. Shapiro recently has done, that a number of illustrious authorities disagree. These authorities include Ibn Ezra,R. Yehuda He Chosid, and Rashi. In a recent comment, several threads ago, I believe that I cited chapter and verse. Now, it is true that these authorities, by and large, only allow for small post-Mosaic changes in the text. Nonetheless, either the doctrine, as commonly understood, is binding, in which case it is heretical to posit ANY later additions, or the doctrine,as commonly understood, is not binding, in which case I do not see why the number or the extent of the changes would be controlling.
What I believe Maimonides was actually getting at was that it would be heretical to assert that the text, or any part thereof, was wholly man-made, in the same way that, say, Shakespeare's Hamlet is. Moses was mentioned in the doctrine simply because he was commonly assumed at the time by virtually everyone to have written it (or virtually all of it) down.
I highly recommend the article on Daat Emet (under Essays) entitled "Archaeological Findings Help Determine When the Era in which the Torah was Written."
For those skeptical about the DH/MA approach and it's related questions, the article has important background info."
Either Schiffman has a point, or he doesn't. It's irrelevant if he is representative of the field or not. Vaccines can be empirically checked. History is another question.
MY point is that Moshe is citing Schiffman and only Schiffman not because after careful study of many scholars, he realized that Schiffman happened to make a uniquely great point, but because Schiffman made a point that goes along with what Moshe wanted to believe. That's why it's dishonest.
Yes, the one doctor you find who maintains still that vaccines cause autism MIGHT have a point, but if you go along with him just because he agrees with your own prior beliefs and not because you have any legitimate reason to believe he's right and the other 99.99% of doctors are wrong, then you're being dishonest.
JA,
My original comment respecting the Exodus was in response to your comment that "Orthodoxy does require a belief in the Exodus...," which implied that the Exodus was as fictional, historically speaking, as the Adam and Eve story. My point was simply to show that not all scholars would agree. I could have cited others besides Schiffman (e.g. Kenneth Kitchen). And of course I selected a scholar who supports my position.
That selection, I submit, does not make me "dishonest".
>MY point is that Moshe is citing Schiffman and only Schiffman not because after careful study of many scholars, he realized that Schiffman happened to make a uniquely great point, but because Schiffman made a point that goes along with what Moshe wanted to believe. That's why it's dishonest.
And had he commented on other scholars and ignored Schiffman, would he still have been dishonest??
I'm saying an objective person looking at scholarly work probably wouldn't single out the few scholars who think something like the Exodus happened.
JA,
Truth is not always on the side of the majority.
And if "objectivity" be the lodestar, consider that many biblical scholars who have held, and who hold, "minimalist" positions,have also held decidedly negative views of Judaism and the Jewish people. I presume that you would, therefore, reject their views, too, as not being "objective",would you not?
Truth is not always on the side of the majority.
No, not always. But when you're not yourself an expert, it's pretty arrogant to think you should go with the minority, *especially* if that minority is saying something you desperately want to be true.
>I'm saying an objective person looking at scholarly work probably wouldn't single out the few scholars who think something like the Exodus happened.
Well, an objective person should probably have these experts counted as much as he would have the ones disagreeing as well. I mean, remember, a lot of this stuff is dealing with ancient history. A lot of interpretation is needed.
>But when you're not yourself an expert, it's pretty arrogant to think you should go with the minority, *especially* if that minority is saying something you desperately want to be true.
Doesn't this simply end up being an argument from authority?
Why do some of the commenters here "desperately" want certain ideas to be true? Why the desperation? And why do you care so much if others don't believe those ideas are true? Why can't you just live your lives & have your beliefs and not worry about others' beliefs?
tesyaa,
they believe that orthodox judaism as practiced now by frum people (even in L.A!) is divine revelation (as perceived by the prophets) and contains within it fundamental moral truths that govern our existence.
So they HAVE to butt in. (And of course COMMAND us that we cannot try to persuade anyone else to believe as we do because the consequences would be so derimental, like going to college, getting a masters degree, contributing to society, not popping out 5 kids before you turn 30, etc etc....BUT THEY CAN DO IT and call it kiruv thats not fair!!)
i'm ranting now
>Why the desperation? And why do you care so much if others don't believe those ideas are true? Why can't you just live your lives & have your beliefs and not worry about others' beliefs?
See, let me explain something to you Tesyaa. This is a blog. A public one. A public one that wants commentators to discuss the topic. Conversations go on tangents. People make claims back and forth and those particular claims are then discussed even if doesn't relate much to the original topic. Do you really think I CARE if yours believes????
::snort::
Hahahahahhaha
No.
But its still a blog making an argument or claim. Those claims are allowed to be discussed (god forbid). Either those arguments and claims are true or they aren't. That is what everyone is here for.
So for example: I could care less if JA does not believe. But, I simply found it interesting that instead of dealing with what Schiffman actually said, he is simply dismissed because JA claims is not part of the majority and therefore, defacto dishonest to bring him to this discussion.
in laymans terms, HH is trying to say he likes to find tiny little nuances in a post or a comment that may not jibe with his experience and thus he calls that claim or fact FALSE or UNTRUE and its his duty to point this out which really has no impact on the main poin that the poster or commenter is trying to make but nonetheless it makes HH feel better about himself that he points out these potenitally errors in fact and he could care less if you want to not believe in shdus, but stop trying to spread it around within the cult
clear? ::snort:: lol
Ksil,
I wasn't aware contradictory opinions were not allowed.
Oh, That is, unless its AGAINST religion. In that case, it's always welcome.
If a believe walks here and makes bad arguments, the flood gates are open to all his fallacies in argumentation. If a skeptic does it...CHAS VECHALILA that you bring it up their attention.
in general, we appreciate rational arguments. faith, by definition is not rational. those that concede they are not rational are generally (and respectfully) engaged in discussion.
thos that stand up in the bleachers, heaving pointless and slanted opinions are mocked
Really?????
Where did I discuss anything based on faith?
I think your problem ksil, is that you don't actually read peoples comments. You just assume a believer is going to say something, then you attack it.
dude, this is my last comment, just becasue it is getting annoying.
everything you say is littered with your faith. when you talk about how great raising kids is in the frum schools or why the orthodox jewish lifestyle is so great.
oh yea, and you ALWAYS say that someone that disagrees with you did not actually read your comments, whcih is equally annoying.
>when you talk about how great raising kids is in the frum schools or why the orthodox jewish lifestyle is so great.
Thats not a faith based response you moron, its a values based response. It's an opinion, and I back up that opinion... God forbid.
oh yea, one more thing, then i am done. you call people names, like moron, etc. which is obnoxious. par for the course i guess.
who said anything about "faith-based" response - your faith is infused in your commentary which reeks of bias and slant.
gamarnu
>who said anything about "faith-based" response - your faith is infused in your commentary which reeks of bias and slant
Wow...Im bias. Quite the argument. Why don't you try to actually deal with something I actually SAY!! God forbid.
From Biblical Archaeology Review Magazine:
"The Birth & Death of Biblical Minimalism"
This article does not discuss the Exodus per se, but is instructive as to the approach of the minimalists. My favorite quote is
"[Respecting an inscription that seemingly refuted their position that 'King David was “about as historical as King Arthur',t]he minimalists reacted in panic, leading to a number of suggestions that now seem ridiculous: The Hebrew bytdwd should be read not as the House of David, but as a place named betdwd, in parallel to the well-known place-name Ashdod.2 Other minimalist suggestions included “House of Uncle,” “House of Kettle” and “House of Beloved.”c
Nowadays, arguments like these can be classified as displaying “paradigm-collapse trauma,” that is, literary compilations of groundless arguments, masquerading as scientific writing through footnotes, references and publication in professional journals."
http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=37&Issue=03&ArticleID=06&Page=0&UserID=0&
Perhaps it is your boys who will soon be in the minority, JA.
Doesn't this simply end up being an argument from authority?
Well, yes! Going with the authorities is a reasonable strategy when you yourself do not know as much. But by all means, if you can educate yourself, do so.
So for example: I could care less if JA does not believe. But, I simply found it interesting that instead of dealing with what Schiffman actually said, he is simply dismissed because JA claims is not part of the majority and therefore, defacto dishonest to bring him to this discussion.
Okay, let me spend ten minutes on Google. LOL, done. So Schiffman in his article cites exactly one source, Hershel Shanks, the editor of Biblical Archaeology Review.
You know what Shanks and that publication are most (in)famous for? Falling for one of the biggest hoaxes in recent archaeology: The Brother of Jesus: The Dramatic Story & Meaning of the First Archaeological Link to Jesus & His Family He teamed up with a Christian nut to write a whole book about it.
But you don't even need to know that. Just read the article! It's full of hand-wavy weasel phrases like "can be taken to be reflected" and "From this point of view" and "is perfectly plausible' and "seem to paint a picture very close." He OBVIOUSLY is just looking for excuses to believe in the Exodus.
Or read this paragraph:
The Bible describes the period immediately after the Exodus as one of extended wandering in the desert. This wandering was said to result from the fear of the Israelites that a direct route to Canaan, along the Mediterranean coast toward what is now the Gaza Strip, would be dangerous because of the Egyptian armies stationed there. This circumstance has been confirmed as historical by the discovery of the remains of extensive Egyptian influence, habitation and fortification in the Gaza region in this period, especially at Deir al-Balakh. Again, the biblical record is confirmed.
He's saying "the biblical record is confirmed" because the Bible says the Jews wandered in the desert and archaeology shows "Egyptian influence, habitation and fortification in the Gaza region." You don't see how ridiculous that is?!
You don't understand. We skeptics aren't being unreasonable or making giant leaps. We're not just hearing about some hypothesis and saying, well that sounds right. Your beliefs are just wrong, and (almost) all the secular scholars know it to a damn near certainty. This isn't a real debate. It's like young-earth creationism and evolution but with history.
The funny thing is, I know this revelation that the article Moshe quoted cites exactly one source and that that source is laughably biased and proven to be gullible beyond measure will make absolutely no difference to Moshe. Maybe he'll find some other source to quote to people on blogs and he won't spend ten minutes on google researching if that guy is a total fraud as well.
>You know what Shanks and that publication are most (in)famous for? Falling for one of the biggest hoaxes in recent archaeology:
I don't understand...wasn't Finkelstein one of the minimalist that said David did not exist? Then he is proven wrong, does that mean all his work is worthless? Have you ever once read any of Schiffman's books? He isn't some shmuck, as neither Finkelstein is a shmuck, though I do admit that Schiffman's speciality is more of DSS era Jewry.
Ok, so Shank was wrong with X....does that mean he is wrong with Y? Does he, or doesn't he have a valid point regarding the Gaza region? If so, then perhaps he is correct regarding that claim in the biblical record. I mean, its not like he is the first person to mention that. So what exactly is the great revelation here to Moshe?
Anyways, I have no problem with Mr. X or Mrs. Y being wrong. I simply detest the ridiculous argument that since other scholars disagree, there is no point in bringing a counter-point. Guess what??? There were many many great scholars that believed the Torah wasn't redacted till some time near the Hashmonean period...that is until the DSS were discovered.
>It's like young-earth creationism and evolution but with history.
Well that seems to be the crux of the problem. I simply refuse to accept hard science on the same level as archeology. Pick up the latest National Geographic. Cover story is how historians might have to rethink their entire conception of how religion started based on a new temple just discovered.
Whatever, there is obviously no convincing you. Archaeologists and historians are often wrong, therefore it's reasonable to believe in TMS and the Exodus. Okay.
JA,
Sof Davar:
In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, such that no reasonable person could hold otherwise, there is no reason to abandon the traditional belief in the historicity of the exodus.
BTW, I do not believe that Judaism stands or falls on such belief. The gates of allegorical interpretation are not closed to us. OTOH, I see no need to allegorize a major tradition, based largely upon speculation and absence of evidence.
You seem to have a deep felt need, beyond what the evidence calls for, to disprove the reality of the existence. Just as a frummie might take unreasonable positions to support his inherited dogmas, you seem to do so to support your anti-faith. A rationalist would simply land where the evidence is, or candidly admit, as is the case with the issue at hand, that there is insufficient evidence, and that reasonable people can differ. Truce?
In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, such that no reasonable person could hold otherwise, there is no reason to abandon the traditional belief in the historicity of the exodus.
Two problems:
1) With your biases, you are very unlikely to find practically any evidence "compelling."
2) If the evidence isn't "compelling" it still tends to point one way or the other. You should go with where it seems to be pointing rather than just going with whatever you want to.
You seem to have a deep felt need, beyond what the evidence calls for, to disprove the reality of the existence. Just as a frummie might take unreasonable positions to support his inherited dogmas, you seem to do so to support your anti-faith.
I'm not going beyond the evidence at all. I am in agreement with the mainstream in every academic field I'm aware of. Possibly you could argue that atheism is "beyond the evidence" but not the rest of it. The evidence would lead any remotely objective person to believe that the Exodus did not happen anywhere remotely like OJ claims it did. The evidence would lead any remotely objective observer to believe that the chumash was put together and large parts (e.g. Deuteronomy) were written hundreds of years after Moshe would have lived.
You're the one clinging to the dogma, grasping at every gap in the evidence as an excuse to keep believing.
>Archaeologists and historians are often wrong, therefore it's reasonable to believe in TMS and the Exodus.
That is not what I said at all. At all. I simply do not treat them infallible as you do. I also judge the truth no matter where it comes from.
And to be fair, I am also skeptical about pro-biblical archeological claims without any hard evidence.
That is not what I said at all. At all. I simply do not treat them infallible as you do. I also judge the truth no matter where it comes from.
On the contrary. It is their fallibility that leads me to trust them. Every time there is a new piece of evidence, they change their minds accordingly, because they recognize that they are fallible.
Contrast that with Orthodox Judaism, which acts like chazal were infallible.
>On the contrary. It is their fallibility that leads me to trust them. Every time there is a new piece of evidence, they change their minds accordingly, because they recognize that they are fallible.
Good, but then you can't really make any decisive decision about reality. That is my point. Now, I understand your point which is, just because you can't make a total decisive claim about what WAS, does not mean TMS is true. I agree. I simply argue that people should not simply discredit the opinions of those that many go against the grain. Look at what they say and weigh it based on that. I think skeptics also have a problem of being knee-jerk in quickly dismissing something that may sound pro-bible. It's sort of the charedi counterpart.
>Contrast that with Orthodox Judaism, which acts like chazal were infallible.
I have never heard of such an accusation.
>On the contrary. It is their fallibility that leads me to trust them. Every time there is a new piece of evidence, they change their minds accordingly.
BTW, I think in theory, that sounds great, but in reality, I believe you will find your stubborn scholars that want their theories to be true no matter what.
Good, but then you can't really make any decisive decision about reality.
Obviously you can't be 100% certain, but you can be a reasonable human being and go with what seems most likely (as opposed to what you wish were true.)
I think skeptics also have a problem of being knee-jerk in quickly dismissing something that may sound pro-bible.
I really don't think that's fair. Obviously skeptics are human too and still have natural blind spots and engage in denial (although what makes us skeptics is that we try to actively counteract such problems) but I don't think we routinely dismiss things in a knee-jerk way.
BTW, I think in theory, that sounds great, but in reality, I believe you will find your stubborn scholars that want their theories to be true no matter what.
Well sure, there's that whole thing about how the old scientists have to die out before a new theory can be widely accepted. But at least it only takes one generation there. How many generations has it been since Darwin and how many rabbis and OJ laypeople still refuse to accept evolution, for example?
I believe you will find your stubborn scholars that want their theories to be true no matter what.
That is definitely true, and those have to be evaluated the same way as any stubborn believer. I think Wakefield has really convinced himself that vaccines cause autism, but does he have an ounce of credibilty in the scientific community any more?
(Despite the fact he committed fraud, he believes. It seems that his fraud may have been committed in the name of proving what he believes to be true. You don't have to be a fraud to be a true believer, and true believers are not always frauds).
>I really don't think that's fair.
I think its quite fair. Both of us have been here for quite some time. I have seen a pattern that both sides are guilty of. For example, for someone that agrees with their position, a simple wikipedia entry is enough. But if its something that goes against what they have accepted, they are more likely to do some diligent work and find more sources to show that source being totally wrong.
"On the contrary. It is their fallibility that leads me to trust them. Every time there is a new piece of evidence, they change their minds accordingly, because they recognize that they are fallible"
I love this point. I have been discussing some of my skepticism and doubt with my rav, and this point bothers me so. The rav expects me to change my mind when presented with what he deems to be true, but will not recipricate!! I of course will gladly change my mind when convinced of the truth (as evidenced by my change from believer to non-believer!)
Tesyaa, it seems that the scientific community does marry itself to certain ideas. Human influence on climate change, for example. Not allowing for disenting opinions, etc.
Look,
In the end, everyone is human. People have their own interests whether its religion or wanting to write up a new thesis paper.
I hope to have something as serious as religion (in terms of affecting my life) be based on some fact or truth.
I wish it were all true.
In the end, everyone is human. People have their own interests whether its religion or wanting to write up a new thesis paper.
Yes! Now the question is what do YOU do to recognize your humanity and the natural biases and psychological tendencies that come with it? How do YOU know that you aren't deceiving yourself the way so many others are? Do you make an extra effort to approach everything with an open mind and try to take an objective approach?
I don't think I've ever seen someone start out investigating any of these things that we're talking about with the intention of finding the truth no matter what and coming away convinced that the OJ version is the correct one.
Many times, I've seen an OJ person go in with full confidence, assuming that the OJ version will win out because it must be true only to be shocked how blatantly weak the case is for that side. That's what happened to me and that's what happened to a lot of the online skeptics.
The first time I heard that there was a view that the Exodus didn't happen, I was incredibly skeptical and I assumed that a little investigation would show that to be ridiculous. But what I found was the opposite.
JA
I have come out realizing that the OJ (OJ as is defined today, along with many of its talmudic rationale) version is not true.
But, continuing on, it didn't mean to me that Judaism was false either.
Try figuring that out :)
"With your biases, you are very unlikely to find practically any evidence "compelling."
That's not a fair assertion. Whatever else you want to say about my positions, I hardly tow anyone's party line, frum or skeptic.
"I'm not going beyond the evidence at all."
I think you are. Lack of evidence does not necessarily make an asserted past event fictional.
"The evidence would lead any remotely objective person to believe that the Exodus did not happen anywhere remotely like OJ claims it did."
I'd agree that a number of the specific details seem highly unlikely to have occurred as literally described. But, in general outline, I am convinced that the story is historical.
"You're the one clinging to the dogma, grasping at every gap in the evidence as an excuse to keep believing."
No. I already told you that I could readily view the episode as being allegorical. Again, I (and Schiffman, K. Kitchen, Shanks, N. Sarna, and many others--are/were these scholars all mere dogmatists too?) simply have seen insufficient evidence to discount the historical nature of the narrative.
Perhaps you cannot accept, emotionally, that your initial view on this issue, which apparently was a factor in your becoming an atheist, is not on such firm ground?
No, I already was an atheist before I realized that the Exodus might have been completely fabricated (instead of merely exaggerated.) It literally had never occurred to me to question that the Jews/Hebrews/whatever had been enslaved in Egypt en masse.
(and Schiffman, K. Kitchen, Shanks, N. Sarna
I've already addressed Schiffman and Shanks. Kitchen, wikipedia tells me, is known as an "evangelical scholar" because he tries to prove parts of the OT, etc. That doesn't necessarily make him wrong, of course, but it does lead me to question his motives.
Sarna appears to be some kind of liberal Jew who agrees with the DH (do you?) From the introduction to his book Exploring Exodus, which you can read using the search inside feature on amazon, he acknowledges that most scholars have "generally negative" views on the question of whether the Exodus happened and then lists a bunch of reasons why maybe the Exodus could have happened. Like Schiffman, he appears to be casting about for excuses to believe rather than reasons to believe.
"I hope to have something as serious as religion (in terms of affecting my life) be based on some fact or truth.
I wish it were all true."
Ksil - Don't fret. There is ample proof that our people has existed for the past roughly 3000 years and that our culture and religion has been built over the course of that history. Even if TMS and even yetziat mitzrayim didn't happen, the most compelling values we have provide a great framework for life. They were so powerful that the world's 2 most prolific religions co-opted them and incorporated them into the core of their religions (along with their own ingredients).
As a wise, proto-orthopraxer once told me - no religion may be right, but the Jewish religion is probably the closest.
Namaste.
"the most compelling values"
Not
Post a Comment