Way too serious. Plus. Those are not reasons to be Orthoprax; those are reasons to be reformed. I'd love to hear ten real reasons to continue being Orthoprax.
What he said. These are reasons not be religious at all. I thought that the point of this blog was to develop a viable path for Orthopraxy? I haven't seen any of that yet.
Figured this is a good place to ask this (hope XGH doesn't mind)... would any of you married orthoprax folks be orthoprax if you can do it all over again. I am young and not married. Is it worth it to live a life of orthopraxy - with whatever benefits there are in staying within the system, or will I regret the opportunity I have now in the future? I know it is different for every person but I'm wondering what the general feeling of already stuck orthoprax people is. Anyone want to share their thoughts?
It probably depends on your background and community. The more to the left it is the more palatable it may be. But as a general rule, I'd say "run!". XGH, start a poll with this question.
I'd recommend not marrying an Orthodox person, at the very least. Marriage is hard enough; why screw around with it? In general, you have to know your own psychological makeup. There's a whole load of guilt that can go along with violating the "rules." As long as you think that you won't have that or can hack it, I say you should do what you believe, i.e. leave.
I'm unmarried and going through a similar decision process. What is clinching it for me is that I wouldn't want to send my kids to a frum school... so its not like I could marry a frum girl anyway. There is going to be heartache regardless of what you choose, why delay?
NL...You must understand that XGH and his obsessions are highly idiosyncratic.He is almost charedi in observance, and opinionated and outspoken about dogmas. There is a Jewish world ranging from left Orthodoxy thru Conservadox that maintains a pro forma Orthodoxy coupled with a liberal, flexible observance of halacha and haskafa. Remember good old Moses Mendelssohn, the 18th century philosopher. He said Orthodoxy has no dogmas. He hung out with goyim, was totally immersed in his culture. Today even the Agudah calls him an Orthodox Jew. There are a zillion women out there, sort of Orthodox, that want to lead sort of an Orthodox life, each couple working out the details as they see fit. The issue of choosing a spouse should never be black or white, frum-not frum, Orthoprax-Orthodox.
Begin with this picture...you are invited to a Friday night meal, they make kiddush, sing zemioros, bensch etc. At the dinner are men and women, mostly single, some frum, some secular but friendly to Orthodoxy, some more observant, some less...they are all friends who have friends. In time they match up, some because they fall in love, some because they have similar goals and values, some because they both don't eat gebrochts on Pesach. Their beliefs about dogmas matter little for dating, marrying and living a happy life. I have never ever heard of a couple getting divorced because they disagreed about what happens to us when we die.
Thanks for the suggestions... My question though is if I should avoid 'playing marriage by ear' at all costs, meaning if I end up orthoprax will I always be wondering what could have been. Is orthoprax life so unbearable that YOU orthopraxers would do it differently if given the opportunity?
I'd suggest trying to figure out whether you want to be Orthoprax or OTD before marriage for sure. Talking to a (non-frum) therapist would be helpful for all.
After you're done reading Kornreich's latest 2 posts on Bible Criticism and the Kuzari Principle(fkmaniac.blogspot.com), your next post might consist of a list of reasons why you've returned full-throttle to Orthodox belief.
I am very comfortable with the prax part. I really enjoy the rituals (at least many of them), and I find the depth of insight from the redactors of the bible to be deeply fulfilling. It feels good to me to be part of the big, if dysfunctional, Jewish family.
I am also thankful that my wife is not a conventional ortho. I would probably not have married her if he were, even though I was a believer back then.
What I haven't heard on this blog is something about the sense of the sacred in a non-halachic,non-dogmatic traditional Jewish setting. Maybe I'm wrong but the orthoprax part seems rather dry without the mystery and yearning for the divine-whatever that word means.Maybe I sound a little Carlebachian but I'm really talking about something more serious.You seem to be all about intellectual arguments about the existence of the Divine. Maybe it's because of the MO background.Is there a place somewhere for those who think the divine is real but feel dogmas and dikdukei halachos just don't speak to us?you don't have to be a talmid of Dr. Freud to know that there is alot more to the sum total than "merely" the rational and intellectual centers of the mind.
So in short: you have no faith. Why make such a production of it? You don't believe, at least in what you're supposed to believe it. Fine. But why dress it up?
LitvisherYid...I agree with your comment as far as the conversations go. As you know it's impossible to know what is in a person's heart by a comment on the internet. People can yearn and pine away, but find it difficult to express or even show. The emphasis on justifying beliefs doesn't help.
It's interesting you mention in this regard Shlomo Carlebach. I have been watching his videos of late trying to understand his "secret"...what makes so many of the nigunim and stories enter the heart. It might be all schmaltz and nostalgia, all simple dreamy waltzes with no edge and no end...and yet most everyone loves these tunes and enjoys singing them again and again. Why? And how would this 'trick' be applied to the written word? You know in real life all this "mamale and neshamale come closer" was nauseating and not at all polished.(See the stories in Lilith and elsewhere.) But when he starts strumming the guitar, whistling and singing all is forgiven.
>1. I only accept as real that what can be proved by science.
>2. Science cannot prove to me that XGH is not merely part of a dream from which I will soon wake up.
>3. Therefore, XGH does not exist.
I spy a logical contradiction! Any takers? Ok: science cannot prove to you that science is not part of a dream from which you will soon wake up, hence you don't believe in the existence of science (points 2 & 3), contradicting point 1. Another try, perhaps?
I don't think so. My (tongue in cheek, I hope you realize) point was simply that we all make ontological presuppositions that cannot be proved or disproved by science. The existence God is such an ontological presupposition.
XGH's search for "evidence or data" for God's existence strikes me as "looking for Lord in all the wrong places". He who thinks only in literal material terms may be a good scientist, CPA, lawyer, historian, physician or mathematician, but will not find God. Such a person brings to mind the first Soviet cosmonaut's quip to the effect that he had disproved the existence of God because he didn't see him when he went into space...
In this regard, sadly, many skeptics and frummies actually agree. They both require "proof" of God. Such frummies compromise their intellectual integrity in that vain quest. The skeptics compromise their souls.
Yup, I got your tongue-in-cheek point, and was tongue-in-cheek responding that you are conflating empiricism, science, and common sense.
The thing is, I don't think it's really worth it to get into this, because when I read these conversations, you generally end up invoking faith, which is then justified by intuition. Neither of those carries much weight with me, so I think this conversation would be a non-starter.
By "soul", I mean the ontological presupposition that there is an aspect to man that exists beyond the physical. A skeptic who knows not anything that he cannot "prove" will likely not cultivate this spiritual aspect of himself. That doesn't make him a bad person, necessarily. Often, though, it will make him an angst-ridden one, since, without belief in the ultimate meaningfulness of life, he is left in a purposeless existence,a mere assemblage of an octillion of atoms, in a universe of centillions.
I get irritated when it's assumed skeptics don't believe in spiritual truths. I believe there may be spiritual truths, and I have no reason to argue with the idea that there is an aspect of man that exists beyond the physical, as Moshe puts it. But I do not think any humans have actual knowledge of what spiritual truths are. I certainly don't see any reason why accepting that spiritual truths may exist means that one should accept the premises of Orthodox Judaism. No way, no how.
I believe that probably I have as many problems with contemporary Orthodox Judaism as you do. Mere casuistic adherence to halachic minutiae and chumrot is not authentic Judaism. Ritual performance without spiritual sensitivity becomes an abomination. Witness the almost weekly, sometimes daily, scandals that one sees in the press involving financial misappropriation, bribery, sales of illegal narcotics, child molestation, etc. Witness further the fact that many who perpetrate such acts remain members in good standing of the "Orthodox" community. Embezzle some money and you can remain kosher. Eat something kosher, but without the right hashgacha, and no one will come over to eat at your house. It's sickening.
No, what I'm referring to is "Orthodox" Judaism as it should be practiced. Yes, it is important to observe halachah. That is how we come close to God. That is how spiritual sensitivity is supposed to be inculcated into our children and ourselves. But when halachah becomes worshiped itself, to the exclusion of other Judaic values, problems start. As the Ramban put it, one can be a scoundrel within the boundaries of the law. The Prophets, too, condemned a similar ritual obsession absent moral values. Frankly, I cannot blame too much any spiritually sensitive person who encounters the warped version of Judaism that now often passes for "orthodoxy" for rejecting orthodoxy. My point is that there is an alternative, which alternative does not involve rejecting halachah and the norms of traditional Judaism (as does, say, Conservative and Reform Judaism), but rather involves embracing them, while yet maintaining one's intellectual integrity.
Yes, it is important to observe halachah. That is how we come close to God. That is how spiritual sensitivity is supposed to be inculcated into our children and ourselves.
Moshe, you start out sounding reasonable, but then you say something like this. If human beings cannot access spiritual truths (whatever they are), why do you think that observing halacha brings us closer to God?
And while it's true that many Orthoprax people may be sensitive types who are turned off by scandals and crazy rituals in the OJ community, that doesn't mean that the Jewish traditions true.
-Yes, it is important to observe halachah. That is how we come close to God. That is how spiritual sensitivity is supposed to be inculcated into our children and ourselves. - Mo - Maybe there is no god, but we evolved with an inherent sense of purpose because it benefitted group survival. Maybe there is no real "spiritual" plane except as it dwells within the mind and we are indeed truly purposeless beings among centillions of atoms. However, we have evolved to see purpose along with a lot of other pattern recognition and anticipatory thinking, so it feels good/right to orient towards one. OJ, especially of you grow up with it, is pretty deep and offers, for many, a warm community with lots of self-reinforcing rituals/holidays etc. For some of us OPers, this works as good as anything, and we allow ourselves some suspension of disbelief to participate emotionally.
Replace spiritual with emotional and you get an understanding of atheist orthopraxy judaism.
For one thing,it forces us, when performed with proper kavanah, to constantly think about Him and whether our actions are in consonance with His will.
You can say the same about the practices and/or teachings of other religions. It's inconceivable that following halacha is the only practice that forces one to think about the divine on a regular basis. Just inconceivable.
Correct, but you have to distinguish between what are essential traditions and what some people say are essential traditions.
There is no more basis for your "authentic" Jewish traditions than any other religious traditions.
"but rather involves embracing them (halacha), while yet maintaining one's intellectual integrity"
does this make sense to you moshe? someone KNOWS that halacha is man made and that it has absolutely nothing to do with the "creator", yet he/she should still strap on the leather and wave the lemon - while maintaining intellectual integrity. do you hear yourself, moshe?
"For one thing,it forces us, when performed with proper kavanah, to constantly think about Him and whether our actions are in consonance with His will." its like you have no idea what orthoprax is sometimes!
"Witness XGH's angst" - so you think someone that no longer believes should NOT practice anymore rather than live with some angst? thats some weird advice moshe.
"You can say the same about the practices and/or teachings of other religions. "
Nu
"It's inconceivable that following halacha is the only practice that forces one to think about the divine on a regular basis. "
Nu Nu.
"There is no more basis for your "authentic" Jewish traditions than any other religious traditions."
I disagree. Such traditions cannot be "proved", but they can be evaluated rationally to some extent. I have written about this extensively on this blog in the past.
I also believe that the existence of other religions may be part of God's plan. I believe that there is a basis in Judaism itself for such a view. Some religions may be through and through false, and I don't believe that all tenets of any other religion that I know of are true,but certainly not all aspects of all other religions are false, either. Many of them come from Judaism.
I conceive of the Jewish people as sort of God's Navy SEALs. We are an elite force, with influence beyond our numbers. But just as a military needs more than an elite force, so too, God is in need of worship from all men, in different ways.All people are his children.
"someone KNOWS that halacha is man made"
While acknowledging that most of what we do today is rabbinic in origin, I firmly believe in divine revelation and in the origination of halachah in such revelation.
"so you think someone that no longer believes should NOT practice anymore rather than live with some angst? "
I didn't say that at all. I merely pointed out that if one does not believe, then one is left with the inherent purposelessness of life which, inexorably, I think, gives rise to such angst.
> I merely pointed out that if one does not believe, then one is left with the inherent purposelessness of life which, inexorably, I think, gives rise to such angst.
Nonsense. He, I and others like us, have angst because we were brought up with false purpose and then the rug was pulled out from beneath us as adults. I know many adult non-believers and they suffer no angst.
My impression is that many skeptics indeed had the rug pulled out from under them, as you state. They were taught certain things that they later learned were demonstrably false. They were also taught a certain mode of behavior, which they later learned was not adhered to by those who preached it. Any spiritually sensitive person would recoil from such an upbringing.
What I'm saying is that just because your rug merchant may have been dishonest and unethical doesn't mean that you forever have to leave your spiritual floor bare. There is a good carpet out there, which may suit you.
There are some people who, tragically, when wounded by the trauma of a failed love affair, can never love again. Others can recover and enjoy a new relationship. The trauma of lost faith is similar.
doesn't mean that you forever have to leave your spiritual floor bare. There is a good carpet out there, which may suit you.
Moshe, you must be patting yourself on the back over your use of metaphor today (or cliche, as the case may be).
I do not believe that all Orthoprax Jews were sold a bill of goods that is materially different than what you deem "authentic" Jewish belief. It's insulting to tell people that they would only believe in Judaism if they were taught what you say is the real thing.
Anyway, if I bought a bad Persian carpet, I might get a new one, but not a Persian one. Maybe a Chinese rug. Or a Universalist Unitarian one. Or maybe none; a good wood floor is beautiful, and easier to clean than a carpet.
"so, if you dont practice your version of orthodox judaism, your spiritual floor is bare?!?!?"
"It's insulting to tell people that they would only believe in Judaism if they were taught what you say is the real thing."
You guys repeatedly attribute to me things that I didn't say. Reminds me of an office mate I once had, who would attribute to me things that her ex-boyfriend had said to her, and would even call me by his name occasionally.
I have never said that my approach is the only viable way of life. What I am trying to show, again, is that there is A viable path that is consistent with Jewish tradition and at the same time intellectually honest
As a Persian carpet merchant, I take offense at your discussions ;-)
More to the point, Moshe - you have to understand that those of us across the orthoprax spectrum have already lost the "I firmly believe in divine revelation.." component. The struggle for us is to find meaning of some sort in the practices. For some, like xgh, it feels totally fake and largely unsatisfying, and yet some of the most meaningful relationships we have - with our spouses, children, parents, siblings, cousins etc - require us to at least behave nominally Orthodox. It is a painful tradeoff. For others, we find the rituals to have emotional content - possibly bc we were brought up with them, so we associate doing them now with the joys of doing them then. Moreover, I have found a lot of insight into human nature from our millenia of Jewish scholars that speaks to me - so I see value in the religion per se.
On the flip side, I can see the immense angst for those in the more charedi world who don't believe or even those who have questions they can't ask for fear of being utterly cut off for just asking!
>What I'm saying is that just because your rug merchant may have been dishonest and unethical doesn't mean that you forever have to leave your spiritual floor bare
Moshe, you are slippery. That is not what you said. You said "that if one does not believe, then one is left with the inherent purposelessness of life which, inexorably, I think, gives rise to such angst."
And I claim that is not true. non-believers can live great fulfilling lives. It's FORMER believers who have a hard time, but the angts settles down over the years.
And what I'm saying now, is that since I was ripped off once, I reserve the right to examine all the merchandise that rug the merchant is selling. And also the merchandise that his fake phony fraud relatives are pushing. That includes Christinaity, Muslim, Lubavitch, Conservative, LWMO.
I find it's all counterfeit.
You must realize that you're not talking to disaffected children here that reject Chariedi Judaism because of difficulties with chumras and midrashim. Many, if not most of use, completely reject the historicity of the revelation which hangs on a shoddy Kuzari argument (See Hume's Maxim, which effectively counteracts the Kuzari with two short sentences. See D.S. Levene who explains in detail why the Kuzari Principal is weak.)
Feel good analogies of carpets and wood flooring, can't compete.
You want to believe? That's fine with me.
If people want to hang on to LWMO or even OJ because it makes them feel good, I'm all for that too.
But please don't insult our intelligence with platitudes about having a 5th grade understanding of Yiddishkeit.
I wouldn't deny that. What I would say is that, in order to do so, they probably have to divert their attention somewhat from their existential situation. Absent some form of Ultimate Meaning, life has been described as follows:
Man is a beast. The only difference between man and the other beasts is that man is a beast that knows he will die. The only honest man is the unabashed egotist. This honest man pours contempt upon the mendacity, the lies, the hypocrisy of those who will not acknowledge their egotism. The one irreducible value is life, which you must cling to as you can and use for the pursuit of pleasure and of power. The specific ends of life are sex and money. The great passions are lust and rapacity. So the human comedy is an outrageous medley of lech- ery, alcoholism, homosexuality, blasphemy, greed, bru- tality, hatred, obscenity. It is not a tragedy because it has not the dignity of a tragedy. The man who plays his role in it has on himself the marks of a total deprav- ity. And as for the ultimate and irreducible value, life, that in the end is also a lie...
(Robert E. Fitch, "Secular Images of Man in Contemporary Literature," Religious Education, LIII, p. 87.)
Please demonstrate to me , absent God, why Fitch's characterization of life is incorrect. And if you cannot so demonstrate, than perhaps the fulfillment that you write of is also a delusion, n'est pas?
Late to the party, but want to add my chorus to those post-marriage Orthopraxers (of which I am one, kind of): If I were to do it again, I would defenitely NOT marry a religious person...bad, bad idea.
We are stuck with who we are, and both feel that our lives are seriously compromised.
Moshe - I would argue that we have evolved to need communities and society, and that we are wired to feel satisfaction and meaning from our interpersonal life (just as we are wired to project purpose/meaning/cause eg G-d on existence). To that end, I wholeheartedly disagree with Fitch's cynical, dogmatic screed.
I encourage you to delve into both evolution and neuroscience.
So basically you're saying we are hardwired for delusion. Some are deluded by religion, others by community or familial involvement.
Drugs or alcohol can also make you "feel satisfaction". That doesn't change reality.
I thought atheism/orthopraxy/skepticism was about facing the truth. And the truth is exactly what Fitch writes, isn't it?
Here's a poetic version of the atheist's reality:
From some vile seed or base atom I am born. ... I feel the primeval slime in me. Yes! This is my testimony! I believe with a firm heart, as does the young widow at the altar, that whatever ...I think or ...whatever comes from me was decreed for me by fate. I believe that the honest man is but a poor actor, both in face and heart, that everything in him is a lie: tears, kisses, looks, sacrifices, and honor. And I believe man to be the sport of an unjust Fate, from the germ of the cradle to the worm of the grave. After all this mockery comes death. And then? ... Death is Nothingness. Heaven an old wives’ tale!
(Arrigo Boito , libretto to Verdi's Otello.)
Perhaps the contemplation of this reality is why Hitchens drinks so much, Dawkins seems vaguely constipated, and Harris masks his existential fear in all consuming arrogance.
On the other hand, if you are prepared to consider a Higher Reality....
Mo - you are lashing out like a wounded tiger. Slow down.
First of all, may I suggest that you read David Brooks' (a secular Jew, by the way) column in Tuesday's NYTimes for a very tight summary of the way we are wired to derive pleasure from community/sharing etc. It's not all sex and drugs (even if those are fun too).
Second, we are not hardwired for delusion per se, but we are hardwired to anticipate and project from a small number of data points. For you, it might mean being able to catch a fly ball or change the course of a conversation that appears headed the wrong way. Most slight of hand magic exploits this as well - and there is a growing body of science to support this. For humans overall, the concept of G-d/gods (or some causality) evolved as well.
I knew the Higher Reality of which you speak. I loved it - the hasgachah pratit, TMS, the idea that God created the world 5800 or so yrs ago with all the evidence of evolution/dinosaurs etc embedded. But I dug deeper into the powerful science of genes, into evolution (and Darwin predated the discovery of genes - incredible), and into neuroscience - and I come up with no God, just existence - an immensely cool, complex, and fascinating existence. And for the most part, I still like the Ortho Jewish communal way of living it.
Nate - since your wife is a scientist, I'd be curious as to her take on Brooks' comments as well.
And actually, Fitch does not write the truth - he spews negative, egocentric dogma. "The specific ends of life are sex and money." is just plain wrong. Again - back to Brooks' column and the well-grounded research he discusses.
I don't think that citing a few literary references, or poking a little fun at some prominent atheists, qualifies as "lashing out".
You can dress up reality however you like, you can read whatever New York Times columnist that you prefer, you can adopt whatever coping mechanisms you wish, but, at the end of the day, you are left with the knowledge that you are but a mere chemical accident, if you are a true atheist. I am glad you have found a way (albeit, a delusion, in my humble opinion) to make the best of that situation, and wish you every joy and happiness possible in your life. I also applaud the fact that you at least responded to my challenge. Others who share your views have fallen strangely silent in the face of what I wrote. As I write this,no one else has even attempted to tell me Fitch was wrong.
" I loved it - the hasgachah pratit, TMS, the idea that God created the world 5800 or so yrs ago with all the evidence of evolution/dinosaurs etc embedded."
Whoa. You are conflating a lot of different things here. For example, many religious people, and I among them, don't believe that the world is 5800 years old or that God planted dinosaur bones to fool us. When evaluating physical reality and/or history, we advocate using science and modern historical research methods, not religious dogma. That said, we intuit that there is more to reality than we can grasp with our senses, or by use of various devices that we manufacture. We intuit that there is, in fact, a meaning and purpose to our existence. We sense that there was a conscious creation. This purposefulness, this meaning, this Creator, we call God. Some of us also intuit that a God who created us would not remain forever silent and would of needs reveal something of His Will to us. This revelation we call Torah. Exactly when and by whom it was written down is a separate issue, which is amenable to historical inquiry. Whether the text reflects divine revelation is a matter of faith, which is not susceptible to such inquiry.
Mo- I cite Brooks only because he, in a timely way for our blogversation, wrote up a summary of others research and findings on the topic of how bags of chemicals find plesasure/meaning/value in interpersonal relationships - no sex, no money, no god.
My question for you - if there is any question about the absolute of Torah MiSinai, how do you choose what is Divine revelation and what is priestly or rabbinic powerplay?
Now, I am not saying, by any means, that one must accept the tenets of the documentary hypothesis. I, for one, do not. The documentary hypothesis is based upon a minimum of evidence and a maximum of interpretation. It is often very plausible conjecture, but that doesn't mean it's true.It has had to be revised many times in response to archaeological discoveries. My point is simply that, if someone chooses to believe in it, while yet maintaining a belief in a revelation of content to authentic prophets, I don't think that he should be kicked out of shul.
In sum, you can be frum and not check your intellectual integrity at the door. On the other hand, I don't quite see how one can be a true atheist, and not rather despondent over one's and essential situation. That doesn't mean, of course, that the atheist is not correct. But I hope not.
One last point. While I have no proofs that Judaism as I understand it represents the most authentic means of serving God, what makes me think that it may be is the fact that, unlike other religions, Judaism does not emphasize personal satisfaction. Yes, there is the concept of the world to come. However, rabbinic literature contains several instances in which great rabbinic figures give up their share in the world to come for some higher good. I have not encountered such a noble precept in any other religion. We are not bid to just worry about our own personal salvation. Our task is to live ethical lives upon this earth--to be concerned with the poor, the widow, the orphan. In the face of being despised for centuries, we have maintained these concerns. All that may not be proof, but let us call such things, perhaps, "witnesses", to the authenticity of Judaism.
"Judaism does not emphasize personal satisfaction."
EVERYTHING we do, everything I was taught, everything I hear in shul (or dont hear in shul) contradicts this.
All the rabbis care about arechecking the boxes, making sure you say the word correctly, shake the lulav properly, each shofer blast is the right amount of time so that we get CREDIT with the boogy man in the sky.
further, all frum jews care only about are other frum jews! lets be honest. their attitude towards 99% of the worlds population is indifferent at best and hateful at worst.
but our women cover their hair and cant participate in the services and our men (ideally) dont work and sit and learn ancient man-written texts all day and all night)!! so we are all going to gan eden to learn gemorah with hkbh!
It appears that Part I of my comment has gotten lost in cyberspace. I will try to re-create it:
T & S ,
The questions that you ask are very profound. Here's my response: I actually view it as a divine blessing that we cannot "prove" the existence of God. If His existence could be proved, we would be reduced to moral automatons. Just as a lab rat avoids choices that result in it receiving a jolt of electricity, so no sane person would defy the will of a God whose existence was "proved".
Another blessing that the lack of divine "provability" provides is a hedge against fanaticism. The fanatic has no doubts. In contrast, the Jew questions. Indeed, the very name Israel means one who struggles with God. No one should be so certain of his beliefs that he tries to impose them by force upon others. Indeed, much of human misery has been caused by fanatics, whether religious or atheistic, trying to impose preconceived ideological notions upon entire populations.
In terms of the Torah MiSinai question, I would first note that it is strange that the Torah was not given to us directly from God, carved upon stone (except of course for a very small part). Would that not have been the most clear proof of its divinity? It seems that, for some reason, God wished that there be some human involvement. Related to this concept are the statements in rabbinic literature to the effect that the Torah that we have on earth is but a pale reflection of the Torah that exists in heaven. I thus view the Torah as divine revelation written down (not merely transcribed) by man. It has both divine and human elements. The admixture of the divine and human cannot be separated, and thus must remain inviolate. Respecting the oral law, it is rather clear from even a cursory glance at the Torah, that many of the precepts therein are so cryptic that there has to have been, from the very beginning, an oral tradition as to how they would be implemented in practice. While you will find in rabbinic literature statements that every detail of the oral law goes back to the beginning, you will also find other statements to the effect that only general principles were given at Sinai. The rest came later. The latter view is supported by the famous midrash of Moses visiting the beit midrash of Rabbi Akiva. The authority of the rabbis to enact legislation to supplement that of the Torah is inherent in the Torah itself. Indeed, no legislation could remain viable over time absent such authority. The key thing is the divine origin of the text, and of such rabbinic authority. Having said all that, I, for one, fail to understand the current Orthodox fetish that would exclude anyone from orthodoxy who does not accept the complete Mosaic origin of the Torah. For one thing, the Talmud itself contains an opinion that the end of the Torah is not Mosaic. For another, some of our greatest rabbis, including Ibn Ezra and Rashi, held that parts (albeit small ones) of the Torah were post-Mosaic. Were they heretics? Indeed, as Prof. Shapiro has demonstrated, if you read Maimonides closely, you will see that even he did not necessarily held that all of the Torah was Mosaic. Rather, the crucial thing, as a super commentator to Ibn Ezra noted, is a belief in prophecy and the fact that the text that we have was revealed to authentic prophets.
further, all frum jews care only about are other frum jews! lets be honest. their attitude towards 99% of the worlds population is indifferent at best and hateful at worst.
True, and what's worse, the traditional sources back this up. One can't argue that this is only a modern-day perversion of "authentic" Judaism. This is a big part of what it's all about - Jewish chosenness, Jewish destiny, Jews as distinct and removed from the rest of humanity. Or as Moshe would say, Jews as God's Navy Seals. LOL!
Etan "So, all the main characters in the Torah, from Adam down to the Avot, to Moshe who spoke to God face to face - they were ratlike automatons"
Hardly. The verb "spoke", in connection with God,is not literal. Moreover, not everyone whom God "speaks" to necessarily recognizes that fact.
K & T
"all frum jews care only about are other frum jews! lets be honest. their attitude towards 99% of the worlds population is indifferent at best and hateful at worst....
True, and what's worse, the traditional sources back this up."
I guess that's why the Torah starts with the story of how God is the father of all men, not just of Abraham and his descendants.
I like the fact that I don't "love" everyone. It's called Ahavas Yisrael for a reason. For example, while 9-11 was tragic, I'm only interested in the Jews who died. Same with every other war, calamity, etc. If they discovered the mass murder of millions of Arabs in some ravine akin to Babi Yar, I'd probably flip the channel. Boring.
>Please demonstrate to me , absent God, why Fitch's characterization of life is incorrect. And if you cannot so demonstrate, than perhaps the fulfillment that you write of is also a delusion, n'est pas?
That's a horrible portrayal of life. And no. I don't agree with that portrayal of life. Maybe tomorrow, if I'm not so busy at work I'll explain why.
But even if that portrayal is true, listen carefully now, even if true, if there is no God, then that terrible portrayal of life doesn't create a God. That's just an appeal to consequences.
I left a while back noting that Moshe always resorts to intuition in these conversations. Sure enough, by the time I return Moshe has mentioned intuition that there is more to the world than the physical, and sensing that there is a conscious creator. But I reject the validity of those intuitions as a reliable way to learn about the universe. So now what?
>>Please demonstrate to me , absent God, why Fitch's characterization of life is incorrect.
Ok.
>>1. "The only difference between man and the other beasts is that man is a beast that knows he will die. "
Incorrect. Humans also have improved ability to understand the mental states of others and empathize with them, language, and reasoning about morality. Our social cognition is fantastic. Also, we walk upright and use tools with our opposable thumbs.
>>2. "The only honest man is the unabashed egotist."
Nope. We are indeed hard-wired for empathy and cooperation. When you see others in pain, it generally activates your own neural circuits for pain. Our brains automatically "mirror" others and share their experiences, which motivates cooperation and altruism.
Solomon was correct above. If you want to read research on this, a nice and enjoyable introduction is Frans de Waal's The Age of Empathy.
"But I reject the validity of those intuitions as a reliable way to learn about the universe. So now what? "
Do you also reject your intuition that I am not merely part of some dream from which you will soon wake up?
"Humans also have improved ability to understand the mental states of others and empathize with them, language, and reasoning about morality. Our social cognition is fantastic. ... We are indeed hard-wired for empathy and cooperation. When you see others in pain, it generally activates your own neural circuits for pain. Our brains automatically "mirror" others and share their experiences, which motivates cooperation and altruism..."
Moshe - You have not addressed JG's comments on the uniquely human traits of empathy, social cognition etc.
JG - You forgot to mention that our human tendency to groups can also lead to horrific actions of one group on another - examples of which Mo so cogently listed.
Mo - By the way, you left out Amalek (as in Shaul's extermination of...)
I very purposefully wrote "generally." The exception I had in mind is, as Solomon notes, outgroups. Outgroups can more easily be dehumanized, and do not evoke mirror neuron system activity in when they are in pain as ingroup members do. This doesn't change whether we are "unabashedly selfish." It means we have the capacity for good and evil, which I'm sure you knew.
Moreover, I'd point out that most of secular morality is about expanding our circle of innate empathy to include outgroups (see, for example, Peter Singer's The Expanding Circle). Contrast that to religion, which far more often than not is a force for dividing between new ingroups/outgroups, and for fostering outgroup derogation and even outgroup violence.
>Do you also reject your intuition that I am not merely part of some dream from which you will soon wake up?
Philosophically, I have responded to this on my blog, The Praxy Project (under "You Assume Other People Exist, I Assume God Exists). In short, I'd argue that's a lack of doubt about empirical experiences I DO have; in contrast, you are making assertions about things with which you DON'T have empirical experience.
The more important point is empirical, though: the reason I reject the intuitions you originally discussed is, research in psychology and neuroscience has suggested they are not trustworthy. (I have blogged about this as well on The Praxy Project, under "Wired for Religion at the Expense of Science," and "But Why a Good God?" You are welcome to take a look if you are interested. I tried to link a couple times, but the comments didn't go through.)
At the end of the day, you are of course very much welcome to believe what you believe, but I will very much deny your claims that there is no moral or philosophical consistency to be found for skeptheists.
"You have not addressed JG's comments on the uniquely human traits of empathy, social cognition etc."
I suggest that you watch more PBS. Monkeys and other animals have social skills too.
" By the way, you left out Amalek (as in Shaul's extermination of...)"
Trying to change the topic on us, ay? In politics I think they call this "negative campaigning".And, as a matter of fact, I have addressed that issue extensively in comments to this blog (or one of its predecessors) in the past.
JG,
"Outgroups".
Children molested by their parents. Battered wives. Children who abuse aged parents. People who cheat on their spouses.
Shall I continue?
"good" and evil"
I fail to understand these lofty words. I can understand "legal "(as in, the persecution of the Jews was perfectly legal under Nazi law) and "illegal" (as in anti-Semitism was "illegal" in the former Soviet Union). But I'm not sure as to who gets to decide what constitutes "good" and "evil". I have even read that, in certain societies, certain things are considered "good", while in other societies the same things are considered "evil". For example, my understanding is that in ancient Greece and Rome, which I have heard were quite advanced societies, it was not considered "evil", to expose deformed infants to the elements so that they would die. Strangely, our society,which claims to derive so much from those societies, views that practice as "evil". Very puzzling. It's almost as if what is considered "good" and "evil" changes over time based upon the particular society. Sort of like "legal" and "illegal".Now, if "good" and "evil" don't amount to anything more than "legal" and illegal", how do I know that our society takes the correct approach and that the Nazis,Russians, Greeks, and Romans had it wrong?
"Moreover, I'd point out that most of secular morality is about expanding our circle of innate empathy to include outgroups "
Peter is a poor man. Paul has buried $1 million in cash in his backyard. He tells Peter. He further tells Peter that no one else knows about it. Paul states that he trusts Peter, but does not trust banks and that he does not want his children to be aware of the money until after he dies. Peter decides to dig up the money and keep it for himself, so he can live better. There is virtually no chance that he will be caught. Even if he is caught, it so happens that Peter has a dread disease for which he cannot presently afford treatment. If he goes to jail, he will receive such treatment for free. Please tell me why Peter should not steal the million dollars, from his perspective?
(I apologize for all this part one, part two, part three business, but the system doesn't let me post unless I subdivide).
"I'd argue that's a lack of doubt about empirical experiences I DO have; in contrast, you are making assertions about things with which you DON'T have empirical experience."
A believer's experience of God may be just as "empirically" real to him, as your experience that I exist is to you. You can't prove, or disprove, either.
"research in psychology and neuroscience has suggested they are not trustworthy."
That may be. But not all intuition is unreliable either. In fact, you and everyone else make many decisions every day based upon intuition. Rarely do we have full information about the great majority of things that we have to decide to do or not do. We have some facts, but ultimately, more often than not, make our decisions from the gut.
god dammit moshe, go spew your nonsense somewhere else.
back to the morality arguement? jesus christ, can you please come up with something that has not been debunked, or you just stick to the same tired old bullshit?
>Monkeys and other animals have social skills too.
Yes! Which further goes to show it is very deeply hard-wired into us. Ours, however, are FAR more developed and complex, making us different from them.
>Children molested by their parents. Etc.
Really? This is your argument that homo sapiens as a whole does not have, as demonstrated by AMPLE evidence, an innate sense of empathy, morality, emotion mirroring, etc? That some people abuse their children or parents? That's what is known as a "strawman." OBVIOUSLY, mirror neurons don't predict that all people will be nice all the time. It's like you're being deliberately obtuse.
>A believer's experience of God may be just as "empirically" real to him, as your experience that I exist is to you. You can't prove, or disprove, either.
I don't think you understand what "empirical" means. Your understanding of spirituality is, by definition, not empirical.
>But not all intuition is unreliable either.
Correct. But the intuitions that are useful are ones about complex decisions we have to make for ourselves. Intuitions about how the universe works? Unhelpful and misleading for an accurate understanding of the world. Ok as a heuristic for navigating daily life much of the time, though.
What, do I need to write complete literature reviews about empathy and intuition research ere?
" very purposefully wrote "generally." The exception I had in mind is, as Solomon notes, outgroups. Outgroups can more easily be dehumanized, and do not evoke mirror neuron system activity in when they are in pain as ingroup members do. This doesn't change whether we are "unabashedly selfish." It means we have the capacity for good and evil, which I'm sure you knew."
You do realize this is circular right? You can't predict who will be in an "outgroup" or who will be in an "ingroup" Plenty of Nazis helped Jews survive, and plenty of friends have stabbed their other friends in the back. And plenty of CEOs consider everybody in their outgroup, while con artists consider everyone in their ingroup.
What's circular? We tend to categorize the social world into ingroups and outgroups. How we do that is hard to predict sometimes simply because it is malleable and variable (some people find national identity more salient, some religious identity, etc).
But stabbing a friend in the back isn't making them an outgroup member anyway. We have other emotions or drives that can compete with or override empathic responses, even for close others. But we still have deep-running capacity for empathy and cooperation, unlike Moshe's claim that we are inherently egotists.
Consider: we have the ability to think rationally; we sometimes act with emotion instead of reason. What you and Moshe are saying is like claiming people have no capacity for reason, because one time your uncle got angry and hit someone who was not at fault. This is a silly exercise.
I. Mo - if the human capacity for murderous, exploitative behavior makes you see our bestiality as dominant and nulliifying of our empathy and innate desire to help, why doesn't the molestation, tax fraud, embezzlement etc of the frum community (see failedmessiah for a biased but thorough list) - prob in equal percentage of jews as the pereps of the crimes you ascribe to humans as a whole - not lead you to negate the lofty side of Judaism?
"But stabbing a friend in the back isn't making them an outgroup member anyway."
A young man comes to the Chelm hospital with a knife in his back. "Who did this to you," asks the doctor. "My friend," says the man. "It looks bad, doesn't it doc?" "I'm afraid so. Do you have efsher a mishpoche?" "Yes." "Shall I have someone call dem?" "Yes, please." "Have you made out a vill." "Yes...It's just not fair!" "To perish so young, mein friend." "No, doc. You just don't understand." "Vhat, young man." "My friend...he...he was a member of my... INGROUP." "Ingroup?" The doctor's eyebrows rise, and his eyes widen. He is absorbed in thought. After a few seconds, he waggles his index finger at his patient, and exclaims, "Nu, maybe you can still get a refund on deh dues?"
II. Mo - curious as to your comments onthe following - Michael Tomasello, the author of “Why We Cooperate,” devised a series of tests that he could give to chimps and toddlers in nearly identical form. He found that at an astonishingly early age kids begin to help others, and to share information, in ways that adult chimps hardly ever do.
An infant of 12 months will inform others about something by pointing. Chimpanzees and other apes do not helpfully inform each other about things. Infants share food readily with strangers. Chimpanzees rarely even offer food to their own offspring. If a 14-month-old child sees an adult having difficulty — like being unable to open a door because her hands are full — the child will try to help.
Tomasello’s point is that the human mind veered away from that of the other primates. We are born ready to cooperate, and then we build cultures to magnify this trait.
III. - In “Born to Be Good,” Dacher Keltner describes the work he and others are doing on the mechanisms of empathy and connection, involving things like smiles, blushes, laughter and touch. When friends laugh together, their laughs start out as separate vocalizations, but they merge and become intertwined sounds. It now seems as though laughter evolved millions of years ago, long before vowels and consonants, as a mechanism to build cooperation. It is one of the many tools in our inborn toolbox of collaboration.
In one essay, Keltner cites the work of the Emory University neuroscientists James Rilling and Gregory Berns. They found that the act of helping another person triggers activity in the caudate nucleus and anterior cingulate cortex regions of the brain, the parts involved in pleasure and reward. That is, serving others may produce the same sort of pleasure as gratifying a personal desire.
I JG & Sol, I think, with all due respect, that you may have misread Fitch. He is not expressing an opinion as to whether human beings are "hardwired" or not for empathy. Rather, he is addressing man's existential situation. Whether or not man is hardwired for empathy, the fact remains that, according to the atheist view, he is nothing more than a chemical accident on a rocky planet doomed to perish-and he knows it. As such, the best he can hope for is some pleasure.
There is an astonishing statement, as I recall, in rabbinic literature, where a tanna or amora expresses his admiration for, of all people, Pharaoh, "because he was a man". What the rabbi meant was that Pharaoh was willing to follow his convictions, wrong as they were, literally into the sea, despite being opposed by the very will of God. He stared into the abyss and did not blink.
In contrast, it seems to me that you fellows are avoiding the implications of your views. I would have respected your honesty if you were to have said to me, "Look, I acknowledge that man is nothing more than the random result of a long ago Big Bang. Therefore, all morality is relative. There is no inherent meaning or purpose in anything. Nonetheless, I refuse to take refuge in a faith for which there is no proof. I have no intuition of any higher power".
We could then agree to disagree. Instead, in trying to posit absolute moral standards , while still preaching atheism, you are engaging in the same type of delusional thinking that you accuse the faithful of. You are averting your eyes from the moral chasm implicit in your views. Why not just say things straight out? The fact that the problem exists does not in any way render your position incorrect. At worst, it makes it unpalatable. Unpalatable things are sometimes true.
So can we at least agree that atheism implies moral relativism?
"why doesn't the molestation, tax fraud, embezzlement etc of the frum community (see failedmessiah for a biased but thorough list) - prob in equal percentage of jews as the pereps of the crimes you ascribe to humans as a whole - not lead you to negate the lofty side of Judaism?"
Why didn't those and greater crimes when committed in the past lead Isaiah [Chapter 1] or Amos [Chapter 2] to negate the "lofty side of Judaism"?
"I had faith even when I declared...all men are deceitful" (Psalm 116)
>He is not expressing an opinion as to whether human beings are "hardwired" or not for empathy. Rather, he is addressing man's existential situation.. Instead, in trying to posit absolute moral standards , while still preaching atheism.
No, no, and no.
Your quote specifically never says anything about an absolute morality, and neither did I. Your quote was specifically a descriptive statement about the human condition, and it is a descriptive statement that is wrong by all evidence we have. That's the only level I have been interested in.
Sure, it doesn't give you your absolute morality--which I find a messy concept anyway--but it tells you that regardless, people will have empathic and moral instincts; people are capable of moral reasoning; people want and need to cooperate. Those descriptive facts can create a society where people care about happiness, equity, equality, justice, and cooperation. Whether there is a prescriptive absolute morality never needs to enter into this discussion of our nature, because that's just how we are. That's how we're designed, that's what we want, and that's what makes us happy and let's us thrive.
That is, your challenge was: "demonstrate why Fitch's characterization of life is incorrect." I have done specifically that.
>"The only honest man is the unabashed egotist. "
No, people who care about others are quite honest as well, as detailed at length above.
>"The specific ends of life are sex and money. The great passions are lust and rapacity. "
No, humans (other than psychopaths and those with severe autism) have VERY deep needs for social and emotional connection with others.
>"So the human comedy is an outrageous medley of lechery, alcoholism, homosexuality, blasphemy, greed, brutality, hatred, obscenity. "
And love, caring, helping, altruism, and empathy, as detailed above.
There, challenge completed. Your characterization of human life would remain 100% wrong without any God or "absolute morality," because that's just not what we're like; it's simply a bad descriptive characterization of our nature.
"people want and need to cooperate. Those descriptive facts can create a society where people care about happiness, equity, equality, justice, and cooperation. Whether there is a prescriptive absolute morality never needs to enter into this discussion of our nature, because that's just how we are. That's how we're designed, that's what we want, and that's what makes us happy and let's us thrive."
I apologize for the misunderstanding. I was referring to planet Earth (as was Fitch). You apparently were discussing Barney's Playland (I love, you you love me, we're a happy family...)
The classic problem of moral philosophy is "why should the rational man be just?". Your answer, apparently, is "because, deep down, he really wants to cooperate". Besides being a non-sequiter, your position is naive. And no amount of psychobabble about innies and outies (groups, that is)salvages it. Why, if reality were as you describe it, we would hardly need a government. Indeed, the predilection of people to act upon selfish motives forms the very basis of the structure government contained in the US constitution (See Federalist 51, e.g.). It is the basis of capitalism. It explains why our government can't easily cut benefits for even well off seniors, even if that means saddling our children with massive debt. It explains the massive concentration of wealth in the USA over the last 30 years.
"Equity, equality, justice, and cooperation," indeed.
1. If you, Moshe, did not believe in God and had the opportunity to kill someone in cold blood for financial gain with no repercussions, would you do it? I would not. Ever. The very idea is repugnant to me, as for most sane individuals, atheist or religious. You do not need religion to feel this way, including on Earth.
2. People do harmful, selfish, or malicious things some of the time. This is no more proof against an innate basis for cooperation than it is proof, for the religious believer, against the utility of "absolute morality." That, too, is not a foolproof guarantee of moral behavior. (Gee, Moshe, religious people sometimes steal and molest children; absolute morality obviously would only be good in a Barney's playland world, huh?)
3.>"I'll take that as a reluctant "yes"."
Reluctant? I don't know how to be clearer: I DON'T BELIEVE IN A TRANSCENDENT ABSOLUTE MORALITY. BUT I DON'T THINK WE NEED ONE TO LIVE COOPERATIVE AND MORAL LIVES.
4. >"psychobabble "
Snort. You might want to try the tip of the iceberg with:
Preston, S. D. and de Waal, F. B. M. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(1), 1-71.
Ochsner, K. N., Zaki, J., Hanelin, J., Ludlow, D., H., Knierim, K., Ramachandran, T. & Mackey, S. (2008). Your Pain or Mine? Common and Distinct Neural Systems Supporting the Perception of Pain in Self and Other. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 3, 144-160.
Muzafer Sherif, O. J. Harvey, B. Jack White, William R. Hood, Carolyn W. Sherif (1954/1961) "Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment"
Xu, X., Zuo, X., Wang, X., and Han, S. (2009). Do you feel my pain? Racial group membership modulates empathic neural responses. J. Neurosci. 29, 8525–8529.
Ethan Kross, Marc G. Berman, Walter Mischel, Edward E. Smith, Tor D. Wager. Social rejection shares somatosensory representations with physical pain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2011
"But stabbing a friend in the back isn't making them an outgroup member anyway."
You are correct, it doesn't "make them a member", they were always a member to begin with!
Ingroup/outgroup are labels we use to express behavior that we already know about. This is why it is circular.
Children might share food, but they won't share toys. People might volunteer, but they won't work while being underpaid.
For every study of empathy there is a study showing that the default position of a person is "the outgroup". It doesn't take much to move a person from outgroup to ingroup. In-fact, the same person can move from your outgroup to your ingroup and visa versa 3 or 4 times in a single day.
"Consider: we have the ability to think rationally; we sometimes act with emotion instead of reason. What you and Moshe are saying is like claiming people have no capacity for reason, because one time your uncle got angry and hit someone who was not at fault. This is a silly exercise. "
Bad example.. It's been proven time and time again, that emotion influences our rational abilities. We think neither emotionally nor rationally, but both. We are neither inherently empathetic nor inherently self-serving, but both.
Sometimes, Ok most times, in any given situation, P == ~P
I am Orthodox because I want to be, whether or not any of it is empirically true or false.
I choose to believe that there are reasons for our existence, and I choose to have faith in the Jewish interpretation of these reasons, the Jewish interpretation of LIFE: I feel that living an Orthodox Jewish life is better than living a secular life. Jewish law and custom make time holy for me and my family. Life without it, for me, would be empty.
I choose to live my life with so-called "Jewish values", faith, and hope. There is no other organized religion that comes close to Judaism for me, and living a secular life is, for me, devoid of meaning.
I take comfort in the beauty of the Shabbat, the holidays, the rituals, and the hope for a better future.
Yes, I "take comfort." Call it what you will. For me, it is a positive, meaningful way to live.
I'm content to wait until Olam Haba to find out whether or not Judaism is "true."
"all frum jews care only about are other frum jews! lets be honest. their attitude towards 99% of the worlds population is indifferent at best and hateful at worst."
Japan's ambassador to Israel hosts members of Jewish rescue organization, thanks them for their help following tsunami disaster ..."
From Wikipedia:
"ZAKA (Hebrew: זק"א, abbreviation for Zihuy Korbanot Ason, literally: Disaster Victim Identification), is a series of voluntary community emergency response teams in Israel, each operating in a police district (two in the Central District due to geographic considerations). These organizations are officially recognized by the government. The full name is "ZAKA - Identification, Extraction and Rescue - True Kindness" (Hebrew: זק"א - איתור חילוץ והצלה - חסד של אמת).
Members of ZAKA, most of whom are Orthodox Jews, assist ambulance crews, aid in the identification of the victims of terrorism, road accidents and other disasters, and where necessary gather body parts and spilled blood for proper burial. They also provide first aid and rescue services, and help with the search for missing persons and participate in international rescue and recovery operations."
As stated earlier, atheists/orthopraxers, apparently, have their own delusions, too.
moahe, how many times do i need to hear my rebbe, my rav, my friends, my cousins, my neighbors, my parents, my grandparents, my colleagues, my shul-mates...denigrate blacks (sorry, shvartzas) or non-jews (sorry, goyim, or shiksa, or sheygitz) or non-orthodox jews (sorry, frei, or off the derech) or muslims, or arabs....100 times? 200 times? 1,000 times?
sorry buddy, its not delusion. even though you can point to one very impressive organization that does great things (that i support financially too) - it does not take away from the cold hard truth.
"sorry buddy, its not delusion. even though you can point to one very impressive organization that does great things (that i support financially too) - it does not take away from the cold hard truth."
I guess that means that since I work with Atheist secular jews in Tel Aviv, and they all think Obama is a Muslim, and they are racist towards Arabs, then this means that all Atheist secular Jews are racists and think Obama is Muslim?
Posts
104 comments:
Way too serious. Plus. Those are not reasons to be Orthoprax; those are reasons to be reformed. I'd love to hear ten real reasons to continue being Orthoprax.
What he said. These are reasons not be religious at all. I thought that the point of this blog was to develop a viable path for Orthopraxy? I haven't seen any of that yet.
Figured this is a good place to ask this (hope XGH doesn't mind)... would any of you married orthoprax folks be orthoprax if you can do it all over again.
I am young and not married. Is it worth it to live a life of orthopraxy - with whatever benefits there are in staying within the system, or will I regret the opportunity I have now in the future? I know it is different for every person but I'm wondering what the general feeling of already stuck orthoprax people is. Anyone want to share their thoughts?
It probably depends on your background and community. The more to the left it is the more palatable it may be. But as a general rule, I'd say "run!". XGH, start a poll with this question.
Top 3 Reasons Why XGH Doesn't Exist:
1. I only accept as real that what can be proved by science.
2. Science cannot prove to me that XGH is not merely part of a dream from which I will soon wake up.
3. Therefore, XGH does not exist.
Yet, here I am commenting on (what may be) his blog. I shall have to admit to being "XGHprax".
I'd recommend not marrying an Orthodox person, at the very least. Marriage is hard enough; why screw around with it?
In general, you have to know your own psychological makeup. There's a whole load of guilt that can go along with violating the "rules." As long as you think that you won't have that or can hack it, I say you should do what you believe, i.e. leave.
NL,
I'm unmarried and going through a similar decision process. What is clinching it for me is that I wouldn't want to send my kids to a frum school... so its not like I could marry a frum girl anyway. There is going to be heartache regardless of what you choose, why delay?
Ari
NL...You must understand that XGH and his obsessions are highly idiosyncratic.He is almost charedi in observance, and opinionated and outspoken about dogmas. There is a Jewish world ranging from left Orthodoxy thru Conservadox that maintains a pro forma Orthodoxy coupled with a liberal, flexible observance of halacha and haskafa. Remember good old Moses Mendelssohn, the 18th century philosopher. He said Orthodoxy has no dogmas. He hung out with goyim, was totally immersed in his culture. Today even the Agudah calls him an Orthodox Jew.
There are a zillion women out there, sort of Orthodox, that want to lead sort of an Orthodox life, each couple working out the details as they see fit. The issue of choosing a spouse should never be black or white, frum-not frum, Orthoprax-Orthodox.
Begin with this picture...you are invited to a Friday night meal, they make kiddush, sing zemioros, bensch etc. At the dinner are men and women, mostly single, some frum, some secular but friendly to Orthodoxy, some more observant, some less...they are all friends who have friends. In time they match up, some because they fall in love, some because they have similar goals and values, some because they both don't eat gebrochts on Pesach. Their beliefs about dogmas matter little for dating, marrying and living a happy life. I have never ever heard of a couple getting divorced because they disagreed about what happens to us when we die.
> I have never ever heard of a couple getting divorced because they disagreed about what happens to us when we die.
Maybe that's because they don't don't get married in the first place?
My advice would be to marry someone LWMO and flexible. That way you have all your options open.
Thanks for the suggestions... My question though is if I should avoid 'playing marriage by ear' at all costs, meaning if I end up orthoprax will I always be wondering what could have been.
Is orthoprax life so unbearable that YOU orthopraxers would do it differently if given the opportunity?
I'd suggest trying to figure out whether you want to be Orthoprax or OTD before marriage for sure. Talking to a (non-frum) therapist would be helpful for all.
(I went OTD before marriage.)
Bhb, to your first point. These are reasons he is a nonbeliever. Why he still practices we all know.....he's stuck. (and used to it)
XGH,
After you're done reading Kornreich's latest 2 posts on Bible Criticism and the Kuzari Principle(fkmaniac.blogspot.com), your next post might consist of a list of reasons why you've returned full-throttle to Orthodox belief.
I am very comfortable with the prax part. I really enjoy the rituals (at least many of them), and I find the depth of insight from the redactors of the bible to be deeply fulfilling. It feels good to me to be part of the big, if dysfunctional, Jewish family.
I am also thankful that my wife is not a conventional ortho. I would probably not have married her if he were, even though I was a believer back then.
There's actually no evidence for evolution or the documentary hypothesis. Since when does that bother you?
"There's actually no evidence for evolution or the documentary hypothesis"
LOL
Hilarious! This must be comedy hour.
More like tragicomedy.
We each have our apikorsis to bear...here is Daniel Dennet on ministers that lost their faith...different religion, similar problems.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2010/03/disbelief_in_the_pulpit/all.html
You must understand that XGH and his obsessions are highly idiosyncratic. He is almost charedi in observance
I highly doubt that. But perhaps XGH himself would like to tell us.
NL-- Go to Rabbi Slifkin's site and read the letter from the Orthoprax posek's wife. Doesn't sound so good, I'd say.
" I would probably not have married her if he were, even though I was a believer back then.
May 15, 2011 6:07 PM"
Well, I would hope that a spouse who changes sex is accommodating to a spouse who slightly alters their belief system :)
What I haven't heard on this blog is something about the sense of the sacred in a non-halachic,non-dogmatic traditional Jewish setting. Maybe I'm wrong but the orthoprax part seems rather dry without the mystery and yearning for the divine-whatever that word means.Maybe I sound a little Carlebachian but I'm really talking about something more serious.You seem to be all about intellectual arguments about the existence of the Divine. Maybe it's because of the MO background.Is there a place somewhere for those who think the divine is real but feel dogmas and dikdukei halachos just don't speak to us?you don't have to be a talmid of Dr. Freud to know that there is alot more to the sum total than "merely" the rational and intellectual centers of the mind.
So in short: you have no faith. Why make such a production of it? You don't believe, at least in what you're supposed to believe it. Fine. But why dress it up?
Wheres it being dressed up?
LitvisherYid...I agree with your comment as far as the conversations go. As you know it's impossible to know what is in a person's heart by a comment on the internet. People can yearn and pine away, but find it difficult to express or even show. The emphasis on justifying beliefs doesn't help.
It's interesting you mention in this regard Shlomo Carlebach. I have been watching his videos of late trying to understand his "secret"...what makes so many of the nigunim and stories enter the heart. It might be all schmaltz and nostalgia, all simple dreamy waltzes with no edge and no end...and yet most everyone loves these tunes and enjoys singing them again and again. Why? And how would this 'trick' be applied to the written word? You know in real life all this "mamale and neshamale come closer" was nauseating and not at all polished.(See the stories in Lilith and elsewhere.) But when he starts strumming the guitar, whistling and singing all is forgiven.
http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/709419/Rabbi_Aaron_Rakeffet-Rothkoff/1994-10-23_Pesul_Aidut_-_Salonika_-_23-Oct-94
Mamish magic.
>Top 3 Reasons Why XGH Doesn't Exist:
>1. I only accept as real that what can be proved by science.
>2. Science cannot prove to me that XGH is not merely part of a dream from which I will soon wake up.
>3. Therefore, XGH does not exist.
I spy a logical contradiction! Any takers? Ok: science cannot prove to you that science is not part of a dream from which you will soon wake up, hence you don't believe in the existence of science (points 2 & 3), contradicting point 1. Another try, perhaps?
First time commenting on a blog... I'm also young and unmarried, and trying to decide whether to stay Orthoprax.
"a logical contradiction! "
I don't think so. My (tongue in cheek, I hope you realize) point was simply that we all make ontological presuppositions that cannot be proved or disproved by science. The existence God is such an ontological presupposition.
XGH's search for "evidence or data" for God's existence strikes me as "looking for Lord in all the wrong places". He who thinks only in literal material terms may be a good scientist, CPA, lawyer, historian, physician or mathematician, but will not find God. Such a person brings to mind the first Soviet cosmonaut's quip to the effect that he had disproved the existence of God because he didn't see him when he went into space...
In this regard, sadly, many skeptics and frummies actually agree. They both require "proof" of God. Such frummies compromise their intellectual integrity in that vain quest. The skeptics compromise their souls.
Yup, I got your tongue-in-cheek point, and was tongue-in-cheek responding that you are conflating empiricism, science, and common sense.
The thing is, I don't think it's really worth it to get into this, because when I read these conversations, you generally end up invoking faith, which is then justified by intuition. Neither of those carries much weight with me, so I think this conversation would be a non-starter.
"The skeptics compromise their souls"
what the hell does that mean?
"what the hell does that mean?"
By "soul", I mean the ontological presupposition that there is an aspect to man that exists beyond the physical. A skeptic who knows not anything that he cannot "prove" will likely not cultivate this spiritual aspect of himself. That doesn't make him a bad person, necessarily. Often, though, it will make him an angst-ridden one, since, without belief in the ultimate meaningfulness of life, he is left in a purposeless existence,a mere assemblage of an octillion of atoms, in a universe of centillions.
I get irritated when it's assumed skeptics don't believe in spiritual truths. I believe there may be spiritual truths, and I have no reason to argue with the idea that there is an aspect of man that exists beyond the physical, as Moshe puts it. But I do not think any humans have actual knowledge of what spiritual truths are. I certainly don't see any reason why accepting that spiritual truths may exist means that one should accept the premises of Orthodox Judaism. No way, no how.
Tesyaa,
I believe that probably I have as many problems with contemporary Orthodox Judaism as you do. Mere casuistic adherence to halachic minutiae and chumrot is not authentic Judaism. Ritual performance without spiritual sensitivity becomes an abomination. Witness the almost weekly, sometimes daily, scandals that one sees in the press involving financial misappropriation, bribery, sales of illegal narcotics, child molestation, etc. Witness further the fact that many who perpetrate such acts remain members in good standing of the "Orthodox" community. Embezzle some money and you can remain kosher. Eat something kosher, but without the right hashgacha, and no one will come over to eat at your house. It's sickening.
No, what I'm referring to is "Orthodox" Judaism as it should be practiced. Yes, it is important to observe halachah. That is how we come close to God. That is how spiritual sensitivity is supposed to be inculcated into our children and ourselves. But when halachah becomes worshiped itself, to the exclusion of other Judaic values, problems start. As the Ramban put it, one can be a scoundrel within the boundaries of the law. The Prophets, too, condemned a similar ritual obsession absent moral values. Frankly, I cannot blame too much any spiritually sensitive person who encounters the warped version of Judaism that now often passes for "orthodoxy" for rejecting orthodoxy.
My point is that there is an alternative, which alternative does not involve rejecting halachah and the norms of traditional Judaism (as does, say, Conservative and Reform Judaism), but rather involves embracing them, while yet maintaining one's intellectual integrity.
Yes, it is important to observe halachah. That is how we come close to God. That is how spiritual sensitivity is supposed to be inculcated into our children and ourselves.
Moshe, you start out sounding reasonable, but then you say something like this. If human beings cannot access spiritual truths (whatever they are), why do you think that observing halacha brings us closer to God?
And while it's true that many Orthoprax people may be sensitive types who are turned off by scandals and crazy rituals in the OJ community, that doesn't mean that the Jewish traditions true.
-Yes, it is important to observe halachah. That is how we come close to God. That is how spiritual sensitivity is supposed to be inculcated into our children and ourselves. -
Mo -
Maybe there is no god, but we evolved with an inherent sense of purpose because it benefitted group survival. Maybe there is no real "spiritual" plane except as it dwells within the mind and we are indeed truly purposeless beings among centillions of atoms. However, we have evolved to see purpose along with a lot of other pattern recognition and anticipatory thinking, so it feels good/right to orient towards one. OJ, especially of you grow up with it, is pretty deep and offers, for many, a warm community with lots of self-reinforcing rituals/holidays etc. For some of us OPers, this works as good as anything, and we allow ourselves some suspension of disbelief to participate emotionally.
Replace spiritual with emotional and you get an understanding of atheist orthopraxy judaism.
Tesyaa,
"If human beings cannot access spiritual truths"
I simply don't accept that premise.
"why do you think that observing halacha brings us closer to God"
For one thing,it forces us, when performed with proper kavanah, to constantly think about Him and whether our actions are in consonance with His will.
"that doesn't mean that the Jewish traditions true"
Correct, but you have to distinguish between what are essential traditions and what some people say are essential traditions.
Solomon,
"Replace spiritual with emotional and you get an understanding of atheist orthopraxy judaism."
OK, but I find it hard to believe that living according to what one thinks of as a delusion can bring long-term satisfaction. Witness XGH's angst.
For one thing,it forces us, when performed with proper kavanah, to constantly think about Him and whether our actions are in consonance with His will.
You can say the same about the practices and/or teachings of other religions. It's inconceivable that following halacha is the only practice that forces one to think about the divine on a regular basis. Just inconceivable.
Correct, but you have to distinguish between what are essential traditions and what some people say are essential traditions.
There is no more basis for your "authentic" Jewish traditions than any other religious traditions.
"but rather involves embracing them (halacha), while yet maintaining one's intellectual integrity"
does this make sense to you moshe? someone KNOWS that halacha is man made and that it has absolutely nothing to do with the "creator", yet he/she should still strap on the leather and wave the lemon - while maintaining intellectual integrity. do you hear yourself, moshe?
"For one thing,it forces us, when performed with proper kavanah, to constantly think about Him and whether our actions are in consonance with His will." its like you have no idea what orthoprax is sometimes!
"Witness XGH's angst" - so you think someone that no longer believes should NOT practice anymore rather than live with some angst? thats some weird advice moshe.
Tesyaa,
"You can say the same about the practices and/or teachings of other religions. "
Nu
"It's inconceivable that following halacha is the only practice that forces one to think about the divine on a regular basis. "
Nu Nu.
"There is no more basis for your "authentic" Jewish traditions than any other religious traditions."
I disagree. Such traditions cannot be "proved", but they can be evaluated rationally to some extent. I have written about this extensively on this blog in the past.
I also believe that the existence of other religions may be part of God's plan. I believe that there is a basis in Judaism itself for such a view. Some religions may be through and through false, and I don't believe that all tenets of any other religion that I know of are true,but certainly not all aspects of all other religions are false, either. Many of them come from Judaism.
I conceive of the Jewish people as sort of God's Navy SEALs. We are an elite force, with influence beyond our numbers. But just as a military needs more than an elite force, so too, God is in need of worship from all men, in different ways.All people are his children.
"someone KNOWS that halacha is man made"
While acknowledging that most of what we do today is rabbinic in origin, I firmly believe in divine revelation and in the origination of halachah in such revelation.
"so you think someone that no longer believes should NOT practice anymore rather than live with some angst? "
I didn't say that at all. I merely pointed out that if one does not believe, then one is left with the inherent purposelessness of life which, inexorably, I think, gives rise to such angst.
> I merely pointed out that if one does not believe, then one is left with the inherent purposelessness of life which, inexorably, I think, gives rise to such angst.
Nonsense. He, I and others like us, have angst because we were brought up with false purpose and then the rug was pulled out from beneath us as adults. I know many adult non-believers and they suffer no angst.
Such traditions cannot be "proved", but they can be evaluated rationally to some extent.
Rationally? Okay....
BHB,
My impression is that many skeptics indeed had the rug pulled out from under them, as you state. They were taught certain things that they later learned were demonstrably false. They were also taught a certain mode of behavior, which they later learned was not adhered to by those who preached it. Any spiritually sensitive person would recoil from such an upbringing.
What I'm saying is that just because your rug merchant may have been dishonest and unethical doesn't mean that you forever have to leave your spiritual floor bare. There is a good carpet out there, which may suit you.
There are some people who, tragically, when wounded by the trauma of a failed love affair, can never love again. Others can recover and enjoy a new relationship. The trauma of lost faith is similar.
"doesnt mean that you forever have to leave your spiritual floor bare"
so, if you dont practice your version of orthodox judaism, your spiritual floor is bare?!?!?
typical
doesn't mean that you forever have to leave your spiritual floor bare. There is a good carpet out there, which may suit you.
Moshe, you must be patting yourself on the back over your use of metaphor today (or cliche, as the case may be).
I do not believe that all Orthoprax Jews were sold a bill of goods that is materially different than what you deem "authentic" Jewish belief. It's insulting to tell people that they would only believe in Judaism if they were taught what you say is the real thing.
Anyway, if I bought a bad Persian carpet, I might get a new one, but not a Persian one. Maybe a Chinese rug. Or a Universalist Unitarian one. Or maybe none; a good wood floor is beautiful, and easier to clean than a carpet.
Tesyaa,
"cliche"
Ouch.
Ksil & Tesyaa,
"so, if you dont practice your version of orthodox judaism, your spiritual floor is bare?!?!?"
"It's insulting to tell people that they would only believe in Judaism if they were taught what you say is the real thing."
You guys repeatedly attribute to me things that I didn't say. Reminds me of an office mate I once had, who would attribute to me things that her ex-boyfriend had said to her, and would even call me by his name occasionally.
I have never said that my approach is the only viable way of life. What I am trying to show, again, is that there is A viable path that is consistent with Jewish tradition and at the same time intellectually honest
MOSHE! read your words carefully!
"just because your (rabbi sold you a bill of goods) doesn't mean that you forever have to (live a life of no spirutuality or meaning)"
you are saying that if you do not follow the rabbi, or some brand of orthodox life, you have no spirutualty or meaning.
you are an SOB
As a Persian carpet merchant, I take offense at your discussions ;-)
More to the point, Moshe - you have to understand that those of us across the orthoprax spectrum have already lost the "I firmly believe in divine revelation.." component. The struggle for us is to find meaning of some sort in the practices. For some, like xgh, it feels totally fake and largely unsatisfying, and yet some of the most meaningful relationships we have - with our spouses, children, parents, siblings, cousins etc - require us to at least behave nominally Orthodox. It is a painful tradeoff. For others, we find the rituals to have emotional content - possibly bc we were brought up with them, so we associate doing them now with the joys of doing them then. Moreover, I have found a lot of insight into human nature from our millenia of Jewish scholars that speaks to me - so I see value in the religion per se.
On the flip side, I can see the immense angst for those in the more charedi world who don't believe or even those who have questions they can't ask for fear of being utterly cut off for just asking!
>What I'm saying is that just because your rug merchant may have been dishonest and unethical doesn't mean that you forever have to leave your spiritual floor bare
Moshe, you are slippery. That is not what you said. You said "that if one does not believe, then one is left with the inherent purposelessness of life which, inexorably, I think, gives rise to such angst."
And I claim that is not true. non-believers can live great fulfilling lives. It's FORMER believers who have a hard time, but the angts settles down over the years.
And what I'm saying now, is that since I was ripped off once, I reserve the right to examine all the merchandise that rug the merchant is selling. And also the merchandise that his fake phony fraud relatives are pushing. That includes Christinaity, Muslim, Lubavitch, Conservative, LWMO.
I find it's all counterfeit.
You must realize that you're not talking to disaffected children here that reject Chariedi Judaism because of difficulties with chumras and midrashim. Many, if not most of use, completely reject the historicity of the revelation which hangs on a shoddy Kuzari argument (See Hume's Maxim, which effectively counteracts the Kuzari with two short sentences. See D.S. Levene who explains in detail why the Kuzari Principal is weak.)
Feel good analogies of carpets and wood flooring, can't compete.
You want to believe? That's fine with me.
If people want to hang on to LWMO or even OJ because it makes them feel good, I'm all for that too.
But please don't insult our intelligence with platitudes about having a 5th grade understanding of Yiddishkeit.
BHB,
"non-believers can live great fulfilling lives"
I wouldn't deny that. What I would say is that, in order to do so, they probably have to divert their attention somewhat from their existential situation. Absent some form of Ultimate Meaning, life has been described as follows:
Man is a beast. The only difference between man and
the other beasts is that man is a beast that knows he
will die. The only honest man is the unabashed egotist.
This honest man pours contempt upon the mendacity,
the lies, the hypocrisy of those who will not acknowledge
their egotism. The one irreducible value is life, which
you must cling to as you can and use for the pursuit
of pleasure and of power. The specific ends of life are
sex and money. The great passions are lust and rapacity.
So the human comedy is an outrageous medley of lech-
ery, alcoholism, homosexuality, blasphemy, greed, bru-
tality, hatred, obscenity. It is not a tragedy because it
has not the dignity of a tragedy. The man who plays
his role in it has on himself the marks of a total deprav-
ity. And as for the ultimate and irreducible value, life,
that in the end is also a lie...
(Robert E. Fitch, "Secular Images of Man in Contemporary
Literature," Religious Education, LIII, p. 87.)
Please demonstrate to me , absent God, why Fitch's characterization of life is incorrect. And if you cannot so demonstrate, than perhaps the fulfillment that you write of is also a delusion, n'est pas?
Late to the party, but want to add my chorus to those post-marriage Orthopraxers (of which I am one, kind of): If I were to do it again, I would defenitely NOT marry a religious person...bad, bad idea.
We are stuck with who we are, and both feel that our lives are seriously compromised.
>an outrageous medley of lech-
ery, alcoholism, homosexuality, blasphemy, greed, bru-
tality, hatred, obscenity.
One of these things is not like the others...
Moshe -
I would argue that we have evolved to need communities and society, and that we are wired to feel satisfaction and meaning from our interpersonal life (just as we are wired to project purpose/meaning/cause eg G-d on existence). To that end, I wholeheartedly disagree with Fitch's cynical, dogmatic screed.
I encourage you to delve into both evolution and neuroscience.
Solomon,
So basically you're saying we are hardwired for delusion. Some are deluded by religion, others by community or familial involvement.
Drugs or alcohol can also make you "feel satisfaction". That doesn't change reality.
I thought atheism/orthopraxy/skepticism was about facing the truth. And the truth is exactly what Fitch writes, isn't it?
Here's a poetic version of the atheist's reality:
From some vile seed
or base atom I am born.
... I feel the primeval slime in me.
Yes! This is my testimony!
I believe with a firm heart,
as does the young widow at the altar,
that whatever ...I think
or ...whatever comes from me
was decreed for me by fate.
I believe that the honest man
is but a poor actor,
both in face and heart,
that everything in him is a lie:
tears, kisses, looks,
sacrifices, and honor.
And I believe man to be the sport
of an unjust Fate,
from the germ of the cradle
to the worm of the grave.
After all this mockery comes death.
And then? ...
Death is Nothingness.
Heaven an old wives’ tale!
(Arrigo Boito , libretto to Verdi's Otello.)
Perhaps the contemplation of this reality is why Hitchens drinks so much, Dawkins seems vaguely constipated, and Harris masks his existential fear in all consuming arrogance.
On the other hand, if you are prepared to consider a Higher Reality....
Mo - you are lashing out like a wounded tiger. Slow down.
First of all, may I suggest that you read David Brooks' (a secular Jew, by the way) column in Tuesday's NYTimes for a very tight summary of the way we are wired to derive pleasure from community/sharing etc. It's not all sex and drugs (even if those are fun too).
Second, we are not hardwired for delusion per se, but we are hardwired to anticipate and project from a small number of data points. For you, it might mean being able to catch a fly ball or change the course of a conversation that appears headed the wrong way. Most slight of hand magic exploits this as well - and there is a growing body of science to support this. For humans overall, the concept of G-d/gods (or some causality) evolved as well.
I knew the Higher Reality of which you speak. I loved it - the hasgachah pratit, TMS, the idea that God created the world 5800 or so yrs ago with all the evidence of evolution/dinosaurs etc embedded. But I dug deeper into the powerful science of genes, into evolution (and Darwin predated the discovery of genes - incredible), and into neuroscience - and I come up with no God, just existence - an immensely cool, complex, and fascinating existence. And for the most part, I still like the Ortho Jewish communal way of living it.
Nate - since your wife is a scientist, I'd be curious as to her take on Brooks' comments as well.
>On the other hand, if you are prepared to consider a Higher Reality....
You'll never be drunk, constipated, or arrogant!
I'm in.
And actually, Fitch does not write the truth - he spews negative, egocentric dogma. "The specific ends of life are sex and money." is just plain wrong. Again - back to Brooks' column and the well-grounded research he discusses.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/opinion/17brooks.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Moshe, you really think that if someone does not believe in God (and best case, the one you believe in) they have no meaning in their life!
The fact that you seem like a thoughtful person and STILL believe that is just pathetic.
Sol,
"lashing out"
I don't think that citing a few literary references, or poking a little fun at some prominent atheists, qualifies as "lashing out".
You can dress up reality however you like, you can read whatever New York Times columnist that you prefer, you can adopt whatever coping mechanisms you wish, but, at the end of the day, you are left with the knowledge that you are but a mere chemical accident, if you are a true atheist. I am glad you have found a way (albeit, a delusion, in my humble opinion) to make the best of that situation, and wish you every joy and happiness possible in your life. I also applaud the fact that you at least responded to my challenge. Others who share your views have fallen strangely silent in the face of what I wrote. As I write this,no one else has even attempted to tell me Fitch was wrong.
" I loved it - the hasgachah pratit, TMS, the idea that God created the world 5800 or so yrs ago with all the evidence of evolution/dinosaurs etc embedded."
Whoa. You are conflating a lot of different things here. For example, many religious people, and I among them, don't believe that the world is 5800 years old or that God planted dinosaur bones to fool us. When evaluating physical reality and/or history, we advocate using science and modern historical research methods, not religious dogma. That said, we intuit that there is more to reality than we can grasp with our senses, or by use of various devices that we manufacture. We intuit that there is, in fact, a meaning and purpose to our existence. We sense that there was a conscious creation. This purposefulness, this meaning, this Creator, we call God. Some of us also intuit that a God who created us would not remain forever silent and would of needs reveal something of His Will to us. This revelation we call Torah. Exactly when and by whom it was written down is a separate issue, which is amenable to historical inquiry. Whether the text reflects divine revelation is a matter of faith, which is not susceptible to such inquiry.
Etan,
"You'll never be drunk, constipated, or arrogant!"
You got me. I can't promise regularity. And you might get drunk about three times a year.
Some of us also intuit that a God who created us would not remain forever silent and would of needs reveal something of His Will to us.
Maybe, maybe not. How do you intuit this? People intuit lots of things that turn out not to be true.
Let's say this intuition is correct. Why do you assume "your" revelation is the true one?
And some of us haven't "fallen strangely silent", we are just busy with our bricks and mortar existence.
Mo-
I cite Brooks only because he, in a timely way for our blogversation, wrote up a summary of others research and findings on the topic of how bags of chemicals find plesasure/meaning/value in interpersonal relationships - no sex, no money, no god.
My question for you - if there is any question about the absolute of Torah MiSinai, how do you choose what is Divine revelation and what is priestly or rabbinic powerplay?
PART II
Now, I am not saying, by any means, that one must accept the tenets of the documentary hypothesis. I, for one, do not. The documentary hypothesis is based upon a minimum of evidence and a maximum of interpretation. It is often very plausible conjecture, but that doesn't mean it's true.It has had to be revised many times in response to archaeological discoveries. My point is simply that, if someone chooses to believe in it, while yet maintaining a belief in a revelation of content to authentic prophets, I don't think that he should be kicked out of shul.
In sum, you can be frum and not check your intellectual integrity at the door. On the other hand, I don't quite see how one can be a true atheist, and not rather despondent over one's and essential situation. That doesn't mean, of course, that the atheist is not correct. But I hope not.
One last point. While I have no proofs that Judaism as I understand it represents the most authentic means of serving God, what makes me think that it may be is the fact that, unlike other religions, Judaism does not emphasize personal satisfaction. Yes, there is the concept of the world to come. However, rabbinic literature contains several instances in which great rabbinic figures give up their share in the world to come for some higher good. I have not encountered such a noble precept in any other religion. We are not bid to just worry about our own personal salvation. Our task is to live ethical lives upon this earth--to be concerned with the poor, the widow, the orphan. In the face of being despised for centuries, we have maintained these concerns. All that may not be proof, but let us call such things, perhaps, "witnesses", to the authenticity of Judaism.
"Judaism does not emphasize personal satisfaction."
EVERYTHING we do, everything I was taught, everything I hear in shul (or dont hear in shul) contradicts this.
All the rabbis care about arechecking the boxes, making sure you say the word correctly, shake the lulav properly, each shofer blast is the right amount of time so that we get CREDIT with the boogy man in the sky.
further, all frum jews care only about are other frum jews! lets be honest. their attitude towards 99% of the worlds population is indifferent at best and hateful at worst.
but our women cover their hair and cant participate in the services and our men (ideally) dont work and sit and learn ancient man-written texts all day and all night)!! so we are all going to gan eden to learn gemorah with hkbh!
what an ugly religion rabbinic orhtodox judaism)
It appears that Part I of my comment has gotten lost in cyberspace. I will try to re-create it:
T & S ,
The questions that you ask are very profound. Here's my response:
I actually view it as a divine blessing that we cannot "prove" the existence of God. If His existence could be proved, we would be reduced to moral automatons. Just as a lab rat avoids choices that result in it receiving a jolt of electricity, so no sane person would defy the will of a God whose existence was "proved".
Another blessing that the lack of divine "provability" provides is a hedge against fanaticism. The fanatic has no doubts. In contrast, the Jew questions. Indeed, the very name Israel means one who struggles with God. No one should be so certain of his beliefs that he tries to impose them by force upon others. Indeed, much of human misery has been caused by fanatics, whether religious or atheistic, trying to impose preconceived ideological notions upon entire populations.
In terms of the Torah MiSinai question, I would first note that it is strange that the Torah was not given to us directly from God, carved upon stone (except of course for a very small part). Would that not have been the most clear proof of its divinity? It seems that, for some reason, God wished that there be some human involvement. Related to this concept are the statements in rabbinic literature to the effect that the Torah that we have on earth is but a pale reflection of the Torah that exists in heaven.
I thus view the Torah as divine revelation written down (not merely transcribed) by man. It has both divine and human elements. The admixture of the divine and human cannot be separated, and thus must remain inviolate.
Respecting the oral law, it is rather clear from even a cursory glance at the Torah, that many of the precepts therein are so cryptic that there has to have been, from the very beginning, an oral tradition as to how they would be implemented in practice. While you will find in rabbinic literature statements that every detail of the oral law goes back to the beginning, you will also find other statements to the effect that only general principles were given at Sinai. The rest came later. The latter view is supported by the famous midrash of Moses visiting the beit midrash of Rabbi Akiva.
The authority of the rabbis to enact legislation to supplement that of the Torah is inherent in the Torah itself. Indeed, no legislation could remain viable over time absent such authority. The key thing is the divine origin of the text, and of such rabbinic authority.
Having said all that, I, for one, fail to understand the current Orthodox fetish that would exclude anyone from orthodoxy who does not accept the complete Mosaic origin of the Torah. For one thing, the Talmud itself contains an opinion that the end of the Torah is not Mosaic. For another, some of our greatest rabbis, including Ibn Ezra and Rashi, held that parts (albeit small ones) of the Torah were post-Mosaic. Were they heretics? Indeed, as Prof. Shapiro has demonstrated, if you read Maimonides closely, you will see that even he did not necessarily held that all of the Torah was Mosaic. Rather, the crucial thing, as a super commentator to Ibn Ezra noted, is a belief in prophecy and the fact that the text that we have was revealed to authentic prophets.
further, all frum jews care only about are other frum jews! lets be honest. their attitude towards 99% of the worlds population is indifferent at best and hateful at worst.
True, and what's worse, the traditional sources back this up. One can't argue that this is only a modern-day perversion of "authentic" Judaism. This is a big part of what it's all about - Jewish chosenness, Jewish destiny, Jews as distinct and removed from the rest of humanity. Or as Moshe would say, Jews as God's Navy Seals. LOL!
>If His existence could be proved, we would be reduced to moral automatons.
So, all the main characters in the Torah, from Adam down to the Avot, to Moshe who spoke to God face to face - they were ratlike automatons?
Etan
"So, all the main characters in the Torah, from Adam down to the Avot, to Moshe who spoke to God face to face - they were ratlike automatons"
Hardly. The verb "spoke", in connection with God,is not literal. Moreover, not everyone whom God "speaks" to necessarily recognizes that fact.
K & T
"all frum jews care only about are other frum jews! lets be honest. their attitude towards 99% of the worlds population is indifferent at best and hateful at worst....
True, and what's worse, the traditional sources back this up."
I guess that's why the Torah starts with the story of how God is the father of all men, not just of Abraham and his descendants.
"what an ugly religion rabbinic orhtodox judaism"
"LOL"
How can one possibly counter such profundity.
Sorry moshe. Its ugly to ignore 99% of humanity.
U cant counter that. Its ugly. Gamarnu
I wonder why u r on this blog writing this stuff, u must be an irational jew
I like the fact that I don't "love" everyone. It's called Ahavas Yisrael for a reason. For example, while 9-11 was tragic, I'm only interested in the Jews who died. Same with every other war, calamity, etc. If they discovered the mass murder of millions of Arabs in some ravine akin to Babi Yar, I'd probably flip the channel. Boring.
>Please demonstrate to me , absent God, why Fitch's characterization of life is incorrect. And if you cannot so demonstrate, than perhaps the fulfillment that you write of is also a delusion, n'est pas?
That's a horrible portrayal of life. And no. I don't agree with that portrayal of life. Maybe tomorrow, if I'm not so busy at work I'll explain why.
But even if that portrayal is true, listen carefully now, even if true, if there is no God, then that terrible portrayal of life doesn't create a God. That's just an appeal to consequences.
But Nate, you are a repulsive person, so we've come to expect this from you.
I left a while back noting that Moshe always resorts to intuition in these conversations. Sure enough, by the time I return Moshe has mentioned intuition that there is more to the world than the physical, and sensing that there is a conscious creator. But I reject the validity of those intuitions as a reliable way to learn about the universe. So now what?
>>Please demonstrate to me , absent God, why Fitch's characterization of life is incorrect.
Ok.
>>1. "The only difference between man and
the other beasts is that man is a beast that knows he
will die. "
Incorrect. Humans also have improved ability to understand the mental states of others and empathize with them, language, and reasoning about morality. Our social cognition is fantastic. Also, we walk upright and use tools with our opposable thumbs.
>>2. "The only honest man is the unabashed egotist."
Nope. We are indeed hard-wired for empathy and cooperation. When you see others in pain, it generally activates your own neural circuits for pain. Our brains automatically "mirror" others and share their experiences, which motivates cooperation and altruism.
Solomon was correct above. If you want to read research on this, a nice and enjoyable introduction is Frans de Waal's The Age of Empathy.
JG,
"But I reject the validity of those intuitions as a reliable way to learn about the universe. So now what? "
Do you also reject your intuition that I am not merely part of some dream from which you will soon wake up?
"Humans also have improved ability to understand the mental states of others and empathize with them, language, and reasoning about morality. Our social cognition is fantastic. ... We are indeed hard-wired for empathy and cooperation. When you see others in pain, it generally activates your own neural circuits for pain. Our brains automatically "mirror" others and share their experiences, which motivates cooperation and altruism..."
Antietam.
Andersonville.
Verdun.
Nanking.
Babi Yar
Auschwitz.
Hiroshima.
Budapest.
Guangxi.
My Lai.
Cambodia.
Hama.
Rwanda.
Darfur.
Power to the people.
Moshe -
You have not addressed JG's comments on the uniquely human traits of empathy, social cognition etc.
JG -
You forgot to mention that our human tendency to groups can also lead to horrific actions of one group on another - examples of which Mo so cogently listed.
Mo -
By the way, you left out Amalek (as in Shaul's extermination of...)
>Antietam. etc
I very purposefully wrote "generally." The exception I had in mind is, as Solomon notes, outgroups. Outgroups can more easily be dehumanized, and do not evoke mirror neuron system activity in when they are in pain as ingroup members do. This doesn't change whether we are "unabashedly selfish." It means we have the capacity for good and evil, which I'm sure you knew.
Moreover, I'd point out that most of secular morality is about expanding our circle of innate empathy to include outgroups (see, for example, Peter Singer's The Expanding Circle). Contrast that to religion, which far more often than not is a force for dividing between new ingroups/outgroups, and for fostering outgroup derogation and even outgroup violence.
>Do you also reject your intuition that I am not merely part of some dream from which you will soon wake up?
Philosophically, I have responded to this on my blog, The Praxy Project (under "You Assume Other People Exist, I Assume God Exists). In short, I'd argue that's a lack of doubt about empirical experiences I DO have; in contrast, you are making assertions about things with which you DON'T have empirical experience.
The more important point is empirical, though: the reason I reject the intuitions you originally discussed is, research in psychology and neuroscience has suggested they are not trustworthy. (I have blogged about this as well on The Praxy Project, under "Wired for Religion at the Expense of Science," and "But Why a Good God?" You are welcome to take a look if you are interested. I tried to link a couple times, but the comments didn't go through.)
At the end of the day, you are of course very much welcome to believe what you believe, but I will very much deny your claims that there is no moral or philosophical consistency to be found for skeptheists.
PART ONE:
Sol,
"You have not addressed JG's comments on the uniquely human traits of empathy, social cognition etc."
I suggest that you watch more PBS. Monkeys and other animals have social skills too.
" By the way, you left out Amalek (as in Shaul's extermination of...)"
Trying to change the topic on us, ay? In politics I think they call this "negative campaigning".And, as a matter of fact, I have addressed that issue extensively in comments to this blog (or one of its predecessors) in the past.
JG,
"Outgroups".
Children molested by their parents.
Battered wives.
Children who abuse aged parents.
People who cheat on their spouses.
Shall I continue?
"good" and evil"
I fail to understand these lofty words. I can understand "legal "(as in, the persecution of the Jews was perfectly legal under Nazi law) and "illegal" (as in anti-Semitism was "illegal" in the former Soviet Union). But I'm not sure as to who gets to decide what constitutes "good" and "evil". I have even read that, in certain societies, certain things are considered "good", while in other societies the same things are considered "evil". For example, my understanding is that in ancient Greece and Rome, which I have heard were quite advanced societies, it was not considered "evil", to expose deformed infants to the elements so that they would die. Strangely, our society,which claims to derive so much from those societies, views that practice as "evil". Very puzzling. It's almost as if what is considered "good" and "evil" changes over time based upon the particular society. Sort of like "legal" and "illegal".Now, if "good" and "evil" don't amount to anything more than "legal" and illegal", how do I know that our society takes the correct approach and that the Nazis,Russians, Greeks, and Romans had it wrong?
PART TWO:
"Moreover, I'd point out that most of secular morality is about expanding our circle of innate empathy to include outgroups "
Peter is a poor man. Paul has buried $1 million in cash in his backyard. He tells Peter. He further tells Peter that no one else knows about it. Paul states that he trusts Peter, but does not trust banks and that he does not want his children to be aware of the money until after he dies. Peter decides to dig up the money and keep it for himself, so he can live better. There is virtually no chance that he will be caught. Even if he is caught, it so happens that Peter has a dread disease for which he cannot presently afford treatment. If he goes to jail, he will receive such treatment for free. Please tell me why Peter should not steal the million dollars, from his perspective?
PART THREE:
(I apologize for all this part one, part two, part three business, but the system doesn't let me post unless I subdivide).
"I'd argue that's a lack of doubt about empirical experiences I DO have; in contrast, you are making assertions about things with which you DON'T have empirical experience."
A believer's experience of God may be just as "empirically" real to him, as your experience that I exist is to you. You can't prove, or disprove, either.
"research in psychology and neuroscience has suggested they are not trustworthy."
That may be. But not all intuition is unreliable either. In fact, you and everyone else make many decisions every day based upon intuition. Rarely do we have full information about the great majority of things that we have to decide to do or not do. We have some facts, but ultimately, more often than not, make our decisions from the gut.
god dammit moshe, go spew your nonsense somewhere else.
back to the morality arguement? jesus christ, can you please come up with something that has not been debunked, or you just stick to the same tired old bullshit?
enough already! leave
>Monkeys and other animals have social skills too.
Yes! Which further goes to show it is very deeply hard-wired into us. Ours, however, are FAR more developed and complex, making us different from them.
>Children molested by their parents. Etc.
Really? This is your argument that homo sapiens as a whole does not have, as demonstrated by AMPLE evidence, an innate sense of empathy, morality, emotion mirroring, etc? That some people abuse their children or parents? That's what is known as a "strawman." OBVIOUSLY, mirror neurons don't predict that all people will be nice all the time. It's like you're being deliberately obtuse.
>A believer's experience of God may be just as "empirically" real to him, as your experience that I exist is to you. You can't prove, or disprove, either.
I don't think you understand what "empirical" means. Your understanding of spirituality is, by definition, not empirical.
>But not all intuition is unreliable either.
Correct. But the intuitions that are useful are ones about complex decisions we have to make for ourselves. Intuitions about how the universe works? Unhelpful and misleading for an accurate understanding of the world. Ok as a heuristic for navigating daily life much of the time, though.
What, do I need to write complete literature reviews about empathy and intuition research ere?
" very purposefully wrote "generally." The exception I had in mind is, as Solomon notes, outgroups. Outgroups can more easily be dehumanized, and do not evoke mirror neuron system activity in when they are in pain as ingroup members do. This doesn't change whether we are "unabashedly selfish." It means we have the capacity for good and evil, which I'm sure you knew."
You do realize this is circular right? You can't predict who will be in an "outgroup" or who will be in an "ingroup" Plenty of Nazis helped Jews survive, and plenty of friends have stabbed their other friends in the back. And plenty of CEOs consider everybody in their outgroup, while con artists consider everyone in their ingroup.
What's circular? We tend to categorize the social world into ingroups and outgroups. How we do that is hard to predict sometimes simply because it is malleable and variable (some people find national identity more salient, some religious identity, etc).
But stabbing a friend in the back isn't making them an outgroup member anyway. We have other emotions or drives that can compete with or override empathic responses, even for close others. But we still have deep-running capacity for empathy and cooperation, unlike Moshe's claim that we are inherently egotists.
Consider: we have the ability to think rationally; we sometimes act with emotion instead of reason. What you and Moshe are saying is like claiming people have no capacity for reason, because one time your uncle got angry and hit someone who was not at fault. This is a silly exercise.
I. Mo - if the human capacity for murderous, exploitative behavior makes you see our bestiality as dominant and nulliifying of our empathy and innate desire to help, why doesn't the molestation, tax fraud, embezzlement etc of the frum community (see failedmessiah for a biased but thorough list) - prob in equal percentage of jews as the pereps of the crimes you ascribe to humans as a whole - not lead you to negate the lofty side of Judaism?
"But stabbing a friend in the back isn't making them an outgroup member anyway."
A young man comes to the Chelm hospital with a knife in his back. "Who did this to you," asks the doctor.
"My friend," says the man.
"It looks bad, doesn't it doc?"
"I'm afraid so. Do you have efsher a mishpoche?"
"Yes."
"Shall I have someone call dem?"
"Yes, please."
"Have you made out a vill."
"Yes...It's just not fair!"
"To perish so young, mein friend."
"No, doc. You just don't understand."
"Vhat, young man."
"My friend...he...he was a member of my... INGROUP."
"Ingroup?"
The doctor's eyebrows rise, and his eyes widen. He is absorbed in thought. After a few seconds, he waggles his index finger at his patient, and exclaims,
"Nu, maybe you can still get a refund on deh dues?"
Story of the middle east, mo.
Me against my brother.
My brother and I against my cousin.
My brother, cousin. And I against the world.
II.
Mo - curious as to your comments onthe following
- Michael Tomasello, the author of “Why We Cooperate,” devised a series of tests that he could give to chimps and toddlers in nearly identical form. He found that at an astonishingly early age kids begin to help others, and to share information, in ways that adult chimps hardly ever do.
An infant of 12 months will inform others about something by pointing. Chimpanzees and other apes do not helpfully inform each other about things. Infants share food readily with strangers. Chimpanzees rarely even offer food to their own offspring. If a 14-month-old child sees an adult having difficulty — like being unable to open a door because her hands are full — the child will try to help.
Tomasello’s point is that the human mind veered away from that of the other primates. We are born ready to cooperate, and then we build cultures to magnify this trait.
And.....
III.
- In “Born to Be Good,” Dacher Keltner describes the work he and others are doing on the mechanisms of empathy and connection, involving things like smiles, blushes, laughter and touch. When friends laugh together, their laughs start out as separate vocalizations, but they merge and become intertwined sounds. It now seems as though laughter evolved millions of years ago, long before vowels and consonants, as a mechanism to build cooperation. It is one of the many tools in our inborn toolbox of collaboration.
In one essay, Keltner cites the work of the Emory University neuroscientists James Rilling and Gregory Berns. They found that the act of helping another person triggers activity in the caudate nucleus and anterior cingulate cortex regions of the brain, the parts involved in pleasure and reward. That is, serving others may produce the same sort of pleasure as gratifying a personal desire.
I
JG & Sol,
I think, with all due respect, that you may have misread Fitch. He is not expressing an opinion as to whether human beings are "hardwired" or not for empathy. Rather, he is addressing man's existential situation. Whether or not man is hardwired for empathy, the fact remains that, according to the atheist view, he is nothing more than a chemical accident on a rocky planet doomed to perish-and he knows it. As such, the best he can hope for is some pleasure.
There is an astonishing statement, as I recall, in rabbinic literature, where a tanna or amora expresses his admiration for, of all people, Pharaoh, "because he was a man". What the rabbi meant was that Pharaoh was willing to follow his convictions, wrong as they were, literally into the sea, despite being opposed by the very will of God. He stared into the abyss and did not blink.
II
In contrast, it seems to me that you fellows are avoiding the implications of your views. I would have respected your honesty if you were to have said to me, "Look, I acknowledge that man is nothing more than the random result of a long ago Big Bang. Therefore, all morality is relative. There is no inherent meaning or purpose in anything. Nonetheless, I refuse to take refuge in a faith for which there is no proof. I have no intuition of any higher power".
We could then agree to disagree. Instead, in trying to posit absolute moral standards , while still preaching atheism, you are engaging in the same type of delusional thinking that you accuse the faithful of. You are averting your eyes from the moral chasm implicit in your views. Why not just say things straight out? The fact that the problem exists does not in any way render your position incorrect. At worst, it makes it unpalatable. Unpalatable things are sometimes true.
So can we at least agree that atheism implies moral relativism?
Sol,
"why doesn't the molestation, tax fraud, embezzlement etc of the frum community (see failedmessiah for a biased but thorough list) - prob in equal percentage of jews as the pereps of the crimes you ascribe to humans as a whole - not lead you to negate the lofty side of Judaism?"
Why didn't those and greater crimes when committed in the past lead Isaiah [Chapter 1] or Amos [Chapter 2] to negate the "lofty side of Judaism"?
"I had faith even when I declared...all men are deceitful" (Psalm 116)
>He is not expressing an opinion as to whether human beings are "hardwired" or not for empathy. Rather, he is addressing man's existential situation.. Instead, in trying to posit absolute moral standards , while still preaching atheism.
No, no, and no.
Your quote specifically never says anything about an absolute morality, and neither did I. Your quote was specifically a descriptive statement about the human condition, and it is a descriptive statement that is wrong by all evidence we have. That's the only level I have been interested in.
Sure, it doesn't give you your absolute morality--which I find a messy concept anyway--but it tells you that regardless, people will have empathic and moral instincts; people are capable of moral reasoning; people want and need to cooperate. Those descriptive facts can create a society where people care about happiness, equity, equality, justice, and cooperation. Whether there is a prescriptive absolute morality never needs to enter into this discussion of our nature, because that's just how we are. That's how we're designed, that's what we want, and that's what makes us happy and let's us thrive.
That is, your challenge was: "demonstrate why Fitch's characterization of life is incorrect." I have done specifically that.
>"The only honest man is the unabashed egotist. "
No, people who care about others are quite honest as well, as detailed at length above.
>"The specific ends of life are sex and money. The great passions are lust and rapacity. "
No, humans (other than psychopaths and those with severe autism) have VERY deep needs for social and emotional connection with others.
>"So the human comedy is an outrageous medley of lechery, alcoholism, homosexuality, blasphemy, greed, brutality, hatred, obscenity. "
And love, caring, helping, altruism, and empathy, as detailed above.
There, challenge completed. Your characterization of human life would remain 100% wrong without any God or "absolute morality," because that's just not what we're like; it's simply a bad descriptive characterization of our nature.
JG,
"people want and need to cooperate. Those descriptive facts can create a society where people care about happiness, equity, equality, justice, and cooperation. Whether there is a prescriptive absolute morality never needs to enter into this discussion of our nature, because that's just how we are. That's how we're designed, that's what we want, and that's what makes us happy and let's us thrive."
I apologize for the misunderstanding. I was referring to planet Earth (as was Fitch). You apparently were discussing Barney's Playland (I love, you you love me, we're a happy family...)
The classic problem of moral philosophy is "why should the rational man be just?". Your answer, apparently, is "because, deep down, he really wants to cooperate". Besides being a non-sequiter, your position is naive. And no amount of psychobabble about innies and outies (groups, that is)salvages it. Why, if reality were as you describe it, we would hardly need a government. Indeed, the predilection of people to act upon selfish motives forms the very basis of the structure government contained in the US constitution (See Federalist 51, e.g.). It is the basis of capitalism. It explains why our government can't easily cut benefits for even well off seniors, even if that means saddling our children with massive debt. It explains the massive concentration of wealth in the USA over the last 30 years.
"Equity, equality, justice, and cooperation," indeed.
"it doesn't give you your absolute morality..."
I'll take that as a reluctant "yes".
1. If you, Moshe, did not believe in God and had the opportunity to kill someone in cold blood for financial gain with no repercussions, would you do it? I would not. Ever. The very idea is repugnant to me, as for most sane individuals, atheist or religious. You do not need religion to feel this way, including on Earth.
2. People do harmful, selfish, or malicious things some of the time. This is no more proof against an innate basis for cooperation than it is proof, for the religious believer, against the utility of "absolute morality." That, too, is not a foolproof guarantee of moral behavior. (Gee, Moshe, religious people sometimes steal and molest children; absolute morality obviously would only be good in a Barney's playland world, huh?)
3.>"I'll take that as a reluctant "yes"."
Reluctant? I don't know how to be clearer: I DON'T BELIEVE IN A TRANSCENDENT ABSOLUTE MORALITY. BUT I DON'T THINK WE NEED ONE TO LIVE COOPERATIVE AND MORAL LIVES.
4. >"psychobabble "
Snort. You might want to try the tip of the iceberg with:
Preston, S. D. and de Waal, F. B. M. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(1), 1-71.
Ochsner, K. N., Zaki, J., Hanelin, J., Ludlow, D., H., Knierim, K., Ramachandran, T. & Mackey, S. (2008). Your Pain or Mine? Common and Distinct Neural Systems Supporting the Perception of Pain in Self and Other. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 3, 144-160.
Muzafer Sherif, O. J. Harvey, B. Jack White, William R. Hood, Carolyn W. Sherif (1954/1961) "Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment"
Xu, X., Zuo, X., Wang, X., and Han, S. (2009). Do you feel my pain? Racial group membership modulates empathic neural responses. J. Neurosci. 29, 8525–8529.
Ethan Kross, Marc G. Berman, Walter Mischel, Edward E. Smith, Tor D. Wager. Social rejection shares somatosensory representations with physical pain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2011
"But stabbing a friend in the back isn't making them an outgroup member anyway."
You are correct, it doesn't "make them a member", they were always a member to begin with!
Ingroup/outgroup are labels we use to express behavior that we already know about. This is why it is circular.
Children might share food, but they won't share toys. People might volunteer, but they won't work while being underpaid.
For every study of empathy there is a study showing that the default position of a person is "the outgroup". It doesn't take much to move a person from outgroup to ingroup. In-fact, the same person can move from your outgroup to your ingroup and visa versa 3 or 4 times in a single day.
"Consider: we have the ability to think rationally; we sometimes act with emotion instead of reason. What you and Moshe are saying is like claiming people have no capacity for reason, because one time your uncle got angry and hit someone who was not at fault. This is a silly exercise.
"
Bad example.. It's been proven time and time again, that emotion influences our rational abilities. We think neither emotionally nor rationally, but both. We are neither inherently empathetic nor inherently self-serving, but both.
Sometimes, Ok most times, in any given situation, P == ~P
I am Orthodox because I want to be, whether or not any of it is empirically true or false.
I choose to believe that there are reasons for our existence, and I choose to have faith in the Jewish interpretation of these reasons, the Jewish interpretation of LIFE: I feel that living an Orthodox Jewish life is better than living a secular life. Jewish law and custom make time holy for me and my family. Life without it, for me, would be empty.
I choose to live my life with so-called "Jewish values", faith, and hope. There is no other organized religion that comes close to Judaism for me, and living a secular life is, for me, devoid of meaning.
I take comfort in the beauty of the Shabbat, the holidays, the rituals, and the hope for a better future.
Yes, I "take comfort." Call it what you will. For me, it is a positive, meaningful way to live.
I'm content to wait until Olam Haba to find out whether or not Judaism is "true."
Shavua tov.
"all frum jews care only about are other frum jews! lets be honest. their attitude towards 99% of the worlds population is indifferent at best and hateful at worst."
Really?
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4069674,00.html
"ZAKA thanked for aid in Japanese
Japan's ambassador to Israel hosts members of Jewish rescue organization, thanks them for their help following tsunami disaster ..."
From Wikipedia:
"ZAKA (Hebrew: זק"א, abbreviation for Zihuy Korbanot Ason, literally: Disaster Victim Identification), is a series of voluntary community emergency response teams in Israel, each operating in a police district (two in the Central District due to geographic considerations). These organizations are officially recognized by the government. The full name is "ZAKA - Identification, Extraction and Rescue - True Kindness" (Hebrew: זק"א - איתור חילוץ והצלה - חסד של אמת).
Members of ZAKA, most of whom are Orthodox Jews, assist ambulance crews, aid in the identification of the victims of terrorism, road accidents and other disasters, and where necessary gather body parts and spilled blood for proper burial. They also provide first aid and rescue services, and help with the search for missing persons and participate in international rescue and recovery operations."
As stated earlier, atheists/orthopraxers, apparently, have their own delusions, too.
"own delusions"
moahe, how many times do i need to hear my rebbe, my rav, my friends, my cousins, my neighbors, my parents, my grandparents, my colleagues, my shul-mates...denigrate blacks (sorry, shvartzas) or non-jews (sorry, goyim, or shiksa, or sheygitz) or non-orthodox jews (sorry, frei, or off the derech) or muslims, or arabs....100 times? 200 times? 1,000 times?
sorry buddy, its not delusion. even though you can point to one very impressive organization that does great things (that i support financially too) - it does not take away from the cold hard truth.
"sorry buddy, its not delusion. even though you can point to one very impressive organization that does great things (that i support financially too) - it does not take away from the cold hard truth."
I guess that means that since I work with Atheist secular jews in Tel Aviv, and they all think Obama is a Muslim, and they are racist towards Arabs, then this means that all Atheist secular Jews are racists and think Obama is Muslim?
anon,
wha?
Post a Comment