Rabbi Putzansky: Chazal not only knew science, they invented it!

Great passage from Rabbi Prustzasnky's latest post:

"Moreover, because of our poor public relations (a problem that did not begin with the Israelis), no credit is given to the Talmudic sages for their scientific discoveries – probably because they are unknown to the world at large. Thus, the Tosefta (Shabbat, Chapter 7) notes that an iron bar may be placed on a roof to attract lightning – long before old Ben Franklin discovered electricity. Chazal in several places (e.g., Sanhedrin 106b) refer to the laws pertaining to “a tower that flies in the air”, recognizing that airplane flight was a physical possibility, if then a practical impossibility. Rabban Gamliel used a telescope that could distinguish objects a kilometer away (Eruvin 43b). Rav Yehoshua knew of Halley’s comet – “a star that shoots across the sky once every 70 years” (Horayot 10a) – fifteen centuries before Edmond Halley (1656-1742) was a gleam in his mother’s eye. And it is clear from even a superficial understanding of the Talmud that most of our Sages assumed the earth was a round sphere (not flat) and revolved around the sun – 1300 years before Nic Copernicus claimed the credit and won the fame associated with these “discoveries”.

Awesome!

So is any of this even remotely true? Well a little research on Wikipedia shows that while ancient astronomers knew of Haley's comet, they didn't necessarily recognize that it came back every 70 years or so. The first record of that may in fact be the Talmud. As for electricity, static electricity and properties of materials that conduct (presumably with lightening too) were known in the ancient world, so I don't think the iron bar thing is so unique. As for the flying tower, not quite an airplane but still interesting. And what about the round earth? Sorry, the Greeks beat Chazal by several hundred years. But then, we know that the Greeks got all their chochmah from the Neviim, so we are the champions after all.

Am I Orthodox?

Divrei Ben Sirah has an interesting post about a shiur he attended from Rav Willig and Rav Shachter on the subject of Orthodoxy. He writes:

"R' Willig started by saying that the community has accepted the Rambam's principles as binding, and therefore they are binding, even if they weren't so beforehand. "

This is interesting, because a few years ago I attended a shiur by Rav Willig in which he described Orthodoxy as minimally keeping shabbat and kashrut, and he didn't mention beliefs. Though after I excitedly blogged about that someone then claimed to have checked up with Wilig and he said of course you need beliefs. Anyways, he's clear now.

I think Rav Willig is basically right, from a sociological perspective, belief in the ikkarim seems to define Orthodoxy - or rather belief that belief in the ikkarim defines Orthodoxy is widespread.

This is a bit unfortunate, I'm sure the Rambam would be turning in his grave if he knew about this. But the Rambam only has himself to blame for this mess. He was too arrogant (at least as a younger man), and assumed he could figure everything out with his odd mix of neo-aristotelian or whatever philosophy. Some academics hold that the Rambam himself moved away from the ikkarim, and of course there was that scandal where it wasn't entirely clear if the Rambam believed in techiyas hamaysim.

I personally think that it's possible the Rambam did move away from the ikkarim in later life, but it doesn't make much difference to me,what I believe in isn't dictated by some 12th century Rabbi/Philosopher, the very notion is absurd.

Possibly though, in an ej type of way, we could reframe this whole conversation to be less about facts, beliefs and reality and more about something else, which then makes Rav Willig look less delusional. I'm not quite sure what the something else is, but hopefully ej will take the bait and come up with something.

Which brings me to my next point. The Rosh Yeshivah of YCT is coming to town soon, and of course I signed up for the program. But I'm also pretty sure that he's not going to say anything which will be remotely useful to me, how could he?

And, I'm often informed by even my most LWMO friends and rabbis that 'my issues are not LWMO's issues'. In other words, I'm all spun up about beliefs and reality, but LWMO is all about women's equality and woman rabbis and stuff like that.

On the whole, this seems to be true. But the LWMO types are not oblivious to reality, in fact many of them are fakers and are actually skeptics who don't believe in TMS and have strange (or maybe more normal) conceptions of God.

So what's going on here?

Could be they are all just faking it to stay within the fold. On the other hand, maybe they truly don't regard beliefs as a big deal. They think it's obvious that fundamentalism isn't really true, but they don't care. They think that ritual, values and morality is more important, and that's what counts. So they are willing to play by the rules of the religious beliefs game, in order to have a voice in the more real and practical issues of women rabbis and the like.

Now you might see, but the whole conversation about women (or any halachic matter) only starts in the first place because of beliefs, so if you don't really believe in the beliefs, why would you spend time arguing with people whose entire position is based on faulty beliefs. What's the point?

But indeed there are people like that. Maybe they just get a kick out of arguing within the system. Or maybe they are too scared to reveal their true colors. Or maybe they like the system so much, that they just want to stay within it, yet still fight for women's equality and such. And / or maybe they think that woman's equality is a winnable battle potentially, but discarding TMS isn't, so there's no point. Or maybe they're just semi delusional.

I would like to get inside the head of a LWMO nick who is not a skeptic and figure out what they're thinking. My guess is that for the ones who are not fakers, they probably have some 1950's Conservative Judaism / Louis Jacobs type thing going on - the Torah is Divinely inspired but yet the DH is correct.

RJM in the news! (if you can call matzav.com news)

This is hilarious:

Rabbi Who Ordained Rabba to be Admitted into RCA

Wednesday March 30, 2011 9:34 AM - 19 Comments

A Matzav report: Rabbi Joshua Maroof, credited with being one of the three rabbis who ordained Sara Hurwitz, is expected to be admitted as a full member of the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) at a teleconference of the RCA Executive committee tomorrow, Thursday.

Rabbi Maroof announced his resignation yesterday from the pulpit of Cong. Magen David of Rockville, MD, as well as his new position as rabbi of Cong. Ezra Bessaroth in Seattle, WA. The Seattle shul made Rabbi Maroof’s appointment contingent upon his admission to the RCA. Thus, many in Seattle are waiting with a great deal of anticipation the outcome of the RCA Executive Committee’s decision regarding Rabbi Maroof’s admission into the rabbinical organization.

The decision to admit Rabbi Maroof to the RCA is both national and local for RCA President Rabbi Moshe Kletenik, whose own Seattle shul is a mere few blocks from Rabbi Maroof’s soon-to-be pulpit.

Rabbi Maroof provided the RCA Executive Committee with the following explanatory statement as a prelude to his admission:

“I spoke at the ceremony conferring the Maharat title upon Sara Hurwitz because I am an avid supporter of advanced learning opportunities for women in general and because I served as Sara Hurwitz’s halakha teacher for one year and I admire her accomplishments in particular. I knew in advance that she would be given a special degree or title at that ceremony, but I did not believe there was anything halakhically objectionable about her being granted a special title such that I would be forbidden to deliver a speech at the gathering. I had nothing to do with the conferral of Maharat title, the selection of the term Maharat, or the like, although I would be less than honest if I did not admit that I do not see the conferral of the title as a violation of halakha per se. (The ‘rabbah’ title and the ensuing controversy did not yet exist at the time.) Afterwards, Yated Ne’eman printed a sharp critique of me and others in which I was accused of championing a radical left-wing agenda, including women’s ordination. I responded to Yated that I was not actively promoting the concept of semicha for women, but rather just supporting advanced Torah Shebaal Peh study for women in general, and supporting Ms. Hurwitz, my student, in particular. I furthermore wrote that had I known that participating in the event would be interpreted as an endorsement of a far-left “Open Orthodox” agenda, I would not have consented to participate, since the support I offered was intended to be applied only to the advancement of women’s Torah learning and not to any broader ideological platform. In fact, I generally consider myself to be a center-to-right leaning Orthodox Rabbi. Yated printed an edited version of my letter and accepted my clarifications and distinctions as valid given the view (debatable in some circles) that women may study the Oral Torah. Regarding the ordination of women, while I have stated openly and I still maintain that it is not halakhically prohibited in theory, I nonetheless accept the RCA’s 2010 policy statement on this issue for all practical purposes.”

extremegh lives on!!!

Holy Moly!

I by chance happened to go into Google Reader for the first time in forever and noticed that I was still subscribed to my old blog extremegh.blogspot.com, which ran from 2006-2008. So I clicked on it, and lo and behold, Google Reader had cached the entire blog, even though it has been deleted. So I copied the whole thing and now I have a 5MB word file 1,000 pages long containing more than half a MILLION words. No comments of course but still pretty cool. Now what the heck should I do with this file?

James Kugels' Latest Book: In The Valley of the Shadow

Just finished reading Kugel's latest book. Somewhat strange, and I couldn't figure out the point. About 2 years ago Dr Kugel told me personally that he was writing a book on Orthopraxy. This isn't it. But if you are looking for a book with anecdotes about people dying of cancer, then this is the one you've been waiting for.

Ooopsie

Changed back from haloscan (now js-kit) to blogger comments because js-kit wanted $10/month and I wasn't willing to pay. This means all the old comments are kind of gone. Oh well, what can you do. The old posts are still here though. For now. Buwahahah. Everything must pass. You and me too. Oh, and the reason I didn't actually ban Nate is because without a paid subscription I couldn't moderate anyone. But now I can. Goodbye Nate.

Poll on killing children

Which is worse?

a) Stabbing children to death on purpose

b) Dropping bombs on populated areas and killing children (but by mistake)

c) Condemning an entire nation to death, including all children

I think most people would say c is by far the worst, followed by a, and then b. Of course if your kids are the ones killed chas vesholom I doubt you'd see much difference between a or b. Kids blown to pieces are just as upsetting as kids stabbed to death. Unfortunately the Torah mandates c, but that was a long time ago.

As for all the people who went beserk over a, but couldn't give a crap about b, (except maybe for a vague I'm sorry but that's the price you pay), well it just doesn't sit right with me. If killing children is an absolute horror (I think it probably is, no?) then more concern surely needs to be shown for all children, whether children of settlers in an extremist yishuv, children playing football in Gaza, or baby Amalekites.

How Prayer Leads To Better Health and Longer Life

Howard S. Friedman, Ph.D.Health psychologist, research scientist, author
Posted: March 22, 2011 07:27 PM

People often ask me if praying leads to better health and longer life. For the past 20 years, my colleague Dr. Leslie Martin and I have been studying the religious beliefs, the personalities, the social relationships, the habits and the careers of more than 1,500 Californians who were first studied as children in 1921. They have been followed continuously for their whole lives, and we have been examining the eight decades of data to see who thrives and lives long, and who falters and succumbs by middle age. We report the surprising findings in our book, The Longevity Project, where one focus is on religiosity.

I used to wonder why people would turn to a scientist to ask a question about the supernatural -- does praying extend life? There is of course an intellectual problem involved, and scholarly interest in such matters traces back several hundred years to the philosopher David Hume, who wrote about the reasoning and evidence needed to establish the existence of miracles. But these days, I think people ask about prayer because the "science" of modern medicine is often too quick to reduce health to simple mechanical cause-and-effect relations, and so many patients feel a dissatisfaction and frustration with sterile medical care that sidesteps the human spirit.

Lots of studies show that religious people tend to live longer, but the studies usually have little idea why. (An obvious exception -- where the reason is clear -- involves those rare cases that examine non-smoking religious groups.) Because we cannot randomly assign individuals to an experiment in which some are religious and some are not, the best study would be one that follows people throughout their lives, measuring their religiosity and other characteristics. This is what we did; it is the first such study ever done. At various points in their lives, from childhood on, the participants reported on their religious instruction, their Bible reading, their worship, the extent to which they were religiously inclined, and much more.

Our findings confirmed that individuals who were religious, especially women, were more likely to live longer lives. But why? The very religious women tended to be quite friendly and sociable, but were also inclined to be worriers. We found that we could explain their long lives by taking into account their outgoing-yet-worrying personalities, and their good, helpful social ties and behaviors. In other words, for these individuals, religion was a core and stable part of who they were and how they behaved -- and it served them well in terms of long life. But there was more!

It was the least religious women who were, on average, least likely to live a very long life. These women were not religious in young adulthood and stayed that way throughout their lives. They were generally bright and productive but they were less likely to be very extroverted and trusting, less likely to get and stay married, and less likely to have children or to be extensively involved in helping others. Herein lay the core of our striking finding: overall it was not religiosity per se that was so important to long life, although it helped many women. Rather it was the characteristics that tended to go along with being religious that explained why these women lived longer. Those who gradually left their religious involvement were at high risk if they also let their community involvement falter and diminish. We found that the social engagement that is so much a part of religious community is one key explanation for the health of many religious people. Yes, those who prayed together, stayed together, and helped each other stay healthy. Naturally, many people found deep social ties and a meaningful community outside religion, and they thrived as well.

What about spirituality? We did uncover various hints of the health importance of a deeper meaning in life. Of course, many people live a consequential, purposeful life outside of any religious context; but many others find such meaning through religious wisdom. In The Longevity Project, we profile a man, Douglas Kelly, for whom meaning was everything. Kelly worked for the U.S. Army in 1946 evaluating some of the highest-ranking Nazis in preparation for their war-crimes trials in Nuremberg. But evidently, this life-changing experience with horror shattered Kelly's sense of agency and meaning, and he met a shocking early death. Those who developed catastrophizing, negative thought patterns were inclined to precipitous actions, injuries, accidents, suicides and related risks.

While we cannot provide empirical confirmation about whether being pious is important to gaining eternal life, The Longevity Project did uncover good evidence that at least some aspects of congregational participation can be relevant to the length of one's mortal life. It was the social involvement and service to others that went along with being religious that explained why these people, especially the religious women, lived longer. You may have heard the old saw that says, "The best of Men cannot suspend their Fate; The Good die early, and the Bad die late." This turned out to be myth! Instead, we sum it all up by saying, "It is the Good ones who can actually help shape their fate; The Bad die early, and the Good do great!"

The orthodox narrative about Judaism must be confronted, challenged, refuted

Toward a more assertive liberal Judaism

The orthodox narrative about Judaism must be confronted, challenged, refuted: vocally, diligently, persistently; may this be the first step.


By Alex Sinclair

The pluralist agenda of the liberal Jewish movements, while admirable in principle, can sometimes lead us to be less vocal about why we differ from Orthodox Judaism, and why that difference is important.

Liberal Judaism makes a powerful claim, and the claim is that Orthodox Judaism is, at its core, wrong. Orthodox Judaism is built around a narrative that contains a foundational error: “The Torah was written by God and given to Moses on Mount Sinai”. This statement, and the orthodox religious narrative that emerges from it, has been disproven by generations of Biblical scholars, archaeologists, sociologists of religion, and historians. These scholars have demonstrated “beyond a reasonable doubt,” in the late Rabbi Louis Jacobs’ words, that the traditional, orthodox understanding of Jewish history is false. The origins of Judaism are much more complicated than that.

Why, then, do we still allow that discredited understanding to remain the dominant and default narrative in the Jewish world? Why do we allow it to be repeated in the public marketplace without censure? Why do we stay silent before those who believe it, rather than make clear the untenability of their position?

I want to suggest three reasons: complacency about the narrative’s danger; fear of disunity; and concern about assimilation.

We are complacent about the Orthodox narrative because our eyes are blinkered to the damage that it has already done, and the dangers that it holds.

The Orthodox narrative is the main rationale and driving force behind Israel’s mistaken settlement enterprise of the past 40 years. This is obvious when one thinks about the national religious movement (“God gave us this land”), but it’s also true, if less obvious, when one examines the tacit consent given by the non-orthodox majority to this ill-starred experiment. Many non-observant Jews believe the Orthodox narrative, and therefore have a grudging respect for those who live their lives by it. This Jewish guilt is particularly prevalent in the Sephardi community, where vast numbers of non-observant Jews vote for Shas because, in part, of a belief that they keep the flame of “real Judaism” burning. But it’s not confined to Sephardim.

Large sections of the Jewish people, particularly in Israel, have tolerated the right-wing settlement agenda because they respect the beliefs of orthodox settlers. The time has come to challenge those beliefs more assertively. Fundamentalist orthodox ideology is based on historically incorrect claims and dubious assumptions about Jewish history. It’s time we said so.

To be clear: I’m not denying the Jewish people’s historical connection with the land of Israel, nor am I questioning our right to political self-determination on part of that land.

What I am denying is the fundamentalist narrative that sees the connection as divinely ordained, and the subsequent use of that divine narrative to justify political actions.

Israel is increasingly controlled by those who are guided by the orthodox narrative. It’s not just the settlements, but also the place of non-Jews in Israeli society, the legitimacy of non-orthodox Jewish streams, the rights of minorities, educational subsidies, and a dozen other issues. Israel’s current government is a terrifying coalition of those who believe and live by the orthodox narrative (the ultra-orthodox and national orthodox), and what I call the “orthophiles”: non-observant Jews who may not live by the practices of orthodoxy, but nevertheless believe or respect the orthodox narrative (Shas’s voters, the Likud party, and even much of the supposedly secular Yisrael Beiteinu party). This coalition of the orthodox and the orthophiles is leading Israel towards several abysses at once.

Liberal Jews in both Israel and the Diaspora must try to stop this cultural and political coalition before it is too late, and one way we can do that is by challenging the core claims of the orthodox narrative.

A second reason that we allow the orthodox narrative to hold center stage is our own fear of Jewish disunity. We tread on eggshells for fear of saying that others’ opinions might be “wrong” or “false”. We nod our heads when we hear absurd and historically ridiculous statements spouted by orthodox friends, because we believe in everyone’s right to their own opinion, and because we want to be nice. We think it’s important to be united as a people, so we swallow our pride and allow the orthodox narrative to become the default Jewish position.

Ironically, it is Orthodox Judaism that is the main force leading to the destruction of the Jewish people’s unity. Liberal Jews are like, l’havdil, abused spouses. For decades, orthodox Jews have ignored our concerns, discriminated against our converts, insulted our rabbis, and used our money against us; yet we still smile weakly at them and cling to the hope that they’ll make nice. No. This is not about the unity of the Jewish people any more; it’s about the vision of the Jewish people. No longer can we allow that vision to be sacrificed on the altar of unity.

The third reason we tolerate the orthodox narrative as default is because we are concerned about assimilation, and deep down we wonder if the narrative, even if it’s false, might help stem the tide of Jews leaving the Jewish people. We are right to be concerned about assimilation, and we need to roll up our sleeves and develop passionate but liberal arguments for why Jewishness is a wonderful and enriching prism through which to live life. The fight against assimilation is certainly harder without the orthodox narrative, but we dare not sacrifice truth for Jewish continuity.

All this is not to say that we should cease being pluralist. Liberal Jews must continue to talk with and learn from each other, wherever they are on the denominational spectrum.

We must also talk with and learn from thinking orthodox Jews who are open to such dialogues, and there are many. But pluralism, dialogue, and mutual learning must no longer be allowed to obscure the genuine disputes about history and ideology that separate us, and we liberal Jews must be more prepared to dispute the fundamentalist orthodox position in our dialogues with orthodox friends and colleagues.

A new world Jewish movement is needed: a movement of Jews who are no longer prepared to remain quiet and cede Jewishness to a fundamentalist, incorrect orthodox narrative. This orthodox narrative must be confronted, challenged, refuted: vocally, diligently, persistently. May this be the first step.

Dr Alex Sinclair is the director of programs in Israel Education for the Jewish Theological Seminary. He lives In Modiin, Israel.

The First Cause

Intellifundies like to argue that since there must have been a first cause, therefore God exists. Let's grant that there could be a first cause (in reality, this is a leap of logic / faith).

So what do we know about the first cause? Let's see:

1. The first cause caused the universe to be. Or more precisely, the first cause caused the big bang to be. Or possibly, the first cause caused the multiverse to be. Unclear.

2. The first cause has no prior cause. This pretty much makes the first cause incomprehensible to us, since we can't really understand how something could have no cause, but ok.

3. The first cause has the kind of ability that can create universes (or at least our universe). Or possibly the ability to create multiverses. Or maybe just big bangs and the rest is up to chance.

Now let's analyze what WE don't know about the first cause.

1. Is the first cause one or many? Could there be multiple first causes? Seems strange to say yes, but then that's no stranger than saying the first cause had no prior cause.

2. Is the first cause "spiritual"? This question has no meaning. All we know about (for sure) is our universe. The first cause being outside the universe could be anything, from quantum soup to the flying spaghetti monster. And actually, we don't really even know what our universe is made of anyway, so the whole question doesn't even start.

3. Is the first cause "good"? Well the universe is kinda cool, but then 10,000 people just got killed so that's not so nice. I guess you could call the first cause "powerful", at least relative to us, but that's about it.

So what can we say about the first cause?

It's an incomprehensible something (or maybe somethings) which has the " powerful" ability to cause a universe, or a multiverse (maybe), or at the very least a big bang (or maybe something that in turn can cause a big bang somewhere down the line).

And don't forget, in reality, the argument for a first cause is actually completely flawed, because if something can exist with no prior cause then so can the big bang (or the multiverse or whatever caused the big bang).

Arguments for God

Moshe takes up my challenge and offers the following arguments for the existence of God.

1. Why is there something rather than nothing.

2. How likely is it, through natural processes alone,that the belief in a creator deity who demands justice for the least among us, would arise among a small, formerly nomadic, people in the middle east, of no political importance, in the face of universal paganism, and capture the allegiance of the majority of mankind.

3. How likely is it , through natural processes alone, that this people would survive for 3000 years+, despite near constant persecution, and even attempts at extermination.

4. How likely is it, through natural processes alone, that this people could reestablish their political independence in its homeland after 2000 years of exile.

Okay, let's see.

1. Why is there something rather than nothing.
And if there was nothing, you would also complain! Badaboom. But seriously, what kind of argument is this? Why is there something rather than nothing? Because God did it. That makes no sense. Why is there God rather than no God?

2. How likely is it, through natural processes alone,that the belief in a creator deity who demands justice for the least among us, would arise among a small, formerly nomadic, people in the middle east, of no political importance, in the face of universal paganism, and capture the allegiance of the majority of mankind.

Err, very likely. In fact I guess a probability of 100%, since that's exactly what happened. Actually, that's not quite true, the Jews were originally monolators and henotheists. It's possible the original monotheistic idea came from elsewhere. Also, other religions had moral gods.

3. How likely is it , through natural processes alone, that this people would survive for 3000 years+, despite near constant persecution, and even attempts at extermination.

Err, very likely. In fact I guess a probability of 100%, since that's exactly what happened.

4. How likely is it, through natural processes alone, that this people could reestablish their political independence in its homeland after 2000 years of exile.

Err, very likely. In fact I guess a probability of 100%, since that's exactly what happened.

Try this one on for size (this is a real argument used by Christians):

How likely is it, through natural processes alone, that a seemingly illegitimate nobody from the Galillee could found the world's most popular religion?

Or maybe this one:

How likely is it, through natural processes alone, that a seemingly illiterate nobody could write the most beautiful book in the world AND found the world's 2nd most popular religion?

Atheistic Avreichim and Kefiradick Kollelnickim

Harry is one of the good guys. I like Harry a lot. But I must protest! Oh Harry!

Harry writes:

" I realize that my answers will not satisfy the hard core skeptics that require incontrovertible proof. "

NO! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE REPEAT MYSELF?! SKEPTICS DO NOT REQUIRE INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF. THEY JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS MOST LIKELY, GIVEN ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE AND LOGICAL THOUGHT.

PLEASE STOP WITH THIS STRAWMAN OF ABSOLUTE PROOF. ENOUGH ALREADY!

Harry writes:

"The probability that the entire physical universe with all of its majesty and complexity (especially that of the human being) came into being all by itself is so mathematically remote that it is an absurdity to believe that over the far more logical explanation of a spiritual Creator."

Aha. So the universe is too amazing / complex / majestic to have just popped into being all by itself. Clearly something so amazing / complex / majestic must have been brought into being by something just as (or perhaps even more) amazing / complex / majestic than itself. OK, let's go with that (though in truth that's an unfounded proposition).

So something amazing / complex / majestic caused the universe to be. And of course that something, being amazing and majestic, couldn't have popped into being all by itself, so that in turn was created by something. And that in turn was created by something. Uh oh. This isn't working too well.

OK, so lets say the universe was created by something amazing and majestic, but that something just popped into being. But I thought things can't pop into being? OK, I guess we'll make an exception, not sure why.

Now, what is this amazing creator thing? Do we know anything about it? Well, Harry isn't talking about Judaism so for now I guess the answer is no, we now nothing. Also, even according to Judaism, God is incomprehensible.

So basically, Harry's argument is this:

It is inconceivable that something as complex / finely tuned / amazing / majestic / incredible / insert adjective here could just have popped into being (or even evolved from the big bang). Therefore, it must be that some incomprehensible something created said universe. And oh by the way, the incomprehensible something which created the universe does not itself need to be created, for unknown reasons.

Oh, and by the way, for reasons unknown, we will call this incomprehensible something a 'Spiritual Creator'.

Yes, very convincing.

But maybe it's not so much about the universe, but rather it's about the amazing creation of man?

So Harry writes:

"I'm sorry. there is no way you will convince me that a thought is merely a chemical reaction in the brain and nothing else. That's ridiculous."

Wow, even more convincing. Never mind that we can measure electrical / chemical activity in the brain. There must be something else. Something we know nothing about.

Harry comments:

"Like I said. This post is not about Judiasm's view of God. It is just about the existence of God as a Creator. And I don't think you can ever convince me that the ball got there without 'someone' putting it there"

Harry is probably correct, there probably is no way you can ever convince him. But that's got nothing to do with logical arguments and everything to do with cultural conditioning, religious indoctrination and possibly evolution.

Why can't we just be honest? We humans intuitively (i.e. via evolution) feel that God exists. And HE may well exist for all we know. Personally I feel He does.

Of course there are also large sections of humanity who feel the same way about ghosts and spirits, but then they are just primitives, aren't they?

I’m in Kollel, but My Life is a Sham

From Mishpachah Magazine:

An encounter last week with a fine Yerushalmi yungerman has impelled me to write about a topic that’s been troubling me for a long time. I hope I won’t regret having brought up the issue — yet I think it imperative that we give it our attention.

This yungerman happened to meet me at a wedding, and in an offhanded manner he asked me, “Don’t you think somebody ought to be doing kiruv among the chareidim, too? Why do you only focus on the nonreligious?”

I gathered that he knew something about the kiruv work I had done in the past as part of the first corps of lecturers in the Arachim movement, and more recently, when I have had the privilege of doing a some speaking before nonreligious students in the framework of the very fruitful Nefesh Yehudi organization. At first I thought he was joking, but I quickly realized how serious he was. “Let’s arrange to meet,” I said, “and we’ll see what you have to say.”

We met in a certain shul. And this is what he reported: “What can I tell you? I’m a kollel man, I learn well; I even enjoy my learning, and I stick to a regular schedule. But I’ll be honest with you — I don’t believe in G-d. Everything I do is just a sham.”

I didn’t fall off my chair. And the reason I didn’t is because this wasn’t the first time I’d heard such a confession from someone who frequents the beis medrash. I’ve heard similar words from young people from normative chareidi families of the finest caliber, families with no special problems at all. Several months ago, in the Mishpacha piece “Hanging on by a Fringe” by Shimmy Blum, the topic was studied from another angle, that of youth finding no relevance in keeping the mitzvos. Here was a young avreich who wanted to connect with belief in HaKadosh Baruch Hu, and was clueless about how to go about it.

“Have you spoken with your father about this?” I asked him.

“I was scared to, but after putting it off for a long time, I did.”

“And what did he tell you?”

“He said, ‘Learn Torah, and it will come of its own accord.’

“And did it come?”

“No, it didn’t.”

“Obviously not. And did you speak with anyone else, maybe a teacher you were close to when you were in yeshivah — an uncle, maybe — anybody at all?”

“No. I didn’t dare. You know what happens. You get stigmatized right away. They label you an apikorus, and they don’t try to understand your problem.”

I said, “Well, if you’re going to talk with me, the first thing I want you to know is that Rav Shlomo Wolbe, ztz”l, said there are no apikorsishe questions. There are apikorsishe answers. So what have you done about your problem?”

“Nothing, I’m sorry to say. I’ve just been living with it.”

My dear readers, this young man has been living in anguish over a matter of fundamental importance, and he feels he has no one to turn to. No one he can even come to with questions. He went on to regale me with the news that several of his friends from the kollel suffer from similar doubts gnawing away at their hearts. It makes one wonder how many youngsters in our yeshivah world are troubled by this same burning anguish, but are afraid to express their doubts because they dread the stigma that comes of asking such questions.

Their fear is by no means unfounded. I know of a number of cases where that was the reaction of teachers in yeshivos and seminaries to boys and girls who took the risk of speaking up about their lack of emunah.

As I write these lines, I remember something a great talmid chacham told me some years ago. A group of teachers came to consult with this talmid chacham, who is also a prominent figure in chinuch. One of the issues they raised was what to do about students who voice doubts about emunah.

“How do you answer them?” the gadol inquired.

“We silence them, and tell them that such questions are not to be asked.”

“Why don’t you just answer their questions?”

“Are there any answers to those questions?”

I apologize for telling this story here; I certainly didn’t want to upset any of you, but we must look at the crisis state our chinuch world is in. How has such a situation developed? This young avreich, and others like him, are learning Torah as their “profession,” are already raising families, yet they have never attained clarity about the foundation of emunah on which the whole edifice of Torah and mitzvos rests. And they don’t know to whom to turn with their anxiety, whom they can ask. Yes, they had heard plenty of mussar, plenty of hashkafah and daas Torah, all of which is based on the preliminary assumption of belief in G-d, Creator of the universe. But if that foundation isn’t there, what is the value of all the rest? Yet for some reason our chinuch system assumes, as an axiom, that emunah is ingrained in these youngsters’ hearts by virtue of their being born into chareidi families — and it’s not necessarily so.

This situation is not only upsetting, it’s also unnecessary — because the answers that could reassure these young people and dispel their doubts aren’t abstruse or esoteric. They are not in the heavens, nor over the sea, nor in a faraway land, but right under our noses, and there are many among us who could easily help these skeptics back onto the straight path. It isn’t as if we were dealing with rebels. These are young people who desire life. They crave the truth, but the dread of being stigmatized muzzles them, and they cannot voice their anguish.

And the burning question: Is this the way it has to be? Doesn’t someone who has a question deserve a straightforward answer? As the great mashgiach Rav Wolbe, ztz”l, said, “There are no apikorsishe questions. There are apikorsishe answers.” But if someone receives no answer to his non-apikorsishe question, he is liable, over the years, to give himself an apikorsishe answer, G-d forbid. Wouldn’t that be a shame?

And what about the yungerman who approached me, you wonder? We arranged to meet for a series of private talks. Perhaps Hashem will help, and heal him.

[XGH: If there are answers, as the article implies, why does Hashem need to "heal him"? Just give the guy the answers! The only secheldik people in this article are the teachers in the story who said 'Are there any answers?']

Game over for skeptics

"RELIGION: On average, Jews have higher levels of well-being than their counterparts of every other major faith in America. Muslims have the lowest levels of well-being. In between, from happiest to least happy, are Mormons, atheists/agnostics, Roman Catholics, “other non-Christians” and then Protestants. For people of most religions, greater levels of religiosity (like frequent church or synagogue attendance) are associated with higher levels of happiness."

Next Steps (for ej)

ej has some explanation on Harry's blog of how my views have changed over the years. His explanation didn't really sound correct to me. I would state it more simply. I started out with a straight up RWMO Hashkafah and slowly became more and more skeptical until I ended up Reconstructionist Agnostic Theistish. Shoyn.

Anyways, so what are the next steps?

In my younger days, I had a dream of inventing some new Theology to make it all make sense. LOL. Nowadays I think it's more about emphasis and attitude. I can't articulate it all (yet), but I think the solution involves some or all of the following points:

1. Recognizing value in religious ritual and continuity.

2. Understanding the evolution of religion in general (and Judaism in particular)

3. Comparing other utopian or rather dystopian visions.

4. Loyalty, tribality, ethnicity etc

5. Getting down with Mythology.

6. Getting down with touchy feelly crunchy granola Judaism (Oh no please God no)

and probably some other stuff. Or maybe just saying meh.

When Harry Met Skeptically II

First off, let me say that Harry is a good guy, I know that from personal experience. I wish him nothing but the best, and refuah shlemah for his grandson. It doesn't give me any pleasure to debate him or prove him wrong. In fact, I wish he were right, I really do. But he isn't.

Harry writes:

But even if they would concede God’s existence what often punctures holes in their Judaism is the literary analysis of the bible. Such analyses strongly indicate that the bible was written by human beings in different eras and compiled in post biblical times.

I am not prepared to argue against bible criticism at this point. I don’t have the expertise or skill to do that. But I will say is that literary analyses are not proofs. A bible that was written by the Divine has no time or stylistic constraints. Using phraseology in different portions of the bible to show it was written in a particular era does not prove that God didn’t write it that way on purpose. Why God did that is beyond me. I can’t answer the question. But it does not concern me in the slightest.

So let's get this straight. Harry knows nothing much about Biblical Criticism. For all Harry knows, Biblical Criticism could quite convincingly show that by any reasonable standard, the Bible was written by different people over a long time period. But none of this bothers Harry in the least! Why? Because since God wrote the Bible, He could have written it any old way. Of course with that twisted logic, God could have written any book in the world. Let's say God wrote the Koran. Let's say God wrote the New Testament. Let' say God wrote The Cat in The Hat. Also, apart from the general lameness of this answer, it basically kills the entire concept of peshat. How can you use logic to determine what the Torah means if God writes strangely, beyond our comprehension?

But… as I indicated I know precious little about bible criticism to debate those who do.

Yet your almost total ignorance of the subject doesn't stop you from discounting it. Hmmm.

One of the most prolific Jewish skeptics on the internet is a very bright and intellectually honest fellow who was raised in a Frum home. A few years ago he became a skeptic about both God and Judaism. He recently lamented that fact, saying he was much happier before he became a skeptic.

Yep.

How did he become a skeptic? He encountered people on his blog and websites that made him question his core beliefs. Not having found satisfying answers to all those questions led him to doubt God and Judaism as understood in Orthodoxy.

Yep.

How sad for him and his family that he came to this conclusion. I doubt I would be able to sway him at this point. But I nonetheless have to ask, must one become a skeptic if exposed to all those challenges to religious belief? Does lack of proof of God’s existence mean that He does not exist? Do unanswered questions prove anything? The answer is clearly no. As I said, only a fool would say that God absolutely does not exist.

Irrelevant red herring. I have never said God does not exist and that topic is almost incidental. What we are talking about is Biblical Criticism, and more broadly ANE History and religious fundamentalism in general.

Because of all their questions they understandably want proof that God does exist. That will never happen. If one could prove God’s existence – they would believe in Him. Christopher Hitchens - one of the most famous atheists in the world admitted as much in an interview yesterday. Proving God's existence would take God out of the category of belief and put him into the category of provable fact. If God could be proven there would be no such thing as an atheist.

Irrelevant red herring (and also not saying very much). It's not about needing absolute proof. Only believers say that, skeptics never do. The most skeptics say is that extra-ordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We don't even have ordinary evidence for God. But that's all besides the point because this isn't about God anyway. It's about TMS. A topic that Harry admits he knows nothing about (from an academic perspective).

I would suggest that skeptics re-think the ideology that led them to their skepticism. I think they make a serious mistake in equating belief with facts. They are two separate and independent things. We are called 'Maminim' - believers - because we 'believe' in God, not because we can prove His existence.

Irrelevant.

Why should anyone believe in something they can't prove? Why not? God is in fact a concept, not a percept. We cannot perceive Him with any of the five physical senses. But as a rationalist who believes in the idea of ‘First cause’ I find it impossible to say that the existence of the physical universe just happened by itself. That makes absolutely no sense to me. That would make matter and energy infinite.

Irrelevant.

Additionally there is overwhelming evidence indicating God’s existence even without the rational argument. Although it is inconclusive, I think there is enough of it to make a believer out of anyone - if they think about it. I am not going to list any of it here. I’ve done that in previous posts (e.g. here, here here and many more). While it is true each piece of evidence taken by itself can be challenged, in the aggregate it is pretty convincing – in my view.

Irrelevant.

If one will concede God, why concede Judaism?

Why not? Does any other religion make better sense than Judaism does? One does not have to be an expert in comparative religions to see some of the major problems presented in each religion. Why not choose the one in which you were raised? The one which accepts all of mankind and does not require belief in a specific theology or else be condemned for eternity?

So that's it???? That's the extent of your argument???? All religions make equal (non) sense, so you might as well pick the one you were born to???

If skepticism makes more sense to you than Judaism because it is more rational, I understand that – even if I don’t agree with it. But if you are going to be intellectually honest you would have to admit that you might actually be wrong and religious doctrine might actually be right.

All skeptics admit they might be wrong. You might be wrong about Jesus. Anyone might be wrong. But that's all irrelevant. What's relevant is what is likely right, and so far you haven't advanced a single argument showing why Judaism is likely right.

There is no proof either way. Why not side with belief? Must one choose the path of least rational resistance? Must belief require empirical proofs?

Very silly argument. Which belief should I side with ? Christ Almighty as my savior? Allah is Great and Muhammed is his only prophet? Belief doesn't require any proofs. So go believe in Jesus!

One more thing. I suspect that many people become skeptics for reasons that are other than intellectual. Reading comments on skeptic websites and blogs I find that there is often a root cause that stems from the emotional rather than the rational. Not that they don’t believe the rational challenges - and make their arguments that way. They do. But that they began their search for emotional reasons.

Eh. Also silly. People are religious for emotional reasons. Everyone does everything for "emotional" reasons. The question is, are the rational arguments good or not?

If you remove the irrelevant rambling about God, Harry's entire post boils down to these 3 points.

1. Harry admits he knows nothing much about Biblical Criticism (and by extension ANE History etc) but is quite convinced it's all false. Plus he offers up the bizarre possibility that we don't know how God would write, so it's all moot anyway.

2. All religions look equally true (or false I guess), so you might as well choose the one you were born to. Plus Judaism doesn't condemn you to hell for disbelief, making it the best religion to (not?) believe in (I love that bizarro logic).

3. Besides the rational reasons, skeptics also have emotional reasons, which may have even been the initial trigger.

OK, so this whole post is a little unfair, because Harry's strength is clearly not in debating skeptics. Rather he fights the good fight against Hareidi extremism and he does a good job too. Plus every so often he gets really mad and then gets really bitingly sarcastic, more sarcastic than even I would ever dare to be (Hitler's Hesped?! OMG!) .

So I really do wish Harry the best.

Spirituality, Religion, Fundamentalism and Modernity.

The following is a condensed version of my current thinking.

What is Spirituality? Here are two definitions, the first from an article in the Jewish Week, the second from Wikipedia:

1. In Hebrew, spirituality is best translated as pnimiyut, looking internally. Living a rich internal life can mean different things to different people — from prayer and meditation, to studying or journaling, to the small rituals that infuse a moment with transcendence and awe — but all definitions of spirituality have in common the belief that our inner life is an end in itself, a way to finding meaning and accessing a higher truth.

2. Spirituality can refer to an ultimate or immaterial reality;[1] an inner path enabling a person to discover the essence of their being; or the “deepest values and meanings by which people live.”[2] Spiritual practices, including meditation, prayer and contemplation, are intended to develop an individual's inner life; such practices often lead to an experience of connectedness with a larger reality, yielding a more comprehensive self; with other individuals or the human community; with nature or the cosmos; or with the divine realm.[3] Spirituality is often experienced as a source of inspiration or orientation in life.[4] It can encompass belief in immaterial realities or experiences of the immanent or transcendent nature of the world.

All good stuff. Personally, I have always thought of Spirituality as "Ruchniyus" - as opposed to Gashmiyus. Gashmiyus - Materiality is a pre-occupation with material things, possessions, taavos and the like. Ruchniyus, Spirituality, is a pre-occupation with 'higher things' - ethics, morality, the Divine, ideals and the like. But my definition doesn't seem to be quite the same as these other definitions.

Obviously at its core, spirituality is an emotion, and also a way of looking at and experiencing things. There's no doubt about that. It can also be a quite transcendent feeling. I remember clearly having a very spiritual moment a few years ago - it was mamash a high, possibly one of the highest highs I can remember. I don't know why DovBear always trashes spirituality as if it's nothing. Spirituality is very real. Of course there are spiritual fakers with crystals and all sorts of nonsense, though I guess it's possible that they get a high too. But I wouldn't define spirituality as just the high - that would be like defining love as just an orgasm. True spirituality requires the ethical, moral and 'connected' feeling at its core, the "high" is a side effect.

I think most religions (or at least the one(s) I am familiar with) capitalize on this aspect of humanity. They focus on rituals and other behaviors which produce a spiritual high, and then claim the benefits as uniquely their own. It's obvious though to any bar sechel that genuine stories of spiritual experiences can be found in many different religions, they are not specific to any one religion - though it may be true that certain religions produce a much better quality of spiritual high than others (kinda like the difference between a good batch of weed and an inferior one - lehavdil elef havdolos).

Religions are also mostly the only places where ethics and morality are highlited. True, ethics and morality are subjective, so any place these things are highlited there's bound to be conflict. But where else in today's society do ethics and morality (and spirituality and charity etc etc) take center stage? Not at the game, the bar or the movies (well, possibly in some movies). Most organizations providing aid to the poor etc have a religious basis. And secular aid organizations can be thought of as religions in their own right. Religions do not have to include belief in supernatural entities.

So, as the "home" of communal spirituality, thics and morality, religions are a key aspect of humanity, and there doesn't really seem to be a replacement institution anywhere. I suppose you could argue that with good education perhaps adults don't need any such institution, for example look at Sweden, but I find that hard to believe. Either Religion will creep back (as in Soviet Russia and now China), or it will be replaced by something even worse (as in Communist Russia and Nazi Germany). Humans have evolved a religious capability and need. It's part of who we are (again I am not talking about beliefs in supernatural entities - though some recent research implies that belief in the Divine might also be fairly ingrained in us).

On the other hand, fundamentalist beliefs in this day and age which contradict evidence or reason (i.e. pretty much all of them except perhaps vague beliefs in the Divine) are just not credible, and only brains in the grip of indoctrination are capable enough of setting reason (and common sense) aside to maintain belief in them. This is poshut and there's nothing even to discuss here. (The incredibly lame, illogical and usually downright silly arguments of the MO (or UO) types on this blog and elsewhere further provide ample evidence of that - though additional evidence is really not required at this point in history). I have yet to ever lose a single argument (or see any other skeptic lose a single argument) about fundamentalist beliefs.

So what to do? The entire situation is rather absurd when you step back and think about it. Billions of people in the grip of some kind of brainwashing (sometimes benign, sometimes very dangerous), but the alternative ("just stop doing it!" as Zaphod once said) doesn't seem too appealing either, at least not to me.

So ej asks what my goal is.

I don't want to destroy religion, but on the other hand, promoting or maintaining belief in nonsense (or at least untruths) surely can't be the right way. I can possibly hear arguments that say religion should be destroyed (though I personally don't agree), but I have yet to hear any good arguments for why false fundamentalist beliefs should be promoted.

Of course this is primarily a question of values - how much of a premium should we place on the truth? Do other values trump the truth? So when I say "I have yet to hear any good arguments for why false fundamentalist beliefs should be promoted" I am aware that this is clearly because such arguments always dispense with the truth for the sake of some other ideal, and that is unacceptable to me. And of course even to me, truth isn't always always the most important value (e.g. Honey does this dress make me look fat etc), but small scale conversations about dresses are I think different from larger scale conversations about life, the universe and everything. And since values are subjective, it is entirely possible I am wrong on this. But what makes me think I'm not wrong is that the other side are also arguing for the truth, nobody seems willing to give that up - only in very rare cases will someone from the other side admit they are full of it, but then follow up with some line about the masses not being able to endure the real truth or some such. In my experience, these are just empty rationalizations said by people who themselves are not able to endure the consequences of telling the truth.

So I think we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. We have constraints. Fundamentalist beliefs are simply not an option). On the other hand, we don't want to go throwing it all away.

Therefore, the only option is to try and come up with something in the middle. I don't see the RWMO types as allies at all in this endeavor. True, they are more palatable than the right wing crazies, but then so are atheists and liberal Christians. H for Heterodox says we need a strong RWMO to counter the crazy chareidim, and that at this stage in history that's probably the best we can hope for. I say feh to that. Why not ally yourself with the Conservatives, why is that not the best you can hope for? The answer of course is that H (and myself) feel culturally at home in Orthodoxy, and would feel alien in Conservative or Reform. But again, I don't see how our personal culture comforts can trump the value of truth.

There's one other argument that I have heard a few times from a variety of people. This line of reasoning says that of course fundamentalism is all false, and of course the ultimate goal would be to wean people off of it. But like someone trying to break a bad habit, going cold turkey is not the best approach. If we were to come out and and just tell everyone that it's all untrue, the resulting disillusionment would be catastrophic. Therefore the only viable option is to take baby steps, basically leading people to 'kefirah' one small step at a time. Kinda like boiling a frog alive by slowly turning up the heat. I know people who hold of this approach and act accordingly (with greater or lesser success).

I think this is probably the strongest alternative approach to mine. But the Machiavellian nature of it rubs me the wrong way. It just doesn't seem right.

Nate from Baltimore

Nate writes:

I don't get the entire rationalist position/philosophy at all. I've tried numerous times to make heads or tails out of the Slifkin blog, and it totally eludes me. I don't think I'm a stupid guy. I attended yeshiva from 7th grade onwards, and graduated 4.0 from college as well. I consider myself Agudah/Haredi Orthodox. I have never ever from day one even thought about applying "reason" to Torah or Torah hashkafa, and I can honestly tell you that I do not personally know anyone who does. All the folks I know accept what we are told, whether it be written in an Artscroll book, heard on a tape by Rabbis Frand, Reisman, Weinberg, etc., or learned b'chavrusa, without question, dount, or even a raised eyebrow.

I'm well aware that MO people and Slifkin-ites have much disdain for those of us who feel this way, and still I am at a total loss to understand why that is so. We were never told not to question it, we just don't have the questions. We don't read things about discoveries that "prove" the world is umpteen million years old because it has no relevance to our daily lives. I would say without exaggeration that nearly everyone I know is perfectly happy to have the Yated and HaModia be their entire source of information, and anything that's not contained there will filter down to us somehow on a need to know basis. If we make it thru the week healthy, and have a nice Shabbos with a hot cholent and a delicious nap, we are happy and seek nothing more. I am not joking about this at all.

I don't know if it's a local (Baltimore) thing or what, but I really never even heard of this whole rationalist thing until about 4 months ago when I heard about it in a local news weekly. And I can tell you what I saw on Slifkin's site came as a complete shock to me, as well as to folks whom I gave printed copies of his blog to. Everyone whom I have mentioned it to has had the same comment: It's kefira, don't read it.

Not only that, but I have yet to meet anyone who even knew that the Rambam had some radical ideas and approaches, that Rashi supposedly had ideas of God being corporeal, or that there were any Orthodox Jews who questioned the authority of Gedolei Yisroel. As recently as last Shabbos, I asked a man in shul who the Gedolim are. His reply was the same as what mine is: If he isn't on the Moetzes, he's not a recognized Gadol. I've never met anyone who is Orthodox who would even consider questioning the truth or reliability of Chazal. The response has always been, that if Chazal say it, it's true, and that if science finds something to the contrary, it's because they are deluded or that we don't understand what Chazal meant.

I know some of you will say I must be living in a bubble, but I will tell you I am well read and well educated and have studied all the philosophy of the Greeks, etc. My major was in philosophy, and I laughed at everything I heard that was contrary to Torah thinking. In my 50+ years on this planet, I have experienced it all, having been OTD a few times, and have always come back to what I believe to be unquestionably true and right. Do Rabbanim make mistakes? Of course. So did Moshe Rabbeinu. But mostly I have found no problems reconciling my life, or the Torah, with science, medicine, history, etc. If Chazal say some species of lice spontaneously generated from dirt, then that's what happened. Who am I, or you, to doubt these great sages?

A rabbi told me years ago, that I may not find the answers to some questions I may have, but at some point my questions will no longer be questions. And thankfully I reached that point some time ago.

Maybe I'm biased, brainwashed, isolated, or just naieve. But practically and pragmatically speaking, Torah works for me, along with all the hashkafa that is generated by it. I'm not saying it all makes perfect sense to me. I'm saying it doesn't have to in order to do what I'm supposed to do. And I think that's where many, if not most, Orthodox Jews are holding.

Some people think Nate is a troll i.e. someone who posts fake opinions or davkah strong opinions just to start a fight. I think he probably is. But even so, his description about the way an average OJ thinks is mostly true. And not just in Baltimore, but in most places. And not just in Chareidistan but even in MO land.

How do I know? Because I myself was there until just 5 years ago, and that's how I thought (or rather didn't think). It literally did not ever cross my mind that God didn't write the Torah (or didn't exist). Now that I look back I totally can't understand myself. Was I stupid? No, I wasn't stupid. Was I sheltered? No, I wasn't sheltered. I was out there in the world! But I was completely clueless.

How is this possible? Religious indoctrination is obviously very powerful. But yet I wasn't even indoctrinated in any hard core fashion. So the reality is even simpler than that. If you grow up with certain beliefs, and everyone around you holds the same beliefs, and nothing ever gives you much cause to re-evaluate those beliefs (I mean nothing in your face), then you can quite happily sail through much of life without ever questioning your beliefs. And I would bet most people are in that situation. I probably would never ever have woken up if a relative of mine hadn't prodded me.

Was I happier in my ignorant state? Of course! Would I want to go back there (if it was possible) ? Not sure.

In Defense of the Rationalists

Excerpts from a good comment:

"It's all very nice for people in a LWMO bubble, where their gay son and their closet-skeptic rabbi are the best of friends, to treat this all as a question of idealogical purity, but to people in the real world, this all largely beside the point. On many questions where it matters, people like DovBear and other 'rationalists' are far more likely to be on the side that you are likely to be on.

If you want this blog to be the vehicle for lasting social change that it could be, as opposed to the circuitous musings of a bored middle-aged guy [XGH: Hey, I'm not bored!], I would advise you to start looking at the real-world implications of various belief systems. Rationalist Orthodoxy, at least at this stage of the game, is much more of a friend than an enemy. People who think like DovBear are not going to tell women that they can't drive, as thousands of chassidic women are forbidden from doing, nor to engage in welfare fraud, nor to hush-up cases of child abuse, nor to acquiesce to the type of MO leadership who won't criticize people to the right of them for engaging in these things. This is far more important than what they think happened in a desert three thousand years ago.

I don't merely believe that you should view the 'rationalists' as pragmatic allies in the fight against more pernicious forms of fundamentalism, but, that they have something important to contribute per se.

As Evelyn Gordon writes in the latest issue of Azure, halacha is facing its moment of truth in the Jewish state. Whatever intellectual issues we may have with this or that credo, if we are not to fade slowly into the night as a civilization, we need people who can articulate a compelling and exciting vision that allows us to thrive as a people. It will certainly be much easier to do that if the people with the deepest commitment to Jewish civilization see that they can be part of the solution without having to disavow everything that the analytical philosophers of the blogosphere consider logically heretical. Now is a critical time in our people's history. If we see value in our continuity as a civilization, which I presume many of the denizens of this corner of the j-blogosphere do, without wanting to fall into the hellish pit of out-of-control crude religious primitivism, we must choose our allies carefully. I humbly submit that the 'rationalists' are, for better or worse, fighting an important part of this fight."

I hear you, but I disagree. How on earth is the kind of pseudo intellectual bs coming from the RWMO a "compelling and exciting vision"? It's just nonsense. And the biggest proof of this is that the rationalists themselves don't even believe in this stuff, they just fake it so they can continue to be a part of the discussion. I have heard this from multiple people - it's always the same story, the masses aren't ready, the right wing will destroy me, etc etc. Sorry, but I can't regard a fake fundie as an ally. True, OJ would be worse off without MO, but so what? I have zero intention of being Chareidi anyways. So either MO shapes up or it's a waste of time from my perspective.

Ridiculously Irrational Rationalizations of Rationalist Right Wingers

I have long been fascinated, annoyed, amused and bemused in equal measures by the Modern Orthdodox rationalists such as DovBear and others. They will fight against the fundamentalists about an ancient earth, evolution or similar topics, and will lampoon and lambast the fundies for having stupid ridiculous beliefs and biases (even calling them lunatics), but yet when faced with their own ridiculous beliefs (such as TMS), they refuse to engage, and simply maintain that they are 'hard wired' to believe in TMS (DB circa 2006), or that 'of course they are biased but at least they admit it!' as if this somehow makes it OK.

So if Rav Elyashiv just said "Of course I'm biased" then everything would be A-OK no matter what beliefs he espoused (or forbade)?? Whatever happened to the search for truth? I guess as long as you admit you are biased, truth can go take a hike.

Then they have the play of admitting bias, but then claiming that everyone else is also biased, so it's not a problem.

Maybe these rationalists are saying that it's OK to be biased and just claim things on faith (or bias), and leave it at that; but if you are going to debate someone on some topic then in such cases you need to debate the facts, and it's not OK to be biased (at least not more than anyone else). So for example, for a Rationalist to say 'I believe in TMS because I'm biased, and then refuse to debate the facts of TMS, that's davkah OK. But for a Chareidi to insist that the only valid belief in Judaism is a young earth, and then refuse to debate the facts (without being biased), then that's not OK? But if the Chareidi admits he is biased then that becomes OK?

I'm so confused.

Shomeret Negiah at 40

So the (in) famous shomeret negiah blogger is back after a 5 year hiatus. Now, she is 40, and still single and desperately miserable. She's not even had any relationships with anyone in the past 5 years. And we have the usual tut-tutting of the frum skeptics shaking their heads at the site of yet another victim of Orthodoxy.

The real deal here though, is that anyone 40 and single yet desperate to get married (or at least be in a relationship) and yet has never had any good relationships (or even any relationships past 2 dates!) has issues.

ISSUES

That's the long and short of it, and it has nothing to do with religion. There are enough singles out there and enough ways to meet singles even if you are stranded in the middle of nowhere that nobody has any good reason to be permanently alone if they really truly don't want to be.

This isn't about settling, it's about being realistic about who you are, what you have to offer, and what kind of person you could be in a relationship with - and of course how to be in a relationship.

Unattractive and fat people get married or have relationships all the time, it's not a requirement to be skinny and attractive to get married or be in a relationship. It is a requirement however to have a realistic sense of who you are, what kind of person you could be with and how to be in a relationship.

I sympathize with shomeret negiah's loneliness but the sooner she identifies what her real issues are (hint: they are nothing to do with Orthodoxy) the better off she will be. I wish her the best.