Modern Orthoprax & Heterodox: The Weekly Magazine for Baalei Sechel

New Posts on Blog Min Hashamayim

2011-12-15T21:29:00.000-05:00

http://blogminhashamayim.blogspot.com/

New Blog!

2011-10-17T21:23:00.001-04:00

http://blogminhashamayim.blogspot.com/

MO: Medieval Orthodox

2011-10-17T21:19:00.001-04:00

Let's face it: Modern Orthodoxy is a failure from a Hashkafic perspective (lifestyle wise I guess it's mostly OK). It's neither Modern nor particularly Orthodox. It has completely failed to address the hashkafic challenges of modernity, including science, ANE history and of course Biblical scholarship. Science and Torah reconciliation efforts are mostly a joke, the only people who buy that stuff are brainwashed, ignorant or both. The insistence on rationalism drains the mystery and spirituality from the theology. A 12th Century Philosopher who held that the planets were spiritual beings is held up as a beacon of common sense. Modern Orthodoxy? More like Medieval Orthodoxy. There's no new thought, and our leading intellectuals are mired in stupid debates about a single freaking brachah. Pathetic. I'm embarrassed to have a blog called Modern Orthopraxy, lest someone identify me with Modern Orthodoxy. Maybe in the 1960's it was hip and cool and groovy but that was 50 years ago.I feel more affinity theology wise to the Reconstructionists AND the Chareidim (in different ways of course). It smacks of intellectual dishonesty (We must integrate modern scholarship except of course where it contradicts the sayings of a 12th century medieval philosopher). I don't see much chance of anything changing anytime soon, so for intellectual gratification I'm going to have to look elsewhere. On the bright side, I have read some fun and interesting books lately, including 'Imagine: John Lennon and the Jews' which had some good lines, and 'Jewish Philosophy as a guide to Life' which is mostly impenetrable to anyone without a background in Jewish Philosophy but it did have some good quotes from Rosenzweig and Levinas. Luckily for me I happen to have some friends who do have a background in Jewish Philosophy, and also other friends who can read Tenach in Akadian (what, you never heard of the Artscroll Akadian Tenach?) so I do have access to some interesting thoughts. So in the spirit of that enterprise I'm shutting this old blog down. And starting a new one. This will be the last post on this blog.

Religion is a tool

2011-09-17T22:18:00.003-04:00

In the hands of the weak it's a crutch.
In the hands of the wicked it's a weapon.
In the hands of the masses it's a comforter.

Hirhurim Strikes Gold

2011-09-06T23:37:00.001-04:00

It takes a lot for me to post something these days, just too busy, and I've said pretty much everything there is to say. However this latest post from Hirhurim is worth reading. And in Elul too!

Did Chazal ruin Biblical Judaism or improve it?

2011-08-23T17:50:00.002-04:00

One often hears in MO (and more specifically LWMO) circles about how Chazal darshened away some of the more egregious aspects of Biblical Judaism e.g. Ben Sorer uMoreh, the various death penalties and such. However from another angle, Chazal took Judaism in a worse direction than the Biblical writers. The Neviim were huge proponents of social justice (or were made to appear so), with various famous passages proclaiming how God hates avodah and mitzvos and just wants basic justice and kindness. Of course Chazal were not against justice and kindness, but with their emphasis on halachic minutae it seems that the Neviim's message has gotten somewhat lost, and this is reflected even today with the Chareidi emphasis on halachah and chumrah as opposed to basic morality and care of all humanity,

Trembling before Chareidim

2011-08-16T22:57:00.004-04:00

I noticed someone recently posted a blog about how people in the Chareidi community live in fear of being labelled not sufficiently frum enough, and how happy the author was to be in Modern Orthodoxy. This is funny, considering that in my experience, nobody is more fearful of being honest about their true beliefs than educated Modern Orthodox Rabbis. And RWMO live in perpetual fear (or maybe concern) that the excesses of the LWMO are going to delegitemize all of MO before the Chareidim. Everyone looks over their right shoulder. I guess you can claim that the MO Rabbis just want to hold onto their jobs and status, so it's not really fear per se, but rather just being practical, kind of like not being rude to your boss, even though you want to. Whereas in the Chareidi community there is actual fear, because coming out could ruin your life. Could be.

Analyzing Hirhurim

2011-07-20T07:32:00.002-04:00

I. Style

Gil used to write with his own voice. More recently, all his posts seem to have a very detached quality about them. Not sure what he's trying to achieve but it's just not as good.

II. Format

He keeps using the short paragraph format, with each section having a title. Who said this was a good idea?

III. Readership

For some reason, the bulk of Gil's commenters are centrist or LWMO. He doesn't seem to have any RWMO or Chareidi commenters anymore. Recently, when Gil was posting about women Rabbi's and such, someone commented that Gil was totally out of touch with his readership. But it's not Gil's fault, all his readership is to the left! Bizarre.

IV. Arguments

Gil's standards of arguments has fallen. Used to be he at least tried to make a case for his views. More recently, he just states his opinions. It's like his heart isn't in it.

V. Conclusion

I liked the old Gil better. Bring him back!

I LOVE Cross-Currents, I truly do

2011-07-07T21:31:00.003-04:00

While everyone is all a flutter over the ridiculous evolution debate, I think the truly awful post this week on Cross-Currents was on another topic entirely, which everyone seems to have missed.

Rabbi Yitzchak Adlerstein, who is usually one of the more sane contributors over there, has a truly offensive and obnoxious post. Adlerstein comments on a NYT article about how with the advent of sperm donors and surrogates who can now enable otherwise childless couples to have kids, there are complications, especially when the donors are related e.g. sister of the mother. Adlerstein compares this new 'modern' family to Eisav's progeny "replete with many intimations of incest and other illicit relationships".

That's right - according to Rabbi Yitzchak Adlerstein, childless couples who use relatives as surrogates are basically like Eisav and his descendants. Nice going.

I love Cross-Currents. I truly do. Is there any other medium which so blatantly and articulately exposes Chareidi Judaism for what it has become - a hot mess of inane nonsense, often horrible values and sometimes questionable morality?

Cross-Currents: The ultimate anti-kiruv tool.

God can write the the Torah in multiple voices, but he couldn't create the world through evolution: Are all Orthodox Rabbis fools and fakers?

2011-07-07T21:16:00.003-04:00

Yep, that's the message from Cross-Currents this week folks. What a bunch of idiots.

Let me add though, that as much as I am disgusted by the Chareidim's vehement opposition to evolution, I am equally disgusted by the 'Rationalists' defense of it.

First, the Chareidim. What's the big deal? They accept that the world can be billions of years old (as Menken keeps arguing, many Chareidim accept this, though it is also quite true that many don't - I don't see much value in debating how big each crowd is). So clearly, they can accept a somewhat allegorical understanding of Breishis. So why any different with evolution? What is so disturbing about evolution? Just say God did it and you're done. What, coming from monkeys is too awful to contemplate? How about a tipah seruchah? Is that better? It makes no sense.

Second, the Rationalists. What's the big deal? Who cares? So let's say evolution isn't quite 100% proven. So what? So there's global consensus that it's a solid theory? Okay, well there's global consensus that that the Torah was written by multiple authors. When was the last time you saw a rationalist accept the DH? Most of them are too scared or too fake to even bring up the subject.

Basically, I have zero respect for all the players here, as far as I can tell they're all a bunch of fools, fakers or in some cases, both. Realizing that all Orthodox Rabbis are hopelessly biased and incapable of seeing things honestly (or admitting to it) is one of the reasons I lost respect for OJ. (apart from the fact that it's fundamental beliefs are clearly untrue).

Of course I do know some wonderful OJ Rabbis who mean well and do nothing but good for the community, they are generally the types who stay far, far away from these utterly stupid debates.

There's no reason why God could not write a book in different voices.

2011-07-05T22:17:00.005-04:00

It's not just Shafran writing inanities this week, Adlerstein is making a valiant effort too. Referencing Moshe Koppel (one of the scientists behind the computer analysis of multiple authorship of the Torah) as making a huge kiddush hashem, Adlerstein writes:

"Larger than life challenges to Torah values can be met in two different ways. We can prudently retreat, placing the sanctity of what is most important to us ahead of all other needs and feelings. Alternatively, we can face these challenges with confidence and certainty that nothing can compete with Torah, that it can and will triumph over every meretricious substitute."

What about the third way? Admit to the possibility that you're wrong? Guess that's not an option in delusionland.

"Neither approach is more correct than the other."

LOL, yeah, especially when both approaches are completely wrong. Adlerstein quotes the AP article:

“Those for whom it is a matter of faith that the Pentateuch is not a composition of multiple writers can view the distinction investigated here as that of multiple styles,” they said.

In other words, there’s no reason why God could not write a book in different voices."

So its hard to tell who is saying what - did Koppel say that last line? Or is it the reporter summarizing?

Either way, the article did NOT say what Koppel believes, seems to me the team was simply giving an 'out' so that the frummies wouldn't be on their case. But Adlerstein jumps on this with glee:

"In the space of a few lines, Moshe Koppel told the world three things. He told them that frum Jews still believe that the Torah was given by HKBH, even though that makes them part of a very small part of the world’s population.... He told them that, as a frum Jew, he has a way of looking at what seems to be evidence of multiple authorship, and interpreting it in an entirely different way, perfectly consistent with traditional belief."

But Koppel said no such thing, at least not in the article. Maybe Adlerstein is a buddy of Koppel and knows this from elsewhere? Could be. On the other hand, maybe Koppel is an MO faker like so many others, and actually does believe in the DH. He certainly wouldn't be the first ostensibly frum professor (or Rabbi) to be a faker like that. I could name 5 right off the top of my head right now (relax people, I'm not going to out you).

Either way, the quote is quite stupid anyways.

"There's no reason why God could not write a book in different voices."

Actually, there are two good reasons:

1. It's retarded, especially when the voices are all mixed up.

2. Chazal, rishonim and acharonim, the greatest experts on all Torah, never ever said that the Torah was written in different 'voices'. Sure, they created explanations for the more obvious flaws, but a 'different voices' theory isn't part of the mesorah and never was. Clearly it's just an invented excuse of an answer for those people who realize that the DH, BC or MA isn't going away.

The 'different voices' apologetic used to be only used by quirky individuals. Mainstream types like Gil lean more towards showing unity of the text. Is 'different voices' the new mainstream apologetic for the DH?

Shafran, Blinded

2011-07-05T13:06:00.002-04:00

Avi Shafran is at it again, posting inane nonsense, which typically undermines whatever points he is trying to make. This time he outdoes himself. There's no need to go into detail about evolution. His first quote says it all:

“Just as ordinary, pig-headed and unreasonable as anybody else” was the eminent twentieth century psychologist H.J. Eysenck’s judgment of scientists. “And their unusually high intelligence,” he added, “only makes their prejudices all the more dangerous.”

Absolutely. Which is why scientists need to produce evidence, and experiments, and data, and have their work peer-reviewed, and we don't really truly believe them until there is global consensus in the academic community. If one lone scientist claims to have produced cold fusion, but no one else can re-produce it, well, we just don't believe it.

But according to Eysenck, Gedolim (and Chazal) are also pig-headed, unreasonable and biased. And much much worse, they have no evidence and no data. So why believe them? As Shaffran writes:

"But, as more traditional Jewish texts explain, only someone who has overcome the preconceptions, desires and imperfections of character to which we all play host can truly perceive the world with clarity."

So, only Torah greats can be unbiased because they learn Torah. And who taught us that? Why, the Torah Greats! Of course this is just Reb Elchnon Wasserman's proof of the Truth of Torah.

Shame it doesn't work, being completely circular and all. But Shafran can't see that. Why not?

Because, as he himself admits, he's just as stubborn and pig-headed and biased as everyone else. But without any evidence, experiments or actual data.

Scientific Methods Show Multiple Authorship of the Bible

2011-06-29T21:07:00.001-04:00

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=137500077

Is Gravity Supernatural?

2011-06-27T12:14:00.003-04:00

I noticed someone write the following:

"Now, it is true that even today, we don't really understand what magnetism, or gravity for that matter, actually is. We can measure and describe how it works, but we still don't know what it fundamentally is. Nevertheless, we are fully confident that it is a natural, rather than supernatural, phenomenon. "

This doesn't make much sense to me. Ultimately we can't define supernatural vs. natural because we don't even know what 'natural' is, never mind supernatural. What are strings made of? God? How does gravity ultimately work? Because God makes it work? Maybe, or maybe it's the FSM. So what does it mean to say that we are fully confident that gravity is a natural, rather than supernatural, phenomenon? It's a meaningless statement.

As for segulos, there's no real difference between a segulah and the rest of religion. That's pretty obvious.

Who really respects Chazal?

2011-06-12T21:50:00.002-04:00

Fundie: Chazal knew everything, they could have built a spaceship had they wanted.

Normal Person: Don't be stupid of course they couldn't.

Fundie: How dare you disrespect Chazal!

I need to keep reminding myself that the Chareidim (or even the Orthodox) are not the people who really respect Chazal. Chazal were sensible, keen observers of the reality around them, and were not afraid to make sweeping changes to their religion to keep it real and relevant. Chazal believed in TMS (and other strange things) because back then that was normal. There was no evidence against it. To say TMS has been disproven no more disrespects Chazal than saying they couldn't have built a spaceship. I'm not going to go so far as to say 'If Chazal were alive today they would believe in the DH' because the premise of such a statement makes no sense. But we have really no idea what Chazal would have done had good evidence of multiple authorship presented itself.

Weiner vs Tropper

2011-06-06T22:28:00.005-04:00

Weiner: Reform
Tropper: Chareidi

Weiner: Facebook flirting
Tropper: Forced would be converts to have sex with him/others

Weiner: 'I made a terrible mistake and deeply regret it'
Tropper: Admitted no wrongdoing and expressed regret for “what has appeared to be conduct not within our significant laws of modesty'

Weiner: Future uncertain
Tropper: Hosted by the Gedolim

Avi Shafran: So Much for the Mesorah

2011-06-05T09:54:00.002-04:00

"Even many of the most famous tales may be fictions. (Stories don’t become more factual with repetition)."

http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2011/05/31/french-connection/

Holocaust Denial, Ancient Israel Denial and Documentary Hypothesis Denial

2011-06-02T21:09:00.005-04:00

What's the difference between Holocaust Denial, Ancient Israel Denial and Documentary Hypothesis Denial?

The answer is not as much as you might think. In general, there are numerous ways to ascertain what happened in the past. There are fields of science, archeology, linguistics etc etc all of which can be brought to bear on the question of history.

Of course for something as recent as the Holocaust, you hardly need to resort to science, you have thousand of eye witnesses, documents, film footage etc etc. Though that doesn't stop many people from disbelieving it happened (people are very gullible).

But when it comes to more ancient history, such as the state of Ancient Israel, it becomes harder to prove. Do we have absolute proof that there was a Temple in Jerusalem? Do we have absolute proof that King David had a kingdom? Of course not. But we have rational analysis, ancient texts, archeology etc etc, and the global academic non-biased consensus is that indeed there was a Jewish temple in Jerusalem, and a Jewish state in Israel (though likely not as Chazal described it).

How can the Arabs deny such a thing? Very simple. They have emunah that there was no Temple, no Jewish State, and archeology or whatever else isn't going to trump their emunah, despite the fact that the global academic consensus is that there was a Temple and a State. Likewise Orthodox Jews have emunah that the Bible was complete by 1200 BCE, and no amount of archeology, linguistics or other evidence is going to sway them.

Is it acceptable to claim historical facts based on faith? Of course not. If it was, then we would have no leg to stand on vis-a-vis the Holocaust and Temple deniers. But we do have a leg to stand on, because a rational analysis of all the fact shows that there was a Holocaust, there was a Temple, and there was a Compilation of Biblical Texts.

Is the Documentary Hypothesis as proven as the Holocaust? Of course not. But the method and the approach is what is important. Either you submit to rational analysis, or you studiously ignore the evidence and maintain your biased faith.

Now faith might be fine in some cases, for example faith in the future (optimism and hope), or faith that God has an ultimate plan, but faith has no role in determining historical, physical fact.

People who resort to historical and scientific facts and other evidence based approaches when it comes to debates about Israel, but quite happily ignore the entire field of Biblical Criticism and global academic consensus when it comes to TMS, are simply intellectually dishonest hypocrites.

Why (East) Jerusalem Doesn't Matter

2011-06-01T19:03:00.002-04:00

East Jerusalem is not important. It's not the historical site of Jerusalem (except maybe the edge of Silwan), nobody goes there, and if it will seal the (Peace) deal then we should give it up. Of course if there's no deal to be had, then there's no point in giving up anything at all, in fact it would be counterproductive. But if there can be a deal, and East Jerusalem is the sticking point, then give it up immediately. Build a big wall and we're done. Clearly this would exclude the Jewish Quarter and Kotel Plaza, I don't think anyone would expect that to be given up. And there would have to be some kind of 'arrangement' for the Temple Mount. But in principle the city can be divided. I just don't get the whole 'Jerusalem can never be divided' thing. Sounds like a bunch of stupid rhetoric to me.

And the most honest answer is ...

2011-05-31T12:43:00.002-04:00

I see that Hirhurim has dredged up the 'teiku' discussion again. The issue is, when there's no good answer to a question, is it better to just say 'teiku' - you don't die from a question, or better to try and answer? Personally I have always been conflicted over which response is the lesser of two evils - the Chareidi response of teiku (or just dismissing science completely), or the MO response of saying Torah is allegorical (which is just as fake an answer). I guess the fact that after 5 years I still can't decide shows (at least to me) that each approach is equally dishonest in its own way. Of course the most honest answer is sometimes 'Yeah, I guess the religion I happened to be born in to might not be the one true religion', but you won't be hearing that one anytime soon, it's bad for business.

Where will you find a new language, a way of talking that has fewer worn out, unrealistic metaphors?

2011-05-22T22:20:00.004-04:00

ej commented on the rather lame line in my 'why be orthoprax' post:

"So basically, this is my reason for being Orthoprax. The OJ community (and to a lesser extent Conservative and Reform), pays attention to spirituality, morality, community and all those spiritual type things."

I knew it was lame when I wrote it, but I rarely go back and edit. I like my writing to be spontaneous and true to what I was thinking at the time. If I'm having lame thoughts, then that's what gets written.

ej commented:

"'ll be frank...WADR I think you lack the poetic-romantic impulses to convey such feelings and thoughts, and you do not have any definite ideas what is the spirituality you want or seek."

"I do feel if XGH could roll his eyes and wax poetic on the virtues of yiddishkeit, say like Rav Kook, he would gladly swoon away."

LOL, very true. But I'm an engineer, skeptic, Modern Orthodox, Rationalist INTP type of guy, swooning is just not my bag. However that does not mean I'm incapable of feeling it, I'm just incapable of expressing it. I have had some very intense transcendental moments, though not recently.

ej also writes:

"What I am being pushy about is having two standards, a mehadrin epistemology for Orthodox people, and a hodge podge utilitarian laundry list for not acting on the skepticism."

Firstly, I don't think my epistemology is 'mehadrin', it's just plain common sense. Secondly, does one need to have a well constructed philosophy to be utilitarian? I think the point of being utilitarian is to be pragmatic and practical. If OP works because of reason a,b, j and q, then it works. It doesn't need some grand scheme to justify it (though admittedly that would be nice, and was my holy grail for a while).

And what about the new language? I'm looking. The words are easy to find (just read Reform or Reconstructionist theology), it's the feeling behind the words that's hard.

Silver Spring

2011-05-20T09:04:00.001-04:00

I'm in Silver Spring for the weekend. Do I have any fans in this town?

Why be Orthoprax?

2011-05-16T22:09:00.004-04:00

A comment on the previous post:

"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 a lot more to the sum total than "merely" the rational and intellectual centers of the mind."

And here's something from Deepak Chopra:

"By making belief in God their enemy, atheists deprive themselves of what spirituality is really about: a process of inner growth. There are wisdom traditions around the world that do not use the word God (e.g., Buddhism, Vedanta) or advocate religious worship in the conventional sense. Countless people have seen through the faults of organized religion and turned instead to their own spiritual journey. Hitchens and other atheists stand at the door to that journey and slam it shut, assuring all who approach that to seek God, the soul, or higher reality is a fool's errand. How do they know? It's not as if they have inquired deeply into the great saints and sages who have successfully traveled such a journey. Hitchens dismisses every spiritual person out of hand, which means that he dismisses William Blake (the source of his phrase, "mind-forged manacles," which Blake applied to modern industrial life, not religion) in the same breath that he dismisses Bible Belt preachers.

By discounting the whole notion of spiritual awakening, atheists make a claim to false knowledge. They haven't walked the walk, yet somehow they know, with dead certainty, that Buddha, Socrates, Plato, Jesus, Confucius, Zoroaster, Saint Paul, Rumi, Kabir, the Prophet Muhammad, Rabindranath Tagore, and countless others aren't just wrong; they are stupid and blinkered compared to any everyday atheist today. I have my doubts. The atheists I've met went through a period of personal disillusion with religion, and on that basis alone they became atheists. Could anything be more subjective for a crowd that decries subjectivity? Could anything be more idiosyncratic for a group that claims to represent universal reason?"

So basically, this is my reason for being Orthoprax. The OJ community (and to a lesser extent Conservative and Reform), pays attention to spirituality, morality, community and all those spiritual type things. Without religion one can certainly be a private seeker of all these things, but generally people need social reinforcement. And of course from a cultural perspective, OJ provides the rich cultural fabric and heritage that many non OJ people seem to want, and OJ people would miss. I know people who gave up on OJ after becoming Orthoprax. They miss a lot. Maybe being able to eat at McDonalds on Shabbat makes up for it, but I'm not so sure. I also know plenty of people who are Orthoprax who totally don't have to be. Their spouses are non Orthodox, their families are not an issue. They could easily just leave. But they don't.

Top 13 reasons why I am Orthoprax

2011-05-15T07:33:00.000-04:00

National Day of Prayer and Reason

2011-05-08T23:38:00.003-04:00

Last week there was a national day of prayer. On the same day, atheist Congressman Pete Stark proclaimed a national day of reason. I actually think both would be good, I don't see that we need them on the same day. Also it's surprising that the Government would sponsor a religious day, but not a day of science, when the Government in fact funds a huge amount of science.

Anyways, I think most people should pray. This is because most people (not all) turn to prayer when all else fails, or there are no other options. When you have a terminal diagnosis, or when the plane is going down, you pray. That's completely normal. I even pray when my son is on bat, he's had two strikes and the bases are loaded. So, considering that most people will pray when the chips are down, it would be hypocritical not to pray when things are going well. So I pray then too. I pray a lot.

In fact, the only time I don't pray is during davening, then I'm too busy mumbling silly words to pray.

IMA Magazine: The Fundamentalists Among Us

2011-05-07T23:26:00.002-04:00

Rejecting the minimum

Arnie Gutberg’s house is modern—the typical house of a Modern Orthodox family, with a nice carpet on the first floor and a selection of contemporary furniture. The media center in the dining room features a 46" Flat Screen TV, but most of what lines the Gutbergs’ shelves is books, crammed into bookcases around the main rooms of the house. The general air of the house is one of lack of self-control and western style spending. The family’s funds are invested in the intangible but substantial resource of the stock market. It is obvious that the money he brings in from his job has massively enriched his family. Normally, intellectual satisfaction and the light that a western-based lifestyle brings more than makes up for any existential angst in the life of a western family. The husband finds his life’s calling in his work; his wife has satisfaction in knowing that she is helping her husband and making her home a place of family, where she can raise her children to be upstanding members of the community.

Sadly, the Gutbergs’ can’t have that intellectual satisfaction because Arnie is a fraud. While he outwardly pretends to be a modern, western individual, he is nothing of the kind. He is a fundamentalist, plain and simple.

The Rambam, in his commentary on the Mishnah (Sanhedrin, chap. 10), famously compiles what he refers to as the Shloshah-Asar Ikkarim, the Thirteen Articles of Faith, gleaned from pesukim in the Torah. He refers to these thirteen principles of faith as “the fundamental truths of our religion and its very foundations.” But there are many Rishonim who took issue with the Rambam’s compilation. Most agree, that there are in fact no tenets which one must be aware of and accept in order to be a member of the Jewish nation.

While there have always been some who have become fundamentalists—and departed from the norms of common sense, modern society has unfortunately given rise to a new breed of fundamentalists—extremist, believing infltrators in our modern orthodox communities, schools, and even families. Those who throw off the light of modernity have generally been easy to recognize; not so people like Arnie. Outwardly, they act modern, yet internally they are fundamentalist-believers. They have severed all connection to common sense and reason, yet they behave and dress like you and me.

Modern Orthodox Jews who have embraced fundamentalist Judaism pose many more dangers to society than out-and-out extremists, not the least of which is the fact that the former are undetectable. Much has been written about the phenomena of so-called “adults who flip out”—Modern Orthodox Jews who have strayed into extremism because they’ve lost a vibrant appreciation of the beauty and truth of science and reason.

Dealing with this distressing phenomena is the primary goal of various blogs that have been started in recent years.

“Adults who flip out” is really a broad category. Dov Bear, who runs the Dov Bear blog, told me that he sees pretty much every Jew as an adult at risk, because we all need added rationality and common sense in our Judaism. But what we are referring here to those who have gone way beyond that—adults who are duplicitous, extremist infiltrators within the ranks of our communities.

Extremism is an old phenomena, discussed by psychologists and social scientists throughout the ages. Some of the communities in Europe suffered from nests of extremists. But the old-time extremist has been updated for the twenty-first century. New technology makes it much easier for those harboring and espousing extremist views to gain disciples. And schools and temples are no more immune from these fifth-columnists than they were in Europe.

The story is told that when the YU rosh yeshiva once found a R’Avigdor Miller book in the dorm in YU, he began crying. The person who was accompanying him downplayed the severity of the find, saying, “It’s just an Artscroll.” The Rosh Yeshivah replied, “In Europe, the bochurim who ‘went off the deep end’ were interested in spiritual subjects. They followed Chassidism, and we could deal with them by reintroducing them to the intellectual world of the rationalist Rishonim. But if they are interested in the foolishness of haredi fundamentalism, they are very far away from intellectual matter of any kind.”

To some extent, the Rosh Yeshivah's outlook on the bochur with the R Avigdor Miller book applies to the challenges Judaism faces in America today. Ideology and philosophy aren’t the obvious dangers today; the various lures of physicality and the lowest common denominator of American culture are the clear dangers facing us. The phenomena of kids at risk and adults at risk stem largely from these non-intellectual factors.

But there still are anti-intellectual threats posed by extremism, and the Internet has become a breeding ground for an ominous rebellion against the eternal truths of Science. Infected with the thought processes of extremist anti-intellectual philosophies, these extremists are among us as modern orthodox professionals, even in the higher ranks of our community.

Some refer to this group of people as Ultra Orthodox Jews (the prefix ultra- means “crazy” or “extremist”). The story of these Ultra-Orthodox Jews is a lesson about the intellectual dangers facing our YU boys and Stern girls even within their institutions. It’s a story about the effect that extremism has on marriages in our communities. And it’s a story about the dangers that the Internet poses to chochmas Yisrael.

The Sickness
There’s a certain wry edge to blogger Dov Bear. The head of a large blog in the New York/New Jersey area, Dov Bear’s schedule is filled with blogging about the stupidities and hypocrisy of the extremist Jews, as he brings people closer to the realities of Orthodox Judaism through blog posts, guest posts, and comments. But he consented to fit me in to discuss his less-amenable clientele.

LWMO Bloggers tend to attract people with extremist views in emunah, and Dov Bear has attracted his share. In particular, he has been harassed by a number of Ultra Orthodox young men, some married, some single. Dov Bear is open about his success rate with the Ultra Orthodox commenters: he has had no success at all. “I debated with them with the utmost of logic, reason and factual evidence. Nothing helped.”

Unlike many other extremist religions such as Radical Islam, these Orthodox men are not bitter toward modernity or the western world, says Dov Bear. They don’t claim to have been abused by Western Society, and their family lives tend to have been stable. None of the typical precursors to religious extremism were present in these Ultra Orthodox. They simply left their common sense behind, following instead a nonsensical thought process into the thicket of fundamentalism. Had they any true understanding of Judaism, they would have never felt threatened by secular thought. The problem is their superficial grasp of both topics.

He says the Internet was a major influence on their downhill slide, as opinion sites of various sorts advocate extremist positions. In fact, some of the bochurim that he knows moved from reading information on the Internet to publishing it themselves. Dov Bear, by the way, is not this blogger’s real name. He asked me to give him a pseudonym in order mask his identity. He is obviously scared by his interlocutors, and harbors a feeling of fear at how they buy into so many of the extremist theories posted online by any foolish Rabbi. He describes them almost as mentally ill. “To me, [their belief] is a sickness,” he says.

Elie is a perplexed young man that DovBear introduced to me. We spoke on the phone. He began teaching in yeshivah recently, but was in college through graduation. “I was raised Modern-Orthodox,” he says. He says he drifted into Ultra Orthodoxy because of so-called “Discovery Seminars.” I found the proofs that he raised, however, to be superficial; they were neither substantial nor new to anyone with knowledge of Judaism, especially if they have been involved in not being completely ignorant of history.

These are the same false proofs about Torah that have been debated and dealt with in the Jewish world for years. But he has closed his mind to common sense and reason.
“I spent years listening to kiruv rabbis at Aish Hatorah, Ohr Sameach, Arachim, and other organizations, as well as to classmates and rebbeim,” he admits. Eventually, he totally fell away from the underlying common sense of his ostensibly modern orthodox lifestyle. “I’m not one of those kids who were abused by western society but rather I have emotional complaints about life.”

In talking with these people, I found three reasons for their remaining hidden in the ranks of the Modern Orthodox. First, they enjoy the trappings of the Modern Orthodox world, taking pleasure in going to the Kiddush club on Shabbos, participating in the Yom Haatzmaut Celebrations, and maintaining other outward manifestations of modern Judaism. Second, they are often married and don’t want to leave the comfort of life with their wives and children, preferring to subject them to a living lie. Third, and most disturbing of all, those who are teachers yet still want to work in a modern orthodox school.

Eli told me himself that he teaches at a Modern Orthodox girls high school, since he earns much more in a Modern Orthodox yeshivah than in an Ultra-Orthodox yeshivah. “Aren’t you then an imposter preying on innocent girls?” I asked. “After all, which Modern Orthodox girl wants to marry someone who is an avowed fundamentalist believer?” “True,” he admitted. “On the other hand, if you have someone who was raised exclusively in an atmosphere that’s Modern Orthodox, that’s her entire life. How else can I hope to make her go to an extremist seminary in Israel and then flip out afterwards?”

The idea that an avowed fundamentalist would still be attempting to educate a modern orthodox girl is more than unnerving. In addition to the fact that the girl could end up marrying someone who has lost all traces of common sense, she would also most likely be duped into a relationship established on dishonesty, such as tax fraud or welfare fraud, as her kollel husband refuses to work and they must find financial support somehow.She would be tied not only to a fundamentalist, but a fraud.

All of the Rabbis I spoke to for this article told me that they have dealt with numerous marriages that are coming unglued because one member flipped out after seminary, married a frum guy, and now realizes how much she hates the kollel lifestyle. When I spoke to Rabbi Markowitz, he told me that he was dealing presently with four such cases; Rabbi Daniel Mechanical of Project Flipout told me that he has dealt with hundreds.

Since Eli is a Modern Orthodox teacher, be forewarned: He may be the one coming to teach your daughter today.

“No one can tell you exactly how many there are,” says Isaac Schonfeld, a close observer of the extremist elements in Orthodox Judaism. “But it is not a negligible number.” He has seen all types. “I know people who out-wardly look chassidish. They dress in black hats and appear passionate about Torah and Mitzvos, but they are nothing more than self-centered phonies. Yiddishkeit for them is simply a means to acquire Kovod and power.”

DovBear told me that there are two ways to look at the personalities of these extremists. “One is like Rashi says in Bechukosai: frst he’s not ameil in common sense and then he deteriorates from there, eventually trying to stop others from listening to common sense as well, and arriving finally at total extremism. Essentially, though, he’s justifying his taavos for meaning.”
This reflects the famous idea that fundamentalists proofs and arguments often aren’t really rational; they’re emotional based intended to excuse their not worrying about facts and evidence and the realities of life. “Even those who have sincere existential angst are not willing to realize that not all questions require made up answers. They’re not willing to accept the fact that we just don’t know how the Universe was created, whether there is a God, or who wrote the Bible. “Personally, I see it as a sickness.”

Indeed, atheists have no fewer questions than people of faith. There are far more questions to contend with when you stop believing. But Atheists accept the facts of the matter while fundamentalists are forced to create an ever increasing web of lies to justify the historical and scientific inaccuracies increasingly being revealed with religious mythology.

The second profile, as described by Dov Bear, is what Bertrand Russell describes at the end of his book on logic and reason. Bertrand Russell says that it is very difficult to prove reason to someone who has accepted faith. Unless a person is willing to be open to reason, he will simply refuse to be convinced. The end proof of reason is facts and evidence, says Bertrand Russell, and the best someone else can do for the avowed believer is to send him to therapy.

The way to deal with this issue requires not only great psychological training but also much wisdom. Several psychologists that I spoke with disagreed with the characterization that it is an intellectual problem rather than an emotional one.

Dr Jerry Milstein, a senior psychologist at Mt. Sinai and the executive vice president of Project Flipout—a lecture series about the dangers of fundamentalism given in hundreds of Modern Orthodox high schools across the country—says that he sees Ultra Orthodox Jews literally every day. He told me that in working with therapists he has found that emotional problems are behind almost all fundamentalisms. “In addition to many other things, to not believe is terrifying.” Immersed in a religious world, they are free from all existential angst about the meaning of life. “Why would they give that up if they didn’t have some emotional issues?”

Dangerous Waters
The type of extremist that Dov Bear describes is at least partially a product of exposure to writings hostile and detrimental to modern society. Science can seem as solid as a brick wall when we are sitting in the university or corporation among people with deep wisdom. But modern society and values are truly a fragile item that need to be protected.

In the past, a yeshiva university student had a simple defense against extremist ideas: he was not exposed to them. To find a book with extremism would take at least the effort involved in walking to the library. If parents monitored the reading material that their children were getting, they could keep them safe.

The Internet has changed that. Shaya is a young Ultra Orthodox man who consented to be interviewed by email, and he had some very interesting and enlightening things to say. “I grew up in a relatively Modern Orthodox household and went to a Zionist, Modern Orthodox Day school. At a young age I was enamored by Torah learning in general and Gemara in particular. In order to pursue learning further, with my parents’ enthusiastic support, I went to a Charedi yeshiva, where I stayed for six years. I started off as the star bochur, acing tests, memorizing Gemaros, etc. In time, I became an extremist fundamentalist who no longer eats at his parents home. I didn’t go to college and now I commit welfare fraud and make my wife work while I sit

on a chair at the kollel.”

What I found most chilling was his response to my question about whether the Internet had an effect on his common sense: “On this point the Charedim have it right; my extremism was largely fueled by Kiruv Sites on the Internet. The Internet allowed me easy access to all sorts of information that I might not have even thought of looking at otherwise. All the ‘extremism’ I could imagine was at my fingertips. I remember sitting for long hours surfing R Dovid Gottleib’s web site perusing all the information available, groping around and finding more and more extremism.”

Eli also told me that the Internet was influential in his move to the Chareidi world. “It provides you a way to access any amount of fundamentalism you want.” Dov Bear, again, confirmed that most of the Ultra Orthodox he has dealt with have used the Internet as a place to find extremist ideas or to communicate with others of similar beliefs. The Internet allows the Orthodox to attack the modern world while feeding off it.

When I visited Arnie in his house, the conversation gradually came to an uncomfortable halt. After all, I did not have much in common with one who has lost his last vestige of common sense and rationality.

Mindful of the psychologists statement about therapy for someone who has lost their marbles, I asked Arnie for his name and his insurance. He gave them to me, with a twisted smile. Then I fled.

New Yeshivah to open in Ellul, has "methods" to deal with err, you know what

2011-05-04T21:29:00.004-04:00

So RYGB is founding a new yeshivah, and is basing it on the philosophy of Nathan Birnbaum, a secular Zionist turned BT. There's a somewhat unusual "Vision" posted here.

The strangest part is this:

The Internet is here to stay. There is no way the bulk of Yahadus HaTorah can hide their collective heads in the sand. And if that means that almost everybachur today is exposed to pornography, we have to deal with it. If it means they will be texting constantly, acting inappropriately on blogs and on Facebook, we also have to deal with it.

The bulk of talmidim are into "goyishe music," are up on TV and movies (even if we have no TV's in our houses! even if we have extensive web filters - amazing, right?! I was blown away the other day by the existence of a site called bahalt.com - check it out!!). So we have to deal with it.

And, I am very pained to say this, but we have hid our faces from the phenomenon to our own detriment for far too long. Many, if not most, bachurim have problems with what we can delicately call ni'uf b'yad. So we must deal with it.

Moreover, most of our talmidim find a certain sippuk in these pursuits that we are not giving them (in no small part because 75 years ago we ignored those lines of Dr. Nathan Birnbaum).

Yeshivas HaOlim will deal with it. This is not the place to explain how. Those who know me and my shiurim know some of my methods.

So without getting pritzusdick (please, this isn't DovBear), what the heck is he talking about? In the comments he 'explains':

"The "dealing with it" is the explanation al pi darchei Avodas Hashem and a focus on His'alus as to the inner problems and issues that such behavior generates and working on them together. (In many yeshivos the policy is that revelation of such issues is grounds for "expelling first, asking questions later." The other component of a holistic approach is demonstrating how the ma'or in Torah is a thrill that is far more meaningful and rewarding. One aspect of the approach without the other would not suffice."

Not much help. I always assumed that if the 'behavior' in question is of normal frequency and proportions, the best approach is 'don't ask don't tell'. it's just a normal part of life. I mean, a yeshivah shouldn't be encouraging it I guess (though some would argue its actually healthy behavior), but "dealing" with it? Of course someone who is seriously addicted to such behaviors probably has some kind of issue, but its fairly normal for most people as far as I can tell. Is this really an issue of such importance that it needs to be part of the founding vision for a new Yeshivah?! Sounds very strange to me. Maybe I'm just out of touch with modern youth.

Orthopraxy and Honesty

2011-04-28T20:43:00.005-04:00

Let's start off this new series of advice posts by talking about honesty.

I know of quite a few OPers who are in the closet, and the question is, do they have an obligation to come out of the closet? Should they tell people what they really believe, or are their personal beliefs nobody's business but their own?

The recent Ami Magazine article on Orthopraxy seemed to imply that the OPers were evil sickos, not just because they lacked the requisite beliefs, but also because they weren't being honest about their lack of beliefs. And, perhaps somewhat ironically, I myself have in the past criticized the 'Fundie Fakers' who say one thing but believe another. Are Ami Magazine and I really on the same side on this one?!

But is this a legitimate criticism? Just how honest does one need to be? Aren't beliefs a private affair? On the other hand, if the whole raison d'etre of the OPer is a quest for truth, isn't it somewhat hypocritical that they then become dishonest about their own beliefs?

I think there are a number of ways to approach this, but first we have to more clearly define what we are talking about.

For the purposes of this post, I am assuming that we are talking about people living in an Orthodox Jewish community, going to an OJ shul, with kids in an OJ school, and are not newly minted BTs. Said people however, for whatever reasons, do not believe in all the tenets of OJ, which at the present moment are sociologically defined as the 13 ikkarim.

One further thing needs to be clarified - what do we mean by 'does not believe?' Does this mean one has to be a strong atheist? How about an agnostic? The head of RIETS told me that as long as someone doesn't emphatically deny the existence of God, they are not classified as a kofer, and very few skeptics / OPers emphatically deny God's existence, they just lack belief in Him. Also, an OPer could believe in God, but might just have doubts about TMS, or Techiyas Hamaysim, or one of the other ikkarim.

So for the purposes of this post, I'm talking about honesty in what you believe, whatever that may be. It may be you believe in 12 ikkarim, but have doubts about number 13. It may be that you do indeed emphatically deny all of them. Or anything in between. There certainly may be halachic ramifications in the level of disbelief, but that's not my focus here (though in some circumstances, this could be very relevant indeed). It may be you don't know anymore what you believe. For this post, none of that is relevant. I'm talking about being honest about what you truly believe (or don't believe, or are not sure). Likewise, some people have predictable cycles, like believing in God during takeoff and landing. Whatever is really going on in your head, that's what I'm talking about.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, just what do I mean by honesty? Do you have to tell as many people as possible under all circumstances? Shout it from the rooftops? Or just respond honestly if and when asked a very direct question? For the purposes of this post, I'm going to say that we are talking about a situation where there is an expectation that you believe, and that if you don't believe, the other people involved would like to know that. So for example, since religion in the workplace is a no-no, there's no expectation that you tell your boss that you are an atheist, so that is not under consideration. However, if your Job is OJ Rabbi, then there is an expectation.

Now to approach the question. I'm first going to approach it by considering the person or persons to whom you are being honest (or dishonest) with.

1. Honesty to one's spouse (or similar partner)

In general, I think most people would say that it is indeed very important to be honest with one's spouse. Nobody would be happy with a spouse who lies to them, and in an OJ marriage presumably your beliefs (or lack of) are certainly something your spouse would like to know about. But what if you have a decent marriage, but your spouse is a hard core fundie, and you just know that they couldn't handle it, and it would destroy your family, perhaps even result in divorce. Do you really have a moral obligation to tell them the truth in such a case? Honesty is important, honesty to one's spouse even more so, but I would be hard pressed to say that it's worth destroying your marriage for. On the other hand, what kind of marriage (or partner) is it anyway that can't tolerate one spouse losing beliefs?

2. Honesty to one's family (parents, siblings)

My take on this is pretty simple. You don't owe your parents honesty (unless you live in their house). The Torah (and my subjective morality) say that you should treat your parents with respect. But that doesn't mean you have to tell them whats going on with your life. Same deal with your siblings.

3. Honesty to one's kids

This one is a tough one. Of course you shouldn't generally lie to your kids. But if you are an OPer, presumably your kids are going to an OJ school, and you could really mess them up by filling their heads with your beliefs or rather lack of. I know of an OPer who simply took his kids out of the OJ school and placed them in a community school - problem solved. But if this isn't possible then what? I think it may depend on how old they are. It's commonly accepted that little kids don't get the whole truth anyway, we frequently hide all sorts of things from them, so I don't think that's much of a problem. However teenagers or older should really be told the truth. This leads to a bit of a disparity however, since above I said you don't owe your parents the truth, but here I'm saying you do owe your kids. This doesn't seem right! So maybe you don't owe your kids either?

4. Honesty to the community

What about your shul? LWMO shuls seem to operate on a 'don't ask don't tell policy', and I think they pretty much expect that many of their members are not true believers anyway. But what about chareidi or RWMO shuls? I know of a very honest OPer in the UK who was bothered by this, so he asked the London Beis Din, who promptly told his shul that he wouldn't be allowed to get any aliyos anymore! An extreme reaction to be sure, but if this is the reality, then does an OPer have an obligation to tell his shul Rabbi about his beliefs? I would say it depends on the community or shul. LWMO, not a problem. RWMO or Chareidi, maybe you should tell them.

5. Honesty to your flock

But what if you are the Rabbi?! There was a blog a while back by an Orthoprax OJ Rabbi, and many people were horrified. Likewise, the Ami article talked about a posek who was Orthoprax (don't worry - they took 'steps' and made sure the problem was dealt with). Or not a Rabbi, but someone in Chinuch or similar. So I think it really depends on the situation and on the expectation. An OJ Rabbi is expected to be a believer. I think his congregation would be upset if he was faking it, hence there's an obligation for him to be honest. Likewise a Rebbe, or an Aish Hatorah lecturer or similar. I don't think this applies to academia though, they are supposed to be objective truth seekers, someone can write about TMS without personally believing in it. But a religious figure is certainly expected to believe. Incidentally, I just read that Mordechai Kaplan quit his shul job for this very reason. And it makes sense, if you are an OPer, then don't go being a Rabbi! But like the previous cases, it could be more complicated. What if you became a Rabbi many years ago, and only developed doubts later? What if you have a large flock who need you? What if you can't get another job and your salary is vital? All good points. But I would say that at the very least, you should probably stay away from preaching about faith.

A totally different approach

There may be a totally different way of looking at this. You could say, all fundies are totally delusional and dishonest anyway, they don't really care about the truth themselves, so why not just lie to them? Why should you have to be honest to people like that?

Another totally different approach

Here's another way of looking at this. A slightly lomdisher way. The Torah doesn't mandate against private beliefs as such. That's between you and your maker (assuming He exists). What the Torah doesn't like is when you speak about your beliefs, or even worse, act on them. So as long as you keep your beliefs (or lack of) to yourself, it's fine. The issue is davkah telling people what you believe or don't believe, or preaching kefirah. According to this, staying quiet is actually the better option. This doesn't sit so well with me, because at the end of the day its still kinda dishonest, especially if there is an expectation that you are a believer, but I've heard people use this type of rationalization.

Perhaps the bottom line here is that it totally depends on the who what where when and why. I don't have a consistent policy in dealing with the closet Opers that I know personally. There are multiple people I have hassled or continue to hassle because I feel they should be more honest about their beliefs (for all sorts of reasons), and there are other people I haven't ever bothered and wouldn't dream of doing so.

After thinking about this I realize that the people I leave alone are just your typical baal habos types, whereas the people I hassle are all Rabbis, educators or similar people of influence. I guess my thinking is that there is a large group of OPers out there who are lost, and a few OP Rabbis or educators could be a real inspiration to them (and me). It bugs the heck out of me that I know Rabbis here in the US who could do wonders for my cause but don't speak up because they are scared about being kicked out of their communities. Also I don't like fakery, and an OP Rabbi seems to be a bigger faker than most. But I would be interested to hear other perspectives on this.

Are you Orthoprax? Are you in the closet? Have you told anyone? Who have you hid the truth from? How do you justify being less than honest?

Reconciling resurrection with science

2011-04-17T21:32:00.001-04:00

Does Resurrection Contradict Science?: via HuffPost

Coming Soon: Advice for Closet Orthopraxers

2011-04-14T22:59:00.002-04:00

Over the past few years I have received a number of emails from people asking for help and advice, mostly from OPers stuck in the closet. I received one last week from Israel. I also know a few closet OPers who wouldn't dream of asking me advice, but I'm going to give it to them anyway. Why are people asking me for advice? Because none of the usual channels are helpful. These people are not going to be impressed by an Aish Seminar, nor do they care for the Science and Torah reconciliation stuff, they're not stupid, they're just looking for practical advice. So stay tuned.

Threat Level 9! Orthoprax Chareidi Impostors Among Us!

2011-04-12T20:18:00.006-04:00

Ami Magazine has an article about Orthoprax impostors, it has been posted online here. Mostly the article seems to be talking about Chareidi Orthopraxers, even the one example they use of someone who grew up Modern Orthodox was someone who became Chareidi first before going Orthoprax. The article is also remarkable for acknowledging the fact that even kollel yungerleit and poskim from the upper echelons of Chareidi society are Orthoprax, and that intellectual heresy is an issue, and it's not all about taavos. I'm not quite sure what to make of it. Had I seen this article on VIN I would have argued it's actually quite subversive.

The article is full of choice quotes, many of which are unintentionally (or possibly intentionally) quite revealing / hilarious. Here's a few:

"The Internet has become a breeding ground for an ominous rebellion against the eternal truths of the Torah. Infected with the thought processes of secular philosophies, these heretics are among us as yeshiva bochurim and baalei batim, even in the higher ranks of our community."

Rabbi Deutsch [a kiruv klown] is open about his success rate with the Orthoprax: he has had no success at all. “I sent them to the biggest scientists, who understand science far better than anything they read on the web and are fully Orthodox Jews. Nothing helped.”

Unlike many of the formerly-frum, these Orthoprax men are not bitter toward Judaism, says Rabbi Deutsch. They don’t claim to have been abused, and their family lives tend to have been stable. None of the typical precursors to religious rebellion were present in the Orthoprax. They simply left their emunah behind, following instead a nonsensical thought process into the thicket of apikorsus. Had they any true understanding of Judaism, they would have never felt threatened by secular thought. The problem is their superficial grasp of both topics.

He describes them almost as mentally ill. “To me, [the disbelief] is a sickness,” he says.

So here we have the opinion that (Chareidi) Orthopraxers are almost mentally ill. After all, what other explanation could there possibly be?

Rabbi Yerachmiel Milstein, a senior lecturer for the Discovery Program, puts it even clearer:

... he has found that emotional problems are behind almost all kefira. “In addition to many other things, to stop believing is inconvenient.” Immersed in a religious world, they are suddenly cut off from their entire milieu. “Why would they do it if they didn’t have some emotional issues?”

This is actually an awesome quote. Why would anyone want to give up belief? It's so damn inconvenient (very true in most cases). So the only possible reason is emotional issues. What Millstein is acknowledging here, possibly without realizing it, is that the pull to stay a believer is so strong that only the mentally ill or people with "emotional issues" could possibly want to break free. Is there any stronger argument for the bias of religious believers? Amazing!

[Yes, I know what Millstein would respond. The truth of Torah is so obvious that only a mental person would reject it! And the RWMO intelleifundie would respond, only Chareidim are biased, we are not. Or possibly we are biased too, but then so is everyone else.].

I of course live in LWMO land, where about 50% of us are Orthoprax to varying degrees and are not very veiled at all. So I don't feel the article was being written about me or my crowd, and I wasn't particularly bothered by it. But I do know quite a few Chareidi or RWMO Orthopraxers. They wear black hats, are in kollel or who have kids in kollel, or are part of the RW MO world, but are total apikorsim, at least by currently accepted definitions of "Orthodoxy". I guess those kind of closet Orthopraxers would feel more threatened by the article.

Mean Toronto Gedolim Ban Blogs!

2011-04-10T10:26:00.003-04:00

So what's the back story here? Is there a scandal brewing that the Gedolim want hushed up? Or just the usual BS?

Do you believe in God?

2011-04-08T09:01:00.002-04:00

Interesting article on Hufpo.

Rabbi Mitleman writes:

"There are really only three answers people can give [to the question of do you believe in God?] : "Yes, I do," "No, I don't" or "I'm not sure.""

As commenters point out, actually there are a number of other answers, including:

"Which God?"

"Please define God, and then I can answer"

"I don't care to answer your question".

I would add:

"Sometimes"

"Occasionally, especially during turbulence"

Any others?

guest post from evanstonjew

2011-04-03T20:52:00.001-04:00

Why are some soooo disappointed and angry with Orthodoxy, while others continue to feel deep feelings of love and gratitude towards the Orthodox way of life? Does it make a difference how a person was treated by their teachers and community? Does it depend if they were raised, charedi or MO? Should these positive feelings be encouraged, or is it true that there is no merit in being attached to worlds replete with myths and religious fantasy?

What is the role of our own history in deciding who we are and how we are going to live? In particular, does it make any difference how the Holocaust affected our families? Much of charedi life is connected to rebuilding/undoing the Holocaust. The same for Israel and its constant feelings of paranoia and isolation. Why is it that in MO circles we hear a lot more about RJBS derashot than what Stalin and Hitler did to the Jews ? Is the Holocaust a motive/reason for being traditional, so as not to give Hitler a posthumous victory? Does the Holocaust dictate a current MO politics, and if so what might such a politics look like?

When there is no fear of God, are the bonds of affection that tie a Jew to his religion ever sufficient to keep the Jewish people together? Do we really like each other as people or “we’ve more or less had it…THEY are all either crooks, kooks, paupers or nouveau riche .” Is the frum way of life attractive or is it all we know? Forget about guilt, should we be ashamed to be secular?

I hear JTS will be changed from an academic institution with rabbinics to a rabbinical seminary in competition with places like YCT and the non-denominational Rabbinical School of Hebrew College in Boston. This is a major change in Conservative thinking. Chancellor Eisen is trying to create a new generation of rabbis that will increase the traffic in Conservative synagogues, provide an impactful message to the congregants and become competitive in the religious market place between Centrist Orthodoxy and Reform. So here’s my question: What would it take to create something effective? Does success depend on the rabbi’s message, his charisma or maybe neither? How would an Orthodoxy that is not Orthodox work? What does it take to change a dying synagogue with an elderly membership into a vibrant religious community?

3 MORE QUESTIONS:

Does neo chasidus-Jewish renewal-spirituality (Green, Fishbain, Zalman Schecter, a straight Moti Elon, Shlomo Carlebach) in a halachic context hold any appeal? Can there be a MO chassidic community or a MO/Conservadox rebbe or is that an oxymoron?

Protestant thought has moved from subjective readings of the Bible to thinking that the subtleties of morality are to be found in literature and in particular in fiction. Should literature become an important element in Orthodox consciousness? What role if any should the arts and entertainment play in an ideal Orthodox world? Why are book and movie clubs a staple of secular Jewish life, but hardly figure in the religious world? Should we look to the arts for inspiration how to live, and if yes how do such new aesthetic and moral sensibilities reintegrate into Jewish life?

Should synagogues be politicized if they are to have any relevance? In what direction? The Reconstructionist synagogue in Evanston holds pro-Palestinian meetings. Is this disgusting? How can religious people be both morally relevant and supportive of Israel? Does a life of Torah and mitzvot need a politics?

So there it is…not a word about feminism or rationalism ? I tried to stretch the possibilities while not prejudging the degree of frumkeit necessary, hoping some of these topics might be of interest.

Back to you, XGH.

Parody Songs!

2011-04-03T11:53:00.002-04:00

At first it was just me. (Well, technically I guess Lenny Solomon - Shlock Rock and Country Yossi beat me by about 20 years. My favorite from that period is still Kesher - Hit Me With Your Best Peshat.) But now everyone is in on the act. Besides the Maccabeats, even Young Israel came out with a great Purim Parody Song (Bottoms Up). In Israel, the fountainheads from Ein Prat leadership academy are doing it too. Their Purim Song wasn't so great, but this Pesach song isn't bad at all.

Meanwhile, here's a little parody song of my own:

I'm still alive but I'm barely livin
Stopped praying to a God that I don't believe in
Now I got time but I still got no freedom
Cause when faith breaks no it don't break even

My best times are now some of my worst,
I used to love learning and davening, had a spiritual thirst
Now I'm wide awake and have trouble sleeping
'cause when faith breaks no it don't break even, even

What am I supposed to do when the best part of me says this just isn’t true, and
What am I supposed to say when everyone around me thinks everything is ok

I'm falling to pieces yeah
I'm falling to pieces

They say that everything happens for a reason
But I’ve found no wise words to stop the bleeding

'Cause millions die while we’re still believin
And when faith breaks no it don't break even, even ohhhh

What am I supposed to do when the best part of me says this just isn’t true, and
What am I supposed to say when everyone around me thinks everything is ok

I'm falling to pieces, yea
I'm falling to pieces

Oh you destroyed our faith but avoided the pain
You took the fame - but I took the blame
Now I'm trying to make sense of what little remains
Cause you left me with no faith but you care more about your good name

I'm still alive but I'm barely livin
Stopped praying to a God that I don't believe in
Now I got time but I still got no freedom
Cause when faith breaks no it don't break even

What am I supposed to do when the best part of me says this just isn’t true, and
What am I supposed to say when everyone around me thinks everything is ok

I'm falling to pieces, yea
I'm falling to pieces

Oh it don't break even no,ohh
it don't break even no, ohh
It don't break even no

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

2011-03-31T22:28:00.003-04:00

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?

2011-03-31T02:42:00.003-04:00

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)

2011-03-30T20:07:00.001-04:00

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!!!

2011-03-29T21:18:00.002-04:00

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

2011-03-26T22:23:00.002-04:00

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

2011-03-26T22:13:00.003-04:00

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

2011-03-23T21:22:00.002-04:00

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

2011-03-22T21:21:00.001-04:00

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

2011-03-21T12:02:00.002-04:00

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

2011-03-17T19:18:00.001-04:00

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

2011-03-16T19:05:00.002-04:00

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

2011-03-16T06:49:00.003-04:00

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

2011-03-14T20:45:00.002-04:00

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

2011-03-08T19:54:00.000-05:00

"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)

2011-03-07T22:14:00.003-05:00

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

2011-03-07T21:32:00.003-05:00

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.

2011-03-06T21:27:00.007-05:00

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

2011-03-05T22:31:00.002-05:00

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

2011-03-05T22:18:00.002-05:00

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

2011-03-03T06:42:00.008-05:00

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

2011-03-01T20:31:00.003-05:00

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.

Desperately Seeking Blogs

2011-02-27T14:04:00.002-05:00

Anyone know any good blogs that I might be interested in? I currently read Cross Currents, Hirhurim, DovBear, Rationalist Judaism, Emes veEmunah and a couple others, but no good Orthoprax or skeptical blogs (unless you count Rationalist as skeptical blog).

UPDATE: Please do plug your own (or anyone elses) blog in the comments, I am interested in seeing what else is out there (new or old). My blogroll has stagnated a bit.

The Head of Reform Judaism is Quite Frum

2011-02-24T20:00:00.003-05:00

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of Reform Judaism, writes about the "Frustrating, Difficult, Never Ending Search for God". He says that he is often asked how to connect with God, and says the obvious answer is via davening. But since people don't always like davening, he suggests learning Torah and performing Mitzvos. Seriously, that's what he says.

Project Conversion

2011-02-24T19:37:00.006-05:00

The Huffington Post reports on Andrew Bowen who has decided to try 12 religions, 1 a month:

January: Hinduism
February: Baha'i
March: Zoroastrianism
April: Judaism
May: Buddhism
June: Fringe
July: Mormonism
August: Islam
September: Sikhism
October: Wicca
November: Jainism
December: Catholicism

Each month he will immerse himself in the selected religion, as follows:

Week One: Religious Practices, Worship, and Ritual
Week Two: Culture and Art
Week Three: Social Issues/Conflicts
Week Four: Personal Reflection on the Month

Sounds like an interesting idea. However only one month for Judaism? Which type? Orthodox? Reform? You could probably spend 12 months just trying out the various forms of Judaism, or even just the various types of Orthodox Judaism. I've actually tried a few of these below:

January: Extreme Chassidic: Satmar
February: Regular Chassidic: Belz / Ger
March: Wacky Chassidic: Breslav
April: Ultra Wacky Chassidic: Lubavitch Meshichist
May: Extreme Bnai Brak Chareidi
June: Regular US Chareidi
July: RWMO / MO Machmir
August: LWMO (non Orthoprax)
September: LWMO Orthoprax
October: Frum Sephardi*
November: Not so frum Sephardi*
December: Baal Teshuva

* A bit lame I know. And Bucharians, Iranians, Iraqis, Temanim etc are all different too.

How most inter-personal fights start

2011-02-18T17:06:00.003-05:00

I've been thinking about inter-personal relationships and fights for a while now, and have observed over the last few years a number of large and small fights between colleagues, friends and family. What I've noticed is that many of these fights follow a very predictable pattern. It goes like this.

Step 0: Person A and Person B are going along quite happily as friends, family or colleagues.

Step 1: Person A does something without really thinking that offends Person B. Person B may have had a right to be offended, or may not, it doesn't make much difference. Person A had no intent to do malice or harm, and does not even realize that Person B was offended. Person B however is horribly offended and cannot believe that Person A just attacked him for no good reason at all.

Step 2: Person B responds angrily to Person A and tells him just what he thinks of him. How dare Person A do such a thing!

Step 3: Person A is now horribly offended. From his perspective he did nothing wrong, and suddenly Person B is now accusing him of all sorts of hateful things. Person A responds badly to Person B and raises the anger level higher.

Step 4: Person B is now really steaming. Not only did Person A start this whole fight,but when B pointed this out to him, Person A not only didn't apologize, but was rude again! Unbelievable. Now Person B really gives it to Person A, as he deserves.

Step 5: Now Person A is really steaming. Not only did Person B completely attack him out of the blue once before for no good reason, he is now attacking him again rather than apologizing. Unbelievable! Person A really gives it to Person B, as he deserves.

Step 6-100 repeat.

Could prophecy exist? Sure. Pink Unicorns Too.

2011-02-17T20:25:00.002-05:00

Thanbo writes:

I could try to explain further, but it's clear from your last sentence that you've accepted the faith position that "prophecy cannot exist". Without prophecy, there will be no good evidence for the Divinity of the Torah. Without prophecy, you have no divine revelations, to individuals or groups. Without prophets, you don't have a Moses to be the greatest one. Without a greatest prophet, you have no way to receive God's word in the sense He meant it. Therefore, without prophecy, there's no Divine Torah, and no way it could be divine.

Hmm, so what was my last sentence? It was this:

The reason why it's irrational to believe that God wrote the Torah is NOT because there's evidence that multiple people wrote it. But rather it's because there's no good evidence that God wrote it.

So, I didn't say anything like 'prophecy can't exist'. What I actually said was, there's no good evidence that God wrote the Torah. Or alternatively, there's no good evidence that prophecy exists. This is poshut. So why can't an otherwise intelligent person like Thanbo see that?

Appreciating the complexity of Torah

2011-02-16T22:53:00.001-05:00

From here:

To ask whether the Bible fails to give consistent answers or be of one voice with itself presumes that it was built to do so. That's a false presumption, rooted no doubt in thinking of it as the book that God wrote. Biblical literature is constantly interpreting, interrogating and disagreeing with itself. Virtually nothing is asserted someplace that is not called into question or undermined elsewhere.

Nor can we presume that such contradictions are stupid mistakes, editorial oversights or divine typos. We'll never know all the details about the history of the development of the literature now in our Bibles. What we do know is that it was thousands of years in the making and involved countless people writing, editing, copying, canonizing, publishing and so on. Can we honestly believe that, if agreement and consistency were the goal, such discrepancies would not have been fixed and such rough seams mended long ago? That creation stories would have been made to conform or be removed? Could all those many, many people involved in the development of biblical literature and the canon of Scriptures have been so blind, so stupid? It's modern arrogance to imagine so.

The Bible canonizes contradiction. It holds together a tense diversity of perspectives and voices, difference and argument -- even and especially when it comes to the profoundest questions of faith, questions that inevitably outlive all their answers.

The Bible is not a book of answers but a library of questions. As such it opens up space for us to explore different voices and perspectives, to discuss, to disagree and, above all, to think. Too often, however, that's not what happens.

We are the fundies who say 'cog-NI-tive dissonance'

2011-02-16T21:57:00.004-05:00

From a commenter:

"As for me, I personally don't see the conflict with TMS vs DH. There are various solutions:

1) God wrote in multiple voices - this is R' Breuer's position. The textual analysis for DH is undeniable, but so is God's authorship - therefore there must be a resolution.

2) There was a Sinaitic revelation, but it was recorded by four+ authors, and re-edited together in the days of Ezra - this is the position of R' David Weiss-Halivni and a number of Conservative rabbis that I've run across. Weiss-Halivni may instead believe in a single original text which, in the absence of regular public reading, was degraded in four different ways.

3) My position: those I've encountered who vehemently propound DH tend to have an unstated agenda. For the 19th-C Germans, or Spinoza, it was a desire to undermine Judaism. For a number of moderns I've encountered on the internet, it's a faith position that prophecy does not exist. If there's no prophecy, there's no Divine Torah, so it must have been written by humans. Once that is your premise, DH is a reasonable solution to the multiple voices.

4) My cousin's position: Dr. Edward Greenstein, of Bar-Ilan (JTSA before making aliyah) - it doesn't matter about the origin, it should be treated as a singular text, because whether ancient editors redacted it that way or God wrote it that way, that is how it was meant to be treated. As Douglas Hofstadter might say, he unasks the question.

I'm sure there are others I haven't thought of."

This collection of "solutions" is laughable.

1) God wrote in multiple voices. Right. And he also wrote just like the Hamurabi and other ANE texts. In fact, he wrote the Torah exactly like you would expect it to be written had it been written by multiple people over hundreds of years and finally redacted in 500BCE. But hey, God wrote it so none of that is problematic.

2) The original Torah got degraded. Sure. I hear the original Koran got degraded too. And the original book of Mormon was made of Gold Plates and was awesome.

3) Makes no sense. So if its human, it must be multiple authors, but if its prophecy, then not? Huh?

4) Err, so the final redactor meant it to be taken as a singular text, therefore it is indeed a singular text? Amazing how that works.

These solutions are not solutions, they are as unrealistic, un-evidenciary and unbelievable as TMS is.

The truth is though that the DH has nothing to do with anything. It's entirely irrelevant.

The reason why it's irrational to believe that God wrote the Torah is NOT because there's evidence that multiple people wrote it. But rather it's because there's no good evidence that God wrote it.

Are there any real true believers amongst the educated MO?

2011-02-14T22:10:00.007-05:00

Following on from my recent post about MO and cognitive dissonance, I often wonder about how MO people who are truly educated and knowledgeable about science, religion, Bible Scholarship etc (I'm not talking about the masses here) can truly believe the ikkarim. Considering my access to a wide array of friends, family and contacts across the spectrum of Modern Orthodoxy, you would think I could fairly easily ask some probing questions and get an answer.

The problem is, every time I get close enough to ask someone what they truly really believe (and get an honest answer) it always turns out that they don't quite truly really believe at all. I'm not saying they are secret militant atheists, but there's always some excuse - they believe in the DH and Divine Inspiration, they believe something happened at Sinai but they couldn't say exactly what, they believe that belief is not an ikkar, they believe in the ikkarim but not literally (?), they believe Torah is literature. And on and on and on.

Now you could say that there is a selection bias here, I only get close to people who are secret skeptics. But I don't think that's true, because I am friendly with all these people prior to knowing their true beliefs, and also in some cases prior to becoming skeptical myself. And even the ones who casually profess true belief, they quickly backtrack under heavy questions.

So are there any really true believers amongst the racks of the educated MO? Cos I don't think I know any.

Religion Is Evolving

2011-02-14T22:04:00.002-05:00

From here. Not sure I agree (at least not from an Orthodox perspective) but interesting anyway:

"Change or die" seems to be the operative phrase for religion these days.

The reasons driving the evolution are varied and complex but can be summarized, I think, in terms of three main cultural changes.

The first is overwhelming pressure from science and a broad shift toward a rationalist worldview. Atheism has always been a fringe effort in the U.S., but a series of events at the turn of the century helped birth the New Atheist movement. The effort to include intelligent design theories in science curriculum was a major wake-up call for prominent atheists as was a resurgence of religiously motivated terrorist activity in the United States and Europe. The movement has succeeded in establishing the primacy of scientific explanation -- a view formerly confined mainly to the academy -- at the cost of other explanatory models, particularly religious ones.

Things have changed so dramatically and the movement has been so successful, that a physicist of the stature of Steven Hawking felt confident enough to come out boldly and claim that the God hypothesis is no longer needed to unlock the most intractable cosmological puzzles. Hawking believes physics will unify our understanding of the universe and in case his readers miss the point, he wanders outside of his discipline and into theology to assert plainly that God can't.

The second change is coming by way of the tremendous pressure exerted on religion from the flattening of the earth. As the world shrinks, young people are exposed to -- and are easily able to interact with -- others who hold very different worldviews. Kids now have access to a wealth of information about religions other than the one in which they were raised. Brand loyalty no longer is a given when it comes to religion and that's creating a massive shift in what people accept as true about their particular faith and about faith in general.

...

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, religion is being forced to change from the inside out due to what could crassly be called a services problem: Congregations are becoming dissatisfied with what formal religion has to offer. Believers find efforts to "modernize" shallow and patronizing. While small numbers are turning to more liturgical and morally or socially demanding faiths (opting for Mormon, traditional Catholic and even Muslim communities), many are choosing to leave institutional religion altogether, exchanging it for a more personalized faith -- or no faith at all.

The next decade will indeed be fascinating and an exciting time to observe and engage in this transformation. The metamorphosis we're experiencing not only will affect believers specifically but will have enormous social and political impact on all of us. That's an invigorating thought.

Torah True Evolution

2011-02-10T18:09:00.004-05:00

People think that Chareidim don't believe in evolution. But that's not true at all. They certainly do hold of evolution, just that it's going in the opposite direction. Every generation away from Sinai (or perhaps from Adam Harishon) is getting progressively worse - it's called 'Yeridas Hadoros' - the decline of the generations.

Ironically, Chareidim like to poke fun at Darwinism by saying that how can we believe our grandparents had tails. But Darwinism (or more broadly evolution), held that we evolved from apes (or rather a common ancestor) millions of years ago.

In contrast, Chareidim believe that we evolved from Chazal (who were almost like Malochim - angels) down to our debased level in less than two thousand years. So, while the scientists believe we are about 1 million years removed from our ape-like ancestors, if you extrapolate from the decline from Chazal, Chareidim apparently believe we are about 2,000 years removed from our ape-like descendants.

So Rabbi Bamberger, which is more ridiculous? Our ancestors a million years ago had tails - or our descendants in 2,000 years will? Nobody wants an ancestor with a tail, but given the choice, I'd rather have apes in my distant past than in my not too distant future.

The Rabbi on the Airplane (and monkeys)

2011-02-09T21:12:00.003-05:00

So apparently the older kids in the local day school were treated to a speech by a visiting Rabbi, Rabbi Ben-Zion Bamberger of Monsey (anybody know this guy?), and during his speech he mentioned the famous "Rabbi on the airplane story". He also told the kids about how Darwin thought their grandparents had tails. Some kids and parents were offended by this, personally I think that sort of narishkeit demeans Torah more than Science, but I do think the speaker (and the school for that matter) should have more sense. This isn't Monsey.

Anyways, now is a great time to tell my version of the Rabbi on the airplane story. It's much truthier than the other version.

So Reb Elyashiv and Professor Richard Dawkins happened to be sitting on a plane next to each other. They each had their grand children on board too. During the flight, Reb Elyashiv's grand children were behaving like vilda-chayos (wild animals), jumping around and generally causing a huge disturbance. Dawkins' grandchildren on the other hand were very well behaved and sitting quietly, like proper English schoolboys.

After a while Reb Elyashiv turns to Dawkins, and says "Excuse me professor, but how come my grandchildren are so badly behaved, while yours are so well behaved?"

Dawkinds replies "Ah Rabbi, the answer is poshut. You see, we believe in evolution, in the ascent of man. Each generation gets increasingly more human and more sophisticated, hence my grandchildren are models of restraint and good behavior. However you believe in yeridas hadoros, that every generation away from Sinai is further and further devolved. Hence your grandchildren are behaving like monkeys!"

Modern Orthodoxy is built on cognitive dissonance

2011-02-09T21:09:00.001-05:00

"It may seem cognitively dissonant, but Modern Orthodoxy is built on cognitive dissonance. Every educated person knows that the Bible is likely the product of human hands, for example. Yet, to be modern and Orthodox is to accept a dialectical tension between the dictates of reason and those of faith, which, in this case, hold that God wrote the Torah. Most Modern Orthodox Jews I know do not resolve this tension. They accept it, and get on with the important business of living."

From here.

A simple solution to the brain death controversy

2011-02-06T01:00:00.001-05:00

Its so simple. Chareidim hold of nishtaneh hatevah, that's why the strange cures and remedies mentioned in the gemarah are no longer valid today. Human biology has changed, putting a leech on someones stomach no longer can cure cancer. Therefore and likewise, anything Chazal said about life and death halachah is no longer valid because our biology has changed. It used to be that heart stoppage meant death, but now brain stem death is death. Nishtaneh hatevah!

(One kashyeh could be raised though - maybe it wasn't the human biology that changed, maybe it was the leech?)

Bronze Age Mythology and the Search for Truth.

2011-01-30T23:27:00.004-05:00

Arnie Eisen, Chancellor of JTS, has an article in (on? at?) The Huffington Post (which has a pretty interesting religion section actually). He waxes on about Har Sinai, I assume in a mythological way, though many of the commenters there seem to think he's a fundie and means it literally. But one comment caught my eye - that Bronze age mythology just isn't going to cut it nowadays. (To be precise, more like Late Bronze Age).

And when you think about it (or at least when I think about it), I have to agree. Eisen (and other LWMO and many Conservative types) seem to have no choice but to re-interpret the legends / myths of Judaism, to stay within the tradition. To be sure they don't take it literally, but the very fact that they are forced to have to re-use these old legends produces two significant problems. 1) Until relatively recently it seems very likely that the purveyors of these legends actually believed they were true, so it's not very authentic, and 2) it just seems incredibly contrived and fake.

Then you have the MO, who hold the bizarre position that all these myths are indeed myths, but yet they were written by God, because that's what people believed back then, and so God just had to go with the flow. Because of course, if God had told people that the world was millions of years old, they wouldn't have believed God. Or maybe their brains would have exploded, or something like that. Or if they had been told the world was round, they would have been afraid to stand up. For fear of falling over. So God had to write non true things in the Torah. Seriously, that's what these people hold.

But wait! There's more.

The intellifundies are fond of saying 'The Torah isn't a science book. It's only trying to teach you spiritual truths". Firstly, this is patently untrue, the first half of Breishis is full of etiological stories. And secondly, even if it was true, that's still not a good reason for the Torah to contain untrue stories. The again, you can't question God.

But it gets worse. Because if you follow this logically, you end up with Chazal believing the stories literally, though now we know they were myths, so it turns out that Chazal didn't even know Torah. But that's not a problem say the intellifundies, Chazal did know Torah, because Torah (back then) was mean to be understood literally, so therefore it turns out Chazal DID know peshat in Torah as they were supposed to! Amazing! It's only later that the peshat changed.

But when did the true peshat in Torah change? I guess about the same time it became obvious that none of it was true. At which point some Gedolim (e.g. Rav Kook) turned out to be real Gedolim, but the rest of them turned out to be idiots. Or maybe not idiots, but rather super smart Talmedei Chachomim, just that they don't know basic peshat in Torah.

But that's not a problem either see, because it's perfectly OK that all the world's Gedolim don't know peshat in Torah (and are also not so nice people). I mean it's a shame, but that's all.

And it's OK that Chazal knew nothing much about Science, or History, and it's OK that most of the stories in the Torah are not in fact true, (though let's not talk about Shemos or even Noach too much), and all this is not a problem. Not even when discussing life and death questions like brain death, because of course we all know that Chazal represent the will of God. Because errm, well just because. Or maybe because if they didn't, then OJ is total BS. And OJ can't be total BS because of the amazing history of the Jewish people. Or maybe OJ could be total BS, but we likes it anyway. Or maybe Chazal don't represent the will of God, we just pretend they do because that's what Orthodoxy is? Could be.

And anyway, we're helping otherwise religious people accept science and to some extent modern morality, so that must be a good thing, right? After all, we wouldn't want people to wake up to the fact that maybe their religion isn't true. That would be baaaaaaaad. I mean, just look at the Reform Jews! Actually, statistically speaking, religious fundies do indeed live happier lives. So in reality we're helping people have happier lives! Unless it makes them happy to believe in the Gedolim, in which case we're against that, because they don't hold of science.

So the bottom line is this (I think, H for Heteredox can you confirm). Of course it's all BS, but it's important to (pretend to) uphold the myth, because MO is (a) a good society and (b) much better than Chareidim or Reform. But we can't tell people we know it's a myth (except in secret), because then it all falls apart. Plus it's bad for our reputation.

Gosh. This search for truth is mamash exhausting. I think I need to go lie down.

MO, intellectual dishonesty and the Good Wife

2011-01-23T07:48:00.003-05:00

A question that has occupied me for a while is 'Who is more intellectually dishonest, the MO (more so the RWMO than the LWMO) or the Chareidim'?

Recent debates about brain death have provided more fodder for thought. I saw that one MO apologist recently accuse the Chareidim of intellectual dishonesty because the Chareidim have no methodology for deciding when Chazal were being literal or allegorical, rather they have a pre-defined outcome (i.e. Chazal are always right) and then they try and develop a theory which leads to that outcome.

But is this so dishonest? I think the Chareidim would say that of course Chazal are always right, that's the core of their belief, and then their job is to try and figure out how that could be. To me, this is the same process one sees with defense lawyers all the time on TV (and I assume in real life). Take the Good Wife for example (an excellent show).Each week it's the same deal - as defense lawyers the starting assumption is that the client is innocent, and their job is to then try and develop a theory that represents that. Sometimes they're right, and sometimes not, but that's their job.

And of course the MO apologists do this too - they have a pre-defined outcome that Torah and Science must both be true, and then they construct their apologetics (which they like to call epistemology because it sounds better) to lead to that outcome. I don't see much difference.

In fact, in this case, I think the Chareidi apologists are actually less dishonest than their MO counterparts. The Chareidim will admit that they believe in Chazal 100% and that's what they hold. However the MO apologists pretend to be on a search for non biased truth, while in fact they are driven by their own pre-conceived outcomes as much as the Chareidim are. Sure, the MO can be more flexible on certain points like Chazal and Science, but ultimately they are constrained by dogma and Orthodox social convention too.

And even worse, I think there is another area where the Chareidim are actually more honest. Chareidi apologists might write nonsense, but they truly believe in their nonsense! However (at least in my experience), the MO apologists don't actually believe in half of what they write, and when cornered or in private they will admit this. Of course I can't name any names because that will get me into trouble, but I have numerous examples across the board of this.

Does it irk me that all these people are intellectually dishonest? Yes.

Rabbinic Leadership and Sheeple

2011-01-19T21:40:00.004-05:00

Reflecting on my previous post, I got to thinking that attitudes towards Rabbis (and leadership in general) might not just be a distinguishing feature of different sects of Judaism, rather it may be the most important factor of all.

Skeptics like to point out the evils of religion, and when challenged regarding the evils of Nazism or Communism they respond that those were types of religion too, with their own set of unexamined and non rational beliefs. That may be, but even more important is the fact that both Nazism and Communism were each based on the charismatic leadership of one man, Hitler and Stalin respectively.

Likewise, most religions are based (at least initially) on the charismatic leadership of one man, Moses, Jesus, the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Maybe the key here is to immunize people against blindly following leaders. Maybe that's even more important than trying to get people to think rationally.

But what is it that makes some people blind unthinking adherents of charismatic but crazy leaders? Why did Germans follow Hitler, Russians follow Stalin, or Chabadskers follow the Rebbe? Were these leaders in possession of some charismatic super power that noone can withstand? Maybe you could argue that these leaders were nothing special, they just happened to be at the right time and place, and the masses projected their own visions on to them. Either way, the problem is the sheeple.

So the question becomes, what turns people into sheeple? Why are some individuals or communities susceptible and some immune? Personally I am rather iconoclastic and anti-authority (I think it's a trait that runs in my family), and I could never imagine myself being a sheeple. But maybe I just have never met a truly inspiring / charismatic leader. On the other hand, a good inspiring leader can inspire a world of good. So maybe the problem isn't really irrational thought, overly charismatic leaders or even sheeple. Maybe the problem is just people doing bad things.

The Real Difference between Chareidim & MO

2011-01-18T20:15:00.000-05:00

Where does the soul reside? A rationalist analysis

2011-01-17T21:26:00.003-05:00

In the recent debates about whether brain death should be counted as death in terms of organ donation, an interesting side debate occurred regarding the soul. The question is, where does the soul reside? Someone proposed that it cannot reside in the arm, because if someone loses their arm, they haven't lost their soul. Likewise for all other organs of their body, except the brain, ergo the soul must reside in the brain. However, I think this logic is not very rational at all. Firstly, the soul lives on the spiritual, non physical plain. Therefore, the soul's connection to the physical plain is clearly not at the physical level, this would be an irrational contradiction in terms. Secondly, it could be that the soul does generally reside in the arm, but if the arm gets cut off, then the soul takes up residence in another part of the anatomy. I guess the brain is a last resort, but only because the person is still living while they have a brain, not because the soul likes to reside there. Certainly, souls don't like to reside in dead bodies, for obvious reasons. Now, souls are immortal, as otherwise there wouldn't be much point to them. Once a soul leaves a body, it becomes disembodied (by definition) and goes up to heaven. It might then come back to earth again to inhabit a different body. This seems quite rational (assuming souls exist in the first place). A multi body soul would be quite an interesting person, I mean soul. But most of this is besides the point. I think that Chareidim, and indeed all Orthodox Jewish fundamentalists, are forced to hold that the brain-dead are not truly dead, as otherwise, we could never make a minyan. Badaboom.

But seriously, I do have a point. Most of the arguments in this debate are erroneous. "Death" in halachah is a halachic state. As someone on a blog noted, we could call it "meis" instead. So who is a meis? Whomever Chazal / Gedolim / Your Local Rabbi says is a meis.

Considering that nobody 2,000 years ago had any clue of modern science, (nor would such knowledge make much difference back then given the absence of modern medical technology), any halachah from 2,000 years ago is bound not to jive with modern medical ethics.

Likewise ancient values from 2,000 years ago (e.g. attitudes towards women, blood, homosexuality etc) are not going to jive with modern values, at least not without a lot of kvetching. I suppose you could say it all comes from God, and God designed the system very wisely, to apply for all times, but then that wouldn't be very rational, would it? There's also no rational reason to suppose that the halachic "process", as defined 2,000-1,000 years ago, is a good "process" that will always get at the "truth" (or rather a verdict consonant with modern technology and/or ethics).

If the value of halachah is greater than the sum of its parts (e.g. meaning, membership in an exclusive club, relief from guilt etc), and/or the reason to hold of halachah is that it came from God, then what is the motivation to be so rational about it? What is the motivation to assume that Chazal must have been wrong about death? Maybe Chazal were right about death halachah (without a good rational reason to think so), just like they were "right" to believe that God wrote the Torah, even though from a truly rational perspective that's a bunch of bs.

It appears that the real motivation here is to ensure that halachah conforms to modern notions of ethics, morals and of course science. From a truly rational perspective, this is very admirable. However from a religious fundamentalist perspective, it strikes at the heart (err I mean brain?) of the entire religious enterprise. Life and death are fundamental religious concepts, if their definition is left to the scientists, then who needs Rabbis? (Speaking metaphorically).

XGH, please help me, please!!!

2011-01-12T16:56:00.002-05:00

[A few people have written to me over the past few months (actually years) with very similar emails. The emails were written in confidence, so rather than post them, I compiled this based on an amalgamation of these emails, plus some of my own experiences. The facts in the email below might not match any one specific person, but the experiences being described are spot on. I also added explanatory comments in case non Orthodox people read this. I didn't respond to any of these emails (except in a crappy post about being happy and not worrying) and now I feel bad. What can I say to these people?]

Dear XGH,

I write to you in desperation. A few years ago I was a happy Orthodox Jew. Being Orthodox Jewish means believing in certain key things about God and the Bible, and also keeping ‘halachah’ – a strict set of rules governing pretty much everything in life – what you can eat (only kosher food), when you can sleep with your wife (only 2 weeks a month), not using electricity on Saturday, and a gazillion other rules. It may sound crazy but Orthodox Jews hardly mind keeping all these rules because they believe that they are a special people chosen by God and by keeping all these rules they will get a special place in heaven, and if they don’t keep these rules God will punish them somehow. It sounds crazy to me now when I spell this all out, but for many years I not only believed all this, I took it completely for granted, and I thought that Jews who didn’t believe all this were very ignorant and misinformed. More recently however, I started thinking about religion, and started investigating the various claims about God and the Bible. Without going into details I began to realize that my religion (in fact all religions) were almost definitely completely man made, and that there was virtually no possibility that any of it was true. This realization hit me like a ton of bricks. The rug was pulled out from under me. All of a sudden my entire lifestyle was a lie, based on nonsense. This was worse than anything I could have imagined. Relationships break up, people lose their jobs, but this seemed to be on an entirely different level. My entire identity was wrong. This seemed like a science fiction movie where the character suddenly realizes he is living in a matrix, or maybe that Jim Cary movie where he realizes his entire life is actually a fake TV set. But it was even worse than that. Some friends of mine went through a similar process, and were reasonably happy to just move on. Some of them even delighted in their new found freedom to eat non-kosher food (McDonalds!) or drive a car on Saturday. However I just can’t move on. I liked being Orthodox, I really did. Now when I go to Temple to pray it feels like a lie. I want it to be true but it isn’t. It might just possibly be true I guess, but the likelihood of that seems so remote that I just can’t get myself to believe it. I am stuck in this no mans land between atheism and Orthodoxy. I suppose you could call it agnosticism but it’s much more painful than that. It’s an endless cycle of wanting it to be true, but knowing it isn’t true, but wanting it to be true, and so on and so on. And I’m surrounded by people on both extremes – family and friends who are true believers, who not only think the religion is true but also think you would have to be crazy to not believe, and friends and colleagues who not only think it isn’t true, but who also think that you would have to be crazy to believe. I figured that maybe the transition from believer to non-believer would be painful, maybe it would take a few months or so, but this is ridiculous. It’s been a few years now and it’s as painful as ever. I can’t go forward I can’t go back. Every trip to the Temple is painful. Every time I look at my bookshelf filled with Jewish books that I used to love I feel a pain in my heart – I want to continue to love and learn these books, but I can’t shake the feeling / thought that they are all nonsense. Worse than nonsense even. Losing my faith seems worse than losing a loved one. With the loss of a loved one, you bury them, you sit shiva (7 day Jewish mourning ritual), then you move on. But I can’t sit shiva for my lost religion. Every day it’s there, reminding me of my loss. It’s as if my dead loved one was lying in my living room, dead and decaying, but still here to remind me of my loss. Some friends of mine are very religious without believing in the various dogmatic beliefs; they say I should try that. But no matter how hard I try, I just can’t work up the enthusiasm. The loud voice in the back of my head keeps reminding me that this is all nonsense and a waste of time. Other friends are convinced that they have answers to all my questions – but every time I investigate their claims I find it is all nonsense, they are blinded by their biases. But yet I don’t want to walk away. Complicating things is the fact that I am now in a relationship with a religious woman. She believes, yet she is willing to marry me even though I have ‘doubts’. But what if I decide one day that I am genuinely an atheist? Is this fair? She claims she doesn’t mind and that things will work out, but I know from some married friends that marriage is hard enough without issues of religion. I am driving myself crazy with all this. Some friends say I should just stop thinking about this, and focus on other things. But how can I ignore such a fundamental part of my identity? And anyway, I can’t avoid my religion, it’s too intertwined with my family, my friends, my commuity, my entire lifestyle. And I really don’t want to just walk away, but neither do I want to live a lie. What can I do? What should I do? Am I doomed to spend the rest of my life like this? Please help me!

Sincerely,
[xxxx]

Forget about Science, did Chazal even know Torah?

2011-01-10T08:21:00.004-05:00

It is well accepted within Modern Orthodoxy that Chazal did not know modern science, but rather relied on the (wrong) science of their day. Likewise, Chazal's values and beliefs were inevitably influenced by their surrounding culture, hence they believed in magic, demons, and whatever else. Of course it's also provable that Chazal did not know ANE history. All this is no chiddush (nore Kefirah), at least in MO.

But the real question is, did Chazal even know Torah?

According to the MO, Breishis is metaphorical - 'It's teaching you spiritual truths, it's not a science book' etc etc. However it is abundantly clear that Chazal took much of Breishis literally. So it turns out, according to the MO, Chazal didn't know basic peshat in Torah.

Of course according to Biblical scholars, and people who actually study evidence and try to be objective, it's clear that the Bible's authors meant Breishis about as literally as Chazal took it, at least in most parts. I suppose it's possible that certain Breishis stories e.g. Gan Eden, were initially meant as myth, but over time that aspect of it was lost, however the basic creation story of 6 days, firmament, waters etc was the generally accepted cosmology of ancient Mesopotamia, and there's no reason to assume it was originally written as myth. So it turns out, according to the skeptics, that Chazal did know Torah. Funny how things turn out.

Anyways, according to MO, Chazal didn't know science, didn't know history, didn't even know basic peshat in Breishis! So why do we accord them special privilege? Why do we go to great length to sacrifice, to even make life or death decisions based on people whose knowledge of anything wasn't very good? How rational is that?

I think the answer is that le'maaseh, we are not really doing that. Sure we keep up an appearance of following the mesorah, but that's a religious language game. In reality, we are using our sechel, the best modern science has to offer, and a cholent of values from 3000 BCE, 2000 BCE, 1000 CE, what we learned in day school and what the guy on TV said last night to try and figure it all out. And what's wrong with that?

New York Times You Validate Me

2011-01-10T08:20:00.001-05:00

From here:

"He was like many Modern Orthodox people who consider themselves to be very grounded and rational (aside from the whole Creationism thing, the Moses-Parting-the-Red-Sea thing, and the God-Giving-the-Ten-Commandments-on-a-Mountain thing). They don’t believe in anything bordering on the alternative, like kabbalah, especially rabbis with supernatural powers."

Hat Tip: MO

Rabbi Avi Shafran turns into a militant skeptic

2011-01-09T23:53:00.002-05:00

I never thought I'd see the day, but Avi Shafran has finally turned into a skeptic. Here is a direct quote from his latest post:

"But all of that is, in the end, beside the point – at least the point I tried to make: that we sometimes adopt, and then become invested in positions even in the absence of all the facts. Whatever one’s judgment, let it be based on cold, hard and complete evidence, not only arguable interpretations, assumptions and imaginings."

Amazing!

Rabbi Shlomo Miller: Machmir on Sheitels, Meikil on Arayos

2011-01-06T21:40:00.001-05:00

So I don't like to be muckraker, but someone sent me some very interesting stuff. Basically the story is this. A certain Rabbi in a big shul in North America was suspected of having an affair with a married woman. Private investigative services were hired and the affair appeared to be true. I have the investigative report, looks legit. Many in the community wanted the Rabbi to resign, but bizarrely Rabbi Miller paskened that he should stay. Shortly after (or before), a Lakewood style kollel moved into the shul, despite the shul being more Modern.

Without getting into the details of this case, there is a somewhat common theme that I detect here. Remember the Godol who didn't think child abuse was so bad, as long as there wasn't actual penetration? I also recall similar stories. Basically, the morality of these Gedolim appears warped, at least by modern 20th century standards.

Now of course one can argue that all morality is subjective, so who are we to say that their morality is warped while ours is OK, maybe its our morality that is warped? However I think we can fairly objectively show that child abuse is very very bad, even if according to strict halachah it's not technically aroyos, while a woman going bareheaded doesn't actually harm anyone. Of course their counter will be that 'hurting people' isn't the deciding factor, rather halachah is, and who are we to question God?

Anyways, this is all somewhat academic I think, because modern moral values (at least those which are 'lechumrah') tend to be pervasive over time, and when an entire society decides that racism is wrong (or homophobia), the frum community will eventually be shamed into following along.

Which other modern values will eventually creep into the Chareidi world? I imagine things like transparency will have to.

Bashing Broyde

2011-01-05T08:08:00.003-05:00

So I see that Rabbi Broyde is getting bashed by some crazy people, including Rabbi Miller, the mean godol from Toronto. Here is what I have to say on the topic:

1. Congratulations! Getting banned (or bashed) by Gedolim is good for business. Just ask you know who.

2. The comments on Yudel Shain's blog are a bit OTT. Sounds like it's all just some dumb yeshivah kid. I mean feministe modernishe pro-fresser SOBs??? Even Rabbi Miller doesn't speak like that!

3. Who cares? Chareidim are nuts, we all know that.

4. Serves him right, he's a proponent of the whole fundie nonsense, well this is fundie-ism for you! If learning Torah is so great, why are some of our greatest Torah learners such shmucks? (Yes, I know the answer, novol birshus hatorah etc etc).

Who really really really wrote the Bible? Scribes of course! Duh.

2011-01-05T07:58:00.002-05:00

I just finished reading Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (which in itself proves something - I never finish books - this must be a good one) and it was a pretty interesting read. It's an entirely new angle on the topic - in fact I don't think the book even mentions J,E,P,D, or R even once. It doesn't try and dissect the Biblical text, or even talk about political or religious motives of different groups of authors. Rather, it is a straight up study of how religious texts were written, edited and compiled in the ANE.

The key to understanding who wrote the Bible is to understand scribal culture and practices. This book answers all those questions you always get when discussing the DH - you know - 'But why would R do that?', or 'Why is the editing so sloppy?' etc. If you don't know how texts were written back then, then you don't know nothing.

The book also contains a few surprises (at least to me). For example, I didn't know about the pasuk in Yirmiyahu which is taken to mean that Yirmiya did not agree with Sefer Devarim, and thought it was a fraud (the proof of this seemed a little lame though). All in all, a good read , and pretty convincing.

PS. Of course all those scribes were Divinely Inspired. They just had to be. That goes without saying. But I said it nonetheless.

The Gedolim and Harry Maryles

2010-12-28T00:29:00.001-05:00

Is it just me, or is anyone else tired of this stupidity? The whole 'how awful the Gedolim/askanim/system are' thing, and then the inevitable backlash and backlash backlash. I did like Dov Bears post on the topic, but really, is fighting a bunch of old guys and their supporters who maybe (or maybe not) sign the occasional ridiculous pashkevil really such a noble cause? I don't think so. It's like picking on the retarded kid. I think it just gives the Modoxers something to crow about.

Reconstructionist Kiruv

2010-12-23T00:26:00.001-05:00

I've long been amused and annoyed in equal measures by the way Kiruv organizations peddle their wares. It's all about "building bridges" in the community, teaching people about their heritage and culture and studying "authentic" texts (well the Bible is authentic isn't it?). And of course they'll never ever ever mention the word "orthodox". Just check out Jewish Unity Live or any of their affiliates. You would think these guys have Mordechai Kaplan as their copy writer.

But maybe this is all quite useful to the Orthoprax. We can use the same kind of language to describe our religious affiliation and belief, and instead of sounding like kofrim, we'll sound just like Kiruv professionals.

In fact I think I'll spend some time studying Kiruv websites. It could be a great source of inspiration for my OP theology.

Living Mythologically

2010-12-19T20:41:00.002-05:00

To be truly comfortable as an OPer, I think you really have to be comfortable with mythology. I know some people who are totally like that, but they tend to be touchy feely types. Ex Chareidim or rationalist MO types have a much harder time of it. It's strange though, because as a RWMOer, I never had a problem saying Kiddush ( for example), and saying God created the world in 6 days and rested on the seventh, even though I knew that wasn't literally true. But saying Elokay avrohom while knowing that Breishis is legend is somehow harder. I guess it's whatever you are used to. Chareidim meanwhile freak out at the thought of an ancient earth, they can't imagine being able to say Kiddush without it being literally true. So what's the secret? How does one get comfortable with myth? It's not easy.

New blog!

2010-07-11T07:56:00.001-04:00

So I see someone has entered the blogging world with yet another blog about hashkafah. What a dork! Anyways, I wish him better luck than I had. Byeeeee!

Young Israel Troubles - Updated!

2010-07-06T20:16:00.004-04:00

I have been following the latest mini scandal at the NCYI, this time they are threatening a shul in upstate NY since the Shul has a Female President. Here is what the Jewish Week had to say:

At the end of what was described as a contentious call — during which National Council leaders repeatedly refused to discuss plans to expel a member congregation in Syracuse — one synagogue representative made a motion of no-confidence in the National Council’s leadership. With that, the national leaders hung up, leaving synagogue representatives puzzled and upset, according to those on the call.

One of those on the call, Hillel Levin, a board member of the Young Israel of Toco Hills in Atlanta, said he was “disappointed by the National Council’s handling of the Syracuse matter and its handling of the meeting of the delegates. Of the delegates who spoke at the meeting, I can think of only one who spoke vaguely in favor of National Council’s handling of the whole thing.”

The problem here is that while NCYI (i.e. Pesach Lerner and friends) have steadily moved to the right over the past few years, quite a few of their member shuls haven't, or have even moved to the left (Atlanta is a good example).

I am hoping that this time the various non Chareidi members of NCYI will force the issue, and even oust Lerner and friends and get some new and better leadership.

The other alternative is for those shuls to all leave the NCYI. I'm not sure which is the better option - but it's the same old question we always debate here - is it better to stay and fight from the inside, or just leave?

Update: Seems they decided to stay and fight: http://youngisraelfuture.com/

My new blog

2010-07-05T08:10:00.002-04:00

So I think that I will start a new blog. I know I've said this before, and last time people dissuaded me, but this time it's for real.

My new blog will be non anonymous, and therefore non offensive. I'm thinking something along the lines of Harry Maryles' blog, but with more emes and less emunah (lol).

I'm also thinking that we need some new branding.

"Orthoprax" has negative connotations, plus I don't think it really captures the emes anyway.

Did Jews at zman mattan torah believe in TMS? No! Because the TMS story hadn't evolved yet, and wouldn't for a few hundred years.

Did Chazal believe everything we believe today? No!

Did the RAMBAM himself even believe in the 13 ikkarim? No! (Techiyas Hamaysim makes no sense according to his own theology).

So, new blog, new brand. By next week. Hopefully.

This blog is dead. Or maybe it's just resting?

2010-07-04T07:14:00.003-04:00

It's dead. Or at least in a bit of a coma.

Why? I think 2 reasons:

1. I'm way too busy to post anything or comment.

2. I'm losing interest in Orthopraxy.

Reason for number 1 is that my family is expanding (as is my waistline) and the old days of me retiring to my PC to post is no longer viable. Plus I'm working crazy hours too.

Reason for number 2 is more complex. One, my kids are getting older, and having an anonymous blog is getting creepier. As long time readers know, I have never really been comfortable with anonymity, it's not really my thing. Two, my search for an OP hashkafah has basically ended. There's plenty of good material out there, with pretty much every conceivable theory having been published already. At the end of the day it all seems to be about emotion, the philosophizing and theologizing is post-facto to justify it. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but emotions are more subjective and personal, I'm not sure it makes sense to have an online debate about whether chocolate ice cream tastes better than strawberry. And finally (and perhaps most importantly), I've lost my passion for the subject. Life is short, there's more important things to achieve than trying to justify a compromise lifestyle based on compromise philosophy / theology.

My views on religion can be summed up as whatever floats your boat. Or more realistically, whatever you need to do to keep your boat afloat. As long as you are not harming any other boats in the area that is. Or if you are, as long as they deserve to be harmed. Hmm, I think my boat philosophy needs more work. Up next: whateverfloatsyourboatoprax.blogspot.com, an in-depth exploration of the whatever floats your boat hashkafah.

Finally! We have a Rabbi!!!!

2010-06-29T18:55:00.001-04:00

http://theorthopraxrabbi.wordpress.com/

Rescuing Hassidism from the Hassidim: ej on arthur green on Hassidim

2010-06-29T03:23:00.003-04:00

There is an interesting article by Rabbi Arthur Green on how Hassidim went wrong in last week's Forward. Both DovBear and Harry Maryles picked up on it, with predictable results. ej writes the following:

Rabbi Green says today ”most chasidim are imitation chasidim, and “we” need to rescue the Baal Shem Tov from his current followers.” That remark is needlessly provocative and insulting. I believe the current chasidim are the closest successors to the Besht and the first two generations that followed than any other group in the Jewish world. If the Baal Shem returned, is it even conceivable that he would opt for Green’s utopian vision over the actual chasidim we have today. I urge those readers who are in doubt to read Rabbi Green’s latest book Radical Theology, and then judge.

Arthur Green would like to create a new type of American chasidus, without the xenophobia of traditional chasidim. Kol hakavod. But until he can show that his reading of chasidus has some staying power, and can amount to more than studies, lectures and retreats, it’s really not cricket to rain on everyone’s parade. Today, any one of the groups he dissed, Satmar, Bobov, Lubavitch, Belz and Ger are more substantive in so many different ways than the entire Jewish Renewal movement. There is no reason for a sophisticated Jewish Renewal theologian to copy those who would define themselves by what they are not.

I would add Rabbi Green has to prove that his neo-chasidus could grow into something substantive without the outfits, the birthrate, a rebbe however second rate at the helm, and some commitment to Orthodoxy. I would say all these conditions are necessary, and the burden is on Rabbi Green to show otherwise.

I find this attitude strange. Of course the Jewish renewal movement is small, and the amount of people in it who are truly invested in any real form of Hassidut (whatever that even means) is even smaller. Maybe it's just Green, Zalman Shechter Shalomi and a a few nuts out in Colorado. But the Besht started out small too. Much of today's Hassidim is xenophobic in the extreme, and has strayed far from its original roots as a religion of joy for the common man (though Chabad, and maybe Breslov in Israel are the exceptions), so it would make sense for someone to try and rescue it. Kol Hakovod to Rabbi Green for trying.

Now, whose going to rescue Torah and Mitzvot from the Fundies?

Morris The Monkey!

2010-06-28T18:37:00.002-04:00

This is funny.

One of my favorite British TV Shows

Today's news!

The hypocricy of Cross-Currents on Emanuel

2010-06-21T08:01:00.004-04:00

Unlike Yaakov Menken, I don't have "sources in Emanuel". I don't know if the (allegedly)offending parents are racist or intolerant, or maybe both, or perhaps neither. But I do know hypocricy when I see it, and I'm seeing it in spades in Cross-Currents.

Yes, of course no American Court would ever sentence parents to jail because they don't like their public school. DUH. But that's because here in America we have a thing called RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, human rights, and seperation of church and state.

They don't have that in Israel.

If someone in Israel wants to get legally married in a secular ceremony they simply can't. NOT ALLOWED. Likewise for other aspects where religion creeps into law.

So Yaakov Menken and Yitzchok Adlerstein, if you want the Israeli court system to act like the US court system, then stop requiring that religious law be the law of the land. Advocate for separation of church and state. Allow Reform and Conservative full rights in Israel. Then you might stop being such hypocrits.

And of course, it goes without saying that an Israel under Chareidi rule would certainly not respect anyone's rights, except for the Chareidim. Ashkenazi Chareidim no doubt.

Rav Kook / RADVAZ - It's ossur to criticize a kofer!

2010-06-14T22:16:00.003-04:00

An amazing find - page 55 in Maamarei Hariyah (hilchos Tzibur):

(sorry, can't type the original in Hebrew)

Kol shetoeh be'eyuno, ayn olov onesh, vecholiloh levazoso, afilu im hatous he beinyan shel ikar

Anyone who makes a mistake in his 'investigations' (i.e. into hashkafah), has no sin, and it's forbidden to humiliate him, even if the mistake is in one of the fundamentals of faith.

He also explains that if someone is genuinely searching for truth, even if he makes a mistake in a fundamental of faith, he gets no punishment, because he is genuinely searching for truth, and so is like an 'onus' (i.e. forced). However, can a chareidi or RWMO person be counted as someone genuinely searching for truth? I don't think so. Such people therefore would not qualify for the RADVAZ's hetter.

Myth, myth! Yeth?

2010-06-07T19:48:00.003-04:00

Once you accept that the Torah is mostly mythology, the next question is, now what? And to some degree, I think the answer hinges partially on how the ancients themselves approached myth. I'm no expert on myth, but I have heard the following three approaches:

1. Of course the ancients believed their mythologies. Duh!

2. Of course the ancients didn't believe their mythologies. Duh!

3. The ancients did not distinguish between myth and reality like we do. They had a whole different conception. Therefore the question is invalid.

Nobody ever seems to bring any real proofs for the above approaches. And I think that proof may be impossible, how could you prove one way or another? And of course it could vary from culture to culture or myth to myth.

There's an interesting book that I read a while back, When They Severed Earth From Sky, about ancient myth. The argument there was that myths were memorable ways in which ancients encoded important information. For example, rather than tell their kids that a certain mountain was prone to volcanic eruptions, they invented a myth about a devil with long red hair (lava flows) that inhabited the mountain. IS that true? I don't know.

I started reading Michael Fishbane's book, Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking, but it wasn't what I thought it would be. Rather than an extended exposition of how and why Chazal made up myths, instead it focuses on particular myths, e.g. Rahab the sea monster. A good book, but it didn't answer the question.

And what is the question exactly? I think the key question is - Did Chazal themselves believe their own myths? Did they actually believe that Moshe sat in on Rabbi Akiva's shiur? Did they really believe in literal TMS? I wish I knew the answer to this question.

A Non Fundamentalist Conception of TMS

2010-06-06T07:58:00.003-04:00

H for Heterodox makes the following argument to me :

"Why do you think that being a quiet OPer in MO land is "fake"? Surely, your approach, to try and "create" some kind of OP theology, is even more fake, as you are creating a theology to fit your lifestyle, not adjusting your lifestyle to fit your theology. Just be confortable with your lifestyle, and more importantly your IDENTITY, which is as an OPer in LWMO land, and in truth is no different than 50% of the other people in shul. Why can't you just be comfortable with that?"

I don't have a fully coherent or cohesive answer, (as H probably noticed as I spluttered my response!). I suspect that much of this simply comes down to personality types, some people are more comfortable with fuzziness or fakery, some people less so. Right brain vs. Left Brain. INTP vs. EFPJ, Engineer v.s. (Bullshit) Artist.

However, there's also an important point here. I do believe that religious language and mythology has value, whether the myth is true or not. In fact that aspect of religion is "true". Also, I need something to tell my kids rather than just - yeah it's all a bunch of bs, sorry we sent you to fundi schools. Finally, and most importantly, I feel that Torah is valuable, even if rationally the DH is true.

I think that maybe a Conservative type Theology will do the trick.

Like this one:

http://bitterchocolate.faithweb.com/Torah%20Min%20HaShamayim5769.pdf

Is MO Stupid?

2010-06-06T07:31:00.003-04:00

In a recent comment thread I made the assertion that I don't think Chareidim are stupid, because they live in a fantasy world, and how could they know any better. However the MO, who are supposedly living in the modern world, should know better. Two responses below:

From jer:

Why "stupid"? Can't we just say "wrong" and leave it there? Were you stupid when you believed in TMS? Did your IQ suddenly jump after you stopped believing? Clearly we are talking about intelligent people who have been indoctrinated a certain way, have a huge investment to lose if they stop believing, may lose family and friends, will lose certainty in the goodness and meaningfulness of the universe, and will have to admit that there's at least a chance that the nihilistic view is correct. (Having ticked all those off, I'm kind of wishing I could believe again.)

Yeah, their methods are galling and some of them are downright obnoxious. But still, some sympathy is in order.

Gil and the Rationalist Rabbi are trying to preserve what's best in the tradition without succumbing to the insanity, corruption and incompetence we've seen throughout these past few years (Slifkin ban, child molesting cover-ups- way to go, Agudah, you and the Catholic Church killed another bill this week, theft, Lipa ban, ad nauseam). Go ahead and show how they're wrong or evasive, but ultimately, as an Orthopraxer, you need to recognize them as allies.

So jer makes two points:

1. They're not stupid, just brainwashed and biased.

2. They are our allies against the chareidim, so let's be nice to them.

I agree with point 1 though there comes a certain point when brainwashed and biased becomes pretty stupid. I didn't have a skeptical bone in my body until January 2005, age 37. Even though I lived in the modern world and prided myself on being very smart. Does that make me stupid? Well, my IQ hasn't changed, but in some respects I would have to say yes. How could I have been so incredibly clueless? Plus, as soon as I was exposed to skeptical thought I came to my senses pretty quickly. The same can't be said for the MOs in similar situations. So maybe stupid is the wrong word. I'll agree to brainwashed, biased and clueless. OK?

As for the second point. I can't address the Rational Rabbi in any way whatsoever (seriously). I should never have mentioned that topic in the first place and will never do so again. As for Gil and friends, yes they are fighting against the Chareidim. And it would be tragic if the only approach to orthodoxy was Chareidi. But I feel exactly the same about the MO! We need to fight the MO in the same way the MO fight the Chareidi! We need to ensure that the fundamentalist approach (i.e. MO and CHareidi) are not the only approach to Orthodoxy (i.e. committed, practicing Judaism).

And this one from ej:

XGH...Once you agree that with charedim, who live in a pre-modern world with different rules, are not stupid , why are you so certain MO are stupid? Certainly RWMO are not different from charedim in this regard. Even LWMO to the extent they insist on TMS should be thought of as charedi in this respect. Remember they are saying God dictated all of chumash to Moshe who wrote/engraved it on a stone tablet, word for word with no distortion, and that our Masoretic text is identical with the text Moses transcribed from God's words speaking in Hebrew. Furthermore God also told Moses the entire Oral Torah. In turn this Torah sheah baalpeh was transmitted accurately for around a thousand years until it was written down. This view is not one that seems plausible using modern methods of histiography; possible certainly, plausible no. With respect to TMS, MO are willing to jettison secular rationality, in order to hold onto pre-modern beliefs.

Your arguments work with people who totally accept the scientific method as the way of telling us how reality looks. But for those people, most EVERYTHING about Orthodoxy is not real. How is Shabbos possible, time is uniform? How do we know there are real properties like kodesh-chol, kasher-treif, tahor- tawmeh etc that obey the laws of chazal? Once you adopt a positivist account of reality all of Torah becomes arbitrary rules/conventions that define non empirical properties which we cannot perceive directly. Most Reform Jews do not believe that these properties are real empirical properties like color, size and shape. The fact that most everyone who is Orthodox thinks of treif as a real property of an object is already an indication that there world view is not modern.

ej makes two points

1. When it comes to beliefs, MO ARE Chareidi

2. A strange (interesting?) point about the reality of Shabbat.

As regards point 1, I agree, I have been arguing that for years. However see my response above to jer. As regards point 2, I'm not sure you have to really believe that Shabbat is "real". I FEEL the reality of Shabbat, even though I'm a skeptic. Likewise Kashrut etc. I don't think that MOs think that "treif" is a real property of an object, certainly not in any physical sense. And maybe not even in any spiritual sense, unless they are particularly mystically inclined. But that's an interesting topic for debate, some other time.

I think the major debate here is the same debate I have with H for Heterdox. Should we be quiet little lambs, and not make any waves, because we need the MO. (And we need them in two respects, 1) to have shuls and communities we can belong to, and 2) to fight the chareidim).

Or should we fight for what we believe in (or rather fight for what we don't believe in, lol).

I can hear both ways. To be completely honest, I haven't fully made up my mind yet, which is why the "fight" is mostly confined to the blog world, with only some very minor spill-over into real life.

But once I make my mind up, watch out MO! (Or maybe I'll shut down my blog. Could go either way).

Hilchos Epistemology: Perek Bays

2010-06-04T00:02:00.002-04:00

Rentsy (who the heck is rentsy?) writes:

We all proceed under assumptions that cannot be properly scientifically tested. You assume other people exist. I assume God exists. Neither of us is bothered by the fact that absolute truthiness of either of those propositions can ever really be known. We simply proceed with our lives, you and me both.

Funny. So why do you assume that God exists? Do you assume that Thor and Odin exist? I don't think so. So why God? Because OF COURSE you have REASONS to "assume" that God exists, and you don't have reasons to assume that Thor and Odin exist. So this isn't about pure assumptions, it's about reason and evidence, just like I said.

Also, I think the ani maamin's according to you would be quite amusing:

"I assume with a complete assumption that God exists".

Somehow I don't think that's what the Rambam was after.

So you might say, what's the difference between an assumption and a belief? They're the same thing. I don't want to get into a semantic argument here but I think in general a belief is something you truly believe as 100% true, whereas an assumption is something that you are recognizing is just an assumption, and may not actually be true. I doubt rentsy just assumes God exists, he (she?) presumably actually believes it.

But anyways, this is all beside the point. Nobody knows anything about ultimate reality, and it's a false dichotomy to claim that ultimate reality is either God or Science; there's an infinite number of possibilities, and furthermore there's an infinite number of those which we can't even comprehend.

So, since we have no idea about ultimate reality and probably never will, and considering the way we humans are wired, I think a belief in some kind of good or meaningful ultimate reality is just as valid as believing in a meaningless ultimate reality, and only slightly less rational than withholding any opinion. Given all this, regarding the average person, I'm inclined to be maykil here.

So the halacha is like this:

It is muttar to have a belief in an ultimate good reality, as long as you don't start believing in details about that reality (unless you are clear that those details are mythological), and you also don't use such beliefs to crash planes into buildings.

However a ben rationality should be machmir.

A day in the life of a POMO Intellifundie

2010-06-02T21:45:00.002-04:00

My heart goes out to Kant (the commenter) and friends. It must be a hard life being a POMO Intellifundie. One can only imagine!

Morning

Wife: Honey, it's garbage collection day today, don't forget to take out the garbage.

POMO: Ah, but you are forgetting that no objective reality has its own ontological/ontic existence.

Wife: Just take the garbage out you freaking weirdo!

Afternoon

Boss: I think we can't win this case. All the evidence points against us. It really doesn't look like our client is telling the truth.

POMO: Oy vey, do you even recognize the logical absurdity of this statement? People have been disagreeing what "true" means for thousands of years. Every great thinker in every culture dealt with the question and they often came up with very different answers, many of which were not "corresponding to reality" which of course itself is not one answer itself since great thinkers have debated what is the nature of the "reality" which we must correspond to.

Boss: Just convince him to settle, you freaking weirdo!

Evening

Son: Dad, you promised to help me with my homework!

POMO: Your assertions constantly imply a particular epistemological stance. Plenty of people disagree regarding epistemology. Plenty of the world's greatest thinkers throughout the ages disagree.

Son: Just help me with my homework, you freaking weirdo!

The Flotilla Discussion if Hamas were POMO Intellifundies

2010-06-02T21:22:00.004-04:00

IDF: You attacked us with knives and metal bars! We have evidence! Our soliders had to defend themselves.

Hamas: Ah, but truth means different things to different people! Plenty of people disagree regarding epistemology. Plenty of the world's greatest thinkers throughout the ages disagree but you want us to believe that you have less bias than everyone else in the whole wide world. You want everyone's epistemology to consist of accepting the concensus of academic opinion on any given field (except for philosophy which you exclude and refuse to bow to academic concensus) and chalk it up to your wonderfully powerful "common sense". You want me to believe that the peace activists attacked the soldiers. But I say they didn't.

IDF: Are you crazy? We have evidence! You can see the attacks! Anybody with common sense can see the evidence!

Hamas: Your assertions constatly imply a particular epistemological stance. Whether your assertion that an epistemology is only valid when it can come to one conclusion at the expense of all others (eg. any epistemology that states it is valid to believe in TMS but is also valid for other faiths in bogus). Or you constantly assert that the same epistemological criteria must be applied for all areas of life (eg. you are a filthy hypocrite if you believe in TMS but still consider it safe fly in an airplane becasue applying the criteria by which you arived at the latter to the former is invalid). These meta-epistemological positions are not at all obvious in contemporary discourse.

IDF: Oh, okay then.

Modern Orthoprax & Heterodox: The Weekly Magazine for Baalei Sechel

New Posts on Blog Min Hashamayim

New Blog!

MO: Medieval Orthodox

Religion is a tool

Hirhurim Strikes Gold

Did Chazal ruin Biblical Judaism or improve it?

Trembling before Chareidim

Analyzing Hirhurim

I LOVE Cross-Currents, I truly do

God can write the the Torah in multiple voices, but he couldn't create the world through evolution: Are all Orthodox Rabbis fools and fakers?

There's no reason why God could not write a book in different voices.

Shafran, Blinded

Scientific Methods Show Multiple Authorship of the Bible

Is Gravity Supernatural?

Who really respects Chazal?

Weiner vs Tropper

Avi Shafran: So Much for the Mesorah

Holocaust Denial, Ancient Israel Denial and Documentary Hypothesis Denial

Why (East) Jerusalem Doesn't Matter

And the most honest answer is ...

Where will you find a new language, a way of talking that has fewer worn out, unrealistic metaphors?

Silver Spring

Why be Orthoprax?

Top 13 reasons why I am Orthoprax

National Day of Prayer and Reason

IMA Magazine: The Fundamentalists Among Us

New Yeshivah to open in Ellul, has "methods" to deal with err, you know what

Orthopraxy and Honesty

Reconciling resurrection with science

Coming Soon: Advice for Closet Orthopraxers

Threat Level 9! Orthoprax Chareidi Impostors Among Us!

Mean Toronto Gedolim Ban Blogs!

Do you believe in God?

guest post from evanstonjew

Parody Songs!

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

Am I Orthodox?

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

Rabbi Who Ordained Rabba to be Admitted into RCA

extremegh lives on!!!

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

Ooopsie

Poll on killing children

How Prayer Leads To Better Health and Longer Life

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

The First Cause

Arguments for God

Atheistic Avreichim and Kefiradick Kollelnickim

I’m in Kollel, but My Life is a Sham

Game over for skeptics

Next Steps (for ej)

When Harry Met Skeptically II

Spirituality, Religion, Fundamentalism and Modernity.

Nate from Baltimore

In Defense of the Rationalists

Ridiculously Irrational Rationalizations of Rationalist Right Wingers

Shomeret Negiah at 40

Desperately Seeking Blogs

The Head of Reform Judaism is Quite Frum

Project Conversion

How most inter-personal fights start

Could prophecy exist? Sure. Pink Unicorns Too.

Appreciating the complexity of Torah

We are the fundies who say 'cog-NI-tive dissonance'

Are there any real true believers amongst the educated MO?

Religion Is Evolving

Torah True Evolution

The Rabbi on the Airplane (and monkeys)

Modern Orthodoxy is built on cognitive dissonance

A simple solution to the brain death controversy

Bronze Age Mythology and the Search for Truth.

MO, intellectual dishonesty and the Good Wife

Rabbinic Leadership and Sheeple

The Real Difference between Chareidim & MO

Where does the soul reside? A rationalist analysis

Top Ten Answers to Distressed Orthoprax Guy

XGH, please help me, please!!!

Forget about Science, did Chazal even know Torah?

New York Times You Validate Me