I'm very conflicted as to the extent I should try to persuade people that fundamentalism is untrue. On the one hand, I believe it isn't true. On the other hand, why try and persuade people?
On another thread, angry ex BTs and Kiruv Pros are debating Kiruv. It's true that some Kiruv workers and organizations are irresponsible, unscrupulous and even dangerous. Clearly some BTs feel they were duped, or at the extreme end their lives were ruined. But I believe the majority of professional Kiruv Workers are indeed responsible. It's not in their interest to 'con' people into Orthodoxy.
When it comes to Kiruv, Caveat Emptor. We live in a market driven society, it's entirely legitimate for anyone to market anything. Just do your research before buying!
However KAN argues that religion is as life altering as medicine, and therefore should be subject to the same rules as drug advertising. When drugs are marketed, by law the advertiser MUST mention all the negative side effects and similar downsides. This is obviously not the case for example with Vehicle advertising. GM are not required to say that SAABs are totally unreliable for example.
So should religion be similar to medicine, or similar to cars? Seriously, I'm not sure.
However I am sure that the basic concept of Kiruv is legitimate. You market your goods or lifestyle, and as long as you follow fair advertising standards, it is the responsibility of the buyer to do his research. The vendor cannot be blamed for buyers remorse.
This being the case, it is entirely legitimate for any organization to offer Kiruv. This includes of course the Maskilim, or Kofrim. So if someone is genuinely convinced of his Kefirah, Kefirah Kiruv is just as moral as regular Kiruv.
Aish Hamiskilim anyone?
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Very Important Post on the Credibility of Religion
A lot of people seem to totally misunderstand the issue of credibility. I have had a three day argument with 'Trapper Joe', running about 700 (yes! Seven Hundred) comments. And now this morning I see someone way more intelligent also not getting it.
Listen up guys this is important.
Let's compare Science to Religion. Obviously we are somewhat comparing apples to oranges, because Science and Religion fulfil two very different roles in life. But I'm not trying to compare them in toto. Rather, I want to compare the methodology and reliability of the various facts that are claimed by each to be true. Also, please bear in mind that I am NOT talking about conflicts or contradictions between Science and Religion. Not at all. I am simply going to contrast and compare these two endeavors in their approach to gaining knowledge, and see what conclusions are to be drawn. Also, by religious knowledge or beliefs, I am referring to Spiritual / Theological or beliefs of a similar nature. Social / practical beliefs, for example be nice to people, are not included, since such beliefs are not specifically religious, but rather most societies, even secular ones, come to similar conclusions.
Inspiration
Interestingly, both Scientific Knowledge and Religious Knowledge can often start out the same way - as a spark of inspiration in someone's mind. How did Einstein suddenly figure out the theory of relativity? Something sparked in his brain. Similarly a Novi gets inspired. Of course we can debate where the inspiration comes from, but let's leave that aside for now.
Scientific Methodology
After the initial spark of inspiration, Science and Religion diverge quite rapidly, and quite significantly. If a Scientist presented a theory, based on nothing more than inspiration, it would get nowhere. We want to see his working. We want to see repeatable experiments. We want to make sure that other scientists in other parts of the world can produce the same results. We have peer reviewed journals. And this system works very well. Of course scientists are human, and occasionally someone publishes some wrong theories (by mistake or even deliberately), but these usually get discovered sooner or later.
Consensus
If you look at most aspects of life, you will find little consensus amongst humanity. How to live? Which political party to vote for? What's the best flavor of ice-cream? Sometimes it seems that nobody agrees on anything. Even with topics that have been debated for thousands of years, for example philosophy, there is often little agreement. Yet modern Science has only been going for about 200 years, and we have incredble global agreement on many, many parts of it. How did this happen? How come we don't have a Japanese Science, and an American Science? Isn't it incredible that the global community of Scientists pretty much agree on all the basics?
The answer of course is obvious.
Objective
Firstly, Science is about objective fact. It's not about emotional, personal things such as how to live, or what to value. This means that scientists can be objective, and not get emotionally invested. Of course scientists can still get emotionally invested in their pet theories, and this happens a lot, But over time, new scientists come on the scene, and eventually these biases can be overcome. Note: I am talking about pure Science here. When a Scientist oversteps the boundaries and starts making pronouncements about religion and God, then of course he can be very biased indeed.
Methodology
Secondly, the consensus in Science has arisen precisely because of the Methodology described above. Scientific journals and books precisely lay out the details for the theory, describe experiments which can be replicated, and the field is open to anyone to confirm that the theory is true.
Applied Science
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the entire world relies on applied science, in the realm of technology and medicine. Everyone of us literally trusts our lives to science. Science makes predictions which work in the real world. Science enables us to create drugs which really do cure people. Science enables us to create technologies which we see work with our own eyes. Nobody, not even the biggest fundamentalist, denies this.
An interesting thought experiment would be to imagine a world where Science is only pure, never applies. Even though the methodology would be as solid as it is in our world, would a Pure Science be seen as credible, without a working practical application? Tzarich Iyun.
However, in our world, the Scientific Methodology, combined with real world results have produced what most people regard as the most amazing human achievement ever.
Another thought experiment: Imagine if the world of Science was divided into warring groups of scientists. Imagine if each group had a theory which they proclaimed as true, but no side could prove their theory. Would any one side have credibility? Of course not, the matter would be up for debate. And there are certainly large parts of Science which are like this, for example String Theory. Nobody would claim that String theory has conclusively been proven true. It is speculative. I'm sure that the originators of String Theory are very passionate about it, but even they wouldn't claim it is within the realm of 'Proven Science'. And, if they did, they would probably be accused of being biased.
Now, let's compare this with religion
Religion
There are many hundreds of religions in the world. Many of them contain beliefs about God, gods or similar. Many of them have sacred texts and sacred teachings, either directly communicated by God or gods, or by prophets and Holy men. Unfortunately, a lot of these teachings or beliefs contradict each other, so they can't all be true.
Religious Methodology
There is no methodology as such in religion. Once a prophet (or set of people) claim to have a revelation about something, that becomes dogma. There is no experimentation, no peer review, no way of proving this to be true. No real world practical application. Rather each religion claims that through intuition, tradition, and authority of their particular religious figures, the knowledge is true. The problem though is that all the religions pretty much claim a similar set of reasons for why they are true, yet they mostly contradict each other. They can't all be true!
Consensus
There is almost no consensus in religion. The three major Western Faith do seem to superficially agree on God and the Bible, but when you dig a little deeper very significant divisions appear. Some Christian Sects accept the Old Testament as the literal word of God, other sects just regard it as sacred literature. Christianity itself mostly regards Jesus as the son of God, a belief which Jews find totally unacceptable. Islam believes that Moshe forged key parts of the Torah, and that Yishmael was by the Akeidah, not Yitzchak. Not only is there almost no consensus between all the various different religions, even within each religion you typically have a huge variety of sects, all of whom significantly disagree with each other as to the basic teachings.
Although religion has been ongoing for 3000 years, not only has little consensus been reached, if anything, it seems more and more religions get created with different beliefs. Mormonism and Scientology are both relatively recent. There is no global consensus, and no process for achieving consensus.
In the same way that Science is regarded as incredibly reliable, because of the consensus, reliable methodology and application in the real world; religion exhibits the exact opposite set of features: no consensus, no reliable methodology and no way to test out the beliefs in the real world.
In fact, attempts to prove religious beliefs, e.g. God or prayer, have always failed.
Separate Magistaria
Some readers will claim that this comparison is unfair. Of course Science is reliable, because Science deals with the physical world which is measurable. However religious beliefs concern the spiritual world, and the methods of science cannot be applies. It is unfair to expect that Scientific methodology could be applied to the spiritual world. However there are two responses to this, each response works independently.
Response 1
The very fact that Scientific methodology cannot be used for Spiritual questions is the issue. If spirituality cannot be seen or measured, then there's nothing we can know about it. This response assumes that Scientific methodology is the only methodology which is valid.
Response 2
However, we don't need to take such a hard line to refute this allegation. We can certainly accept that Science isn't all there is, and that human intuition, tradition, or any other method could potentially work to create reliable knowledge. The problem of course is that the religious methodology is entirely unreliable. Using religious methodology, we have hundreds of religions all claiming to be true, yet all contradicting each other. Sure, one might be true, but how could you possibly tell?!
Each religion has its devotees, who passionately confirm their own religion as the one true religion. But since religion is a way of life, it is impossible for these devotees to escape the charge of bias. Even worse, many religions actually make it a religious CRIME to question the religion, promising all sorts of awful punishments for those who dare to do so.
Can you imagine a world where questioning science meant getting a jail sentence?! It would be unthinkable. Yet this situation exists with religion. How can any passionate religious person possibly be non biased in such an environment?!
It should be clear that the key components that make Science credible: Reliable Methodology (experiments, peer review) , Objectivity (facts about the world), Real World Application (Technology, Medicine) are not only missing in Religion, in fact we have the exact opposite in religion: We have an Unreliable Methodology (tradition, religious authority), Subjectivity & Bias (passionate devotion to religion,laws against heresy) and no real world application of the beliefs themselves.
Some people might argue that there is real world application of religious beliefs. For example people feel very connected to God. Or people give charity. But these are actions and feelings, they say nothing about whether God actually exists, or whether the charity giver is actually going to Olam Habah.
In summary, it is clear that while science is a very credible, religion certainly is not. Does that mean that we should reject religion in total? Not necessarily. But certainly in any conflict between Science and religion, it's no contest. And, any religious person who accepts their own religious beliefs, but rejects various aspects of Science (which Scientists themselves regard as 'proven'), is clearly being ridiculous, accepting an unreliable methodology over a reliable one.
How reliable is Science? Well since almost everyone on the planet trusts their lives to it, I would have to say that (in general), the parts of Science which are accepted as proven are about as reliable as anything could possibly be in this world. Of course as our scientific knowledge deepens we will further refine and even alter various theories, but this is all part of the awesome methodology where change is possible and even encouraged (where proven).
How reliable is Religion? Well since almost everyone on the planet disagrees about it, I would have to say that in general it has absolutely no credibility at all. Does this mean that all religious beliefs are false? Not necessarily, but without any really good evidence or arguments there is no reason to assume that any of them are true.
In another thread, RJM says that if only I would know Ancient Near East (ANE) history, I would see that Divine Revelation is the most reasonable explanation of how the Torah came to be. Of course there are plenty of ANE scholars in academia, far more knowledgeable than RJM who know ANE history very very well, and yet think that human origins is the most reasonable explanation for the Torah. Perhaps these Scholars are Reform Jews, or secular, in which case maybe they are biased. perhaps, But this only goes to show that everyone here is incredibly biased, and no one has any credibility.
More likely, it is RJM who is biased, since he is religiously compelled to affirm a Divine Torah. Maybe you could argue that the Secular Scholars are equally religiously (or anti religiously) compelled to deny a Divine Torah.
Either way, at the end of the day, nobody has any credibility here. Without a Scientific (or any) reliable methodology, without the ability to be Objective, and without a real world way of testing these beliefs, we are simply left in the dark.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Listen up guys this is important.
Let's compare Science to Religion. Obviously we are somewhat comparing apples to oranges, because Science and Religion fulfil two very different roles in life. But I'm not trying to compare them in toto. Rather, I want to compare the methodology and reliability of the various facts that are claimed by each to be true. Also, please bear in mind that I am NOT talking about conflicts or contradictions between Science and Religion. Not at all. I am simply going to contrast and compare these two endeavors in their approach to gaining knowledge, and see what conclusions are to be drawn. Also, by religious knowledge or beliefs, I am referring to Spiritual / Theological or beliefs of a similar nature. Social / practical beliefs, for example be nice to people, are not included, since such beliefs are not specifically religious, but rather most societies, even secular ones, come to similar conclusions.
Inspiration
Interestingly, both Scientific Knowledge and Religious Knowledge can often start out the same way - as a spark of inspiration in someone's mind. How did Einstein suddenly figure out the theory of relativity? Something sparked in his brain. Similarly a Novi gets inspired. Of course we can debate where the inspiration comes from, but let's leave that aside for now.
Scientific Methodology
After the initial spark of inspiration, Science and Religion diverge quite rapidly, and quite significantly. If a Scientist presented a theory, based on nothing more than inspiration, it would get nowhere. We want to see his working. We want to see repeatable experiments. We want to make sure that other scientists in other parts of the world can produce the same results. We have peer reviewed journals. And this system works very well. Of course scientists are human, and occasionally someone publishes some wrong theories (by mistake or even deliberately), but these usually get discovered sooner or later.
Consensus
If you look at most aspects of life, you will find little consensus amongst humanity. How to live? Which political party to vote for? What's the best flavor of ice-cream? Sometimes it seems that nobody agrees on anything. Even with topics that have been debated for thousands of years, for example philosophy, there is often little agreement. Yet modern Science has only been going for about 200 years, and we have incredble global agreement on many, many parts of it. How did this happen? How come we don't have a Japanese Science, and an American Science? Isn't it incredible that the global community of Scientists pretty much agree on all the basics?
The answer of course is obvious.
Objective
Firstly, Science is about objective fact. It's not about emotional, personal things such as how to live, or what to value. This means that scientists can be objective, and not get emotionally invested. Of course scientists can still get emotionally invested in their pet theories, and this happens a lot, But over time, new scientists come on the scene, and eventually these biases can be overcome. Note: I am talking about pure Science here. When a Scientist oversteps the boundaries and starts making pronouncements about religion and God, then of course he can be very biased indeed.
Methodology
Secondly, the consensus in Science has arisen precisely because of the Methodology described above. Scientific journals and books precisely lay out the details for the theory, describe experiments which can be replicated, and the field is open to anyone to confirm that the theory is true.
Applied Science
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the entire world relies on applied science, in the realm of technology and medicine. Everyone of us literally trusts our lives to science. Science makes predictions which work in the real world. Science enables us to create drugs which really do cure people. Science enables us to create technologies which we see work with our own eyes. Nobody, not even the biggest fundamentalist, denies this.
An interesting thought experiment would be to imagine a world where Science is only pure, never applies. Even though the methodology would be as solid as it is in our world, would a Pure Science be seen as credible, without a working practical application? Tzarich Iyun.
However, in our world, the Scientific Methodology, combined with real world results have produced what most people regard as the most amazing human achievement ever.
Another thought experiment: Imagine if the world of Science was divided into warring groups of scientists. Imagine if each group had a theory which they proclaimed as true, but no side could prove their theory. Would any one side have credibility? Of course not, the matter would be up for debate. And there are certainly large parts of Science which are like this, for example String Theory. Nobody would claim that String theory has conclusively been proven true. It is speculative. I'm sure that the originators of String Theory are very passionate about it, but even they wouldn't claim it is within the realm of 'Proven Science'. And, if they did, they would probably be accused of being biased.
Now, let's compare this with religion
Religion
There are many hundreds of religions in the world. Many of them contain beliefs about God, gods or similar. Many of them have sacred texts and sacred teachings, either directly communicated by God or gods, or by prophets and Holy men. Unfortunately, a lot of these teachings or beliefs contradict each other, so they can't all be true.
Religious Methodology
There is no methodology as such in religion. Once a prophet (or set of people) claim to have a revelation about something, that becomes dogma. There is no experimentation, no peer review, no way of proving this to be true. No real world practical application. Rather each religion claims that through intuition, tradition, and authority of their particular religious figures, the knowledge is true. The problem though is that all the religions pretty much claim a similar set of reasons for why they are true, yet they mostly contradict each other. They can't all be true!
Consensus
There is almost no consensus in religion. The three major Western Faith do seem to superficially agree on God and the Bible, but when you dig a little deeper very significant divisions appear. Some Christian Sects accept the Old Testament as the literal word of God, other sects just regard it as sacred literature. Christianity itself mostly regards Jesus as the son of God, a belief which Jews find totally unacceptable. Islam believes that Moshe forged key parts of the Torah, and that Yishmael was by the Akeidah, not Yitzchak. Not only is there almost no consensus between all the various different religions, even within each religion you typically have a huge variety of sects, all of whom significantly disagree with each other as to the basic teachings.
Although religion has been ongoing for 3000 years, not only has little consensus been reached, if anything, it seems more and more religions get created with different beliefs. Mormonism and Scientology are both relatively recent. There is no global consensus, and no process for achieving consensus.
In the same way that Science is regarded as incredibly reliable, because of the consensus, reliable methodology and application in the real world; religion exhibits the exact opposite set of features: no consensus, no reliable methodology and no way to test out the beliefs in the real world.
In fact, attempts to prove religious beliefs, e.g. God or prayer, have always failed.
Separate Magistaria
Some readers will claim that this comparison is unfair. Of course Science is reliable, because Science deals with the physical world which is measurable. However religious beliefs concern the spiritual world, and the methods of science cannot be applies. It is unfair to expect that Scientific methodology could be applied to the spiritual world. However there are two responses to this, each response works independently.
Response 1
The very fact that Scientific methodology cannot be used for Spiritual questions is the issue. If spirituality cannot be seen or measured, then there's nothing we can know about it. This response assumes that Scientific methodology is the only methodology which is valid.
Response 2
However, we don't need to take such a hard line to refute this allegation. We can certainly accept that Science isn't all there is, and that human intuition, tradition, or any other method could potentially work to create reliable knowledge. The problem of course is that the religious methodology is entirely unreliable. Using religious methodology, we have hundreds of religions all claiming to be true, yet all contradicting each other. Sure, one might be true, but how could you possibly tell?!
Each religion has its devotees, who passionately confirm their own religion as the one true religion. But since religion is a way of life, it is impossible for these devotees to escape the charge of bias. Even worse, many religions actually make it a religious CRIME to question the religion, promising all sorts of awful punishments for those who dare to do so.
Can you imagine a world where questioning science meant getting a jail sentence?! It would be unthinkable. Yet this situation exists with religion. How can any passionate religious person possibly be non biased in such an environment?!
It should be clear that the key components that make Science credible: Reliable Methodology (experiments, peer review) , Objectivity (facts about the world), Real World Application (Technology, Medicine) are not only missing in Religion, in fact we have the exact opposite in religion: We have an Unreliable Methodology (tradition, religious authority), Subjectivity & Bias (passionate devotion to religion,laws against heresy) and no real world application of the beliefs themselves.
Some people might argue that there is real world application of religious beliefs. For example people feel very connected to God. Or people give charity. But these are actions and feelings, they say nothing about whether God actually exists, or whether the charity giver is actually going to Olam Habah.
In summary, it is clear that while science is a very credible, religion certainly is not. Does that mean that we should reject religion in total? Not necessarily. But certainly in any conflict between Science and religion, it's no contest. And, any religious person who accepts their own religious beliefs, but rejects various aspects of Science (which Scientists themselves regard as 'proven'), is clearly being ridiculous, accepting an unreliable methodology over a reliable one.
How reliable is Science? Well since almost everyone on the planet trusts their lives to it, I would have to say that (in general), the parts of Science which are accepted as proven are about as reliable as anything could possibly be in this world. Of course as our scientific knowledge deepens we will further refine and even alter various theories, but this is all part of the awesome methodology where change is possible and even encouraged (where proven).
How reliable is Religion? Well since almost everyone on the planet disagrees about it, I would have to say that in general it has absolutely no credibility at all. Does this mean that all religious beliefs are false? Not necessarily, but without any really good evidence or arguments there is no reason to assume that any of them are true.
In another thread, RJM says that if only I would know Ancient Near East (ANE) history, I would see that Divine Revelation is the most reasonable explanation of how the Torah came to be. Of course there are plenty of ANE scholars in academia, far more knowledgeable than RJM who know ANE history very very well, and yet think that human origins is the most reasonable explanation for the Torah. Perhaps these Scholars are Reform Jews, or secular, in which case maybe they are biased. perhaps, But this only goes to show that everyone here is incredibly biased, and no one has any credibility.
More likely, it is RJM who is biased, since he is religiously compelled to affirm a Divine Torah. Maybe you could argue that the Secular Scholars are equally religiously (or anti religiously) compelled to deny a Divine Torah.
Either way, at the end of the day, nobody has any credibility here. Without a Scientific (or any) reliable methodology, without the ability to be Objective, and without a real world way of testing these beliefs, we are simply left in the dark.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
More Bad Arguments for Religion: RJM
In a previous post, I wrote how all the believers were convincingly thrashed when it came to arguments about religion. But RJM claims he wasn't beaten. But he was, both on the phone, here and on Orthoprax. But we can summarize the main arguments again.
NOTE: I am not talking about First Cause arguments and Medieval or Greek philosophy. RJM is quite a philosophy expert and that's very nice. However medieval philosophy doesn't have much to do with the truth of Orthodox Judaism. What I am talking about here is RJM's Kuzari style argument for why Torah must be from Heaven.
The debate goes something like this:
RJM
It is extremely unlikely that the Torah would have been accepted as Divine by thousands of ancient Israelites if it wasn't true. And it is equally unlikely that it evolved from a small legend into a big one. The most reasonable conclusion is that it's Divine, as described in the Torah itself.
XGH
Of course it's more likely to have developed and evolved by human hands. Saying God wrote it is a fantastic claim, and one that needs plenty of evidence. We have many similar stories of ancient texts being claimed as Divine, yet in all cases we believe they were really man made (the Koran for example). Most likely the Torah is man made too, unless you have good evidence to the contrary. The most likely scenario is that there was some original event, e.g. a volcano (or whatever), and the legends developed from there. The ancient Israelites had many stories, legends and myths (just like all other ancient peoples), and these gradually coalesced into the Torah. Almost every single Bible expert and religious historian (non biased) in the world holds this to be the case. The only people who don't believe this are the people who are religiously forbidden to hold this. Canyou imagine a more extreme version of bias?!
RJM
Firstly, claiming a God written text is not a fantastic claim. It is a perfectly reasonable claim. Secondly, the Torah story is unique, and unlike all the other stories (mass revelation). No way could a mass revelation claim have been accepted as true, unless it really happened. Thirdly, the Torah contains many difficult laws, which would not have been accepted had they not been from God.
XGH
Firstly, this is ludicrous. Are you seriously claiming that a Divinely Written Book is no more amazing than a Human Written Book?
Secondly, the more unique the story of the Torah is, the more your argument completely fails. If the story is totally unique, then we have no data and no experience as to whether such a story is reasonably true or not.
For example, if revelation stories happened frequently, and 9 out of 10 times turned out to be true, then RJM could claim that a revelation is a likely true story. Conversely, if revelation stories happened frequently, and 9 out of 10 times turned out to be false, then I could claim it's most likely false.
However RJM claims that the Torah's mass revelation story is unique, and such a story would have to be true. But how can he know this? If OJ is false, then such a unique story is in fact false. And since the story is so unique, there is simply no data to go on. Are mass revelation stories typically true? Could a mass revelation story simply evolve? We have no idea and no data! It's a singularity, and so the default position is to make the simpler claim, that the book is man made, and the religion evolved, like all other religions and all other supposedly Divine Texts.
And of course this isn't even getting into the fact that there are contradictions, errors, different styles and untrue events in the Torah. yes, you can provide kvetches for all those, but at the end of the day, which is more likely: This fantastic tale is true, despite no evidence, or this is yet another false religious claim, just like a thousand others.
Thirdly, many religions contain difficult laws. Many ancient religions required human sacrifice. If anything, ancient Judaism might have been EASIER than the Canaanite religions. There were no Rabbinic Humras, and you didn't have to sacrifice your children to the Gods. And, even if it was difficult, so what? The Moslems keep many difficult laws, does that prove the Koran is min hashamyim? They were convinced to keep the laws because of the benefits that accrued, as we say in shema every day.
RJM himself agreed to me that religion has a serious credibility problem (His words, not mine), so if he wants to claim that Judaism is the one true religion, he needs to provide some very good reasons why. So far I haven't heard him give any, but I'm more than willing for him to try.
In fact, I'm literally begging him to try.
NOTE: I hope my readers appreciate that I have a lot of respect for RJM, which is PRECISELY why I am challenging him to a debate. I wouldn't bother with someone like TrapperJoe or Daganev for example, it would be a worthless waste of time. But RJM is indeed about the most knowledgeable, well thought out, intelligent and educated debater out there (on the believer side). And I'm not just saying that to butter him up!
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
NOTE: I am not talking about First Cause arguments and Medieval or Greek philosophy. RJM is quite a philosophy expert and that's very nice. However medieval philosophy doesn't have much to do with the truth of Orthodox Judaism. What I am talking about here is RJM's Kuzari style argument for why Torah must be from Heaven.
The debate goes something like this:
RJM
It is extremely unlikely that the Torah would have been accepted as Divine by thousands of ancient Israelites if it wasn't true. And it is equally unlikely that it evolved from a small legend into a big one. The most reasonable conclusion is that it's Divine, as described in the Torah itself.
XGH
Of course it's more likely to have developed and evolved by human hands. Saying God wrote it is a fantastic claim, and one that needs plenty of evidence. We have many similar stories of ancient texts being claimed as Divine, yet in all cases we believe they were really man made (the Koran for example). Most likely the Torah is man made too, unless you have good evidence to the contrary. The most likely scenario is that there was some original event, e.g. a volcano (or whatever), and the legends developed from there. The ancient Israelites had many stories, legends and myths (just like all other ancient peoples), and these gradually coalesced into the Torah. Almost every single Bible expert and religious historian (non biased) in the world holds this to be the case. The only people who don't believe this are the people who are religiously forbidden to hold this. Canyou imagine a more extreme version of bias?!
RJM
Firstly, claiming a God written text is not a fantastic claim. It is a perfectly reasonable claim. Secondly, the Torah story is unique, and unlike all the other stories (mass revelation). No way could a mass revelation claim have been accepted as true, unless it really happened. Thirdly, the Torah contains many difficult laws, which would not have been accepted had they not been from God.
XGH
Firstly, this is ludicrous. Are you seriously claiming that a Divinely Written Book is no more amazing than a Human Written Book?
Secondly, the more unique the story of the Torah is, the more your argument completely fails. If the story is totally unique, then we have no data and no experience as to whether such a story is reasonably true or not.
For example, if revelation stories happened frequently, and 9 out of 10 times turned out to be true, then RJM could claim that a revelation is a likely true story. Conversely, if revelation stories happened frequently, and 9 out of 10 times turned out to be false, then I could claim it's most likely false.
However RJM claims that the Torah's mass revelation story is unique, and such a story would have to be true. But how can he know this? If OJ is false, then such a unique story is in fact false. And since the story is so unique, there is simply no data to go on. Are mass revelation stories typically true? Could a mass revelation story simply evolve? We have no idea and no data! It's a singularity, and so the default position is to make the simpler claim, that the book is man made, and the religion evolved, like all other religions and all other supposedly Divine Texts.
And of course this isn't even getting into the fact that there are contradictions, errors, different styles and untrue events in the Torah. yes, you can provide kvetches for all those, but at the end of the day, which is more likely: This fantastic tale is true, despite no evidence, or this is yet another false religious claim, just like a thousand others.
Thirdly, many religions contain difficult laws. Many ancient religions required human sacrifice. If anything, ancient Judaism might have been EASIER than the Canaanite religions. There were no Rabbinic Humras, and you didn't have to sacrifice your children to the Gods. And, even if it was difficult, so what? The Moslems keep many difficult laws, does that prove the Koran is min hashamyim? They were convinced to keep the laws because of the benefits that accrued, as we say in shema every day.
RJM himself agreed to me that religion has a serious credibility problem (His words, not mine), so if he wants to claim that Judaism is the one true religion, he needs to provide some very good reasons why. So far I haven't heard him give any, but I'm more than willing for him to try.
In fact, I'm literally begging him to try.
NOTE: I hope my readers appreciate that I have a lot of respect for RJM, which is PRECISELY why I am challenging him to a debate. I wouldn't bother with someone like TrapperJoe or Daganev for example, it would be a worthless waste of time. But RJM is indeed about the most knowledgeable, well thought out, intelligent and educated debater out there (on the believer side). And I'm not just saying that to butter him up!
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Three Year Summary
[NOTE: This post is talking about Orthodox Judaism as currently defined. It is not talking about the existence of God, or other streams of Judaism, or even other conceptions of 'Orthodoxy' which might be feasible.]
Since this blog is about to imminently close down, I think it's a good time for a recap. We have spent three years debating religion from every conceivable angle, with many, many different people, skeptics and believers alike.
Who won?
It's not even a kashye. It wasn't even close. Sorry, but I think this is beyond debate. The skeptics thrashed the believers to smithereens, time and time and time again. And I know, because I was one of the believers who got well and truly thrashed.
Does this prove that OJ is necessarily false? Not necessarily, but it really doesn't look very good. And that's an understatement. Could this be because the skeptics are a self selecting set of people, who naturally are way more intelligent, whereas the believers tend to be the less smart ones, so naturally they lost the debates? Of course, but 'hoh gufoh'.
Some people will no doubt argue that I'm biased. But I started out on the believers side, and I am still admitting defeat! No doubt some people will argue that because I lost, I switched sides, but a better debater than me would have won. Well, a better debater is yet to appear. If there is one, let him show his face. I didn't win the debates, and neither did anyone else, except perhaps in some very tiny inconsequential battle on a side issue.
This doesn't mean that the skeptics are right about everything. On the contrary, I think they are very wrong about quite a few important things, such as the value of religion. But when it comes to the credibility of fundamentalist religion (as currently understood by the majority of OJ), they trashed it quite decisively.
I can say quite confidently, that given our current knowledge, fundamentalist religion does not look true, and all the so called 'proofs' don't work.
Could things change?
Certainly. But I can say quite confidently, that given our current knowledge, it really doesn't appear that fundamentalist religion will ever look true.
Now, even given the fact it doesn't look very true, could faith in it be justified for some external reason?
Well, this depends on what you think about unjustified faith. This is not an epistemological question. It's an 'ought to' question. A behavioral question. A pragmatic question. Should one hold unjustified beliefs or not?
I think the answer is it depends. A blanket 'ban' on all unjustified beliefs would seem to be too extreme. On the other hand, you really shouldn't go around believing in any old nonsense.
The truth is that all humans feel this instinctively, and it's very rare to find someone who genuinely believes in something whilst simultaneously knowing the belief is entirely unjustified. Almost everyone tries to justify their beliefs, usually with arguments about tradition and such. The only problem is that the arguments are very poor, and don't really work. If the believers fully analyzed their arguments honestly, they would see that.
Is it wrong to justify unjustified beliefs by appealing to bad arguments? Again, this is another 'ought to' argument, and the answer is it depends.
Is there anything left to debate here? Not on this issue. But I think that there's still plenty to discuss with respect to non fundamentalist halachic religion, and science vs. religion, faith vs. reason as a whole, especially in the realm of 'ought to'. Plus, there is some interesting PostModern stuff which we never really got into.
This will all have to wait for another blog.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Since this blog is about to imminently close down, I think it's a good time for a recap. We have spent three years debating religion from every conceivable angle, with many, many different people, skeptics and believers alike.
Who won?
It's not even a kashye. It wasn't even close. Sorry, but I think this is beyond debate. The skeptics thrashed the believers to smithereens, time and time and time again. And I know, because I was one of the believers who got well and truly thrashed.
Does this prove that OJ is necessarily false? Not necessarily, but it really doesn't look very good. And that's an understatement. Could this be because the skeptics are a self selecting set of people, who naturally are way more intelligent, whereas the believers tend to be the less smart ones, so naturally they lost the debates? Of course, but 'hoh gufoh'.
Some people will no doubt argue that I'm biased. But I started out on the believers side, and I am still admitting defeat! No doubt some people will argue that because I lost, I switched sides, but a better debater than me would have won. Well, a better debater is yet to appear. If there is one, let him show his face. I didn't win the debates, and neither did anyone else, except perhaps in some very tiny inconsequential battle on a side issue.
This doesn't mean that the skeptics are right about everything. On the contrary, I think they are very wrong about quite a few important things, such as the value of religion. But when it comes to the credibility of fundamentalist religion (as currently understood by the majority of OJ), they trashed it quite decisively.
I can say quite confidently, that given our current knowledge, fundamentalist religion does not look true, and all the so called 'proofs' don't work.
Could things change?
Certainly. But I can say quite confidently, that given our current knowledge, it really doesn't appear that fundamentalist religion will ever look true.
Now, even given the fact it doesn't look very true, could faith in it be justified for some external reason?
Well, this depends on what you think about unjustified faith. This is not an epistemological question. It's an 'ought to' question. A behavioral question. A pragmatic question. Should one hold unjustified beliefs or not?
I think the answer is it depends. A blanket 'ban' on all unjustified beliefs would seem to be too extreme. On the other hand, you really shouldn't go around believing in any old nonsense.
The truth is that all humans feel this instinctively, and it's very rare to find someone who genuinely believes in something whilst simultaneously knowing the belief is entirely unjustified. Almost everyone tries to justify their beliefs, usually with arguments about tradition and such. The only problem is that the arguments are very poor, and don't really work. If the believers fully analyzed their arguments honestly, they would see that.
Is it wrong to justify unjustified beliefs by appealing to bad arguments? Again, this is another 'ought to' argument, and the answer is it depends.
Is there anything left to debate here? Not on this issue. But I think that there's still plenty to discuss with respect to non fundamentalist halachic religion, and science vs. religion, faith vs. reason as a whole, especially in the realm of 'ought to'. Plus, there is some interesting PostModern stuff which we never really got into.
This will all have to wait for another blog.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
More bad arguments for religion
In the last couple of days some really bad arguments for religion have surfaced yet again. These are the same tired old arguments we went over in 2005. Let’s do some quick chazarah though.
1. The argument from love
The argument from love comes in a few different flavors, but it generally goes something like this: "Can you prove you love your wife? No! So why do I need to prove that God exists?"
2. The argument from faith
This one goes like this: "Everyone believes everything on faith. You skeptics believe in Science, I believe in Chazal. There’s no difference!"
Both these arguments fail miserably. In fact they don't even start.
1. Argument from Love
This fails for a few reasons, depending on the intent of the argument. What does it mean to prove your love? It could mean (a) prove that your love is justified, or (b) prove that you are actually in love, or (c) prove the person you love actually exists.
Let’s consider (a) prove that your love is justified. Well, obviously ‘justified’ love is entirely subjective, and depends what you are looking for. But let’s say you had a well defined list of what you are looking for, for example a caring, intelligent RW MO woman who you find attractive and are compatible with, and you find someone with all those attributes, then it seems reasonable to assume that your love is justified. Of course even the best marriages can falter due to strains and stresses, so to assume that just because you found the woman of your dreams it means you are set for life is foolish. Marriage requires constant work. What any of this has to do with whether God exists is a mystery to me.
Now let’s consider (b) prove that you are in love. Well, it’s impossible to really know what another person is thinking or feeling. A really good actor can always pretend. The news is full of con artists who can fake anything. But assuming an honest person, who is in touch with their emotions, love should be reasonably simple to figure out. You feel a sense of elation when the person is around, you miss them terribly when they are gone, you admire and respect them etc etc. If you feel all those things, then you’re in love. If not, then probably not. Again, I don’t see what any of this has to do with God.
Perhaps the argument means that just like people feel intensely in love even though there’s no way of scientifically measuring that, yet we accept their love feeling, likewise if people believe in intensely in God then we should accept their belief feeling. And of course I do. In exactly the same way I accept that someone who honestly claims to be feeling intensely in love, is in fact feeling intensely in love, likewise someone who claims to be feeling (or thinking) a passionate belief in (or connection to) God, is presumably feeling (or thinking) a passionate belief in (or connection to) God. Of course that says nothing about God, it just tells us that the person believes in God, or feels close to God, or loves God. But then we knew that already! Does being love with something in any way prove that the “something” must exist? Hardly. You could be in love with an imaginary thing.
Imagine if you claimed to love your wife, but were in fact single, and no wife could be found. Would your love prove that your wife exists?! Hardly, but it might prove you are delusional.
2. Argument from faith
This one fails because all faith should be justified, where possible. There must be some reason why you have the faith. Otherwise anyone could just have faith in anything and it would be nuts. Of course all religious people do indeed attempt to justify their faith, usually with an argument about an ancient heritage or unbroken tradition or some such. The only problem is that this justification is pretty poor, since many religions claim the same justification, and many of them contradict each other, so clearly this justification is simply not reliable.
On the other hand, people have faith in Science for good reasons – it works, everyone agrees to it (at least to the proven parts), and there is a good system in place for gaining agreement, for reviewing people’s work, for gaining more knowledge etc etc. Contrast this with religion where the system quite literally stinks (as far as gaining knowledge goes). The beliefs are set in stone, and if you consider other possibilities you are damned to hell. Hardly a fair system conducive to gaining true knowledge!
Believers sometimes argue that we unfairly privilege science over religion. Or they claim that it’s unfair to judge religious beliefs by scientific standards. Or else they claim that there are other methods to knowledge besides science and that it’s unfair to insist that everything must be scientific.
I say, fine! I’m ok with any system of knowledge you want to propose. Tarrot cards, spiritual knowledge, divination, whatever the heck you like! As long as it works reliably, I have no problem with it. The reason I trust Science is not because I intrinsically trust Science and reject everything else , but rather because it works reliably. If it didn’t work reliably, I wouldn’t trust it! And neither would anyone else.
If the science world was full of warring factions of scientists, each of them claiming to have the one true science, and none of it worked reliably (at least as far as we could tell), then nobody would trust science either!
All this is poshut. And is at a level of sophistication (or rather un-sophistication) way, way below where I would like to be. And the people arguing this stuff are supposedly mature adults! Sad, very sad. There probably are some interesting things to debate on this topic, but these are not it.
I think the best that can be said here is that humans have a complex range of emotions, and one of them is spirituality. In the same way we celebrate our love, we should also celebrate our spirituality. Since most people do have a strong feeling that there is “something” out there, it seems legitimate to go with this feeling. I don’t see any valid reason to declare such a feeling to be ‘forbidden’. But I would certainly caution against taking things too far.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
1. The argument from love
The argument from love comes in a few different flavors, but it generally goes something like this: "Can you prove you love your wife? No! So why do I need to prove that God exists?"
2. The argument from faith
This one goes like this: "Everyone believes everything on faith. You skeptics believe in Science, I believe in Chazal. There’s no difference!"
Both these arguments fail miserably. In fact they don't even start.
1. Argument from Love
This fails for a few reasons, depending on the intent of the argument. What does it mean to prove your love? It could mean (a) prove that your love is justified, or (b) prove that you are actually in love, or (c) prove the person you love actually exists.
Let’s consider (a) prove that your love is justified. Well, obviously ‘justified’ love is entirely subjective, and depends what you are looking for. But let’s say you had a well defined list of what you are looking for, for example a caring, intelligent RW MO woman who you find attractive and are compatible with, and you find someone with all those attributes, then it seems reasonable to assume that your love is justified. Of course even the best marriages can falter due to strains and stresses, so to assume that just because you found the woman of your dreams it means you are set for life is foolish. Marriage requires constant work. What any of this has to do with whether God exists is a mystery to me.
Now let’s consider (b) prove that you are in love. Well, it’s impossible to really know what another person is thinking or feeling. A really good actor can always pretend. The news is full of con artists who can fake anything. But assuming an honest person, who is in touch with their emotions, love should be reasonably simple to figure out. You feel a sense of elation when the person is around, you miss them terribly when they are gone, you admire and respect them etc etc. If you feel all those things, then you’re in love. If not, then probably not. Again, I don’t see what any of this has to do with God.
Perhaps the argument means that just like people feel intensely in love even though there’s no way of scientifically measuring that, yet we accept their love feeling, likewise if people believe in intensely in God then we should accept their belief feeling. And of course I do. In exactly the same way I accept that someone who honestly claims to be feeling intensely in love, is in fact feeling intensely in love, likewise someone who claims to be feeling (or thinking) a passionate belief in (or connection to) God, is presumably feeling (or thinking) a passionate belief in (or connection to) God. Of course that says nothing about God, it just tells us that the person believes in God, or feels close to God, or loves God. But then we knew that already! Does being love with something in any way prove that the “something” must exist? Hardly. You could be in love with an imaginary thing.
Imagine if you claimed to love your wife, but were in fact single, and no wife could be found. Would your love prove that your wife exists?! Hardly, but it might prove you are delusional.
2. Argument from faith
This one fails because all faith should be justified, where possible. There must be some reason why you have the faith. Otherwise anyone could just have faith in anything and it would be nuts. Of course all religious people do indeed attempt to justify their faith, usually with an argument about an ancient heritage or unbroken tradition or some such. The only problem is that this justification is pretty poor, since many religions claim the same justification, and many of them contradict each other, so clearly this justification is simply not reliable.
On the other hand, people have faith in Science for good reasons – it works, everyone agrees to it (at least to the proven parts), and there is a good system in place for gaining agreement, for reviewing people’s work, for gaining more knowledge etc etc. Contrast this with religion where the system quite literally stinks (as far as gaining knowledge goes). The beliefs are set in stone, and if you consider other possibilities you are damned to hell. Hardly a fair system conducive to gaining true knowledge!
Believers sometimes argue that we unfairly privilege science over religion. Or they claim that it’s unfair to judge religious beliefs by scientific standards. Or else they claim that there are other methods to knowledge besides science and that it’s unfair to insist that everything must be scientific.
I say, fine! I’m ok with any system of knowledge you want to propose. Tarrot cards, spiritual knowledge, divination, whatever the heck you like! As long as it works reliably, I have no problem with it. The reason I trust Science is not because I intrinsically trust Science and reject everything else , but rather because it works reliably. If it didn’t work reliably, I wouldn’t trust it! And neither would anyone else.
If the science world was full of warring factions of scientists, each of them claiming to have the one true science, and none of it worked reliably (at least as far as we could tell), then nobody would trust science either!
All this is poshut. And is at a level of sophistication (or rather un-sophistication) way, way below where I would like to be. And the people arguing this stuff are supposedly mature adults! Sad, very sad. There probably are some interesting things to debate on this topic, but these are not it.
I think the best that can be said here is that humans have a complex range of emotions, and one of them is spirituality. In the same way we celebrate our love, we should also celebrate our spirituality. Since most people do have a strong feeling that there is “something” out there, it seems legitimate to go with this feeling. I don’t see any valid reason to declare such a feeling to be ‘forbidden’. But I would certainly caution against taking things too far.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
New!: The argument from stupidity
[UPDATE: Turns out that TrapperJoe is 'Yus', some jerk who used to hang out at DBs blog. He wasn't really interested in making any real arguments, just jerking people around. I haven't actually ever seen a skeptic do that, it always seems to be some moronic believer who plays that game. But of course not all religious people are jerks, and not all skeptics are not jerks., just when it comes to debating on the blogs, the religious side always seems to field more jerks. Being charitable, perhaps this is because the smart ones are all learning, or doing something more productive. And by definition, the skeptics tend to be the smarter ones. So it makes sense actually, and should not be seen as reflection on religion as a whole.]
I thought I'd seen all the bad arguments for religion, but this one takes the cake. Trapper Joe is proposing the following argument (I'm paraphrasing):
'It's true that religion rests on unprovable or seemingly untrue faith. However many people have faith in all sorts of unproven or untrue things, e.g. certain aspects of Origin Sciences, or unwarranted faith in Professors or other academics, so my faith is legitimate!
Or, to put it more cynically, as anony writes, 'other (stupid) people have absolute faith in unproven or seemingly incorrect things, so why shouldn't I?' I guess it kinda works. Maybe Trapper Joe should write a kiruv book - 'Permission to be stupid'.
But is there anything actually wrong with TrapperJoe's argument? Well, I think his argument actually does work, but I would have put it differently. I would say that believing in fantasy, especially religious fantasy, is part of the human condition. Possibly the human race will evolve beyond that one day in the future, but for right now, the alternatives are far from being proven, and could even turn out to be worse.
I think the focus needs to be on refining people's religious fantasies, and ensuring that they don't cause any undue harm, rather than trying to make people give up their fantasy.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
I thought I'd seen all the bad arguments for religion, but this one takes the cake. Trapper Joe is proposing the following argument (I'm paraphrasing):
'It's true that religion rests on unprovable or seemingly untrue faith. However many people have faith in all sorts of unproven or untrue things, e.g. certain aspects of Origin Sciences, or unwarranted faith in Professors or other academics, so my faith is legitimate!
Or, to put it more cynically, as anony writes, 'other (stupid) people have absolute faith in unproven or seemingly incorrect things, so why shouldn't I?' I guess it kinda works. Maybe Trapper Joe should write a kiruv book - 'Permission to be stupid'.
But is there anything actually wrong with TrapperJoe's argument? Well, I think his argument actually does work, but I would have put it differently. I would say that believing in fantasy, especially religious fantasy, is part of the human condition. Possibly the human race will evolve beyond that one day in the future, but for right now, the alternatives are far from being proven, and could even turn out to be worse.
I think the focus needs to be on refining people's religious fantasies, and ensuring that they don't cause any undue harm, rather than trying to make people give up their fantasy.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Friday, December 7, 2007
Do Kiruv Workers Target Rich Jews?
I just noticed this comment over on Hirhurim:
But there are far too many kiruv workers indisputably more interested in wealthy non-frum Jews than they are in their less wealthy brethren. It's the dirty little secret of kiruv.
I have to strenuously disagree with this comment. It's hardly a dirty little secret, it's way out in the open! I receive a glossy Kiruv Magazine every quarter, which is put out by a group of Kiruv 'Community' Kollels. Who is often on the front cover, or all over the photo pages? Not some local poor shmo, but rather the richest Jewish guy in town (he may even be the richest guy in town, period. He even has a street named after him). Him, his family, his friends etc have all been 'targeted' by the local Kiruv groups, no question. A few years ago a Hollywood media mogul moved to town, and the kiruv workers were all over the guy. But to be fair, they do spend much (most?) of their energy on regular people too. After all they do need to fill their quotas. It's just that the regular people aren't going to make huge donations, and maybe don't look as photogenic. Also if you snag a rich and/or famous guy, that's great PR.
On that same Hirhurim Thread, 'Chakira' (a.k.a. Josh Harrison) writes:
Kiruv as a combination of slick packaging, oversimplified rhetoric and reheated conservative family values blended together in a hypercapitalist economy can never be the Judaism we aspire to.
But slick packaging, oversimplified rhetoric and reheated conservative family values is pretty much what modern day Orthodox Judaism is, at least for the masses. Why should kiruv sell something it isn't? And what's so bad about conservative family values anyway? It's just a lifestyle choice.
Chakira continues:
It is heartening to see that all sectors of the Jewish community, from the Badatz to the Blogosphere, have finally realized that there is something about kiruv that just doesnt convert.
Feh, this isn't true. Just because a few BT's turned bAd doesn't mean the entire community have had it with kiruv. Kiruv is a money making machine, putting Jews in touch with their heritage, and opening up the community to some much needed infusion of culture (and a few crazies). And, many BT's seem to be happy at the end of the day. Would they have been happier had they not become BT? Maybe, maybe not. Hard to say. I mix a lot with non religious couples and there seems to be a much higher incidence of marital infidelity and divorce in that segment of the community.
As long as the Kiruv workers don't *deliberately* mislead people with blatant lies (that they know are lies) I say Caveat Emptor. Any non religious Jew who decides to turn Orthodox has only himself to blame (or thank, as the case may be). We live in a capitalist, consumerist culture. If there wasn't a market for it, Kiruv wouldn't exist. Kiruv is entirely legit.
In fact, I myself intend to start a Kiruv Organization. I will be mekarev people to my way of thinking (LW MO without unbelievable ikkarim). I think I will start by targeting some local rich Jews who are unhappy being Conservative. Or Orthodox.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
But there are far too many kiruv workers indisputably more interested in wealthy non-frum Jews than they are in their less wealthy brethren. It's the dirty little secret of kiruv.
I have to strenuously disagree with this comment. It's hardly a dirty little secret, it's way out in the open! I receive a glossy Kiruv Magazine every quarter, which is put out by a group of Kiruv 'Community' Kollels. Who is often on the front cover, or all over the photo pages? Not some local poor shmo, but rather the richest Jewish guy in town (he may even be the richest guy in town, period. He even has a street named after him). Him, his family, his friends etc have all been 'targeted' by the local Kiruv groups, no question. A few years ago a Hollywood media mogul moved to town, and the kiruv workers were all over the guy. But to be fair, they do spend much (most?) of their energy on regular people too. After all they do need to fill their quotas. It's just that the regular people aren't going to make huge donations, and maybe don't look as photogenic. Also if you snag a rich and/or famous guy, that's great PR.
On that same Hirhurim Thread, 'Chakira' (a.k.a. Josh Harrison) writes:
Kiruv as a combination of slick packaging, oversimplified rhetoric and reheated conservative family values blended together in a hypercapitalist economy can never be the Judaism we aspire to.
But slick packaging, oversimplified rhetoric and reheated conservative family values is pretty much what modern day Orthodox Judaism is, at least for the masses. Why should kiruv sell something it isn't? And what's so bad about conservative family values anyway? It's just a lifestyle choice.
Chakira continues:
It is heartening to see that all sectors of the Jewish community, from the Badatz to the Blogosphere, have finally realized that there is something about kiruv that just doesnt convert.
Feh, this isn't true. Just because a few BT's turned bAd doesn't mean the entire community have had it with kiruv. Kiruv is a money making machine, putting Jews in touch with their heritage, and opening up the community to some much needed infusion of culture (and a few crazies). And, many BT's seem to be happy at the end of the day. Would they have been happier had they not become BT? Maybe, maybe not. Hard to say. I mix a lot with non religious couples and there seems to be a much higher incidence of marital infidelity and divorce in that segment of the community.
As long as the Kiruv workers don't *deliberately* mislead people with blatant lies (that they know are lies) I say Caveat Emptor. Any non religious Jew who decides to turn Orthodox has only himself to blame (or thank, as the case may be). We live in a capitalist, consumerist culture. If there wasn't a market for it, Kiruv wouldn't exist. Kiruv is entirely legit.
In fact, I myself intend to start a Kiruv Organization. I will be mekarev people to my way of thinking (LW MO without unbelievable ikkarim). I think I will start by targeting some local rich Jews who are unhappy being Conservative. Or Orthodox.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Off The Derech: Kids vs. Adults
I see that there is a constant confusion when discussing Off The Derech (OTD) about kids and adults. I have been guilty of this myself. So let's clear things up.
To be clear, we need to divide the world into more than just two simplistic categories; kids and adults. Instead we'll divide the world into five simplistic categories:
1. Young Kids
YK's hardly ever go off the derech. I just can't imagine it. They are too young, too sheltered, too much under Mom & Dad's control. Very occasionally you might find a young kid with some serious issues, but that is very rare and not really relevant to our discussion.
2. Older Kids
There is definitely a phenomenon of OKs going OTD. Most of these are probably going OTD because of emotional issues, not intellectual issues. Why is this? I think the answer is obvious. OJ OKs have been heavily brainwashed (educated) from birth. They have (ideally) been sheltered from all bad influences, and exist within an OJ context. To have intellectual doubts and convictions strong enough to go OTD at this age, if otherwise happy and well adjusted, is very rare (though it does happen). Instead, most OTD OKs are kids with emotional issues who are 'acting out' in many ways - drugs, crime etc. Going OTD is just another great way to rebel and cause trouble. Plus, you get to fulfil more of your taavos.
3. Young Adults
In this category I think you will find a mix. There will be some people going OTD because they are trying to justify their taavos. However there are definitely people in this category who have intellectually and honestly investigated things and are going off for intellectual reasons.
4. Mature Adults
I would argue that most people in this category are going OTD for intellectual reasons. They are not messed up or into taavos, rather they have escaped their childhood brainwashing and can make an objective decision. Also, the more life experience they have they more they realize what's what.
5. Old People
If someone reaches older age, and then goes OTD, this is a bit strange. Most likely it is because of some life event which turned them off, rather than a sudden revelation of the truth. Do older people even go OTD?
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
To be clear, we need to divide the world into more than just two simplistic categories; kids and adults. Instead we'll divide the world into five simplistic categories:
- Young kids: 5-13
- Older Kids: 13-18
- Young adults: 18-20 something, possibly even into early thirties depending on level of maturity
- Mature adults: 30+
- Old people: 60+
1. Young Kids
YK's hardly ever go off the derech. I just can't imagine it. They are too young, too sheltered, too much under Mom & Dad's control. Very occasionally you might find a young kid with some serious issues, but that is very rare and not really relevant to our discussion.
2. Older Kids
There is definitely a phenomenon of OKs going OTD. Most of these are probably going OTD because of emotional issues, not intellectual issues. Why is this? I think the answer is obvious. OJ OKs have been heavily brainwashed (educated) from birth. They have (ideally) been sheltered from all bad influences, and exist within an OJ context. To have intellectual doubts and convictions strong enough to go OTD at this age, if otherwise happy and well adjusted, is very rare (though it does happen). Instead, most OTD OKs are kids with emotional issues who are 'acting out' in many ways - drugs, crime etc. Going OTD is just another great way to rebel and cause trouble. Plus, you get to fulfil more of your taavos.
3. Young Adults
In this category I think you will find a mix. There will be some people going OTD because they are trying to justify their taavos. However there are definitely people in this category who have intellectually and honestly investigated things and are going off for intellectual reasons.
4. Mature Adults
I would argue that most people in this category are going OTD for intellectual reasons. They are not messed up or into taavos, rather they have escaped their childhood brainwashing and can make an objective decision. Also, the more life experience they have they more they realize what's what.
5. Old People
If someone reaches older age, and then goes OTD, this is a bit strange. Most likely it is because of some life event which turned them off, rather than a sudden revelation of the truth. Do older people even go OTD?
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Why do people go on or off the derech?
I think this statement from Steve Brizel wins the prize:
'Many who leave Torah observance have unresolved issues that prevent them from living with doubts.'
'Unresolved issues that prevent them from living with doubts? What the heck is that supposed to mean?!
Anyway, I've actually become more laid back about fundamentalists. Why? Well, I know people who are extremely well educated, who grew up Conservative, and decided to become Orthodox. What are you going to say to such a person? You're delusional? You're brainwashed? Your'e indoctrinated? You're biased? None of these arguments work against a highly intelligent and highly educated person who grew up Conservative or Secular and then decided on the basis of intellectual reasons alone to become frum. And, these people know all about the Documentary Hypothesis too.
And, to argue that they only became frum because of emotional reasons would be hypocritical, since we reject that argument about people who go OTD.
So what are you going to say? People make all sorts of decisions in their lives for all sorts of reasons. People are complex and life is too. I don't think you can narrow the cause behind religious decisions down to a few simple reasons.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
'Many who leave Torah observance have unresolved issues that prevent them from living with doubts.'
'Unresolved issues that prevent them from living with doubts? What the heck is that supposed to mean?!
Anyway, I've actually become more laid back about fundamentalists. Why? Well, I know people who are extremely well educated, who grew up Conservative, and decided to become Orthodox. What are you going to say to such a person? You're delusional? You're brainwashed? Your'e indoctrinated? You're biased? None of these arguments work against a highly intelligent and highly educated person who grew up Conservative or Secular and then decided on the basis of intellectual reasons alone to become frum. And, these people know all about the Documentary Hypothesis too.
And, to argue that they only became frum because of emotional reasons would be hypocritical, since we reject that argument about people who go OTD.
So what are you going to say? People make all sorts of decisions in their lives for all sorts of reasons. People are complex and life is too. I don't think you can narrow the cause behind religious decisions down to a few simple reasons.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
R Micha Berger on going Off the Derech
RMB writes:
"The difference between willing to live with a question, looking for an answer, and deciding the question disproves the whole, is almost always emotional state. "
There's definitely a lot of truth to that. In general, when something is proven false, wrong or whatever, normal people accept the proof. But when it's their own religion that is disproven, the stakes are obviously way too high for most people to acknowledge it. They have way too much emotional attachment to their religion, they have family and communal commitments, they have a lifetime of religious, spiritual, cultural, intellectual and financial investment. Can you imagine not being in an emotional state in such a situation?!
So of course, rather than just go with the evidence, they will prefer to 'live with the question'. Conversely, the people who go with the proof and decide to leave their religion are generally less emotional and more detached, and more able to objectively decide upon the truth, and make their decisions accordingly.
'Which group is 'better', you're thinking?(or at least I'm thinking) Yeah, I guess that's a dumb question, since 'better' is subjective.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
"The difference between willing to live with a question, looking for an answer, and deciding the question disproves the whole, is almost always emotional state. "
There's definitely a lot of truth to that. In general, when something is proven false, wrong or whatever, normal people accept the proof. But when it's their own religion that is disproven, the stakes are obviously way too high for most people to acknowledge it. They have way too much emotional attachment to their religion, they have family and communal commitments, they have a lifetime of religious, spiritual, cultural, intellectual and financial investment. Can you imagine not being in an emotional state in such a situation?!
So of course, rather than just go with the evidence, they will prefer to 'live with the question'. Conversely, the people who go with the proof and decide to leave their religion are generally less emotional and more detached, and more able to objectively decide upon the truth, and make their decisions accordingly.
'Which group is 'better', you're thinking?(or at least I'm thinking) Yeah, I guess that's a dumb question, since 'better' is subjective.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
A Rabbi Experiments with Scientific Studies: Guest post by Rabbi Uren Reich
[File Under: "What if...?!']
'All systems have basic premises which cannot be proven, Science too. Mine are the ikkarim'
For some years I've been troubled by an apparent decline in the standards of intellectual rigor in certain precincts of the American Chareidi community. But I'm a mere Rabbi: if I find myself unable to make head or tail of Cosmology and Gosse Theory, perhaps that just reflects my own inadequacy.
So, to test the prevailing intellectual standards, I decided to try a modest (though admittedly uncontrolled) experiment: Would a leading North American convention of Chareidi Rabbis -- whose rabbinical collective includes such luminaries as Rabbi Mattisyahu Solomon and Rabbi Reuven Feinstein -- allow me to give a speech liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded frum and (b) it flattered the Rabbis' ideological preconceptions?
The answer, unfortunately, is yes. Interested readers can find my speech, `The Gemara is metziyus: It's also emes veyatziv.' in the Spring/Summer 1995 Agudah Convention.
What's going on here? Could the Rabbis really not have realized that my speech was written as a parody?
In the first paragraph I deride the dogma imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony over the Chareidi intellectual outlook'':
…If the Gemara tells us a metziyus, it’s emes veyatziv. There’s nothing to think about. Anything we see with our eyes is less of a reality than something we see in the Gemara. That’s the emunah that a yid has to have.
Is it now dogma in Chareidi Studies that there exists no possibility of Chazal being wrong? Or that there exists an external world but science obtains no knowledge of it?
In the second paragraph I declare, without the slightest evidence or argument, that Chazal don't have to be reconciled with Science:
Unfortunately, I don’t know where or why this is, but recently there’s been a spate of all kinds of publications – I don’t know where they’ve come from – questioning things that have been mekubel midor dor, that every child learns, together with his mother’s milk, al titosh Toras imecha, we learn that every word of Torah is emes, every word of Chazal hakedoshim is emes. We’re coming to hear new kinds of concepts, that we have to figure out a way to make Torah compatible with modern day science – it’s an emunah mezuyefes! There’s a tremendous emunah that these people have for scientists in the outside world – everything they say is kodesh kadoshim! And then we have to figure out according to what they say, how to fit in the Gemara with this newfangled discoveries that the scientists have taught us?!
Throughout the speech, I employ religious and philosophical concepts in ways that few Theologians or Philosophers could possibly take seriously.
These same scientists who tell you with such clarity what happened sixty-five million years ago – ask them what the weather will be like in New York in two weeks’ time! “Possibly, probably, it could be, maybe” – ain itam hadavar, they don’t know. They know everything that happened 65 million years ago, but from their madda, and their wissenschaft, we have to be mispoel?!
In sum, I intentionally wrote the speech so that any competent Theologian or Philosopher would realize that it is a spoof. Evidently the Rabbis of the Agudah felt comfortable listening to a speech on Science and Torah without bothering to consult anyone knowledgeable in the subject.
[XGH: OK, that's about enough of that! You can read the rest of Sokal's article here. And needless to say, Rav Uren Reich wasn't joking].
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
'All systems have basic premises which cannot be proven, Science too. Mine are the ikkarim'
For some years I've been troubled by an apparent decline in the standards of intellectual rigor in certain precincts of the American Chareidi community. But I'm a mere Rabbi: if I find myself unable to make head or tail of Cosmology and Gosse Theory, perhaps that just reflects my own inadequacy.
So, to test the prevailing intellectual standards, I decided to try a modest (though admittedly uncontrolled) experiment: Would a leading North American convention of Chareidi Rabbis -- whose rabbinical collective includes such luminaries as Rabbi Mattisyahu Solomon and Rabbi Reuven Feinstein -- allow me to give a speech liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded frum and (b) it flattered the Rabbis' ideological preconceptions?
The answer, unfortunately, is yes. Interested readers can find my speech, `The Gemara is metziyus: It's also emes veyatziv.' in the Spring/Summer 1995 Agudah Convention.
What's going on here? Could the Rabbis really not have realized that my speech was written as a parody?
In the first paragraph I deride the dogma imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony over the Chareidi intellectual outlook'':
…If the Gemara tells us a metziyus, it’s emes veyatziv. There’s nothing to think about. Anything we see with our eyes is less of a reality than something we see in the Gemara. That’s the emunah that a yid has to have.
Is it now dogma in Chareidi Studies that there exists no possibility of Chazal being wrong? Or that there exists an external world but science obtains no knowledge of it?
In the second paragraph I declare, without the slightest evidence or argument, that Chazal don't have to be reconciled with Science:
Unfortunately, I don’t know where or why this is, but recently there’s been a spate of all kinds of publications – I don’t know where they’ve come from – questioning things that have been mekubel midor dor, that every child learns, together with his mother’s milk, al titosh Toras imecha, we learn that every word of Torah is emes, every word of Chazal hakedoshim is emes. We’re coming to hear new kinds of concepts, that we have to figure out a way to make Torah compatible with modern day science – it’s an emunah mezuyefes! There’s a tremendous emunah that these people have for scientists in the outside world – everything they say is kodesh kadoshim! And then we have to figure out according to what they say, how to fit in the Gemara with this newfangled discoveries that the scientists have taught us?!
Throughout the speech, I employ religious and philosophical concepts in ways that few Theologians or Philosophers could possibly take seriously.
These same scientists who tell you with such clarity what happened sixty-five million years ago – ask them what the weather will be like in New York in two weeks’ time! “Possibly, probably, it could be, maybe” – ain itam hadavar, they don’t know. They know everything that happened 65 million years ago, but from their madda, and their wissenschaft, we have to be mispoel?!
In sum, I intentionally wrote the speech so that any competent Theologian or Philosopher would realize that it is a spoof. Evidently the Rabbis of the Agudah felt comfortable listening to a speech on Science and Torah without bothering to consult anyone knowledgeable in the subject.
[XGH: OK, that's about enough of that! You can read the rest of Sokal's article here. And needless to say, Rav Uren Reich wasn't joking].
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
BEWARE: The Torah State Will Come
[From Areivim, in reference to this article about a Chareidi take over of Bet Shemesh]
Who says a taliban-type approach is wrong? How many times in the torah does it talk about lo tachanem and uviarta harah mikirbecha? Maybe each non-haredi town/village etc NEEDS to be converted over time, and like in the block-busting eras of the 60s-70s US, maybe a tipping point is reached, and then [the neighborhood] falls to the victor (and the haredi commmuity benefits--since prices then are lower). The non-haredim can try to cluster into other areas, but [they] will always lose in the end due to smaller families, massive post-zionist yerida etc. It could be that it is actually a VERY good thing that is happening in these areas.
And when the State reaches 40-50% haredi, others would be even more inclined to leave - thus the Torah state will come.....
[and thus all the Chareidi sub groups will spend all day fighting each other, and the country will be a disaster. Also the country will get destroyed by the Arabs cos no one will be left to serve in the Army. Great plan! Not.]
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Who says a taliban-type approach is wrong? How many times in the torah does it talk about lo tachanem and uviarta harah mikirbecha? Maybe each non-haredi town/village etc NEEDS to be converted over time, and like in the block-busting eras of the 60s-70s US, maybe a tipping point is reached, and then [the neighborhood] falls to the victor (and the haredi commmuity benefits--since prices then are lower). The non-haredim can try to cluster into other areas, but [they] will always lose in the end due to smaller families, massive post-zionist yerida etc. It could be that it is actually a VERY good thing that is happening in these areas.
And when the State reaches 40-50% haredi, others would be even more inclined to leave - thus the Torah state will come.....
[and thus all the Chareidi sub groups will spend all day fighting each other, and the country will be a disaster. Also the country will get destroyed by the Arabs cos no one will be left to serve in the Army. Great plan! Not.]
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
The True Story of Channukah
Seems like Chanukah is everyone’s favorite holiday, from Reform Jews to Chassidim. How can this be? Simple, each group reads into the story whatever version suits them best.
Chassidim/Chareidim: Chanukah represents the victory of the Torah True Maccabees over the Modern Orthodox Misyavnim.
Modern Orthodox Jews: Chanukah represents the victory of the nice, normal Macabees over the Reform Hellenizers.
Reform Jews: Chanukah represents victory for the nice Jews over the Nazi like Greeks.
My Kids: Chanukah represents presents! Lots of presents.
Me: Mmmm, sufganiyot.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Chassidim/Chareidim: Chanukah represents the victory of the Torah True Maccabees over the Modern Orthodox Misyavnim.
Modern Orthodox Jews: Chanukah represents the victory of the nice, normal Macabees over the Reform Hellenizers.
Reform Jews: Chanukah represents victory for the nice Jews over the Nazi like Greeks.
My Kids: Chanukah represents presents! Lots of presents.
Me: Mmmm, sufganiyot.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Hitchens Bashes Hannukah
[Yes, it's that time of year again. Time that is for the Skeptics to point out that Chanukah (a) didn't happen like Chazal said it did, and (b) Was a victory for religious coercion and intolerance. This year, Christopher Hitchens joins in the fun.]
Bah, Hanukkah
The holiday celebrates the triumph of tribal Jewish backwardness
Christopher Hitchens
High on the list of idiotic commonplace expressions is the old maxim that "it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." How do such fatuous pieces of folk wisdom ever get started on their careers of glib quotation? Of course it would be preferable to light a candle than to complain about the darkness. You would only be bitching about the darkness if you didn't have a candle to begin with. Talk about a false antithesis. But at this time of year, any holy foolishness is permitted. And so we have a semiofficial celebration of Hanukkah, complete with menorah, to celebrate not the ignition of a light but the imposition of theocratic darkness.
Jewish orthodoxy possesses the interesting feature of naming and combating the idea of the apikoros or "Epicurean"—the intellectual renegade who prefers Athens to Jerusalem and the schools of philosophy to the grim old routines of the Torah. About a century and a half before the alleged birth of the supposed Jesus of Nazareth (another event that receives semiofficial recognition at this time of the year), the Greek or Epicurean style had begun to gain immense ground among the Jews of Syria and Palestine. The Seleucid Empire, an inheritance of Alexander the Great—Alexander still being a popular name among Jews—had weaned many people away from the sacrifices, the circumcisions, the belief in a special relationship with God, and the other reactionary manifestations of an ancient and cruel faith. I quote Rabbi Michael Lerner, an allegedly liberal spokesman for Judaism who nonetheless knows what he hates:
Along with Greek science and military prowess came a whole culture that celebrated beauty both in art and in the human body, presented the world with the triumph of rational thought in the works of Plato and Aristotle, and rejoiced in the complexities of life presented in the theater of Aeschylus, Euripides and Aristophanes.
But away with all that, says Lerner. Let us instead celebrate the Maccabean peasants who wanted to destroy Hellenism and restore what he actually calls "oldtime religion." His excuse for preferring fundamentalist thuggery to secularism and philosophy is that Hellenism was "imperialistic," but the Hasmonean regime that resulted from the Maccabean revolt soon became exorbitantly corrupt, vicious, and divided, and encouraged the Roman annexation of Judea. Had it not been for this no-less imperial event, we would never have had to hear of Jesus of Nazareth or his sect—which was a plagiarism from fundamentalist Judaism—and the Jewish people would never have been accused of being deicidal "Christ killers." Thus, to celebrate Hanukkah is to celebrate not just the triumph of tribal Jewish backwardness but also the accidental birth of Judaism's bastard child in the shape of Christianity. You might think that masochism could do no more. Except that it always can. Without the precedents of Orthodox Judaism and Roman Christianity, on which it is based and from which it is borrowed, there would be no Islam, either. Every Jew who honors the Hanukkah holiday because it gives his child an excuse to mingle the dreidel with the Christmas tree and the sleigh (neither of these absurd symbols having the least thing to do with Palestine two millenniums past) is celebrating the making of a series of rods for his own back. And this is not just a disaster for the Jews. When the fanatics of Palestine won that victory, and when Judaism repudiated Athens for Jerusalem, the development of the whole of humanity was terribly retarded.
And, of course and as ever, one stands aghast at the pathetic scale of the supposed "miracle." As a consequence of the successful Maccabean revolt against Hellenism, so it is said, a puddle of olive oil that should have lasted only for one day managed to burn for eight days. Wow! Certain proof, not just of an Almighty, but of an Almighty with a special fondness for fundamentalists. Epicurus and Democritus had brilliantly discovered that the world was made up of atoms, but who cares about a mere fact like that when there is miraculous oil to be goggled at by credulous peasants?
We are about to have the annual culture war about the display of cribs, mangers, conifers, and other symbols on public land. Most of this argument is phony and tawdry and secondhand and has nothing whatever to do with "faith" as its protagonists understand it. The burning of a Yule log or the display of a Scandinavian tree is nothing more than paganism and the observance of a winter solstice; it makes no more acknowledgment of the Christian religion than I do. The fierce partisanship of the holly bush and mistletoe believers convicts them of nothing more than ignorance and simple-mindedness. They would have been just as pious under the reign of the Druids or the Vikings, and just as much attached to their bucolic icons. Everybody knows, furthermore, that there was no moving star in the east, that Quirinius was not the governor of Syria in the time of King Herod, that no worldwide tax census was conducted in that period of the rule of Augustus, and that no "stable" is mentioned even in any of the mutually contradictory books of the New Testament. So, to put a star on top of a pine tree or to arrange various farm animals around a crib is to be as accurate and inventive as that Japanese department store that, as urban legend has it, did its best to emulate the Christmas spirit by displaying a red-and-white bearded Santa snugly nailed to a crucifix.
This is childish stuff and if only for that reason should obviously not receive any public endorsement or financing. The display of the menorah at this season, however, has a precise meaning and is an explicit celebration of the original victory of bloody-minded faith over enlightenment and reason. As such it is a direct negation of the First Amendment and it is time for the secularists and the civil libertarians to find the courage to say so.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Bah, Hanukkah
The holiday celebrates the triumph of tribal Jewish backwardness
Christopher Hitchens
High on the list of idiotic commonplace expressions is the old maxim that "it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." How do such fatuous pieces of folk wisdom ever get started on their careers of glib quotation? Of course it would be preferable to light a candle than to complain about the darkness. You would only be bitching about the darkness if you didn't have a candle to begin with. Talk about a false antithesis. But at this time of year, any holy foolishness is permitted. And so we have a semiofficial celebration of Hanukkah, complete with menorah, to celebrate not the ignition of a light but the imposition of theocratic darkness.
Jewish orthodoxy possesses the interesting feature of naming and combating the idea of the apikoros or "Epicurean"—the intellectual renegade who prefers Athens to Jerusalem and the schools of philosophy to the grim old routines of the Torah. About a century and a half before the alleged birth of the supposed Jesus of Nazareth (another event that receives semiofficial recognition at this time of the year), the Greek or Epicurean style had begun to gain immense ground among the Jews of Syria and Palestine. The Seleucid Empire, an inheritance of Alexander the Great—Alexander still being a popular name among Jews—had weaned many people away from the sacrifices, the circumcisions, the belief in a special relationship with God, and the other reactionary manifestations of an ancient and cruel faith. I quote Rabbi Michael Lerner, an allegedly liberal spokesman for Judaism who nonetheless knows what he hates:
Along with Greek science and military prowess came a whole culture that celebrated beauty both in art and in the human body, presented the world with the triumph of rational thought in the works of Plato and Aristotle, and rejoiced in the complexities of life presented in the theater of Aeschylus, Euripides and Aristophanes.
But away with all that, says Lerner. Let us instead celebrate the Maccabean peasants who wanted to destroy Hellenism and restore what he actually calls "oldtime religion." His excuse for preferring fundamentalist thuggery to secularism and philosophy is that Hellenism was "imperialistic," but the Hasmonean regime that resulted from the Maccabean revolt soon became exorbitantly corrupt, vicious, and divided, and encouraged the Roman annexation of Judea. Had it not been for this no-less imperial event, we would never have had to hear of Jesus of Nazareth or his sect—which was a plagiarism from fundamentalist Judaism—and the Jewish people would never have been accused of being deicidal "Christ killers." Thus, to celebrate Hanukkah is to celebrate not just the triumph of tribal Jewish backwardness but also the accidental birth of Judaism's bastard child in the shape of Christianity. You might think that masochism could do no more. Except that it always can. Without the precedents of Orthodox Judaism and Roman Christianity, on which it is based and from which it is borrowed, there would be no Islam, either. Every Jew who honors the Hanukkah holiday because it gives his child an excuse to mingle the dreidel with the Christmas tree and the sleigh (neither of these absurd symbols having the least thing to do with Palestine two millenniums past) is celebrating the making of a series of rods for his own back. And this is not just a disaster for the Jews. When the fanatics of Palestine won that victory, and when Judaism repudiated Athens for Jerusalem, the development of the whole of humanity was terribly retarded.
And, of course and as ever, one stands aghast at the pathetic scale of the supposed "miracle." As a consequence of the successful Maccabean revolt against Hellenism, so it is said, a puddle of olive oil that should have lasted only for one day managed to burn for eight days. Wow! Certain proof, not just of an Almighty, but of an Almighty with a special fondness for fundamentalists. Epicurus and Democritus had brilliantly discovered that the world was made up of atoms, but who cares about a mere fact like that when there is miraculous oil to be goggled at by credulous peasants?
We are about to have the annual culture war about the display of cribs, mangers, conifers, and other symbols on public land. Most of this argument is phony and tawdry and secondhand and has nothing whatever to do with "faith" as its protagonists understand it. The burning of a Yule log or the display of a Scandinavian tree is nothing more than paganism and the observance of a winter solstice; it makes no more acknowledgment of the Christian religion than I do. The fierce partisanship of the holly bush and mistletoe believers convicts them of nothing more than ignorance and simple-mindedness. They would have been just as pious under the reign of the Druids or the Vikings, and just as much attached to their bucolic icons. Everybody knows, furthermore, that there was no moving star in the east, that Quirinius was not the governor of Syria in the time of King Herod, that no worldwide tax census was conducted in that period of the rule of Augustus, and that no "stable" is mentioned even in any of the mutually contradictory books of the New Testament. So, to put a star on top of a pine tree or to arrange various farm animals around a crib is to be as accurate and inventive as that Japanese department store that, as urban legend has it, did its best to emulate the Christmas spirit by displaying a red-and-white bearded Santa snugly nailed to a crucifix.
This is childish stuff and if only for that reason should obviously not receive any public endorsement or financing. The display of the menorah at this season, however, has a precise meaning and is an explicit celebration of the original victory of bloody-minded faith over enlightenment and reason. As such it is a direct negation of the First Amendment and it is time for the secularists and the civil libertarians to find the courage to say so.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Monday, December 3, 2007
Over the weekend I read an entire book on PostModernism! OK, so it was a short book, but I read it cover to cover
Over the weekend I read an entire book on PostModernism! OK, so it was a short book, but I read it cover to cover. Here is what I learned.
Post Modernism is a broad term, applying to art, architecture, linguistic theory and philosophy. At its core, it doesn't mean anything really specific, but rather tries to capture a general change in attitudes which started to become prevalent in the 60s and 70s. According to this book, PoMo has almost run it's course now.
In Art, PoMo was all about totally new forms of art, for example a toilet, or a pile of garbage. If only I'd known that piles of garbage were art, I could have saved a lot of effort cleaning my house. Why are these art? I'm not sure, but by calling this stuff art, it forces the viewer to ponder deep questions, and this kind of assult on the viewer is very PoMoish. What kinds of questions does it present to the viewer? Probably, 'Why the heck is this toilet called art?'
In literary theory, PoMo is linked to deconstructionism and structuralism. Deconstructionism when applied to a text basically means to tear the text apart, uncover the author's biases and contradictions, his frameworks and assumptions. Structuralism is the idea that all concepts are linked to all other concepts, and nothing really has objective meaning except in terms of everything else. Since language must be used to explain any idea, and since all words only makes sense in the context of anything else (the dictionary is circular: every word is defined in terms of another word!), this means that nothing can ever be said objectively.
Because language doesn't mean much anyway, or rather means whatever you take it to mean, PoMo authors have had a field day writing all sorts of crazy sounding stuff. It's so bad, that PoMo authors regularly win competitions for the World's Worst Writing, without intending to. Here is the first prize winner from 1997:
"The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power."
Not sure who the writer is but it does sound a lot like Josh Harrison of Reshimu. (OK I admit, I'm jealous. I wish I could write like that!).
Even worse, some PoMo writers use scientific concepts (such as Quantum Physics), in new and totally gibberish ways, infuriating Scientists in the process. PoMo writing was famously parodied by Alan Sokal who submitted a completely fake article to a prestigious PoMo magazine, and they didn't notice. Actually, it wasn't fake at all, but was very good PoMo gibberish, which was exactly the point.
Since all language is subjective, and all concepts are subjective, and all people are subjective, then (taken to the extreme), PoMo means that any idea we have, even science, is only subjective. Most people reject this extreme version of PoMo, except for Kiruv Clowns and sophisticated fundamentalists, who are eager to have a modern philosophy which bashes science. However before we bash the Chareidi PoMo crowd, we should acknowledge that Eugene Borowitz, a famous Reform Rabbi, constructs his entire Theology on the basis of PostModernism, and even mentions in one of his essays that he was pleased to discover that Science isn't objective.
So what do I think of PoMo? Well, there is obviously a little bit of truth in it. People are indeed subjective. But Science (at least the good parts of Science) is about as objective as you can get in this world, so bashing Science is rather stupid. Does PoMo open up new avenues for religious faith? Not really. I think it was always common sense that Science isn't the whole story, and could never be, you don't need PoMo for that, just a little philosophy of Science.
I also think that when certain skeptics bash any attempt to go with extra-rational thought (e.g. based on intuition or feelings or faith) as being 'PoMo' that's just plain wrong. Even though I reject extreme PoMo, and don't really think my toilet is art, I do think that the fundamentalist "I shall only believe things which are proven" skeptics are wrong. There's more to being human than being a robot logic machine. People have feelings, intuition and even faith. This is normal, natural and healthy. If it wasn't, we probably wouldn't have evolved that way.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Post Modernism is a broad term, applying to art, architecture, linguistic theory and philosophy. At its core, it doesn't mean anything really specific, but rather tries to capture a general change in attitudes which started to become prevalent in the 60s and 70s. According to this book, PoMo has almost run it's course now.
In Art, PoMo was all about totally new forms of art, for example a toilet, or a pile of garbage. If only I'd known that piles of garbage were art, I could have saved a lot of effort cleaning my house. Why are these art? I'm not sure, but by calling this stuff art, it forces the viewer to ponder deep questions, and this kind of assult on the viewer is very PoMoish. What kinds of questions does it present to the viewer? Probably, 'Why the heck is this toilet called art?'
In literary theory, PoMo is linked to deconstructionism and structuralism. Deconstructionism when applied to a text basically means to tear the text apart, uncover the author's biases and contradictions, his frameworks and assumptions. Structuralism is the idea that all concepts are linked to all other concepts, and nothing really has objective meaning except in terms of everything else. Since language must be used to explain any idea, and since all words only makes sense in the context of anything else (the dictionary is circular: every word is defined in terms of another word!), this means that nothing can ever be said objectively.
Because language doesn't mean much anyway, or rather means whatever you take it to mean, PoMo authors have had a field day writing all sorts of crazy sounding stuff. It's so bad, that PoMo authors regularly win competitions for the World's Worst Writing, without intending to. Here is the first prize winner from 1997:
"The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power."
Not sure who the writer is but it does sound a lot like Josh Harrison of Reshimu. (OK I admit, I'm jealous. I wish I could write like that!).
Even worse, some PoMo writers use scientific concepts (such as Quantum Physics), in new and totally gibberish ways, infuriating Scientists in the process. PoMo writing was famously parodied by Alan Sokal who submitted a completely fake article to a prestigious PoMo magazine, and they didn't notice. Actually, it wasn't fake at all, but was very good PoMo gibberish, which was exactly the point.
Since all language is subjective, and all concepts are subjective, and all people are subjective, then (taken to the extreme), PoMo means that any idea we have, even science, is only subjective. Most people reject this extreme version of PoMo, except for Kiruv Clowns and sophisticated fundamentalists, who are eager to have a modern philosophy which bashes science. However before we bash the Chareidi PoMo crowd, we should acknowledge that Eugene Borowitz, a famous Reform Rabbi, constructs his entire Theology on the basis of PostModernism, and even mentions in one of his essays that he was pleased to discover that Science isn't objective.
So what do I think of PoMo? Well, there is obviously a little bit of truth in it. People are indeed subjective. But Science (at least the good parts of Science) is about as objective as you can get in this world, so bashing Science is rather stupid. Does PoMo open up new avenues for religious faith? Not really. I think it was always common sense that Science isn't the whole story, and could never be, you don't need PoMo for that, just a little philosophy of Science.
I also think that when certain skeptics bash any attempt to go with extra-rational thought (e.g. based on intuition or feelings or faith) as being 'PoMo' that's just plain wrong. Even though I reject extreme PoMo, and don't really think my toilet is art, I do think that the fundamentalist "I shall only believe things which are proven" skeptics are wrong. There's more to being human than being a robot logic machine. People have feelings, intuition and even faith. This is normal, natural and healthy. If it wasn't, we probably wouldn't have evolved that way.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)