Some new people have joined recently, and since it's not always obvious what this blog is all about, let me explain it here.
This blog started out at a different URL, and was originally written from the perspective of a Modern Orthodox Jew. Initially, the 'Science and Torah' controversy was the main subject, and I was intent on proving that the Chareidim and their Gedolim were completely wrong in their views on Science.
It was easy enough to win the debates against the Chareidim, too easy in fact. But I started noticing a very troubling thing. Various skeptics would come on my blog and start to debate me, and often with the exact same types of arguments that I would use so successfully against the chareidim. You know those arguments - the annoying ones which reference facts and evidence rather than loyalty and faith.
After a while I started to realize that it would be extremely intellectually dishonest of me to continue to declare victory against the chareidim, while simultaneously ignoring all the very strong questions coming to me from the skeptics.
For example, if it was 'the most reasonable conclusion' that God would not create a bizarre miracle like the world appearing to be older than 6,000 years, why was it not also the 'most reasonable conclusion' that God would not create a Torah which to all the world looked like a composite document, entirely consistent with other religious mythology and rules of its time? That's just one example, there are many others.
So, I was forced to debate the Skeptics. And I lost. Every single time. And I knew this couldn't be because I'm a poor debater, because I had no problem at all debating the Chareidim. And I also knew this couldn't be because I wanted to be skeptical, because on the contrary, I did not. It was painful to have to admit to it, but the only rational explanation was that the skeptics had better arguments.
One other possibility presented itself - perhaps the online skeptics were all the incredibly smart and knowledgeable skeptics, whereas the online believers were all the idiot batlanim, while the intelligent believers did more useful things. Maybe in real life some genuine believer could convince me.
So, in parallel to my blogging, I engaged personally with a number of highly intelligent and very credentialed Modern Orthodox Rabbis who I know in real life. While I respect and admire all these Rabbis greatly, and consider some of them to be close friends, I found no better arguments from these people.
Ultimately it became clear to me: In the same way that I could never understand how a Mormon could be so silly as to passionately believe in the truth of Mormon ideology, even though it was so obvious to anyone on the outside that Mormonism is just abject nonsense, likewise me and all my friends were stuck in the delusional bubble of Orthodoxy.
OJ obviously wasn't true, and that becomes immediately and abundantly clear as soon as you have the ability to stick your head outside the delusional bubble, and create an objective vantage point from the outside looking in.
Though even as I write these words, some part of my brain still clings to the beliefs that were so very well indoctrinated in me since my birth. It is VERY hard to shake those kind of beliefs, and I suppose I should be more sympathetic to those poor unfortunates amongst us who are incapable of doing so. (Sometimes I think Richard Dawkins is correct - religious fundamentalist education IS a form of child abuse.)
Once I realized that OJ probably wasn't true, I was stuck with a quandary. What to do now? Ever since then, I have tried various approaches. I tried secularism for a short while, but found that very wanting. I tried a type of conservative 'Divine Inspiration' theory, but it wasn't very convincing. More recently I am trying out Reconstructionist Orthodoxy, which involves trying to reconstruct as much as the OJ lifestyle and culture as possible (and as sensible), without sacrificing my brain on the alter of mindless fundamentalism.
What motivates me?
Well, I am Orthodox, and Orthodoxy does not make it possible to leave very easily. And since I know that the beliefs of OJ are not true, I have no real choice but to stay and fight for a different interpretation. As someone famous once said: 'Fight them from the inside. It's much more effective that way'.
Do I have a specific goal?
Not really. I tend towards being destructive about OJ, but that's mostly because OJ is so dominant in my life that it's a constant struggle to fight it. In truth I would rather be more constructive, but the atmosphere is not conducive. Perhaps if the believers were more encouraging to my quest that would help. But of course they are not, because they see my views as very threatening to them. A sign of insecurity (and mindless fundamentalism) to be sure.
Is my approach for everyone?
Not at all. I certainly wouldn't want all the world, or even all of Orthodoxy, or even all of Modern Orthodoxy, to hold like me. Apart from the fact that it would never work, pluralism is good and healthy. But I am fighting for my place at the table. There needs to be a space within Orthodoxy for people who value the lifestyle, even value halachah, and yet can say without shame that the beliefs are unbelievable (at least from a literal perspective, maybe there's wiggle room for a post-modern type of approach).
My main goal, as I have always said, is just to figure stuff out. And so far, it is definitely working.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Monday, March 31, 2008
Maybe truth is not that important?
Amongst all the comment spam from intellefundies like RG, Deganev and Yus (none of whom do the cause of OJ much good), there is some good stuff from people such as Anthony and EvanstonJew. Shame it has gotten buried in a pile of fundamentaslit.
EJ in particular is someone who usually has something interesting to say, whether I agree with him or not, it's still interesting, unlike some of the mindless fundamentalist nonsense that some commenters think passes for intelligent thought. Oh that all my commenters would be like EJ! (Careful what you wish for). Here is a collection of Evanston Jew's comments:
"I want to respond to the argument that Torah isn't true. I had a teacher way back when who taught me the following derech: Always ask with respect to any idea ...What does it mean, is it true and is it interesting. Let's say, hypothetically, Torah is not true. The last two questions remain and in my view are more than enough to generate a culture of Orthodoxy which I believe is necessary for the preservation of the Jewish people.
Anyone who studies tanach seriously realizes that even after our having decided the mesorah is false we are still far away from understanding the meaning of the text or fully comprehending the significance of what did happen.The same is true for all the other major works of Torah, from the Talmud to the Zohar.
I don't know about others, but for me there is nothing more interesting or enjoyable than trying to say peshat in Torah commensurate with all we know about the world. Asking whether it is true never enters into the question. A similar point can be made about the way of life, Orthodoxy in the broadest sense, that enables the culture of Torah to thrive.
Against my variant one would have to argue that an Orthodox culture is inferior to say a literary or scientific culture. Not so easy to do.
There is an implicit assumption that Orthodoxy is a type of governance that can be accepted or thrown off, the famous kabalas ol malchus shemayim. The idea is that we are independently subjects/ selves and would remain pretty much the same with or without the way of life,what I called the culture of Orthodoxy.
I think this premis is not fully true for most people who have been raised Orthodox with a yeshiva education. The power structure that constitute Orthodox life not only governs its subjects, it creates them. Listen to the crowd on Yeshiva World or some such site....how they talk, how they think. It is clear the culture, the way of life called charedi has created these people. Why should it be any different for Jews with one foot in and one foot out of Orthodoxy.
And it is with respect to who I am, who I have become over a lifetime of contact and immersion in Orthodox life that I say the truth of some dogma is really irrelevant. Everything of interest in me remains the same whether or not P is written before or after the churban, and so on.
A life conducted inside a Borges infinite library is of value or not independently of whether the infinite collection of books are true.
I would say first the obvious point that many yeshiva people live in an intellectual Jewish ghetto where tanach makes them uncomfortable, midrash is unappealing, philosophy is treif and kabbalah is frightening.
Torah bemiluah, Torah in all its fullness, where no sefer is foreign and no idea is treif not only encompasses all of the above, but also what Jews have believed over the years about Torah and their place in the world and why. Think of this as one vector. Orthogonal to this are the many derachim of reading and interpreting these texts and ideas, (psychoanalytic, philological, historical and on and on.)
Parallel to this mesorah is the astounding and truly mind boggling fact that over the course of our history we were "everywhere" worth being. Greece, Persia, Islam, Christendom, the secular West. Our literature and practices intersect with these other streams both influencing and being influenced, as well being witness to the indigenous developments unique to each of these cultures. So for starters you have the entire humanities as a playground sans Icelandic sagas and Beowulf.
Add to this, questions of bildung and the care and development of our selves, and each of us as existential beings, as RJBS might say, faces the personal problem of putting together a coherent and plausible picture of the world and our place in it. So although lo aleicha hamelacha ligmor we now have all of philosophy understood as the science of science & as wisdom, plus the more fun tasks of developing attitudes and a personality which will enable us to live well and with meaning.
As far as I can tell a life can pass, only a small part of the library will be looked at even by the most bookish of men, and the word truth has appeared rarely if ever, and never in a way to spoil the party."
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
EJ in particular is someone who usually has something interesting to say, whether I agree with him or not, it's still interesting, unlike some of the mindless fundamentalist nonsense that some commenters think passes for intelligent thought. Oh that all my commenters would be like EJ! (Careful what you wish for). Here is a collection of Evanston Jew's comments:
"I want to respond to the argument that Torah isn't true. I had a teacher way back when who taught me the following derech: Always ask with respect to any idea ...What does it mean, is it true and is it interesting. Let's say, hypothetically, Torah is not true. The last two questions remain and in my view are more than enough to generate a culture of Orthodoxy which I believe is necessary for the preservation of the Jewish people.
Anyone who studies tanach seriously realizes that even after our having decided the mesorah is false we are still far away from understanding the meaning of the text or fully comprehending the significance of what did happen.The same is true for all the other major works of Torah, from the Talmud to the Zohar.
I don't know about others, but for me there is nothing more interesting or enjoyable than trying to say peshat in Torah commensurate with all we know about the world. Asking whether it is true never enters into the question. A similar point can be made about the way of life, Orthodoxy in the broadest sense, that enables the culture of Torah to thrive.
Against my variant one would have to argue that an Orthodox culture is inferior to say a literary or scientific culture. Not so easy to do.
There is an implicit assumption that Orthodoxy is a type of governance that can be accepted or thrown off, the famous kabalas ol malchus shemayim. The idea is that we are independently subjects/ selves and would remain pretty much the same with or without the way of life,what I called the culture of Orthodoxy.
I think this premis is not fully true for most people who have been raised Orthodox with a yeshiva education. The power structure that constitute Orthodox life not only governs its subjects, it creates them. Listen to the crowd on Yeshiva World or some such site....how they talk, how they think. It is clear the culture, the way of life called charedi has created these people. Why should it be any different for Jews with one foot in and one foot out of Orthodoxy.
And it is with respect to who I am, who I have become over a lifetime of contact and immersion in Orthodox life that I say the truth of some dogma is really irrelevant. Everything of interest in me remains the same whether or not P is written before or after the churban, and so on.
A life conducted inside a Borges infinite library is of value or not independently of whether the infinite collection of books are true.
I would say first the obvious point that many yeshiva people live in an intellectual Jewish ghetto where tanach makes them uncomfortable, midrash is unappealing, philosophy is treif and kabbalah is frightening.
Torah bemiluah, Torah in all its fullness, where no sefer is foreign and no idea is treif not only encompasses all of the above, but also what Jews have believed over the years about Torah and their place in the world and why. Think of this as one vector. Orthogonal to this are the many derachim of reading and interpreting these texts and ideas, (psychoanalytic, philological, historical and on and on.)
Parallel to this mesorah is the astounding and truly mind boggling fact that over the course of our history we were "everywhere" worth being. Greece, Persia, Islam, Christendom, the secular West. Our literature and practices intersect with these other streams both influencing and being influenced, as well being witness to the indigenous developments unique to each of these cultures. So for starters you have the entire humanities as a playground sans Icelandic sagas and Beowulf.
Add to this, questions of bildung and the care and development of our selves, and each of us as existential beings, as RJBS might say, faces the personal problem of putting together a coherent and plausible picture of the world and our place in it. So although lo aleicha hamelacha ligmor we now have all of philosophy understood as the science of science & as wisdom, plus the more fun tasks of developing attitudes and a personality which will enable us to live well and with meaning.
As far as I can tell a life can pass, only a small part of the library will be looked at even by the most bookish of men, and the word truth has appeared rarely if ever, and never in a way to spoil the party."
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
My apology to the intellefundies
Wow, it seems my last few posts really upset some people. Actually I'm a little surprised at that, because they weren't especially nasty posts, or at least they were not intended to be. What's so upsetting about my 'intellefundie' phrase anyway? As I explained, intellefundie is simply a concatenation of the words 'Intellectual' and 'Fundamentalist.
Surely the intellefundies are not upset about being labeled 'intellectuals' ? I would have thought they would see that as a compliment. Probably they are upset at being called 'Fundamentalist'. But we've been through this before, and it's not possible to be a committed Orthodox Jew without also being a fundamentalist. Let me explain.
OJ insists that you believe in God and Torah Min Hashamayim (at least 'standard' OJ insists on that, there is certainly room for flexibility if you're willing to be well, flexible).
Not only does OJ insist on that, but Chazal had plenty of statements about people not believing in certain things (e.g. Olam Habah Min Hatorah) that they lose their Olam Habah. Of course according to me, Chazal were just being metaphorical, allegorical, pedagogical not to mention positively polemical.
But according to the average OJ, these statements are to be taken very seriously indeed. Not only this, but there are very clear halachot about even thinking about 'kefirah', never mind investigating it in depth and holding of it.
So, it is absolutely impossible for a committed OJ to hold anything but these fundamental beliefs, and it is not even allowed for someone to investigate these subjects (unless perhaps they do so with the sole and exclusive intention of 'answering any doubts', which is hardly an honest investigation).
There is no 'escape clause' in the shulchan aruch - it does not start with a disclaimer that says 'These rules only applicable to those Jews who hold of TMS'. No!
According to Halachah you are mechuyav to keep ALL halachos ALWAYS.
NO EXCEPTIONS.
Possibly some Rishonim hold that if you totally cut yourself off from Judaism, e.g. by converting to Christianity, then you are no longer considered part of klal yisrael and no longer have to keep halachah. But my Rav, an eminent posek, says we do not hold like that, and no matter what your belief you are still mechuyav to keep all halachah (ironically even those which pertain to beliefs).
And anyway, conversion is a drastic case which is not relevant here.
So, there is no option whatsoever for an Orthodox Jew, or any Jew for that matter, to not hold of these beliefs and associated halachot. It doesn't matter what new evidence comes to light. It doesn't matter how bogus these beliefs may appear to be. You must hold of these beliefs. And anyone who claims to be a fully Orthodox Jew, 100% committed to Halachah ,must absolutely commit to abiding by these rules. As Hirhurim famously said 'I will believe no matter what the evidence'.
This is the kind of emunah a frum yid MUST have!
And I'm not even kidding. Ask any Orthodox Rabbi.
OK, some more modern and flexible Rabbis will tell you that it's OK if you are agnostic, as long as you don't totally deny any of these ikkarim. But that's a bdi'eved at best, and even then, total denial is completely forbidden.
If all this isn't a perfect example of fundamentalism then what on earth is?! This is the very definition of fundamentalism - holding of certain (typically religous) beliefs no matter what the evidence. I know the intellefundies hate to be called fundamentalists (or fundie for short), but there's no getting around it.
Now, I have had this exact conversation with some intellefundies in the past, and while most agree, some argue back like this:
'It's true I believe in all these fundamental beliefs with 100% conviction. And it's true that I am committed to halachah 100%, but if I ever were to be convinced or persuaded that these beliefs are not true, I would be true to myself and drop these beliefs'.
Well, I'm sorry guys, but this line of argument is completely bogus. Mimah Nafshach, if you are committed to Halachah then 'You are not allowed to change your mind on these beliefs'. Thats what commitment to Halachah means. There is no such thing as conditional commitment. There is no get-out clause in the Shulchan Aruch.
So either you are lying, or else you are not really committed to halachah (which for an OJ Rabbi is pretty pathetic).
So maybe what they mean to say is if they were ever actually convinced, then in practical reality they would just change their whole world view, and even though they are currently committed to Halachah 100%, they are not so foolish as to claim that this kind of change could never happen to them.
Okay, but I still don't buy it, at least not from most of the Intellefundies I know, who are all also Rabbis and well known educators (and that's no coincidence). These people are all committed and invested in OJ, they couldn't possibly turn around one day and give it all up. The last famous person to do that was Mordechai Kaplan or maybe Louis Jacobs, but they had cojones. The most cojones that these intellefundies have is that they might argue against some Chareidim. Wow, like getting banned by the chareidim is a major setback these days.
Let's be honest here: These modern day intellefundies would just never admit defeat; in fact they can't admit defeat, for emotional and religious reasons. Again, totally fundamentalist.
The only case where this argument might not apply I suppose is the case of a secular or non Orthodox Jew, who does an extensive evaluation of all the evidence, and on the basis of his analysis decides to become Orthodox. Then, I suppose he could argue that he is not a fundamentalist, or at least wasn't at that time of his conversion. Still, many of these people subsequently become so invested in OJ, that even if you were able to prove to them that their initial analysis was completely flawed, mostly they wouldn't be able to accept it, and so now have turned into fundamentalists too.
Other people were upset that I am always being critical or destructive. It's definitely true that the last few posts have been somewhat destructive. But after my longest break yet, I wanted to see if my opinions were still solid, and the arguments over the last few days have convinced me that they are, or at least have done nothing to shake my beliefs.
My goal though is to be constructive, to find meaning, morality and spirituality in a meaningless, amoral and material world. Is this possible? Possibly. But not by creating a fantasy world resting on untrue assumptions. At least I hope not, though I am entirely open to the
possibility that this is indeed exactly what is required.
If this turns out to be the case, then I may well offer a sincere apology to all the intellefundies, and swiftly join their ranks. Well, either that or I'll just become a cynical hedonistic nihilistic git. (Yes, yes, dear intellefundies. I know, I am that already.)
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Surely the intellefundies are not upset about being labeled 'intellectuals' ? I would have thought they would see that as a compliment. Probably they are upset at being called 'Fundamentalist'. But we've been through this before, and it's not possible to be a committed Orthodox Jew without also being a fundamentalist. Let me explain.
OJ insists that you believe in God and Torah Min Hashamayim (at least 'standard' OJ insists on that, there is certainly room for flexibility if you're willing to be well, flexible).
Not only does OJ insist on that, but Chazal had plenty of statements about people not believing in certain things (e.g. Olam Habah Min Hatorah) that they lose their Olam Habah. Of course according to me, Chazal were just being metaphorical, allegorical, pedagogical not to mention positively polemical.
But according to the average OJ, these statements are to be taken very seriously indeed. Not only this, but there are very clear halachot about even thinking about 'kefirah', never mind investigating it in depth and holding of it.
So, it is absolutely impossible for a committed OJ to hold anything but these fundamental beliefs, and it is not even allowed for someone to investigate these subjects (unless perhaps they do so with the sole and exclusive intention of 'answering any doubts', which is hardly an honest investigation).
There is no 'escape clause' in the shulchan aruch - it does not start with a disclaimer that says 'These rules only applicable to those Jews who hold of TMS'. No!
According to Halachah you are mechuyav to keep ALL halachos ALWAYS.
NO EXCEPTIONS.
Possibly some Rishonim hold that if you totally cut yourself off from Judaism, e.g. by converting to Christianity, then you are no longer considered part of klal yisrael and no longer have to keep halachah. But my Rav, an eminent posek, says we do not hold like that, and no matter what your belief you are still mechuyav to keep all halachah (ironically even those which pertain to beliefs).
And anyway, conversion is a drastic case which is not relevant here.
So, there is no option whatsoever for an Orthodox Jew, or any Jew for that matter, to not hold of these beliefs and associated halachot. It doesn't matter what new evidence comes to light. It doesn't matter how bogus these beliefs may appear to be. You must hold of these beliefs. And anyone who claims to be a fully Orthodox Jew, 100% committed to Halachah ,must absolutely commit to abiding by these rules. As Hirhurim famously said 'I will believe no matter what the evidence'.
This is the kind of emunah a frum yid MUST have!
And I'm not even kidding. Ask any Orthodox Rabbi.
OK, some more modern and flexible Rabbis will tell you that it's OK if you are agnostic, as long as you don't totally deny any of these ikkarim. But that's a bdi'eved at best, and even then, total denial is completely forbidden.
If all this isn't a perfect example of fundamentalism then what on earth is?! This is the very definition of fundamentalism - holding of certain (typically religous) beliefs no matter what the evidence. I know the intellefundies hate to be called fundamentalists (or fundie for short), but there's no getting around it.
Now, I have had this exact conversation with some intellefundies in the past, and while most agree, some argue back like this:
'It's true I believe in all these fundamental beliefs with 100% conviction. And it's true that I am committed to halachah 100%, but if I ever were to be convinced or persuaded that these beliefs are not true, I would be true to myself and drop these beliefs'.
Well, I'm sorry guys, but this line of argument is completely bogus. Mimah Nafshach, if you are committed to Halachah then 'You are not allowed to change your mind on these beliefs'. Thats what commitment to Halachah means. There is no such thing as conditional commitment. There is no get-out clause in the Shulchan Aruch.
So either you are lying, or else you are not really committed to halachah (which for an OJ Rabbi is pretty pathetic).
So maybe what they mean to say is if they were ever actually convinced, then in practical reality they would just change their whole world view, and even though they are currently committed to Halachah 100%, they are not so foolish as to claim that this kind of change could never happen to them.
Okay, but I still don't buy it, at least not from most of the Intellefundies I know, who are all also Rabbis and well known educators (and that's no coincidence). These people are all committed and invested in OJ, they couldn't possibly turn around one day and give it all up. The last famous person to do that was Mordechai Kaplan or maybe Louis Jacobs, but they had cojones. The most cojones that these intellefundies have is that they might argue against some Chareidim. Wow, like getting banned by the chareidim is a major setback these days.
Let's be honest here: These modern day intellefundies would just never admit defeat; in fact they can't admit defeat, for emotional and religious reasons. Again, totally fundamentalist.
The only case where this argument might not apply I suppose is the case of a secular or non Orthodox Jew, who does an extensive evaluation of all the evidence, and on the basis of his analysis decides to become Orthodox. Then, I suppose he could argue that he is not a fundamentalist, or at least wasn't at that time of his conversion. Still, many of these people subsequently become so invested in OJ, that even if you were able to prove to them that their initial analysis was completely flawed, mostly they wouldn't be able to accept it, and so now have turned into fundamentalists too.
Other people were upset that I am always being critical or destructive. It's definitely true that the last few posts have been somewhat destructive. But after my longest break yet, I wanted to see if my opinions were still solid, and the arguments over the last few days have convinced me that they are, or at least have done nothing to shake my beliefs.
My goal though is to be constructive, to find meaning, morality and spirituality in a meaningless, amoral and material world. Is this possible? Possibly. But not by creating a fantasy world resting on untrue assumptions. At least I hope not, though I am entirely open to the
possibility that this is indeed exactly what is required.
If this turns out to be the case, then I may well offer a sincere apology to all the intellefundies, and swiftly join their ranks. Well, either that or I'll just become a cynical hedonistic nihilistic git. (Yes, yes, dear intellefundies. I know, I am that already.)
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Is OJ intellectually defensible?
Quite a few of my intellefundie friends argue that while OJ is of course not by any means 'provable', they still hold it is 'intellectually defensible'.
By this I think they mean to argue that believing in OJ is not silly or irrational. This stance is appealing to these types of people for obvious reasons; they are too intellectually savvy to claim that they can prove their religion is the one true religion, and not just because 100% proof isn't possible, but they wouldn't even claim that of all the alternatives, OJ is the most reasonable or likely.
However they are also not fundamentalist enough to proclaim 100% conviction and loyalty to some fundamentalist doctrine which by all accounts is crazy. So, they convince themselves that their position is at least 'intellectually defensible', i.e. coherent, not crazy, not significantly contradicted by any known evidence, and so on.
The intellefundies that I know vary on how they create this 'intellectual defense'.
The more right wing fundies will stick to the ikkarim without fail, and will rely on metaphorical approaches to Breishis to answer questions from Science. These types will generally reject the validity of Biblical Criticism outright, because they have no way of assimilating it into their defense.
However more left wing fundies are even able to address Biblical Criticism. One guy I know says that he has trained himself that if ever Biblical Criticism was proved true (or if he himself came to that conclusion through his own research), it wouldn't matter. He would still believe that the Bible was 100% Divinely inspired, but it was just created and compiled by various people over the centuries.
Personally, I don't believe that OJ is even intellectually defensible.
We know too much about ancient religions, about the incredible bias of religious types, about the powerful hold that religious indoctrination can have on a person, about the formation of ancient myths, about the structure and style of the Old Testament, about ancient archeology and about religious fundamentalism in general to believe that it is in any way defensible. Only religious fundamentalists themselves think that their positions are intellectually defensible, nobody else does.
I found this new book book that makes this point, specifically about OJ. From the description:
"With an engaging manner, a clarity of expression, and a keen sense of humor that make this powerful book a pleasure to read, first-time author R.D. Gold relentlessly dismantles the whole mind-set of the religious fundamentalist. At first glance, it might appear that Gold has the singular purpose of deconstructing the doctrines of Orthodox Judaism (Jewish fundamentalism), but in reality the book develops a compelling argument that applies to all forms of fundamentalist religion. The evangelical belief system is firmly anchored in the same literal reading of the Old Testament that is at the core of Orthodox Jewish doctrine, and indeed would be incomprehensible without it. By pulling up the anchor that is the literal truth of the Torah, Gold sets adrift not only the foundation of Orthodox Judaism, but of Christian fundamentalism as well.
There is a great debate unfolding across the country pitting reason and science against revelation and faith. Bondage of the Mind talks to that vast audience of modern readers who are trying to figure out where they stand on the spectrum of religious belief.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
By this I think they mean to argue that believing in OJ is not silly or irrational. This stance is appealing to these types of people for obvious reasons; they are too intellectually savvy to claim that they can prove their religion is the one true religion, and not just because 100% proof isn't possible, but they wouldn't even claim that of all the alternatives, OJ is the most reasonable or likely.
However they are also not fundamentalist enough to proclaim 100% conviction and loyalty to some fundamentalist doctrine which by all accounts is crazy. So, they convince themselves that their position is at least 'intellectually defensible', i.e. coherent, not crazy, not significantly contradicted by any known evidence, and so on.
The intellefundies that I know vary on how they create this 'intellectual defense'.
The more right wing fundies will stick to the ikkarim without fail, and will rely on metaphorical approaches to Breishis to answer questions from Science. These types will generally reject the validity of Biblical Criticism outright, because they have no way of assimilating it into their defense.
However more left wing fundies are even able to address Biblical Criticism. One guy I know says that he has trained himself that if ever Biblical Criticism was proved true (or if he himself came to that conclusion through his own research), it wouldn't matter. He would still believe that the Bible was 100% Divinely inspired, but it was just created and compiled by various people over the centuries.
Personally, I don't believe that OJ is even intellectually defensible.
We know too much about ancient religions, about the incredible bias of religious types, about the powerful hold that religious indoctrination can have on a person, about the formation of ancient myths, about the structure and style of the Old Testament, about ancient archeology and about religious fundamentalism in general to believe that it is in any way defensible. Only religious fundamentalists themselves think that their positions are intellectually defensible, nobody else does.
I found this new book book that makes this point, specifically about OJ. From the description:"With an engaging manner, a clarity of expression, and a keen sense of humor that make this powerful book a pleasure to read, first-time author R.D. Gold relentlessly dismantles the whole mind-set of the religious fundamentalist. At first glance, it might appear that Gold has the singular purpose of deconstructing the doctrines of Orthodox Judaism (Jewish fundamentalism), but in reality the book develops a compelling argument that applies to all forms of fundamentalist religion. The evangelical belief system is firmly anchored in the same literal reading of the Old Testament that is at the core of Orthodox Jewish doctrine, and indeed would be incomprehensible without it. By pulling up the anchor that is the literal truth of the Torah, Gold sets adrift not only the foundation of Orthodox Judaism, but of Christian fundamentalism as well.
There is a great debate unfolding across the country pitting reason and science against revelation and faith. Bondage of the Mind talks to that vast audience of modern readers who are trying to figure out where they stand on the spectrum of religious belief.
Recognizing that even the most skeptical among us are uncomfortable with the atheist label, Bondage of the Mind develops a powerful argument that our choice is not limited to fundamentalism (I believe all of it) or atheism (I believe none of it).
Bondage of the Mind relentlessly dismantles the doctrines of religious fundamentalism - focusing on Orthodox Judaism (Jewish fundamentalism) -- but its core message is not that religion should be abandoned. Rather, the core message is that religious fundamentalism is an insidious force that must be combated if our hearts and minds are to remain free."
Sounds interesting.HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Can loyalty and faith over-ride truth?
Yus has been arguing that although OJ maybe does not look so likely to be true, the fact is he has tremendous loyalty and faith to OJ, and that over-rides any truth issues.[UPDATE: Just for Deganev - what I mean by this is that even though from a rational objective perspoective OJ doesn't look very true, yus says his tremendous loyalty and faith cause him to still believe with 100% conviction that it is indeed true. I didn't mean to imply that yus agrees it isn't true, but through some bizarre application of loyalty and faith will pretend that it is true, or act as if it was.]
[UPDATE TWO: Yus just tied all his loyalty and faith to the Kuzari argument (in another thread), which has been debunked countless times. Oh well, so much for loyalty and faith. Seems these were mostly code-words to disguise his allegiance to some bogus rational argument.]
Is this a valid argument?
I think it depends. Of course loyalty, and in some instances faith, are good middot to have, and the world would be a poorer place without them. On the other hand, we wouldn't say that about a suicide bomber about to blow up a pizza store, with utmost loyalty to his Mullah, and absolute faith that he is doing the will of Allah.
So, like all things in life, you have to use your sechel.
Is loyalty to an ancient law code, which seems rather immoral in places by modern standards, and which by all available evidence really doesn't look very true; is that kind of loyalty and faith sensible? And I think the obvious answer is that it isn't very sensible. Is it the worst thing in the world? No probably not, though given the recent excesses in multiple Fundamentalist religions, it's pretty damn scary.
The bottom line is this: Would the world be a better place without fundamentalist OJ? And that's a hard question to answer. However I think OJ would be a better place if some part of OJ admitted that a literal TMS just isn't very likely, the ikkarim are ridiculous, and that Orthopraxy is perfectly fine. Oh wait, I just described much of LW MO. Never mind!
[Note: Flowchart was found on the web. It is not my work!]
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Find the Divine Books Challenge!
In a previous thread we got into a minor debate about how many books (actually texts) there were in the world which are claimed (by someone) to be written by God, gods, or similar supernartural or alien beings possessing supernatural or similar powers. In other words, not just ordinary books written by ordinary people. I wrote that there were probably thousands of such books, though when challenged on that I could only think of the OT, NT and Koran off the top of my head. Deganev claims the NT and the Koran don't count (not sure why) so in fact the Torah is the only book ever to have been claimed to have been written by a supernatural being. This is clearly false, but rather than me do the research, I figure I can sit back and let my readers do the work for me. So the challenge for you fine folks is as follows:Find as many holy books, texts or scrolls as possible that people have claimed were written by God, gods or similar. The person with the most texts wins.
[Note: Some texts are considered 'holy' or 'sacred'. But that doesn't count. They must be books which were written, dictated or substantially influenced by a supernatural being. The Book of Mormon for example would count, since it was dictated to Joseph Smith by an Angel. Or so he claimed.]
UPDATE: The list so far:
Torah
Koran
Book of Mormon
Bhagavad Gita?
Mishnah/Talmud (written with ruach hakodesh so it counts)
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
A Guide to Intellefundies
Intellefundies are Intellectual Fundamentalists. Typically Right Wing Modern Orthodox (RWMO) or Left Wing Ultra Orthodox (LWOU), and occasionally even Chassidish or slightly RW UO, these are people who are 100% convinced of their fundamentalist religious views, but are also quite well educated, often having advanced degrees in Theology or Philosophy, and certainly bekiim in all the rational rishonim.
I have a bunch of friends here in my neighborhood who fit this description, and there's quite a few online too. In fact, much of the Avodah forum, and much of the Hirhurim readership probably fancy themselves as Intellectual Fundamentalists.
You might think, how can someone be educated, intelligent, intellectual; yet still believe in the ancient myths of Orthodox religion? I mean, it's easy to understand how some ignorant sheltered yeshivah bochur, or even Godol Hador, is still convinced that 'every man, woman and child knows the world is only 6,000 years old'. But someone with a PhD in Philosophy?! How is that possible?
Well, the well known skeptic Michael Shermer studied this phenomenon, and came to the conclusion that smart people are just as capable as deluding themselves as stupid people. In fact, smart people are often better at deluding themselves, figuring out even more clever 'rationalizations' to support their ridiculous views.
We see this in spades with the Intellectual Fundamentalists, who typically will quote all manner of Philosophical terms (usually those of fundamentalist or medieval philosophers), mostly in order to impress, befuddle and hopefully force their opponents into submission.
However, once you get past all that pseudo-philosophical bluster, you generally find that there's nothing actually backing it up. Intense conversations with these Intellefundies always seem to end up in one of three places, what I will call radical skepticism, spiritual intuition or fundamental axioms.
Let me explain.
Radical Skepticism
I have encountered the Radical Skepticism argument for Orthodox Judaism a few times, most recently today. The argument goes like this:
Skeptic: Prove that OJ is true!
Intellefundie: Ha, prove that anything is true!
Skeptic: Good grief!
Of course one can always be radically skeptical about everything. The old skeptical stance was we could all be brains in a jar, managed by some evil demon. More recently, someone figured out that since one day in the future it's very likely that nano-computers will be powerful enough to simulate whole civilizations, and since the universe's resources are finite, then statistically speaking the number of simulated people that ever will have 'lived' will be exponentially higher than the number of actual people who ever will have lived. This being the case, it is far more likely that any individual (i.e. me and you) are in fact simulations rather than real. This argument has an advantage over the 'brain in the jar' scenario in that it does actually seem quite likely, given the ever increasing power of computers.
But, firstly, nobody actually thinks like that. Secondly, even if you do think like that, you don't live your life like that. You assume that probably you are real, and if you aren't then so what? Things seem basically real, and it would be insane to live your whole life assuming you were actually in a jar. Thirdly, what kind of freaking stupid defense of religion is this anyway?! If we really don't know anything, then we certainly don't know anything about religion. How do we know that Har Sinai wasn't actually just an evil trick by some demented prankster god? Maybe it all actually happened just like the Bible says, but the god of the bible is actually an evil demon, and when you get to Olam Habah after being a tzadik your whole life, he says 'haha, fooled you' and sends you to hell, while the kofrim all get to go to heaven with 72 virgins. Basically, any intelligent non fundamentalist person knows that this line of reasoning is childish.
So much for radical skepticism.
Spiritual Intuition
Spiritual Intuition also comes up fairly frequently, and came up today as well. The argument goes like this:
Skeptic: There's no proof that God exists (or TMS is true etc)
Intellefundie: You can't use normal physical proof for spiritual things! You must use your spiritual side for that. Why should you expect that Science/The Senses is the only path to knowledge? There are other paths too.
Skeptic: Oh yeah? Like what?
Intellefundie: Like spiritual intuition (or chose any other name, it makes no difference what you call this. In reality this is called faith/indoctrination/emotion).
Skeptic: But that's what the Moslems, Christians and many other religions say too. They sense God, or Jesus or Allah with their spiritual side.
Intellefundie: Sure, they all use different names for God, but ultimately it's all the same thing.
Skeptic: But how can you say that? They are all convinced that their God wants entirely different things! Allah wants Moslems to forcibly convert Jews. How can you call that the same spiritual intuition?
Intellefundie: So they sometimes get the details wrong. However I know my spiritual intuition is good.
Skeptic: How do you know that?
Intellefundie: Because I have spiritual intuition of course! (Or faith, or loyalty etc)
Skeptic: Good grief!
Of course there could in theory be alternate paths to knowledge, I have no problem with that idea at all. Maybe jumping up and down while patting your head can cause you to know all sorts of things. The key point of course is that no other path to knowledge has ever been shown to be reliable.
If spiritual intuition (or whatever the heck you want to call it) was in any way reliable, then I would believe it in a second. But of course it isn't, because billions of people all have 'spiritual intuition' about all sorts of contradictory things. And also, there's no actual way of ever verifying that spiritual intuition is reliable, since all the beliefs that people know through spiritual intuition are inherently unverifiable by scientific means, and only verifiable through spiritual intuition, and hence you get completely circular.
At this point the Intellefundie will argue that science is also only verifiable through science, and then you get back to radical skepticism again. A complete waste of time.
Finally, we get to the 'Fundamental Axioms' argument, which is actually only a slight variant of all the tricks outlined above.
Fundamental Axioms
The argument goes like this:
Skeptic: Prove that God exists! (or TMS is true)
Intellefundie: I don't need to prove that. All epistemic systems have fundamental axioms which are unprovable. Mine are God and Torah.
Skeptic: But Science doesn't have any basic unprovable axioms!
Intellefundie: Sure it does! You can't prove that anything is real!
Skeptic: Good grief!
Basically, the 'fundamental axioms' very quickly devolves into radical skepticism. But it's amazing how many times I have heard this line.
I will give a shout out at this point to two types of Intellefundies, one is a Rabbi friend of mine, and one is RJM.
My Orthodox Rabbi friend admits he has no good reasons for faith (though he sometimes argues that it's 'intellectually defensible', whatever that means. He says his faith is personal, purely based on feelings, and he wouldn't ever expect to be able to convince anyone else. In fact, if people come to him with doubts, he may very well counsel them to leave OJ.
RJM takes a totally different approach, and I'm still torn between thinking he's even more insane than the average Intellefundie, or maybe he's actually onto something. RJM is from the Chaitian school of religion (Rabbi Chait in Far Rockaway), who passionately believe that they can actually prove that OJ is true. Another Rabbi friend of mine, an ex-Chaitian, told me that he believes that if you ever were actually able to show a Chaitian that his proofs don't work, the guy would go OTD immediately.
So RJM has all these elaborate arguments showing how Judaism is totally unique, can't be compared to all other religions, and the only rational explanation is that Orthodox Judaism is the one true religion. Personally, I have gone head to head with RJM over the phone, and I think he's probably delusional if he thinks his arguments are strong enough to convince anyone. But I will admit that he makes a very good effort, and I admire him for sticking to his guns and not resorting to the ridiculous arguments outlined above.
Just to round this out, I will recount that I once sat down at length with a well known hard core MO Rabbi to discuss theology. He basically said 'Judaism is plausible, more plausible that many (most?) other religions' and refused to say anything further than that. He even admitted that occam's razor would tell you to be agnostic.
The most amazing thing about the Intellefundies is that they have no problem labeling hard core fundies like the average Chareidi as 'childish, ridiculous, naive' and similar. In fact, they are often quite happy to say that the Gedolim have no clue about Breishis or Science, and that well known Gedolim who hold crazy views on these topics are simply swayed by their religious biases!
So these people are convinced that the world's greatest living Torah scholars are helpless victims of religious bias, while they themselves are fully rational and not biased at all!
Mamash unbelievable.
Finally, here's a good tip if you ever find yourself locked into an argument with an Intellefundie. Take the argument, and see if the same argument works equally well for any other religion. If it does, then you know it doesn't work at all. Simple!
Anyways, you gotta love the Intellefundies, they certainly keep life interesting!
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
I have a bunch of friends here in my neighborhood who fit this description, and there's quite a few online too. In fact, much of the Avodah forum, and much of the Hirhurim readership probably fancy themselves as Intellectual Fundamentalists.
You might think, how can someone be educated, intelligent, intellectual; yet still believe in the ancient myths of Orthodox religion? I mean, it's easy to understand how some ignorant sheltered yeshivah bochur, or even Godol Hador, is still convinced that 'every man, woman and child knows the world is only 6,000 years old'. But someone with a PhD in Philosophy?! How is that possible?
Well, the well known skeptic Michael Shermer studied this phenomenon, and came to the conclusion that smart people are just as capable as deluding themselves as stupid people. In fact, smart people are often better at deluding themselves, figuring out even more clever 'rationalizations' to support their ridiculous views.
We see this in spades with the Intellectual Fundamentalists, who typically will quote all manner of Philosophical terms (usually those of fundamentalist or medieval philosophers), mostly in order to impress, befuddle and hopefully force their opponents into submission.
However, once you get past all that pseudo-philosophical bluster, you generally find that there's nothing actually backing it up. Intense conversations with these Intellefundies always seem to end up in one of three places, what I will call radical skepticism, spiritual intuition or fundamental axioms.
Let me explain.
Radical Skepticism
I have encountered the Radical Skepticism argument for Orthodox Judaism a few times, most recently today. The argument goes like this:
Skeptic: Prove that OJ is true!
Intellefundie: Ha, prove that anything is true!
Skeptic: Good grief!
Of course one can always be radically skeptical about everything. The old skeptical stance was we could all be brains in a jar, managed by some evil demon. More recently, someone figured out that since one day in the future it's very likely that nano-computers will be powerful enough to simulate whole civilizations, and since the universe's resources are finite, then statistically speaking the number of simulated people that ever will have 'lived' will be exponentially higher than the number of actual people who ever will have lived. This being the case, it is far more likely that any individual (i.e. me and you) are in fact simulations rather than real. This argument has an advantage over the 'brain in the jar' scenario in that it does actually seem quite likely, given the ever increasing power of computers.
But, firstly, nobody actually thinks like that. Secondly, even if you do think like that, you don't live your life like that. You assume that probably you are real, and if you aren't then so what? Things seem basically real, and it would be insane to live your whole life assuming you were actually in a jar. Thirdly, what kind of freaking stupid defense of religion is this anyway?! If we really don't know anything, then we certainly don't know anything about religion. How do we know that Har Sinai wasn't actually just an evil trick by some demented prankster god? Maybe it all actually happened just like the Bible says, but the god of the bible is actually an evil demon, and when you get to Olam Habah after being a tzadik your whole life, he says 'haha, fooled you' and sends you to hell, while the kofrim all get to go to heaven with 72 virgins. Basically, any intelligent non fundamentalist person knows that this line of reasoning is childish.
So much for radical skepticism.
Spiritual Intuition
Spiritual Intuition also comes up fairly frequently, and came up today as well. The argument goes like this:
Skeptic: There's no proof that God exists (or TMS is true etc)
Intellefundie: You can't use normal physical proof for spiritual things! You must use your spiritual side for that. Why should you expect that Science/The Senses is the only path to knowledge? There are other paths too.
Skeptic: Oh yeah? Like what?
Intellefundie: Like spiritual intuition (or chose any other name, it makes no difference what you call this. In reality this is called faith/indoctrination/emotion).
Skeptic: But that's what the Moslems, Christians and many other religions say too. They sense God, or Jesus or Allah with their spiritual side.
Intellefundie: Sure, they all use different names for God, but ultimately it's all the same thing.
Skeptic: But how can you say that? They are all convinced that their God wants entirely different things! Allah wants Moslems to forcibly convert Jews. How can you call that the same spiritual intuition?
Intellefundie: So they sometimes get the details wrong. However I know my spiritual intuition is good.
Skeptic: How do you know that?
Intellefundie: Because I have spiritual intuition of course! (Or faith, or loyalty etc)
Skeptic: Good grief!
Of course there could in theory be alternate paths to knowledge, I have no problem with that idea at all. Maybe jumping up and down while patting your head can cause you to know all sorts of things. The key point of course is that no other path to knowledge has ever been shown to be reliable.
If spiritual intuition (or whatever the heck you want to call it) was in any way reliable, then I would believe it in a second. But of course it isn't, because billions of people all have 'spiritual intuition' about all sorts of contradictory things. And also, there's no actual way of ever verifying that spiritual intuition is reliable, since all the beliefs that people know through spiritual intuition are inherently unverifiable by scientific means, and only verifiable through spiritual intuition, and hence you get completely circular.
At this point the Intellefundie will argue that science is also only verifiable through science, and then you get back to radical skepticism again. A complete waste of time.
Finally, we get to the 'Fundamental Axioms' argument, which is actually only a slight variant of all the tricks outlined above.
Fundamental Axioms
The argument goes like this:
Skeptic: Prove that God exists! (or TMS is true)
Intellefundie: I don't need to prove that. All epistemic systems have fundamental axioms which are unprovable. Mine are God and Torah.
Skeptic: But Science doesn't have any basic unprovable axioms!
Intellefundie: Sure it does! You can't prove that anything is real!
Skeptic: Good grief!
Basically, the 'fundamental axioms' very quickly devolves into radical skepticism. But it's amazing how many times I have heard this line.
I will give a shout out at this point to two types of Intellefundies, one is a Rabbi friend of mine, and one is RJM.
My Orthodox Rabbi friend admits he has no good reasons for faith (though he sometimes argues that it's 'intellectually defensible', whatever that means. He says his faith is personal, purely based on feelings, and he wouldn't ever expect to be able to convince anyone else. In fact, if people come to him with doubts, he may very well counsel them to leave OJ.
RJM takes a totally different approach, and I'm still torn between thinking he's even more insane than the average Intellefundie, or maybe he's actually onto something. RJM is from the Chaitian school of religion (Rabbi Chait in Far Rockaway), who passionately believe that they can actually prove that OJ is true. Another Rabbi friend of mine, an ex-Chaitian, told me that he believes that if you ever were actually able to show a Chaitian that his proofs don't work, the guy would go OTD immediately.
So RJM has all these elaborate arguments showing how Judaism is totally unique, can't be compared to all other religions, and the only rational explanation is that Orthodox Judaism is the one true religion. Personally, I have gone head to head with RJM over the phone, and I think he's probably delusional if he thinks his arguments are strong enough to convince anyone. But I will admit that he makes a very good effort, and I admire him for sticking to his guns and not resorting to the ridiculous arguments outlined above.
Just to round this out, I will recount that I once sat down at length with a well known hard core MO Rabbi to discuss theology. He basically said 'Judaism is plausible, more plausible that many (most?) other religions' and refused to say anything further than that. He even admitted that occam's razor would tell you to be agnostic.
The most amazing thing about the Intellefundies is that they have no problem labeling hard core fundies like the average Chareidi as 'childish, ridiculous, naive' and similar. In fact, they are often quite happy to say that the Gedolim have no clue about Breishis or Science, and that well known Gedolim who hold crazy views on these topics are simply swayed by their religious biases!
So these people are convinced that the world's greatest living Torah scholars are helpless victims of religious bias, while they themselves are fully rational and not biased at all!
Mamash unbelievable.
Finally, here's a good tip if you ever find yourself locked into an argument with an Intellefundie. Take the argument, and see if the same argument works equally well for any other religion. If it does, then you know it doesn't work at all. Simple!
Anyways, you gotta love the Intellefundies, they certainly keep life interesting!
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
And The Enlightened Ones Shall Struggle
A common theme amongst Modern Orthodox intellectual fundamentalists is that the Torah, and Orthodoxy in general, is somewhat metaphorical.
Taking their cue from the famous Zoharic idea that only a fool thinks the plain meaning of the Torah is the true meaning, and compelled by the discoveries of modern science that directly contradict much of Breishis, these intellefundies (TM) propose that the Torah is written in a simplistic style for the 'masses', but the intellectual elites realize that the true meaning is much different. Taken to its extreme, this idea paves the way for a radical reconstruction of almost all Orthodox ideology and beliefs, the kind of approach that Mordechai Kaplan advocated.
I have toyed with this concept in the past, but two things have always bothered me. One, the concept of the 'masses' versus the 'elites', with the elites keeping their true beliefs secret from the masses, has always intensely annoyed me. It reeks of dishonesty, disingenuous and a sort of intellectually smug clique-ishness.
Secondly, the radical reformulation and reconstruction of traditional ideas has always seemed to me somewhat fake. Surely when Chazal said God, they meant God, not the Kaplanian forces that enable personal salvation, or the Spinozian sum of all existence.
However now I'm thinking maybe this was too harsh, and maybe there's some room to maneuver here. For two reasons.
Firstly, with regards to elitism, I'm thinking that maybe it's not about an elite class of intellectuals, withholding the truth from the poor ignorant masses. Or at least it shouldn't be about that. Rather, anyone and everyone can and should be enlightened, and the intellectuals (or the enlightened ones) have a duty to try and enlighten as many people as possible. Unfortunately many people are extremely unenlightened, and remain quite stubbornly so. Also, one has to be careful, because introducing someone who is not prepared to the idea that religion is man made, Torah Min Hashamayim is metaphorical, or other such concepts, can really be damaging. The goal is to enlighten, not destroy.
However, with those caveats in mind, and considering that our generation is both the most educated in history and simultaneously the most gratuitously fundamentalist in history, I no longer see such a stark inherent distinction between the enlightened and the masses. Anyone can become enlightened should they choose to become so, and as long as the enlightened make their best efforts to spread their enlightenment, they can be free of the accusation of elitism.
Secondly, with regards to the reconstruction of ideology, that might not be so clear cut either. SYL asked yesterday whether the Biblical writers and redactors knew that what they were writing and compiling was man made. I think the answer is yes, and no. Of course they knew that they, as mortal men, were writing and redacting the text. Yet they were clearly intensely spiritual people, powerfully in the grip of a spiritual frame of mind. Metaphorically speaking, they felt as if it was all Divine.
Carrying this idea forward, presumably there was always an enlightened elite who realized that much (if not all) of Orthodoxy was metaphorical, an attempt (like all religious mythology) to convey the ineffable and incomprehensible mystery of being into common language. In fact, there is no doubt at all that Chazal were world class masters of metaphors. The famous story of the oven of Achinai is a much quoted but perfect example. Could Chazal have really believed that God laughed? Or that any of those supernatural events happened? Of course not.
Does this mean that every member of Chazal, every Rishon, every Acharon were really reconstructionist Jews at heart? No, I don't think so. But certainly some of them were. And as history progresses, the numbers have grown larger.
John Cottingham, in his very excellent book 'The Spiritual Dimension', makes the point that faith is not a cognitive exercise. Rather it is an emotional feeling, a worldview, a sense. I think this is very true. I think principles of faith, and organized religion in general, are an attempt to set down in words and rituals a series of intense spiritual emotions about life. This is exactly contrary to the oft repeated skeptic claim that religion is at it's core a pseudo scientific attempt to explain how things work, and which now can be replaced by science. I think that is a ridiculous idea. Religion is clearly about spirituality, morality and meaning, not about explaining how rain happens.
I see this borne out in practice all the time. I have friends who grew up Conservative, but are now intensely Orthodox. It's clear (to me at least) that they did not have intellectual reasons for making the leap, and still don't. Rather, being intensely spiritual, they found that Orthodox was an inherently better fit, with more avenues available to enhance and explore their spirituality.
Spirituality and Religion exist in a kind of co-dependant vicious circle. Each feeds off and nurtures the other. Spiritual people seek out religion, whether traditional or new age, and religion (at least in theory) is aimed at enhancing our spiritual side.
But, while religion is 'man made', there is no question that spirituality is a fundamental part of human nature. For the believers, the drive for spirituality is the 'neshamah', a God given spark in our material bodies. For the non believers, spirituality is a strange spandrel of evolution. But either way, all agree that spirituality is a deeply ingrained and very integral human trait. Spirituality, morality and meaning are very closely related, they may even be different aspects of the same emotion. We can't avoid spirituality, and nor would we want to.
So in sum, I see religion as an age old attempt to express our spiritual side, to enhance it with rituals and practice, and was and is an exercise that the original architects, and quite a few of the subsequent leaders, knew all along was metaphorical, yet incredibly 'true' and vital at the same time.
In this way of thinking, Modern Orthodoxy is somewhat of a failure. The intense spiritual passion of Chareidim is mostly missing, yet the conclusions of the enlightenment are forbidden. As I always say; Modern Orthodoxy, neither Modern nor Orthodox. Yet people are drawn to it, mostly for the simple reason that most people are not looking for an intense religious or spiritual experience.
But what about those of us who do want something more intense, yet also need to remain intellectually honest? Perhaps we will be blessed with an intense spiritual experience. The famous Philsopher Pascal had such an experience, he called it 'la nuit de feu' (the night of fire), and it changed his life. The Jewish Philosopher Franz Rosenzweig had a similar experience, at an Orthodox shul on Yom Kippur, the day before he was due to convert to Christianity. No doubt there are some Baal Teshuvah readers here who can recount similar life altering experiences.
But if the nuit de feu does not come, we shall have to remain in the struggle. And maybe this is not a bad thing. Holy Hyrax recently remarked that he had 'made his peace' with his doubts. This reminded me of an intellectual friend of mine, who transitioned from Conservative to Modern Orthodoxy, and who refused to seriously engage in thinking about Biblical Criticism or other challenges to his new found faith. 'I have made my peace with that' he told me, which to my mind is code for 'I don't have the emotional or intellectual energy, ability or desire to deal with that'.
Maybe that's okay for some people, but for the truly honest that just will not do. Boruch Hashem for the struggle! And no, I don't mean the struggle to answer questions on Orthodoxy. That ship sailed long ago, about 400 years now. As Ken Wilbur says, fundamentalists are just cognitively immature, they need to grow up. No, I'm talking about the struggle for spirituality, morality and meaning, in a seemingly meaningless universe.
How could any thinking person not be torn to his core at such a struggle? Making peace with that simply means you have mentally and spiritually checked out.
Rav Soloveitchik actually expounds a similar theme: that religion is not there to ensure a happy calm existence, but rather so that one should struggle intensely his whole life. I'm not sure whether the Rav was one of the enlightened ones, maybe he was just a depressive. But it's quite possible he was enlightened, and that would explain why he famously said, somewhat enigmatically, that he had never been bothered by questions from science, evolution or similar.
So, let's not check out, or 'make our peace', except perhaps with the fact that Orthodoxy is not literally true. But then it really never was, and the enlightened ones knew that all along. We didn't so much lose something, as realize we never had it in the first place. Which is still painful to be sure, but perhaps not quite as painful as it might be.
But as for the struggle to live meaningful, moral and spiritual lives in a seemingly meaningless, amoral and material universe, that is the core struggle of human existence. And in that struggle, our ancient traditions and texts do have much to say. Metaphorically of course.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Taking their cue from the famous Zoharic idea that only a fool thinks the plain meaning of the Torah is the true meaning, and compelled by the discoveries of modern science that directly contradict much of Breishis, these intellefundies (TM) propose that the Torah is written in a simplistic style for the 'masses', but the intellectual elites realize that the true meaning is much different. Taken to its extreme, this idea paves the way for a radical reconstruction of almost all Orthodox ideology and beliefs, the kind of approach that Mordechai Kaplan advocated.
I have toyed with this concept in the past, but two things have always bothered me. One, the concept of the 'masses' versus the 'elites', with the elites keeping their true beliefs secret from the masses, has always intensely annoyed me. It reeks of dishonesty, disingenuous and a sort of intellectually smug clique-ishness.
Secondly, the radical reformulation and reconstruction of traditional ideas has always seemed to me somewhat fake. Surely when Chazal said God, they meant God, not the Kaplanian forces that enable personal salvation, or the Spinozian sum of all existence.
However now I'm thinking maybe this was too harsh, and maybe there's some room to maneuver here. For two reasons.
Firstly, with regards to elitism, I'm thinking that maybe it's not about an elite class of intellectuals, withholding the truth from the poor ignorant masses. Or at least it shouldn't be about that. Rather, anyone and everyone can and should be enlightened, and the intellectuals (or the enlightened ones) have a duty to try and enlighten as many people as possible. Unfortunately many people are extremely unenlightened, and remain quite stubbornly so. Also, one has to be careful, because introducing someone who is not prepared to the idea that religion is man made, Torah Min Hashamayim is metaphorical, or other such concepts, can really be damaging. The goal is to enlighten, not destroy.
However, with those caveats in mind, and considering that our generation is both the most educated in history and simultaneously the most gratuitously fundamentalist in history, I no longer see such a stark inherent distinction between the enlightened and the masses. Anyone can become enlightened should they choose to become so, and as long as the enlightened make their best efforts to spread their enlightenment, they can be free of the accusation of elitism.
Secondly, with regards to the reconstruction of ideology, that might not be so clear cut either. SYL asked yesterday whether the Biblical writers and redactors knew that what they were writing and compiling was man made. I think the answer is yes, and no. Of course they knew that they, as mortal men, were writing and redacting the text. Yet they were clearly intensely spiritual people, powerfully in the grip of a spiritual frame of mind. Metaphorically speaking, they felt as if it was all Divine.
Carrying this idea forward, presumably there was always an enlightened elite who realized that much (if not all) of Orthodoxy was metaphorical, an attempt (like all religious mythology) to convey the ineffable and incomprehensible mystery of being into common language. In fact, there is no doubt at all that Chazal were world class masters of metaphors. The famous story of the oven of Achinai is a much quoted but perfect example. Could Chazal have really believed that God laughed? Or that any of those supernatural events happened? Of course not.
Does this mean that every member of Chazal, every Rishon, every Acharon were really reconstructionist Jews at heart? No, I don't think so. But certainly some of them were. And as history progresses, the numbers have grown larger.
John Cottingham, in his very excellent book 'The Spiritual Dimension', makes the point that faith is not a cognitive exercise. Rather it is an emotional feeling, a worldview, a sense. I think this is very true. I think principles of faith, and organized religion in general, are an attempt to set down in words and rituals a series of intense spiritual emotions about life. This is exactly contrary to the oft repeated skeptic claim that religion is at it's core a pseudo scientific attempt to explain how things work, and which now can be replaced by science. I think that is a ridiculous idea. Religion is clearly about spirituality, morality and meaning, not about explaining how rain happens.
I see this borne out in practice all the time. I have friends who grew up Conservative, but are now intensely Orthodox. It's clear (to me at least) that they did not have intellectual reasons for making the leap, and still don't. Rather, being intensely spiritual, they found that Orthodox was an inherently better fit, with more avenues available to enhance and explore their spirituality.
Spirituality and Religion exist in a kind of co-dependant vicious circle. Each feeds off and nurtures the other. Spiritual people seek out religion, whether traditional or new age, and religion (at least in theory) is aimed at enhancing our spiritual side.
But, while religion is 'man made', there is no question that spirituality is a fundamental part of human nature. For the believers, the drive for spirituality is the 'neshamah', a God given spark in our material bodies. For the non believers, spirituality is a strange spandrel of evolution. But either way, all agree that spirituality is a deeply ingrained and very integral human trait. Spirituality, morality and meaning are very closely related, they may even be different aspects of the same emotion. We can't avoid spirituality, and nor would we want to.
So in sum, I see religion as an age old attempt to express our spiritual side, to enhance it with rituals and practice, and was and is an exercise that the original architects, and quite a few of the subsequent leaders, knew all along was metaphorical, yet incredibly 'true' and vital at the same time.
In this way of thinking, Modern Orthodoxy is somewhat of a failure. The intense spiritual passion of Chareidim is mostly missing, yet the conclusions of the enlightenment are forbidden. As I always say; Modern Orthodoxy, neither Modern nor Orthodox. Yet people are drawn to it, mostly for the simple reason that most people are not looking for an intense religious or spiritual experience.
But what about those of us who do want something more intense, yet also need to remain intellectually honest? Perhaps we will be blessed with an intense spiritual experience. The famous Philsopher Pascal had such an experience, he called it 'la nuit de feu' (the night of fire), and it changed his life. The Jewish Philosopher Franz Rosenzweig had a similar experience, at an Orthodox shul on Yom Kippur, the day before he was due to convert to Christianity. No doubt there are some Baal Teshuvah readers here who can recount similar life altering experiences.
But if the nuit de feu does not come, we shall have to remain in the struggle. And maybe this is not a bad thing. Holy Hyrax recently remarked that he had 'made his peace' with his doubts. This reminded me of an intellectual friend of mine, who transitioned from Conservative to Modern Orthodoxy, and who refused to seriously engage in thinking about Biblical Criticism or other challenges to his new found faith. 'I have made my peace with that' he told me, which to my mind is code for 'I don't have the emotional or intellectual energy, ability or desire to deal with that'.
Maybe that's okay for some people, but for the truly honest that just will not do. Boruch Hashem for the struggle! And no, I don't mean the struggle to answer questions on Orthodoxy. That ship sailed long ago, about 400 years now. As Ken Wilbur says, fundamentalists are just cognitively immature, they need to grow up. No, I'm talking about the struggle for spirituality, morality and meaning, in a seemingly meaningless universe.
How could any thinking person not be torn to his core at such a struggle? Making peace with that simply means you have mentally and spiritually checked out.
Rav Soloveitchik actually expounds a similar theme: that religion is not there to ensure a happy calm existence, but rather so that one should struggle intensely his whole life. I'm not sure whether the Rav was one of the enlightened ones, maybe he was just a depressive. But it's quite possible he was enlightened, and that would explain why he famously said, somewhat enigmatically, that he had never been bothered by questions from science, evolution or similar.
So, let's not check out, or 'make our peace', except perhaps with the fact that Orthodoxy is not literally true. But then it really never was, and the enlightened ones knew that all along. We didn't so much lose something, as realize we never had it in the first place. Which is still painful to be sure, but perhaps not quite as painful as it might be.
But as for the struggle to live meaningful, moral and spiritual lives in a seemingly meaningless, amoral and material universe, that is the core struggle of human existence. And in that struggle, our ancient traditions and texts do have much to say. Metaphorically of course.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Biblical Criticism: The Believers Respond
A very interesting discussion on Biblical Criticism ensued on the previous post.
I (and others) argued that if the debate about single vs. multiple authorship was a genuine scholarly debate, then you would find some academics arguing single authorship, and some arguing multiple authorship. Whereas in fact, the only people arguing single authorship are the people who have to hold that, because of their religiously mandated beliefs. In other words, there are no non-fundamentalist academics who hold of single authorship, and that should tell you something. In fact that should tell you everything.
Y Aharon claimed that there are certainly academics who believe in single authorship, and then went on to name a bunch of Chareidi and Modern Orthodox Chumash Rebbes. He also mentioned Benno Jacob, a Reform Rabbi. While it is true that Jacob was not an Orthodox Fundamentalist and held of single authorship, it is also true that Jacob did not believe in Mosaic authorship, so I'm not sure how much help he is in that argument. Anyway, Jacob died in 1945, the field has moved on since then.
I'm still waiting for someone to name a single mainstream modern Bible critic who holds of single human authorship around the year 1200 BCE.
Yus took a different approach, arguing that the changes in style in the Torah are reflective of the changes in Am Yisrael over a period of time, and Hashem adjusting His writing accordingly. While this is an interesting theory, I think it fails, since there is not a smooth transition of writing styles over time, but rather a huge mish mash of contradictions and different styles all through at least the first 4 books, often in the same story. Yes, you certainly can kvetch individual explanations in every case, but that's the whole point. All these kvetches taken together are not that convincing to anyone except people who are constrained to believe in single Divine authorship.
Kibi had the most interesting argument of all. He argued that the Torah is such an amazing work of seeming contradictions, flaws and so on, which then all pans out incredibly when you add Torah Shebaal Peh, that the most reasonable answer of all is that of single Divine authorship. However the academics, being biased against religion, obviously can't hold of this theory, so they are forced to fall back on multiple human authorship, since everyone agrees that single human authorship is truly unlikely. According to this reckoning the Fundamentalists are the least biased of the various sides in this debate, since they are able to accept the obvious answer of single Divine authorship.
What do I say to that? I say you must be delusional to think that's a credible theory. And you wouldn't accept such a theory from another religion. For example, Moslems have a similar argument for KMS (Koran Min Hashamayim). They argue that since the Koran is so amazing, and since Muhammad was illiterate, the most reasonable explanation is that the Koran is Divine.
I'm sure Kibi, Yus and Y Aharon would respond that the Koran is not amazing at all, and the only reason that 1 Billion Moslems think it is is because they are religiously biased.
But I can hear the rebukes of the Aish Hakoran preachers in my ears:
'Just sit and learn Koran for 10 years behasmodoh gedolah. Then you'll see how amazing it is!'
Yep. I probably would. Especially if I had sacrificed a lot to make aliyah to Iran, invested my whole life in my religion, and built my identity around being a Islamistic or Koran-True Moslem. And that's very understandable, because you can't expect people to give up their religion and identity just because it's all based on a bunch of extremely unlikely and completely unverifiable ancient myths. Seriously.
But isn't it possible that the Torah really is amazing, once you learn ganz shas, and that only true Talmedei Chachamim can see that? And that if only the academics could see that too, they would all agree that single Divine authorship was the only credible option?
Yes, it's definitely possible.
But it's also possible that this kind of thinking has been deliberately implanted in our brains by the extraterrestrial civilization of Helatrobus, in order to brainwash and ultimately control the Orthodox Jewish population.
Is Helatrobus real? Well, 3.5 million Scientologists are convinced it is. What, you don't think Scientologists are credible? You kofer, just sit and learn L Ron Hubbard for 10 years behasmodoh gedolah, and then you'll see how true SMS (Scientology Min HaShamayim) is!
OK, OK, but don't you think that TMS is more likely than SMS or KMS?
Yes, I do think that TMS is more likely than SMS or KMS. But then again, I might be biased. Here is a graphic to help explain:
To be fair to my MO intellectual friends though, I will post a graphic to explain their position.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
I (and others) argued that if the debate about single vs. multiple authorship was a genuine scholarly debate, then you would find some academics arguing single authorship, and some arguing multiple authorship. Whereas in fact, the only people arguing single authorship are the people who have to hold that, because of their religiously mandated beliefs. In other words, there are no non-fundamentalist academics who hold of single authorship, and that should tell you something. In fact that should tell you everything.
Y Aharon claimed that there are certainly academics who believe in single authorship, and then went on to name a bunch of Chareidi and Modern Orthodox Chumash Rebbes. He also mentioned Benno Jacob, a Reform Rabbi. While it is true that Jacob was not an Orthodox Fundamentalist and held of single authorship, it is also true that Jacob did not believe in Mosaic authorship, so I'm not sure how much help he is in that argument. Anyway, Jacob died in 1945, the field has moved on since then.
I'm still waiting for someone to name a single mainstream modern Bible critic who holds of single human authorship around the year 1200 BCE.
Yus took a different approach, arguing that the changes in style in the Torah are reflective of the changes in Am Yisrael over a period of time, and Hashem adjusting His writing accordingly. While this is an interesting theory, I think it fails, since there is not a smooth transition of writing styles over time, but rather a huge mish mash of contradictions and different styles all through at least the first 4 books, often in the same story. Yes, you certainly can kvetch individual explanations in every case, but that's the whole point. All these kvetches taken together are not that convincing to anyone except people who are constrained to believe in single Divine authorship.
Kibi had the most interesting argument of all. He argued that the Torah is such an amazing work of seeming contradictions, flaws and so on, which then all pans out incredibly when you add Torah Shebaal Peh, that the most reasonable answer of all is that of single Divine authorship. However the academics, being biased against religion, obviously can't hold of this theory, so they are forced to fall back on multiple human authorship, since everyone agrees that single human authorship is truly unlikely. According to this reckoning the Fundamentalists are the least biased of the various sides in this debate, since they are able to accept the obvious answer of single Divine authorship.
What do I say to that? I say you must be delusional to think that's a credible theory. And you wouldn't accept such a theory from another religion. For example, Moslems have a similar argument for KMS (Koran Min Hashamayim). They argue that since the Koran is so amazing, and since Muhammad was illiterate, the most reasonable explanation is that the Koran is Divine.
I'm sure Kibi, Yus and Y Aharon would respond that the Koran is not amazing at all, and the only reason that 1 Billion Moslems think it is is because they are religiously biased.
But I can hear the rebukes of the Aish Hakoran preachers in my ears:
'Just sit and learn Koran for 10 years behasmodoh gedolah. Then you'll see how amazing it is!'
Yep. I probably would. Especially if I had sacrificed a lot to make aliyah to Iran, invested my whole life in my religion, and built my identity around being a Islamistic or Koran-True Moslem. And that's very understandable, because you can't expect people to give up their religion and identity just because it's all based on a bunch of extremely unlikely and completely unverifiable ancient myths. Seriously.
But isn't it possible that the Torah really is amazing, once you learn ganz shas, and that only true Talmedei Chachamim can see that? And that if only the academics could see that too, they would all agree that single Divine authorship was the only credible option?
Yes, it's definitely possible.
But it's also possible that this kind of thinking has been deliberately implanted in our brains by the extraterrestrial civilization of Helatrobus, in order to brainwash and ultimately control the Orthodox Jewish population.
Is Helatrobus real? Well, 3.5 million Scientologists are convinced it is. What, you don't think Scientologists are credible? You kofer, just sit and learn L Ron Hubbard for 10 years behasmodoh gedolah, and then you'll see how true SMS (Scientology Min HaShamayim) is!
OK, OK, but don't you think that TMS is more likely than SMS or KMS?
Yes, I do think that TMS is more likely than SMS or KMS. But then again, I might be biased. Here is a graphic to help explain:
To be fair to my MO intellectual friends though, I will post a graphic to explain their position.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Science vs Religion
A common argument often made by modern religious fundamentalists is to dismiss any challenges to OJ from the 'soft sciences' (literary criticism, archeology, ancient history etc) because these are not true science. I've even seen the Science and Torah crowd make this very argument, and here is a direct quote from Gil (in reference to Kugel's book on the Bible):
"One thing I found throughout the book is the confidence in the methodologies of literary scholarship. Perhaps I am biased because of my background in math, but I find that the liberal arts are taken way too seriously by their adherents. They are full of assumptions and guesses, and in the end cannot actually prove anything. Folks, this isn't science. Stop pretending that it is."
These people generally argue like this:
"It's true that Science 'proves' the world is ancient, therefore we must interpret Breishis allegorically. (And I might extend that to agreeing about Noach, Evolution and even the amount of people by YM, just not officially). But don't ask me any questions from the DH, or archeology, or ancient history, because these are all highly subjective arguments, not based on hard science, and therefore they are not strong challenges to OJ. Therefore OJ remains (mostly) true. The end."
The funny thing is, when you probe these people further to try and find out why they think that OJ is so true, the reasons and arguments that come back are even weaker and more nebulous than all the historical, archaeological and literary arguments that they so cavalierly dismissed just a moment ago. Don't these people get it?
And even worse (for the fundies) is the fact that the historical and literary 'soft sciences', have convinced the entire academic world (and even quite a few 'Orthodox' scholars such as Jacobs, Kugel etc) that the Bible is a composite, man made text, whereas the only people who still insist that the Bible is a single Divine text are the people who are religiously required to believe so. That should tell you something.
And just in case you still don't get it, here is a simple graphic which explains it all. Note that the arguments from the Hard Sciences (e.g. Physics and Chemistry) such as an ancient earth and no global flood destroy Chareidi Judaism specifically, but Modern Orthodoxy can wriggle out of it by kvetching like the Rambam. However arguments from the soft Sciences (e.g. ancient history, literary criticism) that the Bible is man made destroy all Orthodoxy, so it's understandable why MO types try to distinguish between the two.
And of course there IS a bit of a distinction: Hard Sciences are extremely strong proofs, whereas the Soft Sciences are more nebulous. But still, even the Soft Sciences are head and shoulders above the arguments for fundamentalist religions, so the distinction is basically moot.
I mean, are there academic departments studying the 'proofs' for Judaism? Are there world wide conferences in whether the 'Kuzari Argument' is solid? Are there journals? Global agreement? Ever wonder why there is a 150 year old 'soft science' in Biblical Criticism, with participation from all types of people from multiple (non fundamentalist) religions, whereas no equivalent academic discipline exists in 'proving the truth of OJ' ?
Seriously, why do you fundies think that is?
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
"One thing I found throughout the book is the confidence in the methodologies of literary scholarship. Perhaps I am biased because of my background in math, but I find that the liberal arts are taken way too seriously by their adherents. They are full of assumptions and guesses, and in the end cannot actually prove anything. Folks, this isn't science. Stop pretending that it is."
These people generally argue like this:
"It's true that Science 'proves' the world is ancient, therefore we must interpret Breishis allegorically. (And I might extend that to agreeing about Noach, Evolution and even the amount of people by YM, just not officially). But don't ask me any questions from the DH, or archeology, or ancient history, because these are all highly subjective arguments, not based on hard science, and therefore they are not strong challenges to OJ. Therefore OJ remains (mostly) true. The end."
The funny thing is, when you probe these people further to try and find out why they think that OJ is so true, the reasons and arguments that come back are even weaker and more nebulous than all the historical, archaeological and literary arguments that they so cavalierly dismissed just a moment ago. Don't these people get it?
And even worse (for the fundies) is the fact that the historical and literary 'soft sciences', have convinced the entire academic world (and even quite a few 'Orthodox' scholars such as Jacobs, Kugel etc) that the Bible is a composite, man made text, whereas the only people who still insist that the Bible is a single Divine text are the people who are religiously required to believe so. That should tell you something.
And just in case you still don't get it, here is a simple graphic which explains it all. Note that the arguments from the Hard Sciences (e.g. Physics and Chemistry) such as an ancient earth and no global flood destroy Chareidi Judaism specifically, but Modern Orthodoxy can wriggle out of it by kvetching like the Rambam. However arguments from the soft Sciences (e.g. ancient history, literary criticism) that the Bible is man made destroy all Orthodoxy, so it's understandable why MO types try to distinguish between the two.
And of course there IS a bit of a distinction: Hard Sciences are extremely strong proofs, whereas the Soft Sciences are more nebulous. But still, even the Soft Sciences are head and shoulders above the arguments for fundamentalist religions, so the distinction is basically moot.
I mean, are there academic departments studying the 'proofs' for Judaism? Are there world wide conferences in whether the 'Kuzari Argument' is solid? Are there journals? Global agreement? Ever wonder why there is a 150 year old 'soft science' in Biblical Criticism, with participation from all types of people from multiple (non fundamentalist) religions, whereas no equivalent academic discipline exists in 'proving the truth of OJ' ?
Seriously, why do you fundies think that is?
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)