How do we know anything?

Sigh.

An Intellefundie by the name of Anthony has raised the old chestnut of 'How do we know anything?'. We have discussed this numerous times in the past, but I guess that's never stopped me before, so here we go yet again.

How do we know we really exist? Maybe we are all in the Matrix, or in the imagination of an evil demon. Maybe reality is an illusion. Maybe I'm real, but you are all simulations. How do I know anyone else really has consciousness? Maybe only I have consciousness, but the rest of you are robots? Maybe when I see red, you see blue? Maybe what I experience as pain you experience as an itch? Can I ever really understand what you subjectively feel? And if I did would I be you? If I got cloned into two people, and then you killed the original, would I be dead? What is reality anyway? What's an atom? What's a quark? Is anything actually real? Maybe we are all just information in the mind of God? Or an alien. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Can God commit suicide? What happens when an immovable post gets hit by an unstoppable cannonball? How do we know God isn't just a congenital liar? How come you can wait and wait and wait for a bus and none will come, and then just when you give up and start walking, three will come together?

Well, there's been plenty of philosophical ink spilt on the above subjects, and I've read plenty of it. There's some cute philosophy books (mostly out of the UK) which go through all of these. A fun read. Especially if you're in 12th grade.

But all of this is irrelevant to us.

We assume we exist because we can think, and we also have sensory inputs. We see other people like us, so we assume they are the same. Could this be a false assumption? Yes, it certainly could be. But what possible gain could there be in thinking like this? Let's say this is all a dream. Would we act any differently? Probably not.

People assume they exist, even philosophers, and even radical skeptics. The only people who don't assume they exist are locked up in asylums. And the only people who bring up these subjects are Intellefundies desperate to try and score some points, and divert attention away from their lack of ACTUAL REASONS why their religion is true.

Now, starting with the assumption that we exist, can we please continue?

[I can see it now: The intellefundie response: 'See! All systems start with basic axioms which are unprovable! Mine are the ikkarim!'. Yes, yes. The only thing this proves is how intellectually bankrupt the intellefundies are.]

HALOSCAN COMMENTS

Charlie Hall on the conflict between Science and Religion

Intellefundies like to claim that Science does not contradict religion in any way. Here is a typical intellefundie comment on the subject, this one courtesy of Charlie Hall on Cross-Currents:

Science is limited to addressing matters that are amenable to empirical verification, and thus is a potential threat to religion only to the extent that a religion’s basic precepts are empirically verifiable. Science is therefore no threat to Judaism as only one of the Rambam’s 13 principles — the eighth — is even theoretically subject to empirical verification, and a practical verification of even that one is impossible. Judaism also has a long tradition of non-literal interpretation of its sacred texts so even an actual disproof of the most straightforward literal meaning, which of course has happened for parts of Sefer Bereshit, is no challenge to our tradition. As a scientist I have no difficult in reciting, “Ani maamim….”

This is of course wrong, for multiple reasons. The main mistake that Charlie Hall is making is that he is confusing Scientific Knowledge with Scientific Method.

It is true that Scientific Knowledge does not inherently contradict the ikkarim. Most of the ikkarim are about God, or about Nevius, or about the future. There is no Scientific knowledge on these topics, because they are beyond the bounds of science.

However the Scientific Method certainly does make committed belief in the ikkarim quite ludicrous. The Scientific method informs us that the most reliable way to gain information is to follow the evidence, take the most resonable, unbiased, objective conclusion, create testable hypotheses, subject your theories to peer review, and be fully open and willing to change your theories if someone else comes up with a better theory. The ikkarim fulfil none of these conditions.

In addition you have Scientific techniques and guidelines such as Occams Razor and similar. The most reasonable explanation of Judaism, all things considered, is that it is a religion like all the others, and most likely untrue. This is the conclusion you would inevitably reach were you to follow the Scientific Method.

Charlie Hall, being a Scientist, should know that.

But of course Charlie is only capable of 'being Scientific' in the realm of the physical universe and the laboratory. When it comes to religion, his emotions and desires take control of his thought process, and he is no longer capable of 'being Scientific'. Instead, he allows his subjective feelings and desire for his religion to be true to over-ride the obvious fact that all religions are ancient mythologies, which only survive though intense indoctrination of their children from a very young age, Baal Teshuvahs notwithstanding.

Possibly, Charlie will argue that Science works well in the realm of the physical universe, but when it comes to the spiritual universe, Science won't work, and you need something else to find the truth, such as religion, or your soul, or something like that.

I am entirely fine with that argument, as long as you can show that there is such a thing as a 'Spiritual Universe', and more importantly, that religion is a reliable way of discovering the truth about it.

But of course Charlie can't do that, since there is no solid evidence of a spiritual universe, which is exactly why Science can't touch it. And furthermore, all the various religions disagree violently on spiritual truths, and therefore clearly religion isn't even a reliable method of discovering truth about the spiritual universe, never mind the physical universe.

Science says 'Here is a theory, we think it's true, based on all this data. But if you come up with different data and a better theory, we will change'.

Religion says 'Here is what you must believe, based on ancient tradition. If you believe otherwise, you're may be going to hell'.

Since 90% of the planet would trust their lives to 90% of Science (and that's a conservative estimate), and 90% of the planet are passionately convinced that 90% of all religious belief claims are wrong (except of course those of their own sub-sect of their own sect of their own religion), I think it is entirely reasonable to conclude that Science seems spectacularly successful at establishing generally agreed upon provisional 'truth', while in contrast, Religion has been spectacularly unsuccessful at establishing truth. Nobody argues on this.

While this is not inherently a conflict, any reasonable person would conclude that Scientific beliefs are generally reliable, whereas religious beliefs are not, unless you have some exceptionally strong data and evidence. Since almost all the data and evidence I am aware makes the claims of fundamentalist religion, including Orthodox Judaism, look highly unlikely, and since we know that in general religions are false, I see no reason to assume that contra all evidence, this particular religion is true.

As a normal, reasonable person, I have great difficulty in reciting 'Ani Maamin', and as a Scientist, Charlie Hall should kal vechomer have the same problem. Why doesn't he? Because like all Intellifundies (not the fake ones) he's not capable of being either objective or honest when it comes to his religious beliefs.

HALOSCAN COMMENTS

Book Review: Bondage of the Mind

I just finished reading Bondage of the Mind by RD Gold. Now I see Yaakov Menken over at Cross Currents has a post about it, in which he rants and raves about how terrible the ads for the book are, though he hasn't actually read the book.

Menken is upset because the tone of the advertising is that the book bashes OJ, and that's quite true, the book does bash OJ (ironically it also bashes Reform). Menken says that OJ books don't bash Reform, but rather 'prove' the truth of OJ, and a reform book should just 'prove' the truths of Reform, without attacking OJ. I see his point, but I don't think it works, since the 'truth' of Reform is basically that OJ is untrue, so you have to take down OJ before you can get anywhere.

However, I do agree that the book is lame, and Gold sounds like a blogger with an axe to grind half the time. Gold does a very quick run through the DH, with hardly any good examples of any problems in the text. In fact Louis Jacobs has way more content in his ikkarim book. Gold mostly appeals to the authority of Richard Friedman, and also some Israeli archaeologists. While Gold's basic premise is obviously correct, he certainly doesn't make a good case for it in this book. He also spends an entire chapter bashing bible codes, as if the truth of OJ rests on that!

He mentions having had long conversations with an OJ Rabbi, it seems to me that Gold went on an Aish discovery program, or had some similar bad BT experience. Anyways, after not making a very good case why OJ is false, he then starts to bash OJ, bringing up Baruch Lanner, Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir in short order. Not very impressive. And he doesn't even mention the amalekite babies!

Finally he gives a somewhat half hearted nod towards Mordechai Kaplan (though he says he doesn't like Kaplan's take on ritual), and then the book is over.

If I was going to write a book which disproves OJ, I would make it very detailed. Every DH question would have to be in there, plus all the other questions of history, science etc. Once you see all the questions laid out, and also all the flimsy answers, then it becomes clear.

Now it's true that the burden of proof lies with OJ, so to 'disprove' OJ all you really should have to do is knock down the various 'proofs' for OJ, which Gold certainly does. But that's never going to convince an OJ. It's only after they see all the issues laid out that they start getting nervous (assuming they are honest).

Probably Gold wasn't looking to convince any OJs to turn secular. Rather, I think he is alarmed at the popularity and success of the kiruv movement and of fundamentalism in general, and he's writing the book for would be BTs or secular Jews who don't know much about religion.

But, if you're looking for more solid proofs that OJ isn't true, you can get much better content on a blog.

HALOSCAN COMMENTS

Interview with a Fake Fundie!!!

Today I had a two hour interview with a fake fundie! A genuine Orthodox Rabbi / Educator / Leader / Well Known type of guy (i.e. not just some nobody blogger). And don't even try to guess who it is, believe me I am very well connected. I know plenty of fake fundies on at least three continents. And they aren't even all LW MO! There's no way anyone who even knows me could guess exactly who I'm talking about, because I know at least 4 people who would all say the exact same thing as I reproduce below.

So what did he have to say? Basically his shpiel goes like this: (I'm paraphrasing slightly)

"Yes, of course fundamentalism is somewhat ridiculous. And of course I realize that I'm only here because I was brought up that way. Of course you can't prove any of this stuff, or even show that it's more reasonable to believe than not. In fact many if not most of the fundamentalist claims of Orthodoxy are clearly NOT true and I don't believe them at all.

However I still believe in God, and I would like to think the Torah has some Divine inspiration behind it (though it doesn't have to). I'm ok with the DH and things like that. I do believe that religion in general, and OJ in particular, has very good values and is a good way of life, and the halachic framework is important.

But if I came right out and told people in my OJ community my true views, I would be cast out as a kofer, and I would have no effect on anyone. So I stay on the inside, and slowly slowly try to move people more to the left. You have to take baby steps with things like this.

Am I being a fraud and a fake? No! If I told people my true beliefs it would just turn them off or hurt them. This is no different than if your wife asks you 'honey do I look fat' and you lie. It's not being a fake or a fraud, that's the way the world works.

Of course, if I felt fundamentalism was truly evil, like Dawkins or Hitchens, then maybe I would have to speak out more strongly against it. But I don't think it's truly evil, just that it needs to move more left, and be open to any academically accepted truths such as Biblical Criticism. The best strategy to achieve this is to be circumspect about my true views, while slowly introducing people to the true facts of the matter.

You on the other hand [XGH: i.e. me], are the frum skeptic equivalent of Richard Dawkins. You're way too extreme and confrontational, and you end up having the opposite effect - the fundies just circle their wagons and ignore you [XGH: except for the ones I manage to convert! Bwahahaha]. You should stop being so aggressive against the fundies and adopt my strategy'. [XGH: Ironically I say the same thing about Dawkins].

Also, you're too negative and destructive, and not constructive enough. You use loaded words like 'fundie', 'narishkeit' and so on. You need to be more tactful. All you'll end up doing is either alienate people from you, or alienate people from religion entirely. You need to move people slowly away from their fundamentalist beliefs, while maintaining their religious commitments [XGH: Only if God exists, but we can assume He does for now].

So, I have to admit he has a good point. But I'm not sure I could ever play that game. I'm the classic engineer at heart, I tell it like it is. But, I guess we have to differentiate between two types of fakefundie:

- Gratuitous Fake Fundies are just cowards, who can't be honest about their true beliefs. I don't hold of those guys at all.

- Strategic Fake Fundies have a plan to make people less fundie, and the only way to achieve that is from the inside. I'm not sure I could do that myself, but I guess it's a reasonable strategy.

So which type of fake fundie are you?

HALOSCAN COMMENTS

Why OJ isn't true

Some of my new commenters don't seem to understand. This blog is not about debating whether OJ is true. That debate was lost by the fundies a long time ago. (About 400 years ago to be precise. Badaboom).

There are many reasons why OJ isn't true, but here it is in a nutshell (RD Gold uses this argument in his book on why OJ isn't true):

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If someone you trust tells you he had a flat tire, it's reasonable to believe him, because flat tires are normal and this is a trusted friend. If someone you trust tells you he got abducted by aliens, you don't believe him. If ten thousand people, all independently tell you they saw an alien, maybe there's something to it, but you would still need to seriously investigate.

Many Moslems are convinced that Jews were behind 9/11. Why? Because they saw multiple stories in multiple sources about this. However, all the stories traced back to a singular nasty 'rumor' put out just after 9/11, that was then picked up by all the Islamic outlets. Moslems think they heard the story from multiple sources, but in reality it all traces back to one, unreliable source.

It's the same deal with OJ. Yes, we have 3000 years of people believing in it, but it all traces back to one event, Mattan Torah at Har Sinai. And there is absolutely ZERO corroborating evidence that it ever happened, ZERO. Apart from the Torah of course. Well, sorry fundies, but one document which every expert believes strongly was written hundreds of years later is not good enough evidence for such a fantastic claim.

And make no mistake, TMS is a fantastic claim . Especially with all the questions, but even without any questions at all, it's still a fantastic claim. Even if the text was perfectly reasonable and straightforward with no flaws at all, TMS would STILL be a fantastic claim. And with fantastic claims like that, it always boils down to a simple equation: Which is more likely, the fantastic claim is false and people are mistaken or are lying or have been fooled, or the fantastic claim is actually true?

Well, everyone (even fundies) agree that religions are 99.99999% false. Also, all books are written by men, and no one has ever seen God. So which is more likely, TMS is true, or this is just another false religion? It's not even a kashyeh.

So we have an absolutely extraordinary claim, with zero corroborating evidence, plus plenty of questions and evidence which makes the claim look entirely untrue. It's a no brainer.

So why do people think it's true?

Why are people of all fundamentalist contradictory religions so passionately convinced that their religion is the one true religion? It's all emotional/spiritual of course. Even to this day I have a hard time countering the incredible religious brainwashing I received for most of my life. My family is OJ, my community is OJ, my friends are all OJ. The peer pressure is immense. It's very, very hard to escape from it, especially if you basically had a happy childhood and were always 'into it'. (It's not as hard to escape if you were 'abused' by the system, theologically or otherwise.)

Intellefundies will of course claim corroborating evidence, and then launch into a series of highly debatable and highly subjective arguments, like 'Jewish history is so unique, TMS must be true!' Or 'Torah is so amazing, TMS must be true', or many other arguments which are similar. As the argument of last resort, they will fall back on loyalty and faith.

Trouble is, all these kinds of arguments work equally well for all other religions too. 'The story of Christianity is so unique, Christ must be Lord!' 'The Koran is so amazing, Koran Min haShamayim must be true!' And so on and so on. I have seen these arguments myself.

But here is the clincher, and note this very well:

'Any argument which works for all religions works for NO religion'.

Now, the 'loyalty and faith' argument might very well work from a practical, social or cultural aspect. i.e. you should be loyal to your tribe, for whatever reasons. But it doesn't work for determining truth. Imagine the following scenario:

Kiruv Worker: You should become frum!
5th generation Reform Jew: But I have loyalty and faith to my parents, grandparents and community!

Of course the above story would never happen, because there's no such thing as a 5th generation Reform Jew! Badaboom.

But seriously folks, none of these arguments work to establish truth. The best approach (which makes skeptics crazy), in fact the only approach which even has a snowball's chance in hell of working, is to attack the very foundation of knowledge and truth itself.

That's right. I'm talking PoMo. (gasp)

UPDATE: Ooops! There is one other approach which works well, though it's somewhat juvenile. I'm talking about the 'I don't care approach'. 'I don't care if OJ looks entirely false, I'm gonna believe it anyway!'. Hard to argue against that one, and more people really rely on that argument than you might think.

HALOSCAN COMMENTS

Fake Fundies Do It Disingenuously

So an Orthodox Rabbi I know has been telling me that I'm irresponsible for blogging that Orthodox Judaism isn't true. (For goodness sake man, my blog is called 'Angstsnostik', not "Come Learn The Holy Toyrah With The Godol Hador'. Haven't you ever heard of Caveat Emptor? Sheesh, there's no pleasing some people.)

But I wonder if he would say I was being irresponsible if I told people that Christianity isn't true? Or Wahabi Islam? Or what if told people that a secular life was worthless and meaningless, would that be ok? Probably.

The funny thing is, this particular Rabbi, like many MO Rabbis I know, actually believes far less than he makes out in public. His beliefs are basically Conservative, not Orthodox. And he's not the only one.

So how is that morally acceptable? To be an Orthodox Rabbi, yet not really believe in it? And even worse, to go around spreading lies and pretending that Orthodoxy is totally true? Isn't that bad? I think so.

Sam Harris famously argues that liberal (i.e. non fundamentalist) religion is to blame for the actions of the extremists. How so? Because the liberals give the extremists cover, by validating that religious faith is a good thing to have. I don't buy this argument at all, because liberal religion is about as different from fundie religion as secularism is, and anyway, the liberals are probably our last remaining hope against the extremists.

So, I'm okay with liberals. But what about a liberal masquerading as a fundie, too scared to admit to his real views, and instead comforting the fundies that their faith is ok? Seems to me that such a person truly is bad, and Sam Harris argument would apply.

Now what about a liberal, masquerading as a fundie, who claims that he's our 'man on the inside', and that his goal is to convince the fundies that science, or tolerance, or some such liberal value or belief, is okay, and compatible with fundie-ism. And the only way he can do that is to masquerade as a fundie. Would that be okay? And in case you think this is a bizarre unrealistic scenario, I know multiple people who think like that.

I guess it's not totally terrible. But it's far too sneaky for my liking. I prefer to be honest about things, and I think honesty is usually the best policy. I don't pretend (even in real life) to be anything more than I'm not, except in mitigating circumstances (e.g. where people would get needlessly upset).

Honestly, I don't know how some of these Fake Fundie Rabbis sleep at night, considering the charade they play. Maybe they really don't sleep very well at all. That would certainly explain their grumpy demeanor.

I would really like to hear from a Fake Fundie about this. Seriously, how do you guys rationalize your behavior? Is it an elitist/masses thing? Or a 'someone's got to do it and better it should be me' type of thing? What? Please tell.

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

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.

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

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

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

A Rabbi Experiments with Scientific Studies: Guest post by Rabbi Uren Reich

[File Under: "What if...?!']

'All systems have basic premises which cannot be proven, Science too. Mine are the ikkarim'

For some years I've been troubled by an apparent decline in the standards of intellectual rigor in certain precincts of the American Chareidi community. But I'm a mere Rabbi: if I find myself unable to make head or tail of Cosmology and Gosse Theory, perhaps that just reflects my own inadequacy.

So, to test the prevailing intellectual standards, I decided to try a modest (though admittedly uncontrolled) experiment: Would a leading North American convention of Chareidi Rabbis -- whose rabbinical collective includes such luminaries as Rabbi Mattisyahu Solomon and Rabbi Reuven Feinstein -- allow me to give a speech liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded frum and (b) it flattered the Rabbis' ideological preconceptions?

The answer, unfortunately, is yes. Interested readers can find my speech, `The Gemara is metziyus: It's also emes veyatziv.' in the Spring/Summer 1995 Agudah Convention.

What's going on here? Could the Rabbis really not have realized that my speech was written as a parody?

In the first paragraph I deride the dogma imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony over the Chareidi intellectual outlook'':

…If the Gemara tells us a metziyus, it’s emes veyatziv. There’s nothing to think about. Anything we see with our eyes is less of a reality than something we see in the Gemara. That’s the emunah that a yid has to have.

Is it now dogma in Chareidi Studies that there exists no possibility of Chazal being wrong? Or that there exists an external world but science obtains no knowledge of it?

In the second paragraph I declare, without the slightest evidence or argument, that Chazal don't have to be reconciled with Science:

Unfortunately, I don’t know where or why this is, but recently there’s been a spate of all kinds of publications – I don’t know where they’ve come from – questioning things that have been mekubel midor dor, that every child learns, together with his mother’s milk, al titosh Toras imecha, we learn that every word of Torah is emes, every word of Chazal hakedoshim is emes. We’re coming to hear new kinds of concepts, that we have to figure out a way to make Torah compatible with modern day science – it’s an emunah mezuyefes! There’s a tremendous emunah that these people have for scientists in the outside world – everything they say is kodesh kadoshim! And then we have to figure out according to what they say, how to fit in the Gemara with this newfangled discoveries that the scientists have taught us?!

Throughout the speech, I employ religious and philosophical concepts in ways that few Theologians or Philosophers could possibly take seriously.

These same scientists who tell you with such clarity what happened sixty-five million years ago – ask them what the weather will be like in New York in two weeks’ time! “Possibly, probably, it could be, maybe” – ain itam hadavar, they don’t know. They know everything that happened 65 million years ago, but from their madda, and their wissenschaft, we have to be mispoel?!

In sum, I intentionally wrote the speech so that any competent Theologian or Philosopher would realize that it is a spoof. Evidently the Rabbis of the Agudah felt comfortable listening to a speech on Science and Torah without bothering to consult anyone knowledgeable in the subject.

[XGH: OK, that's about enough of that! You can read the rest of Sokal's article here. And needless to say, Rav Uren Reich wasn't joking].

HALOSCAN COMMENTS

BEWARE: The Torah State Will Come

[From Areivim, in reference to this article about a Chareidi take over of Bet Shemesh]

Who says a taliban-type approach is wrong? How many times in the torah does it talk about lo tachanem and uviarta harah mikirbecha? Maybe each non-haredi town/village etc NEEDS to be converted over time, and like in the block-busting eras of the 60s-70s US, maybe a tipping point is reached, and then [the neighborhood] falls to the victor (and the haredi commmuity benefits--since prices then are lower). The non-haredim can try to cluster into other areas, but [they] will always lose in the end due to smaller families, massive post-zionist yerida etc. It could be that it is actually a VERY good thing that is happening in these areas.

And when the State reaches 40-50% haredi, others would be even more inclined to leave - thus the Torah state will come.....

[and thus all the Chareidi sub groups will spend all day fighting each other, and the country will be a disaster. Also the country will get destroyed by the Arabs cos no one will be left to serve in the Army. Great plan! Not.]

HALOSCAN COMMENTS

Fundies get their asses wupped again

....and its a darn shame, because I had high hopes this time.

A Rabbi who quotes Spinoza, an educated man, someone who thinks the Gedolim are simpletons who don't understand peshat in Breishis! Sounds like my kind of guy!

Ultimately though, he failed to deliver the goods. He made a reasonable stab at the Kuzari argument, not bad at all (all things considered). I then countered with a reasonable counter argument, see the post below entitled "Lame Fundamentalist Arguments". I expected some kind of counter to my counter. But what did I get? Absolutely nothing!

There are 250 comments on that post, and not one of them addresses my counter argument! Instead RJM attacks my methodology, my bias, my lack of seriousness, my lack of learning, anything and everything, but nowhere does he address the actual content of the post, except to say it's silly, and he leaves it at that. Not very convincing I'm afraid. And the only thing all this has achieved is to make me realize yet again how absolutely incapable fundamentalists are in admitting to reality.

Millions of people believe passionately in their different (and usually contradictory) religions. True, many of these people never think about their religion very seriously, even the highly intelligent people. But certainly some do. And, given the millions upon millions of religious people in the world, that still leaves you with a very significant number of intelligent people who have questioned their faith very seriously indeed.

Now, we know many of these people have become secular Christians, Moslems and Jews. And no doubt there is quite a large percentage who decided to stick with their faith, for all the usual reasons. However there is a tiny percentage who switched faiths. How many Christian converts to Judaism do you know? A handful? And vice versa? And to Islam? And vice versa? It hardly ever happens. Why is this? Of course there are social issues involved, but for a true truth seeker, they wouldn't matter as much.

Do you honestly think that if you had been brought up religious Christian that you would now be a Rabbi? Or vice versa? Fact is, the statistics plainly show that the vast majority of people brought up in a strong faith remain that way. And of those that don't, the vast majority give up all faith. Clearly, the vast majority of people convinced by religious arguments are the people who believed in it in the first place.

Go to any bookstore. You will find volumes and volumes of Christian apologetics, written by educated and intelligent people, all apparently containing 'convincing' proof that Jesus just must be the Messiah. But RJM dismisses all of these as nonsense! (And he's right of course). But does RJM really think that all these people are fools, and only he has the convincing arguments? Which is more likely, he has a solid argument for religion, or he is yet another fundamentalist convinced by arguments that no rational objective person would ever be convinced by?

We know for a FACT that millions upon millions of otherwise highly intelligent and educated people believe in the biggest nonsense - when it comes to religion. We KNOW this! Every fundamentalist agrees to this! RJM himself holds that 99% of all religions, and consequently 99% of all religious believers, believe in nonsense. We have clear evidence that when it comes to religion, people believe what they want to believe. Its irrefutable! Even the fundamentalists agree! Yet RJM has the hubris to think that he is objective and non biased about his own religion? Unbelievable!

The effects of religious indoctrination are obvious. They're everywhere. From the Muslim suicide bombers, to the devout evangelicals, to Orthodox Jews. All of them, even the highly intelligent ones, are absolutely convinced of the veracity of their own arguments, and absolutely convinced of how nonsensical their opponent's arguments are.

'God couldn't possibly manifest Himself as a man!' exclaims Y Aharon. Does he not realize how ironically non self aware this comment is? Thousands of years of Christian apologetics, written by the most educated, intelligent and spiritual people, yet Y Aharon dismisses it all in an instant. The stupidity of Christianity is readily apparent to him, and to all Orthodox fundamentalists (and to all skeptics of course), but the stupidity of his own beliefs, in mythical floods and genetically altered men? No! Not stupid at all. The hubris is mind boggling.

Of course Y Aharon and RJM will respond as they usually do. Their arguments are convincing, and the only people not convinced are led by their yetzer horah, or are not serious, or are not honest, or some other insult. Their lack of self awareness is quite incredible. Boruch Hashem my own Rabbeim are more intellectually honest (but that doesn't help much either).

I don't attack the fundamentalists for holding the beliefs they hold. I can understand why someone would want to hold onto their beliefs, it's natural. But for intelligent people to think they have convincing arguments for their fundamentalist faith is laughable. Absolutely laughable.

And I have nothing against any of these people personally. Y AHaron I know for a fact is a fine fellow with a choshuv family. I don't know RJM that well, but clearly he is a respected Rabbi and also a fine fellow. Even ed is a good guy! But all these people are so incredibly biased and brainwashed, they can't think straight. Could God possibly want things to be this way? I find it hard to believe He does. Assuming He exists. Which is yet another thing that nobody seems to know for sure. Amazing really. We don't know for sure whether God exists, but we do know for sure that He wrote the Torah. And how does that work exactly? Of course it doesn't. Just like every other argument I have heard.

But what do I know? I'm just dishonest, not open to the truth, guided by my yetzer horah, unscrupulous, not serious, biased towards the skeptics, not spiritual enough, not philosophical enough, not rational enough, not learned enough, too stubborn, too fallacious, too intellectually dishonest and an all round failure at finding the truth. Oh well, I tried.

HALOSCAN COMMENTS

Are talking donkeys silly?

Happy says that any religion which requires you to believe in talking donkeys is just plain silly. Now, I think we all agree that God, if He exists, could certainly make a donkey talk, and vis-a-vis God, creating talking people is no more silly than creating talking donkeys. However God is not the issue here, man is. To a (normal) man, a talking donkey is quite ridiculous.

The Rambam famously re-interprets this whole episode as a dream, but frankly, thats very clowny. Reminds me of Dallas season seven, and that was pretty clowny too. But how about a talking horse? I think that's slightly less silly. Maybe we can re-interpret Bilaams ass as a horse instead. That might help things. The other advantage is that it will spare us all those silly jokes about God talking out of Bilaam's ass.

I recently was sent an email list full of famous names: Akiva Atwood, DBH (the conspiracy nut), Koffer, Ostroff, FKM (Freakin Kiruv Maniac), discussing at length whether Science might be true or not. Such a waste. I find it hard to believe that this is what God wants from us (assuming He exists). And, since God saw fit for whatever reasons to completely hide all evidence of Himself, I find it hard to believe that He cares one way or another as to whether we believe in Him at all. It's all a test? It's all baloney more likely.

The fundamentalists claim they are being reasonable, but any normal, rational and objective person can see they are not. How can they possibly advance the lamest of arguments, and think they are good? It's mamash unbelievable.

Here's what I think is going on:

What comes out of their mouths:

TMS is entirely rational blah blah kuzari proof blah blah critical thought blah blah

What goes on in their brains:

Torah just must be true, I mean it must be! My whole life is predicated on that fact, And my whole family, my whole community, everyone I know. I’ve believed this since childhood, how could it not be true? And my father, and his father and so on for three thousand years! And how many yidden were moser nefesh for this??. If it isn’t true, then I have been living a lie for all these years. How could that be? It just can’t! And not only that, it would mean all the Gedolim have been living a lie, and all the Acharonim, and Rishonim, and oh my gosh, Chazal! And not only living a lie, but Chazal were a part of it! That couldn’t be! All that Torah and Torah learning, all those Mitzvot, the entire enterprise? All false? All a waste of time? No! It just couldn’t be! And anyway, Hashem would never have allowed that to happen. Not to the Yidden! Not to me! No way. Just can’t be. No! Never! Can’t be. Oy, and to even have such thoughts is such a pgam in my emunah. Oy, almost kefirah, such a bad aveirah. I can’t even think like this! Oy.

Update inspired by Little Foxling: And I don't want to go to Gehinom! I don't want to lose my cheleck in Olam Habah! Please Hashem, take these kefiradick thoughts away from me. They distress me so much. Please Hashem, I was only doing this lshem shamayim, only to fight the skeptics. I didn't ever intend to get skeptical thoughts myself. I promise to try and be mechazek myself. I promise! I'll also daven with more kavanah, and learn more. But please remove these doubts and questions from me, please!

And how could I possibly be skeptical? To tell my wife? My kids? My parents? My in-laws? Oy, my chavrusoh? My Rav? My shul? My community? Oy, the shame, the humiliation, how could I possibly do that! No way. It just must be true. What am I thinking?! Of course it's true, of course it's true. Oy, of course of course of course its true. Just take a deep breath. Relax your mind, and think of Torah. Please Hashem help me in this hour of my need. I don't ask for much. Please remove any kefirah doubts and let me be mechazek in my emunah. Your Holy Torah! OF course its all True. The Avos, the Neviim, Chazal, the Rishonim, the Acharonim, the Gedolim (for RJM you can skip the Gedolim, he thinks they're a bunch of simpletons who have it all wrong anyway), my Rabbeim! Oh my gosh, my amazing Rabbeim! Of course they are all right. How could they possiblt be wrong? No, it just can't be. It can't.

What’s funny is that nobody gives a second thought to the fact that 2 billion Christians have it all wrong, and are praying to a god who isn’t there. Or that all the Moslems have it all wrong. All the thousands of Christian and Islamic martyrs who gave up their lives for nothing. All the millions of man hours spent in specifically Christian or Moslem (or Hindu) pursuits all essentially a waste of time. That’s all entirely believable. But the Yidden being wrong? No! That cannot be!

HALOSCAN COMMENTS