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
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Monday, April 14, 2008
If you believe that the Torah is true, then you'll see that the Torah is true!
I wasn't kidding when I posted the top ten reasons why Orthodoxy is most probably not true. But the number one reason, that the people with the answers don't really believe much themselves, might not be the actual number one reason.
Probably the number one reason is that the most sophisticated and highly intelligent apologists always end up with some ridiculous argument that even a child can see has no foundation. The two most striking examples on the internet are RJM and David G. Now, I like David G and RJM. I like them both a lot. But a spade must be called a spade.
Let's start with David G. He's so incredibly circular, I don't know if he's kidding or what. Here's an example from his latest post:
Torah has to be accepted. Its divinity and inerrancy have to be accepted rather than proven. For Torah to work as an educational tool towards the ultimate goal of knowing God and His ways, it has to be accepted fully as divine and inerrant.
How can he write this stuff? How is this any different than the following:
Koran has to be accepted. Its divinity and inerrancy have to be accepted rather than proven. For Koran to work as an educational tool towards the ultimate goal of knowing Allah and His ways, it has to be accepted fully as divine and inerrant.
(David G's probable response: But the Rambam says we can't learn the Koran!)
But wait. There's more:
Rambam in MN 1:35 lists foundational rules or accepted beliefs that all have to accept before embarking on a discovery journey towards God. They start with the existence of God and exclusive worship of only Him followed by belief that God is not physical, He is transcendent, His existence, life, knowledge are all equivocal statements (they are human concepts applied to a non-graspable entity for lack of better words).
Wow, so in order to start a discovery journey towards God, we have to believe God exists! Who woulda thunkit?
Most of the rest of the post is about the same.
As for RJM, all his arguments for the truth of Orthodoxy ultimately boil down to this:
"If you only knew ANE and comparative religion, you would see that TMS is the most probable explanation for what happened."
Unfortunately for RJM, there are thousands of ANE scholars who know ANE and comparative religion (and more besides) very well, but still don't believe TMS is true. I guess they could all be biased, but then so could RJM.
Bottom line: None of these arguments work. And just admitting to the bleeding obvious, that you believe in OJ because you want to believe (as per evanstonjew), is a lot more truthful, respectable and admirable than arguing a bunch of hooey.
I wonder if David G or RJM could agree to the following statement:
"I admit that from a rational objective perspective, Orthodox Judaism does not look true. However I am passionately, emotionally and intellectually committed to Orthodox Judaism, therefore I will use whatever arguments I have to try and make a case for it."
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Probably the number one reason is that the most sophisticated and highly intelligent apologists always end up with some ridiculous argument that even a child can see has no foundation. The two most striking examples on the internet are RJM and David G. Now, I like David G and RJM. I like them both a lot. But a spade must be called a spade.
Let's start with David G. He's so incredibly circular, I don't know if he's kidding or what. Here's an example from his latest post:
Torah has to be accepted. Its divinity and inerrancy have to be accepted rather than proven. For Torah to work as an educational tool towards the ultimate goal of knowing God and His ways, it has to be accepted fully as divine and inerrant.
How can he write this stuff? How is this any different than the following:
Koran has to be accepted. Its divinity and inerrancy have to be accepted rather than proven. For Koran to work as an educational tool towards the ultimate goal of knowing Allah and His ways, it has to be accepted fully as divine and inerrant.
(David G's probable response: But the Rambam says we can't learn the Koran!)
But wait. There's more:
Rambam in MN 1:35 lists foundational rules or accepted beliefs that all have to accept before embarking on a discovery journey towards God. They start with the existence of God and exclusive worship of only Him followed by belief that God is not physical, He is transcendent, His existence, life, knowledge are all equivocal statements (they are human concepts applied to a non-graspable entity for lack of better words).
Wow, so in order to start a discovery journey towards God, we have to believe God exists! Who woulda thunkit?
Most of the rest of the post is about the same.
As for RJM, all his arguments for the truth of Orthodoxy ultimately boil down to this:
"If you only knew ANE and comparative religion, you would see that TMS is the most probable explanation for what happened."
Unfortunately for RJM, there are thousands of ANE scholars who know ANE and comparative religion (and more besides) very well, but still don't believe TMS is true. I guess they could all be biased, but then so could RJM.
Bottom line: None of these arguments work. And just admitting to the bleeding obvious, that you believe in OJ because you want to believe (as per evanstonjew), is a lot more truthful, respectable and admirable than arguing a bunch of hooey.
I wonder if David G or RJM could agree to the following statement:
"I admit that from a rational objective perspective, Orthodox Judaism does not look true. However I am passionately, emotionally and intellectually committed to Orthodox Judaism, therefore I will use whatever arguments I have to try and make a case for it."
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Top ten signs your religion might not be the one true religion ...
10. Nobody else in the world believes in it (including 80% of your co-religionists), apart from people born into it, and a small percentage of lost souls who get pursuaded into it.
9 The foundational stories of the religion have been shown scientifically and historically to be extremely unlikely, and in some cases impossible, and the possibility that people were misled into believing in it (like every other religion) is thousands of times more probable than it actually being true.
8. The community and your family expend tremendous unrelenting effort to ensure that you are strongly indoctrinated from very early childhood, and don't ever come into contact with any information which might shake your faith.
7. The religion includes numerous laws forbidding you to investigate your faith, and certainly not changing your faith, including death penalties (in theory) for changing your faith or pursuading others to do so.
6. Your community will severely shun anyone who asks questions, and in some cases forbid questions.
5. The foundational Divine text of your religion has been shown to have been authored by multiple humans, and every scholar in the world believes this to be true (in one form or another), and the only people who don't believe this are the people required by their religion to not believe it.
4. Almost very time you get into (or witness) an argument between a believer and a skeptic, the believer ends up appealing to authority, faith, tradition, or all three. And the one rare exception to this argues that if you only understood ANE history you would see that it's true, yet is unable to explain why all the world's secular ANE experts know ANE history very well, yet still don't think it's true.
3. The most revered and distinguished scholars and leaders of your religion seem incapable of being honest and admitting to basic, proven scientific fact.
2. Significant elements of your religious brethren believe in all sorts of nonsense, beliefs which even their fellow, but more modern, believers are convinced are nonsense, yet the processes & arguments (and of course biases) by which these extreme believers gain (and maintain) their beliefs are curiously identical to the processes and arguments (and of course biases) by which the more modern believers gain (and maintain) their beliefs.
And the number one sign your religion might not be the one true religion is ....... (drum roll).....
1. Every time you meet a rational, intellectual believer, who appears to the outside world to have reconciled all the questions and figured it all out, it turns out that deep down they don't believe very much either, and have some lame reason why they pretend to do so.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
9 The foundational stories of the religion have been shown scientifically and historically to be extremely unlikely, and in some cases impossible, and the possibility that people were misled into believing in it (like every other religion) is thousands of times more probable than it actually being true.
8. The community and your family expend tremendous unrelenting effort to ensure that you are strongly indoctrinated from very early childhood, and don't ever come into contact with any information which might shake your faith.
7. The religion includes numerous laws forbidding you to investigate your faith, and certainly not changing your faith, including death penalties (in theory) for changing your faith or pursuading others to do so.
6. Your community will severely shun anyone who asks questions, and in some cases forbid questions.
5. The foundational Divine text of your religion has been shown to have been authored by multiple humans, and every scholar in the world believes this to be true (in one form or another), and the only people who don't believe this are the people required by their religion to not believe it.
4. Almost very time you get into (or witness) an argument between a believer and a skeptic, the believer ends up appealing to authority, faith, tradition, or all three. And the one rare exception to this argues that if you only understood ANE history you would see that it's true, yet is unable to explain why all the world's secular ANE experts know ANE history very well, yet still don't think it's true.
3. The most revered and distinguished scholars and leaders of your religion seem incapable of being honest and admitting to basic, proven scientific fact.
2. Significant elements of your religious brethren believe in all sorts of nonsense, beliefs which even their fellow, but more modern, believers are convinced are nonsense, yet the processes & arguments (and of course biases) by which these extreme believers gain (and maintain) their beliefs are curiously identical to the processes and arguments (and of course biases) by which the more modern believers gain (and maintain) their beliefs.
And the number one sign your religion might not be the one true religion is ....... (drum roll).....
1. Every time you meet a rational, intellectual believer, who appears to the outside world to have reconciled all the questions and figured it all out, it turns out that deep down they don't believe very much either, and have some lame reason why they pretend to do so.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Sunday, April 6, 2008
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
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
Friday, April 4, 2008
New Guide for Pesach Cleaning
Just got the new guide (out of Lakewood) for Pesach cleaning. It's pretty extreme, but it does now come with helpful pictures. Here is how you should prepare your living room and bathroom. Happy pesach cleaning!
Thursday, April 3, 2008
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
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
Evanstonjew nails it
[I coulda written this. I shoulda written this. But I didn't. And evanstonjew did.]
Many people of all religions believe in believing. They want to adopt a religious attitude towards life, not because such and such dogma is true, but because they just want to. It is a desire that cries out for satisfaction like all other desires; not all people, only some people and not necessarily all the time.
This is happening everywhere in the world. Why are Muslim girls putting on scarves? Because they believe in hadath min hashamayim? No...they seek a spirituality, and they give expression to this desire by inscribing it on their bodies.
My intuition is that behind all the bluster many of us at least some of the time want to believe, not believe some propositional content, and not just believe in the evolutionary or utilitarian value of emuna, which is considerable and hardly ever discussed, but simply want to be frum...daven bekavanah, learn as we did when we were in yeshiva, walk in the world with a frum consciousness.
Some people simply have a desire to return to the enchanted world of religion, and in our case Orthodoxy.
This active nekudah in some Jews is in my opinion a good thing, everything else being equal, i.e. it doesn't end in fanaticism, remains progressive and decent in politics and human relations, etc.
As usual propositional truth, dogmas are irrelevant to the cultivation of this feeling.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Many people of all religions believe in believing. They want to adopt a religious attitude towards life, not because such and such dogma is true, but because they just want to. It is a desire that cries out for satisfaction like all other desires; not all people, only some people and not necessarily all the time.
This is happening everywhere in the world. Why are Muslim girls putting on scarves? Because they believe in hadath min hashamayim? No...they seek a spirituality, and they give expression to this desire by inscribing it on their bodies.
My intuition is that behind all the bluster many of us at least some of the time want to believe, not believe some propositional content, and not just believe in the evolutionary or utilitarian value of emuna, which is considerable and hardly ever discussed, but simply want to be frum...daven bekavanah, learn as we did when we were in yeshiva, walk in the world with a frum consciousness.
Some people simply have a desire to return to the enchanted world of religion, and in our case Orthodoxy.
This active nekudah in some Jews is in my opinion a good thing, everything else being equal, i.e. it doesn't end in fanaticism, remains progressive and decent in politics and human relations, etc.
As usual propositional truth, dogmas are irrelevant to the cultivation of this feeling.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)