GUEST POST: I’m Charedi, change my mind.

shulman's take on the Charedi-Orthoprax Phenomenon

This is a guest post that I am willingly publishing because it reflects an opinion commonly held but rarely expressed. It’s well worth your time, even if you disagree with it - as I do. Besides for what I think is a false dichotomy between the MO and Chareidi approaches (and the strawman it makes of MO), my main point of contention is that it I think it is indeed possible to square the circle - one can hold of scientific evidence and reasoning and still accept the existence of mysticism. In fact, understanding most of creation and the early parts of Torah as mystical solves a lot of the factual problems that interpreting them factially does. - Ash

There are many types of atheists, each grappling with different questions. But they all share one thing—something we all feel acutely. We are taught about a Being called Hashem, who is always present, watching, and loving us. We are told that He created us for a purpose, and that our actions matter for a destination called Olam Haba or Mashiach, where we will experience the greatest imaginable pleasure—closeness to Him.

But: we don’t see Him. We don’t sense Him. We don’t feel Him.

We stand during Shemona Esrei, saying “You” to this Being, but often feel like phonies—like we’re talking to no one. Despite a lifetime of being told He’s there, wanting and yearning to feel His presence, some begin to question, especially as they reach adulthood: Is this even real?

To this effect, we are told stories of the Torah, Chazal, and Gedolei Yisrael throughout history, hearing of their personal (or, in one case, communal) encounters with Hashem. Whether it’s through Nevuah in Tanach, or Ruach HaKodesh and Malachim since the extinction of Nevuah, we are taught that they experienced something tangible. Yet, for most of us, belief remains nothing more than trust—trust in the people we know and respect, and in the narratives we are told. We learn that it is our small-mindedness holding us back from actually seeing the truth.

But a trust-based system is vulnerable. Another narrative can replace it, especially when doubts arise or alternative perspectives are introduced. And the reasons to doubt are numerous. While many remain comfortable within the frum Jewish narrative because it is consistent and offers answers that work internally, for others that trust eventually feels stale, leading them to question or drift away.

For those wrestling with doubt, two broad approaches exist: The MO approach, and the Charedi approach.

1. The Modern Orthodox (MO) Approach:

This perspective embraces and appreciates the weight of questions—scientific (e.g., evolution, the Big Bang, archeology), moral (e.g., human suffering, outdated ethics), and rational (e.g., prophecy, angels, talking donkeys). By minimizing censorship and openly addressing doubts, it provides intellectual breathing room, which in itself is meritorious to a challenger. This approach goes all-out with innovative theories and plausible answers to keep Judaism alive despite the strongest questions and saves many who struggle.

However, I must point out that it’s often a band-aid solution. Even though their justifications may have validity, often these answers can be apologetic and stretch some basic Jewish concepts as thin as possible without snapping. For example, while Rabbi Slifkin’s approach to reconciling the Torah’s account of creation with evolution may work, it undermines the Torah’s specialness. Once the Torah is reduced to nothing more than a product of its time - ancient and scientifically ignorant - a far simpler answer is to let the band snap. It’s much easier to believe that the Torah is made up and was born in that time. Those who embrace this approach may have to concede and appreciate that others may go a small step further and ignore the Torah entirely.

In summary, while this approach is helping many people, we often find it’s inadvertently a first step towards atheism, compromising the very core it was designed to defend. Considering this, the MO approach is more than dangerous, and must be taken with caution.

2. The Charedi Approach:

The Charedi approach tackles doubt from an entirely different perspective. It doesn’t aim to address questions head-on. Instead, it emphasizes strengthening the central core experience of our beliefs.

Why? Because doubts don't arise from a lack of answers alone. They stem from the fact that we are reliant on trust and faith in a system that isn't intuitive to us. The Charedi approach attempts to address the root cause of the doubts by transforming a shaky trust system into a lived experience. What I mean by this is that instead of just saying “Attah” to Hashem and not feeling it, it works on taking the steps to actually feel it to some extent.

Unlike the previous approach, this outlook needs further explanation, which we will address in two steps.

Step 1: Let's begin with R’ Yaakov Kamenetzky’s Tzitzis analogy: a child’s first pair of Tzitzis fit him beautifully as a three-year-old, but look ridiculous on him if he is wearing the same pair at his Bar Mitzvah. Similarly, an individual’s initial understanding of Judaism is not going to work for him the rest of his life.

As children, we picture Hashem in simplistic, physical terms— “Hashem is here, Hashem is there.” "Here" and "there" are physical constructs in a child's mind. But as we mature we are capable of understanding that Hashem is not a physical being. There is no place that one can fly to with a spaceship and find the luscious Garden of Eden filled with apples and sweet smells. There are no physical fires of hell or human-like creatures with wings, nor is there an old man in the sky with a flowing white beard.

To clarify, saying that no video camera would've been able to capture Matan Torah isn't to say it didn't happen, and that hell isn't a fire isn't to say it doesn't exist, just like saying that Hashem doesn't have a mouth and can't talk doesn't mean the Torah is lying. The incorporeal is no less real than the physical and our minds, which are not physical, are capable of grasping concepts beyond material reality.

Most atheists who reject their religion are still wearing their first pair of Tzitzis. Their experience of Judaism is rooted in physicality; they still think of Hashem in terms of “here” and “there.” Therefore, they are bothered when they don’t feel Hashem during davening – where is He? He is not “here.” So when they claim that heaven and hell and G-d and angels don’t exist, they don’t realize that Judaism agrees! They do not physically exist.

Step 2: What is preventing us from growing past this physical outlook? Judaism claims that every potato chip we eat, and every movie we watch clouds our sense of incorporeality. The more we indulge in the physical, the more we dull our ability to feel the non-physical.

The Charedi approach combats this issue by making the Torah reality the focus of their lives. A yeshiva bochur channels all of his energy into the study of G-d’s word and will, and his mantra is “there’s nothing but Torah.” This is supposed to raise him above the potato chips.

(Parenthetically, this is why atheists are sometimes disparaged in the Charedi lexicon as "baalei taiva." It is most certainly not to say that they aren't being logical, rather it’s bringing out the point that being mired in physicality inhibits spirituality.)

I understand the atheist will claim that this world of immaterial is a load of baloney (bologna?), but this is the Charedi approach explained. It posits that dealing with individual questions is not addressing the crux of the matter. If a person has a mature connection with Hashem, unresolved questions won’t shake his reality.

Examining Both Approaches

Atheism arises from two distinct issues: (1) the fact that we don't "feel it" (a rationalist crisis). (2) There are actual questions on the ground, from science, history, archeology, morality and so forth.

In general, the MO approach deals with the questions at hand, but rarely addresses the underlying disconnect. The Charedi approach focuses on building that connection but risks ignoring the questions entirely.

The issue with the Charedi approach is the expectation that someone who is ‘not yet there’ and burning with these tough questions will be satisfied with a wave of hand - "Grow up, and all your questions will disappear." This is harmful (and false), especially when the person does grow older and the questions still very much exist.

Meanwhile the MO approach recognizes and deals with the questions, but this does little to address the core issue. And furthermore, the answers offered often apologize for our beliefs instead of strengthening them and further weaken that very core.

In short, each approach leaves much to be desired, but in my opinion, the rationalist crisis is far more critical, for two key reasons. First, truthfully, we don’t necessarily have all the answers—and I’m not going to pretend otherwise. I’m open to hearing the MO perspectives, and I can acknowledge that they may be plausible, or even probable. But I can’t promise they offer a better version of the truth. That leaves me with speculations that, while interesting, are not fully satisfying.^[1]

Second, my ability to even consider those perspectives comes precisely because my foundation is so strong. The lack of a deep, robust understanding of Judaism leaves a weak version that’s easy to knock down, often leading to atheism.

Moving Forward

We live in the age of the internet and it's no longer possible to just shelter people and hope for the best until they mature. At the same time, we need to instill our values properly which requires a level of trust until that maturity is available.

The solution is twofold: (1) a better "hasbara" system. Many people misunderstand the Charedi approach, perceiving it as rigid and cult-like. However, beyond this misinterpretation, there is often a deeper issue: many Rabbeim themselves are products of an unclear system, leaving them with only a vague understanding of what the Charedi approach truly is. Naturally, they can only transmit what they themselves grasp, which is insufficient and, frankly, quite unacceptable.

(2) Charedim need to take a lesson from the MO approach. We need more honest and open dialogue for those who are struggling. Far too many Rabbeim lack the tools to engage with skeptics and dismiss sincere questions as immature or foolish. This approach only pushes people further away. We need Rabbeim who can humbly say, "We don’t have all the answers, but let’s explore this together with honesty and courage." Teenagers are very perceptive; they can quickly sense hesitation or diffidence.

At this stage, most kids still respect the Gr’a, the Rambam, and other gedolim. Their Neshama Tehorah still resonates, and they haven’t fully embraced atheism. A confident and informed Rebbi can challenge them thoughtfully: "Do you truly believe these brilliant minds—who shaped generations—were wrong?" Often, all it takes is ensuring that they’re not turned off.

Unfortunately, Charedi yeshivos are often cold and unapproachable. Students feel there’s no one to talk to except the Rosh Yeshiva, who may unintentionally (or intentionally) convey that their questions are silly or immature. This is dismissive at best —and at worst, it comes across as close-minded, as if we’re afraid of questions. Coupled with many, many other familiar frustrations in the Charedi system, this lack of trust and openness can easily sever the connection to the system which is initially based on nothing but that genuine trust.

We need to stop pretending that our mantra of "There is nothing but Torah" is as simple as we present it. We cannot afford to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes. Instead, we must be available to engage, with authenticity, so that the next generation can find trust and truth in the system we cherish.

This is not to suggest that we should introduce doubts or questions to those not troubled; discussions can wait until around age twenty-five or so, when their understanding of the nature of Torah is more firmly developed. But the Rabbeim and Roshei Yeshiva need to be available (and personally confident – a leader is more than just someone who knows how to teach a Rashba) to deal with these challenges.

So: here is my addition to the atheist-amongst-us dialogue: It is nearly impossible to stare down the barrel of the Big Bang or at a dinosaur bone and unbiasedly reject science's conclusions. But it is equally impossible to honestly confront the lived experiences and teachings of the Rambam, Ramchal, Gr’a, and hundreds of other truly great thinkers—Jewish and non-Jewish alike—and dismiss their shared worldview, especially when we can extrapolate from our own similar experience coming slowly into focus. The only way to reject their approach is to deliberately look away, much like some religious individuals ignorantly turn a blind eye to the evidence for evolution.

Interestingly, this “looking away” is precisely the approach of many atheists—they dismiss the very idea of Judaism or religion as unworthy of serious examination. Such individuals, in essence, become Rambam-deniers or Gr’a-deniers.

In truth, they reject not only the wisdom of hundreds of great Jewish thinkers but also the insights of non-Jewish minds throughout history. While I am most familiar with our hundreds of Jewish luminaries,^[2] I have also studied Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Avicenna, Spinoza, a fair amount of ANE thought, and countless others. These thinkers, known specifically for their piety, intellectual rigor, and saintliness, were deeply immersed in the immaterial (where saintliness and wisdom come together), far beyond the transient pleasures of a movie or a bag of chips.

Yes, the ancients were “scientifically ignorant” and mistaken in their understanding of the physical world, but modern atheist thinkers are “incorporeally ignorant.” The loud - and yes, reasonable - voices championing atheism today are as physical and base as the rest of us; the Platonic journey towards spirituality is completely foreign to them. According to all the ancient teachings—including Judaism—those who don’t involve themselves in the sublime world of the immaterial are inherently in a state that limits their ability to comprehend that world. So to dismiss such vast and profound literature without engaging with or attempting to experience their shared wisdom is, bluntly, very intellectually dishonest.

My connection to Judaism is strong because I have personally witnessed the beauty of the incorporeal. However, truth is my highest value, and I sincerely hope that if I am wrong, you will be able to show me the light. To paraphrase the reviled but charismatic Steven Crowder:

I’m Charedi. Change my mind.

---

^[1] I would even add that the Charedi approach raises additional questions. According to Kabbalistic sources, everything is created through "Divine Names." Their understanding of the creation narrative is therefore much more rigid, as creatures like mastodons or archaeotherium don't have "Divine Names," since they didn't coexist with mankind. Moreover, it's assumed that creation itself was accomplished through these Divine Names, rather than through any evolutionary process.

^[2] Here’s a small list of some from those whom I’ve read discussing or eluding to these matters extensively: R’Y Halevi (Kuzari), Ibn Ezra, Ralbag, Raavad, Ramban, Rashba, Rivash, Ri Giktilya, Abarbanel, Radvaz, R’ Betzalel Ashkenazi, Arizal, Beis Yosef, Bach, Rema, Yam Shel Shlomo, Shelah, Yaavetz, Reb Yonasan Eibshutz, Ramchal, Gr’a, Reb Chaim Volozhiner, R’ Eizik Chaver, Reb Tzadok, all the great chassidik masters, Leshem, Chafetz Chaim, Chazon Ish, Reb Moshe, Reb Yaakov, Reb Elyashiv. The list could go on and on.