So no one gets the wrong impression, I strongly accept scientific evidence and reasoning. I'm just not sure how the two approaches actually work together...
I think leadership means different things in different contexts. In general, a Jew is primarily here to be an eved Hashem and follow His will, and as such, a baal halacha will be the primary leader to help people serve Hashem best. And usually the genuine baalei halacha are the wisest and most devoted and kill themselves to learn every nuance of halacha out of their love fro Hashem, and with such devotion they become close to Hashem and can help individuals with their spiritual struggles as well. But someone who is learning halacha and doesn't appreciate that he is learning Hashem's torah and despite him knowing it intellectually, he separates his knowledge and his yiraas Shamayim, he can still be a leader for halacha (or give a fantastic shiur and give over the importance of halacha), but he will not be a good leader for matters of developing a real connection with Hashem. He will still be an optimal leader for the most important aspect of Judaism, but not for these kinds of things which are not his expertise.
I’m pretty sure he’s saying it’s not Derech Eretz or Torah knowledge that is the main hiring criteria. Either would be great, but yeshivos generally hire based on last name and whether your father or father in law is already involved/important in the Yeshiva.
Leads to a lot of totally unqualified people in leadership roles. And a lot of bitter yungeleit who get passed over for a less qualified by more connected person.
>>>I strongly accept scientific evidence and reasoning
I disagree.
Science is universal, and it accepts no boundaries. It does not permit you to say, "I will reason up until here but no more. I will extend to fish and birds, planes and submarines, rocks and light bulbs, but will not touch your Torah." The pervasiveness of science is deep; it is universal acid.
And to think that science can be contained in the science class and won't affect the chumash class, as it appears you do, means that you do not accept science and reasoning. You want to have your microchip and eat it, too.
Not true. Even if i accept science as much as you, but I simultaneously have a strong bag of evidence which contradicts these excellent conclusions, that would necessarily complicate matters. Sure, we need to carefully examine the opposing evidence, but if it stands, my above statement is perfectly fair.
I liked this article. It felt authentic. I am working on a response to this and will share it hopefully tomorrow. My basic points are as follows:
1 - I think you are very much mischaracterizing the mindset of atheists. (“We stand during Shemona Esrei, saying “You” to this Being, but often feel like phonies—like we’re talking to no one.” It reminds me of the famous example of a man writing a woman’s perspective: “She breasted boobily down the stairs…”)
2 - We don't reject the incorporeal (as you called it). We are very open to it. But we would love evidence that holds up and so far we haven't found it.
3 - many atheists are often much more removed from gashmiyus and "spiritual" than frum people. (Have you ever listened to the Waking Up app by Sam Harris?) This feels like the mashgichim, who think the whole outside world looks like a cartoon version of Harlem. Conversely, and ironically, the frum community is probably one of the most indulgent and consumeristic communities out there. Walk into any shabbos kiddush in Lakewood and say I am wrong.
4 - Of course, there were many wise gedolim. But wisdom and genius is no cure for wrong ideas. Newton believed in alchemy. The only reliable fulcrum to get out bad ideas that we have found effective so far is the scientific method and the following evidence.
5 - Your argument seems to boil down to that it is not fair that we are not "finishing Shas and Poskim,” and spending 40 years before we learn kabblah before we ask questions. This argument fails because (1) many of us have given years of our lives to this system (certainly far more than you or I have given to any other truth claim out there), and (2) we only have one life. Tying the pursuit of truth to an endless amorphous process is impractical. The Ex-Muslim and Ex-JW and Ex-Mormon Reddit groups are packed with people who have been told that if only they spent 20 years learning x and doing y, then they would "see the light". I am confident that if you examine how you parse reality and how you examine hypotheses before accepting or rejecting them, in every other context, you would see that this is an unfair burden being placed on the scales.
Your point of the indulgence in the frum community is well taken. It is in my understanding extremely common in Lakewood. I think it is because the ones who are indulgent are the ones who did not enjoy learning, and were never taught to develop their own interests or hobbies, or even that such a thing is valued (after all its "bittul Torah".) as a result, they indulge in materialism which is an easy kosher interest.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. Looking forward to more.
1. You can say that I'm 'atheisplaining' but I'm inevitably right. If G-d came and spoke to you, that would be enough. And if He didn't but you felt His presence, that would be enough too. This doesn't mean there aren't other factors, including explaining the experience I'm discussing, but you can't deny that reality.
2. I don't think you're not open to it. I'm claiming that this reality is something you can feel through a specific process, and that would be your evidence. I don't expect anyone to apply different standards here than they would for any beliefs they have.
3. I don't condone the gashmiyus we find in Lakewood, when not done with the proper yiraas Shamayim. And I don't think someone like Sam Harris is a particularly indulgent person. My point is simply that we, as a generation, are undeniably far more materialistic today than we ever were in history. We are born with insane technology and a food industry with simple delicacies a king of yesteryear couldn't imagine. We are much lazier than they were; we can access more entertainment with a click of a button on our couch than anyone ever could have with a lot more work and we can literally travel around the world in a few hours.
4. Agreed. Aristotle, and Chazal, got many things wrong about science. Alchemy is the least of the problems. Science and skepticism has done an absolutely outstanding job arriving at the truth. It's undeniable. But the question here is if the ancients were therefore wrong about everything, and the reason is because they had a different criteria for arriving at conclusions; our epistemology evolved for the better as we see with the scientific revolution - that is the atheist's version of history. Or perhaps, they had access to this other reality they claimed to have access to and even though they were scientifically ignorant, they were "incorporeally knowledgeable". I think the fact that Aristotle was keen enough to understand that we believe things because of logos, ethos and pathos, and was able to break down these things and explain them to the world is a testament to his lucidity, clarity and ingullibilty (not a word, but you get the idea). And he was claiming to have an experience with the incorporeal (the Active Intellect) which, he would claim, we haven't personally experienced because we are so mired in our material selves. I'd love to see how any atheist can be so confident that he was wrong or lying given the data.
5. You want to have a discussion of why I think Judaism is correct and not any of the other religions? We can get to that soon. But we need to first establish the credibility of any religion as opposed to atheism which rejects religion entirely, and I am claiming that this is out of ignorance of something held by all religions and people ever to exist until recently. There are two options to explain this phenomenon. Is it because we know so much better? Or are we perhaps missing something they all had?
1.-2. I have felt the divine. I wasn’t sober but I did feel it.
I also see people feel the divine very regularly as I work in clinical neuroscience. There’s also tens of millions of Christians who have the Holy Spirit confirm to them all sorts of things very regularly.
If I felt the divine again I’d assume I was drugged.
I don’t know why you’re so confident that everyone thinks non externally reproducible personal experience is knock down evidence.
3. Having your needs met more readily doesn’t necessarily make you less spiritual. For many it means having time to meditate or think. At just about every point in history you could point out that standards of living were higher than they were prior (though accelerated post 1700). This is only relevant once you take for granted that convenience is bad.
4. Kant read Aristotle. Aristotle didn’t read Kant. And so on. The ancients were less insightful even in non empiricist fields because they simply weren’t standing on the shoulders of giants. I know more about physicians than Newton because I can watch YouTube videos of info he couldn’t dream of. That’s not unique to science even though it’s more measurable there.
Also there was much fewer of them. More swings at insight translates to more hits. Like you could believe that Aristotle was uniquely smart because he was the biggest fish in a pretty small pond but it’s statistically a lot likelier the the biggest fish in a much larger pond (with significantly better nutrition survival from disease education risk to life for rubbing the wrong person the wrong way etc) is probably smarter and more insightful.
5. Atheism doesn’t necessarily reject religion. I’m literally atheist and religious. Atheism rejects the truth claim of the divine. There are atheist religions (such as Jainism).
As far as saving the question “which spirit spoke to you” for another day I don’t think that’s valid. If you’re gonna establish feeling the spirit as reliable evidence to make life altering decisions based on you need to address the fact that it reliably provides multiple contradictory readouts at the credibility of argument stage.
1-2. Feeling "the divine" on drugs is not the same as experiencing the incorporeal. (Not that psychedelics can't assist to some extent)
3. True, I was being very simplistic. The fact that the immaterial was more accessible to them (as I am claiming) is because of a lot of things, probably primarily due to, but not limited to, what we call yeridas hadoros, where as we sin G-d "retreats" and it becomes harder and harder to feel Him.
4. Great points, but given what I said in "3", besides that there were as many fish then as today, if there was a reality of experiencing incorporeality that waned slowly over time, follow it through - the entire narrative changes. They were busy studying and dealing with this experience as it was waning, and as their interests shifted toward the material and they slowly became more and more aware of the physical sciences, things grew as people stood on the shoulders of giants and there was a great system and cycle of refinement, error and discovery, error and discovery. But this says little of the other world that was becoming less and less accessible simultaneously.
As always, there are two versions of history, either this reality of the incorporeal exists and they were experiencing it through their specific training, or it doesn't. Each version has its own narrative of how to explain history and I'm suggesting examining both honestly. If it was a load of baloney, man came from ape and got wiser and wiser and their experiences were but weak attempts at figuring out reality and should be discarded. The other version says they were able to access this reality because it was easier to work harder and concentrate or whatever and while this reality was accessible, it kind of overshadowed the fun of physical science when that reality was so much cooler and deeper, and as it waned, physical science became more and more necessary to discover and figure out because there is nothing else etc..
5. My point currently is to establish the possibility that there is something that we are having trouble seeing, despite it sounding pretty incredible and magical. The next step of why Judaism specifically has to do with Matan Torah and other ideas, but they are literally a follow-up on this discussion and without even acknowledging the point I'm making now, that discussion has almost no feet to stand on
How would you know what the divine I felt on mushrooms was? Somehow you retain the ability to know what everyone else’s subjective experiences are and which are valid. I can just as easily dismiss your experiences of the incorporeal as fake because I don’t like them. (You kind of walked right in to why this is garbage tier evidence)
You can’t maintain the right to disqualify subjective experiences you don’t approve of while also using subjective experiences you do approve of to prove a point.
3. Or they were more superstitious less intelligent (by every measurable metric people get smarter over time) less educated and ran into more things they didn’t understand every day so they interpreted that as the divine more often. Or 16th century Spanish peasants attending an Auto Da Fe to burn the heretic Jew alive (this was described as a profound religious experience by contemporary authors) had much more access to god than me in yeshiva or on Har Habayis davening because “Yeridas Hadoros”.
IMHO the whole “Yeridas Hadoros” thing is a convenient excuse for why we, smarter more educated people, aren’t as superstitious. This is just sparkling “Nishtanu Hatevah”. The medicine in Bava Basra didn’t work any more than they were experiencing something real. This is just glorifying mediaeval and ancient superstitions fueled by ignorance.
4. You want to simultaneously have it (in part 1) that you can totally feel it - but also have it that smart educated people with time on their hands can’t. This is just awfully convenient. It is just accessible enough to evidence when you need it to be but also not accessible enough to be studied when people have much more time.
The narrative that everything they’re describing was real (but also you maintain the right to declare some experiences not real) stretches credulity. It relies on constantly fine tuning accessibility to remain one step beyond what we can study as we get smarter more educated and have more people working on the problem - but at the same time still be accessible to the Mormon teenager doing his temple ritual or Bar Mitzvah boy.
People are creative. I’m not denying you can make a narrative if you’re desperate enough but it’s an absurd one.
(And the idea there were the same number of “fish” then as now is just on its face ridiculous. There amount of people that had access to the money literacy texts and training to study philosophy in the ancient world is probably fewer than the student body at Yale Divinity right now alone)
5. I know you want to separate the steps. But you can’t. You can’t do a פלגינן דיבורא. We’re trying to determine the reliability of the Holy Spirit (or whatever it’s being called now that the idea has been imported into Yeshiva Judaism). The fact that it is reliably contradictory and predictably says whatever your culture says it says more or less goes to its very credibility. That can’t be dismissed as being saved for a comparative religion discussion.
As far as number one, i would not dismiss it as garbage level evidence. It may well be that there is some sort of spirituality behind it. The fact that you personally cannot verify it does not make it any more true and less valid of a reason to study it. But as a method of convincing somebody it of course fails horribly.
>>>As far as number one, i would not dismiss it as garbage level evidence.
See below.
>>>The fact that you personally cannot verify it does not make it any more true and less valid of a reason to study it.
There is no good evidence for the supernatural, and the time to assert claims of the supernatural is after it's been demonstrated, not before. Sure...let's study it! But let's make conclusions after hypotheses have been tested and results are favorable...not before just because shabbos is fun and kugel is yummy or bubby would otherwise be sad.
>>>But as a method of convincing somebody it of course fails horribly.
That's all evidence is good for, so I'm struggling to understand what you're really contrasting this with.
Assuming the goal of evidence is to prove, than it being exceptionally bad at proving (defined as ability to shift probability of truth for the observer) is kind of a synonym for garbage tier evidence.
Sure it is an incredibly interesting topic of study. But it is utterly worthless as a proof for the existence of the supernatural divine
Thanks again for taking the time. I don't know if we'll get anywhere, but I guess we need to try for the sake of getting the truth, whoever is holding it.
1-2. I never claimed to know what you felt on shrooms, but I have spent much time enjoying reading many accounts of descriptions people give of their trips and I have read the descriptions the ancients were talking about, and they aren't the same. There are similarities, sure, but they aren't the same. And I never said yours is invalid (or "not real" as you repeat later); you read that yourself somehow. I'm just saying it's different. (If I'm wrong, you're the first person to explain it as they did theirs, and that's fine. You can describe your trip and I'll explain how it's different if you'd like, here, in email or PM on substack...)
3. Yes, that is another version of the story and that they were unable to know the difference between reality or that they were actual charlatans. The way your version goes is that they didn't know science and clearly didn't care about the same level of evidence and we therefore have obvious proof that their whole epistemology was different (something I think Aristotle's organization of logos, ethos and pathos disproves to some extent), and since their logic was *clearly* underdeveloped, their experiences are to be discounted as well as unscientific and speculative. And it could be you're right. I am suggesting that it could be you're wrong and that the reason that they had a seemingly different way of thinking was because they were busier with this other reality.
Bringing in the stupidities of religion or whatever has nothing to do with this conversation. We know why they attended auto-da-fés in Spain or wherever. Let's not mix unrelated things please and discuss each to its own. (I understand that this is supposed to be a point in your favor - "see they were idiots!" - but from my POV this is entirely unrelated, I'm sure you understand.)
5. No I am not trying to "determine the reliability of the Holy Spirit" as you think. I am asking that we examine the accounts of many, many people from the spans of many generations from all areas of the world, until recently, and see if these accounts are something to think about. A lot of your arguments begin with a presupposition that they are false, but if they are not, much of your arguments fall away. This doesn't make them right, and this doesn't say you shouldn't be skeptical of these accounts, but let's at least be clear about why and deal with if those arguments are good and not confuse everything.
1-2. If you’re claiming there’s a real divine and some experiences are it and other divine experiences are not that’s saying those are fake. Even if you prefer euphemisms like “different”. If you’re gatekeeping which subjective experiences are actually the real divine and which are “different” (despite the massive overlap in terms used by people who experienced both and one or the other) you’re gonna have to do better than “PM me man I’ll *explain you* how your personal experience of the divine wasn’t the real™️ divine”
This is why using subjective personal experiences as evidence is such trash tier evidence. You’re completely at the mercy of making up on a whim which ones are included or excluded from your analysis.
3. Nobody is saying Aristotle or Rambam was an idiot or a charlatan. He just didn’t have the education that an average undergrad has today. He was insightful and intelligent he just had far far far fewer tools than you or I have. It’s even possible that his raw IQ would be above 3 standard deviations from the mean today (though statistically unlikely) he just didn’t read the Neoplatonics. Or anything written since his death.
And no - he wasn’t busier than we are with this “other reality”. In fact one of the largest criticisms of modern philosophy is people over sub specialize. Pick any topic - any framework - and there’s someone more focused on it than ever before. Hell there’s people more focused on any given book by Aristotle than Aristotle ever was. He was a generalist. There’s people who put their lives into things he spent 6 hours once thinking about. In every way we’re better equipped than them. That’s just how transmission of knowledge works. There’s a PhD candidate out there with a full undergrad philosophy background in the classics working on almost any given meaningful snippet of Aristotle. They don’t have anything on us.
I bring up Auto da fe not because it’s stupid and evil (it obviously is) but because people attending sometimes claimed to experience the divine at these events. As would be expected if I was correct. This lends credence to the theory that it’s just good old fashioned elevation emotion and strains the credulity of the theory that these religious experiences are super natural revelation. This is not merely to mock the stupid and evil things that various religions have done over time - it is specifically to address the core of your argument; that this experience of the divine people report is something external and supernatural rather than just elevation emotion. Or at least that such experiences are fully indistinguishable to the observer (maybe they should have PM’d you so you could explain to them that the experience they had that day was different).
5. Those accounts didn’t stop. They’re ongoing today. Due to sheer population growth there’s probably far more people reporting those experiences today than ever before. There’s no line where people stopped reporting them. There’s just a line where the people reporting them were no longer mainstream. It still forms a central part of many religious traditions in the US today including lots of mainstream Protestant traditions. Mormons are most notable because they have monthly sessions where they talk about these experiences to each other. Like you can walk to your local Mormon church and listen to dozens of people from children to the elderly swear that they’ve heard directly from the divine spirit. All that’s changed is the secular societal mainstream narrative moved away from considering subjective non replicable experiences to be worth taking seriously.
And no - my arguments don’t presuppose they’re false.
The argument can be boiled down to
1. These experiences are basically impossible to define the limits of. You have to arbitrarily make up what is and isn’t the actual divine experience vs the “different” or whatever euphemism you choose for “data I want to exclude in an attempt to make my conclusion seem more plausible”
2. They are reliably contradictory and reliably predictable by their cultural context. Mormons reliably experience the divine affirming Mormonism. Protestants reliably experience the divine experiencing Protestantism. Orthodox Jews exposed to the Jewishized versions of this belief … reliably find it to affirm Hashem.
3. Given the above the theory that “that’s just elevation emotion seen through your cultural lens” is much more plausible than
“See there’s this nebulous impossible to define superforce and you can experience it but it becomes less likely to experience it over time. For some unknown reason it always stays just difficult enough that it can’t be properly studied but just close enough that I can feel it. At the same time lots of others feel it and it says very different things to them but those are the same as opposed to other experiences with a ton of overlap that aren’t the same.”
You get the point. That’s a very far fetched theory and the only reason to believe it is an attempt to justify an already held belief. Presented with those 2 theories nobody would choose the latter.
The only reasons to choose the latter is either a massive ego (my experiences are so special that can’t be regular elevation emotion - the actual god of the actual universe must have been telling me hi) or someone is engaged in apologetics - by definition intellectual dishonesty. The object of apologetics is to reaffirm a prior belief.
It would be ironic if they were the ones who are being "close-minded" and afraid I may have evidence against their position. Otherwise, they can confront me and change my mind.
We are all and have been all waiting to see the evidence that you have for so long claimed to have. Evidence of the existence of anything supernatural whatsoever, let alone a specific god who forbids specific foods, hairstyles, sexual partners and methods of making guacamole on Saturdays.
I’m sorry, but this argument seems quite misguided. You’ve created a binary, positioning Modern Orthodoxy on one side and Chareidi on the other, and then listed various issues with both. However, by eliminating these issues, you conclude that you’ll side with the Chareidi world and view Modern Orthodoxy as dangerous. The Chareidi world has its own serious issues—mental health stigma and handling sexual abuse, among others—that are often ignored. These are inherent to the Chareidi approach, whether you like it or not. Ultimately, you've hung your hat on a pole that doesn’t exist.
I hoped I was more clear, that I only take the Charedi position on this issue of combatting atheism. I'm no apologist for the dozens of issues Charedi society creates. Check out my second post about the army on the 'irrationalist modoxism' blog. I think the Charedi focus on torah to the exclusion of many really important values has caused and is causing a lot of harm in a lot of ways. Even the learning itself is often done wrong which leaves many with little merit. I'm extremely critical and unapologetic of the Charedi approach. I am only defending one, perhaps small, aspect of Charediism which itself needs better hasbara.
Well then you're probably not really "Chareidi" no offense. Plus the headline didn't make it sound like you're defending a small aspect. You should be way more clear about this because in my entire life of being in Chareidi enclaves all i hear is Chareidi life is the best system in the world blah blah blah. When in reality this is a result of survivorship bias, obfuscation, the no true Scotsman fallacy (i.e., that's not REALLY Chareidism, kind of like what you did, again, no offense) and hagiography to name some of the more egregious facets and I think this must change.
I dont think its a one size fits all, some people are gonna feel a stronger "connection" to the mesorah in one way than in another way, I don't think either one is superior. I can't recall who says it but there's a rishon I believe who says if someone loses faith through sincere inquiry then we don't hold it against him. From my observations, some the more instinctual/visceral/emotional approach is not the one that's going to last. In addition, unfortunately the issues I've described above has turned off a ton of people that may have succeeded with your approach but our know quite disgruntled (present company included).
I agree, an important point, and we need people who can tailor the chinuch to each individual, I'll never stop stressing the importance of that and how a lot of our problems is because "the system" is by definition not individualistic. But we still should have a system that will be best for the masses. Either way, I have no issue with anyone who takes the MO approach and keeps their faith.
I hate to be nitpicky but I think it would be better to say you would support a person's choice if that was best for them. I understand that we have a value of kol areivim zeh lazeh but ultimately faith matters and life choices are ultimately deeply personal and people are usually just honestly trying to figure what is the "truth" (however we define that term). We shouldn't ever have an idea that a person's choice when it comes to faith may even have a chance to be a problem, it's most important to enable and empower not intrude or foist.
I disagree that ethos (or in your nomenclature) of the community should the Chareidi approach as well and if it it is it must redefine what "success" is. As things stand today a large faction of individuals by the definitions of that system will have to leave the studio hall and *nebach* go to work. That to me is abhorrent, in some ways that is what is a) the best for them and b) what materially is upholding the institutions. Nobody should feel lesser than for taking responsibility of their life when necessary. There maybe some sort of ethos necessary, which we could debate but that is one glaring issue that I think you've mentioned in your previous post.
There's no mental health stigma by chareidim. Check any chareidi newspaper all they talk about is mental health. Therapists are filling up pages and pages of these newspapers with all their brilliant wisdom.
To the contrary, there is too much mental health awareness which is causing lots of problems.
I'm not sure what problems you're referring to. Are you referring to people being "over therapized", overly dependent, finding issues when they aren't etc.? Ultimately everyone should be empowered to do what's best for them without shame or disparagement and we need to develop this as part of the zeitgeist. Everything in the world is about finding a balance, there's no optimal one-size-fits all solution. The only one you could control is you and yours and talk to others with empathy (not saying you aren't, I'm just saying that's how I think we should approach this as individuals who may or may not be have any say in the matter).
I see the abundance of therapist articles as the slow killing of common sense. Anyone that has a few letters added to their name magically makes them an expert in parenting, discipline, and interpersonal skills. They are treated as if they have the answers to everything.
In reality, mental health and parenting are very complex issues and therapists rarely have a good solution. By treating everything as a science with one size fits all answers, it is taking away common sense from parents who are afraid to use their own judgement (which is very often superior to the therapist's).
The idea of credentialism and who is qualified is an issue that should be addressed, but that's something that's prevalent to many disciplines, the most relevant one in the Charedi world in my opinion being what constitutes/falls under the auspices of daas torah.
Ok. To me it sounds like your developing somewhat of a strawman. You're talking about magazine articles and methodology of the therapists which is different than being accepting of mental health in society in general. Many parents (present company's included) aren't equipped to deal with their children on their own either because of their own struggles or the child's. I understand it's a fine line but I don't think you and I are discussing the same point.
What I'm about to say is purely anecdotal and you can correct me if I'm wrong but I've heard people say I can't put my rabbi who deals with people with at-risk behaviors on my resume because it "looks bad". This is problematic, I hold people in high esteem when they are trying to get help. In addition, I've heard people go of their psychotropic medication because of shidduchim. Lastly, generally there's an aversion I sense in more right wing communities to discuss vulnerabilities and a prioritization of appearance and conformity while meanwhile they're falling apart. Again this is anecdotal and what ive experienced. But I left the Chareidi world in 2013 so maybe things have changed for the better but I haven't gotten that impression from my periodic visits there.
You're right. It was a major issue 20 years ago when I was growing up. I think its better this way than that. It's a balance like everything else. There's still a subversive skepticism and way too much aversion in the name of, "what will it mean for shiddcuchim?", in my opinion.
Thank you for sharing this thoughtful and well-written piece. As someone who has stepped outside the bounds of traditional observance and belief, I’d like to challenge several of the claims you’ve presented—not dismissively, but in the spirit of intellectual honesty and dialogue. While your argument is compelling on the surface, I believe it contains several significant flaws that undermine its conclusions. Here is my attempt to "change your mind."
1. The “Rationalist Crisis” Is Misdiagnosed
You argue that atheism stems primarily from a lack of "feeling it"—a disconnect from the immaterial reality—and that the Charedi approach addresses this by fostering a more profound connection to Hashem. However, this diagnosis ignores the core issue underlying most crises of faith: the absence of evidence.
It’s not simply that atheists "don’t feel" Hashem’s presence; it’s that they see no reason to believe He exists in the first place. The Charedi emphasis on Torah study and withdrawal from physicality does not address the fundamental problem: that the claims of Judaism are unverifiable, and many are contradicted by observable evidence. For someone grappling with doubts, it’s not enough to strengthen a "connection" to a being they suspect may not exist. Without evidence, the entire endeavor feels hollow.
You suggest that doubts arise because people are stuck in immature, physical conceptions of Hashem. But this is a strawman. Most atheists I know—including former Charedim—understand that Judaism describes Hashem as incorporeal. The issue isn’t a childish misunderstanding of theology; it’s the lack of any tangible or logical basis for believing in an incorporeal, omnipotent being who intervenes in human affairs. You can’t "feel" what isn’t there.
2. The Appeal to Mysticism Is a Non-Starter
You write:
"The incorporeal is no less real than the physical, and our minds, which are not physical, are capable of grasping concepts beyond material reality."
This assertion sounds profound, but it’s ultimately empty. How do you define "real"? If something is real, it should have some observable impact on the world. Yet the "incorporeal" realities you describe—Hashem, Olam Haba, malachim—are entirely inaccessible to empirical verification. You might argue that this is by design, but that conveniently places these concepts outside the realm of scrutiny. Without evidence, how can we distinguish between the "incorporeal" truths of Judaism and the equally incorporeal claims of Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism?
Mysticism may provide a sense of meaning for those who already believe, but it’s unconvincing to someone approaching these questions with skepticism. You can’t expect someone to build their life around something they can neither see, feel, nor verify, no matter how much you insist it’s "real."
3. The Charedi Approach Is Not a Solution
You argue that the Charedi approach addresses the "rationalist crisis" by focusing on building a personal connection with Hashem through Torah study and withdrawal from physicality. But this approach raises several issues:
a) It Doesn’t Address Intellectual Doubt
The Charedi emphasis on trust and faith is inherently circular: it asks you to believe in Hashem because the Torah says so, and to believe in the Torah because it’s Hashem’s word. For someone grappling with serious questions about the historicity of the Torah, the morality of halacha, or the existence of Hashem, this approach offers no answers. Telling someone to "strengthen their connection" is meaningless if they’re not convinced there’s anything to connect to.
b) It’s Anti-Intellectual
You acknowledge that the Charedi system often dismisses or ignores difficult questions, but you frame this as a feature, not a bug. This dismissal might work for those who are already committed to the system, but for anyone with intellectual curiosity, it comes across as evasive and dishonest. In an age where information is readily available, refusing to engage with tough questions only alienates people further.
c) It Doesn’t Work
The Charedi world is not immune to skepticism or attrition. Many people raised in Charedi communities leave precisely because the system fails them—it doesn’t provide satisfying answers, it stifles intellectual inquiry, and it often feels stifling and oppressive. If the Charedi approach were truly effective, we wouldn’t see the many blogs here of those leaving the fold.
4. The MO Approach Is Not a “First Step Toward Atheism”
You argue that the Modern Orthodox (MO) approach, by addressing difficult questions and accommodating modernity, is a slippery slope to atheism. But this misrepresents both the MO perspective and the nature of skepticism.
Modern Orthodoxy doesn’t "reduce the Torah to nothing more than a product of its time"—it acknowledges the complexity of reconciling ancient texts with modern knowledge. This isn’t a weakness; it’s intellectual honesty. Many MO thinkers, from Rabbi Jonathan Sacks to Rav Soloveitchik, have shown that it’s possible to maintain a meaningful religious life while grappling with difficult questions.
The claim that the MO approach leads to atheism also ignores the fact that many people who leave Orthodoxy do so because of the rigidity and anti-intellectualism of the Charedi system. For some, Modern Orthodoxy is the *only* way to retain a connection to Judaism without sacrificing intellectual integrity.
5. The Appeal to Authority Is Unconvincing
You write:
"Do you truly believe these brilliant minds—who shaped generations—were wrong?"
Yes. People can be brilliant and wrong at the same time. Aristotle was a brilliant thinker, but he believed in geocentrism and spontaneous generation. The Rambam was a towering intellect, but he also believed in a cosmology that has been entirely debunked by modern science. Great minds are not infallible.
The fact that many great thinkers throughout history believed in Hashem doesn’t prove His existence. It simply reflects the cultural and intellectual context in which they lived. Today, we have access to scientific methods and evidence that allow us to critically evaluate these claims. Appealing to the authority of past thinkers doesn’t address the actual questions at hand.
6. The False Dichotomy Between Atheism and Charedi Judaism
Throughout your piece, you frame the debate as a binary choice between the Charedi and atheist worldviews. But this is a false dichotomy. Many people leave Charedi Judaism and find meaning in other forms of spirituality or religion. Others embrace secular humanism, finding fulfillment in science, art, relationships, and the pursuit of knowledge.
Atheism is not inherently "physical and base," as you suggest. Many atheists live deeply ethical, meaningful lives. They find wonder in the natural world, purpose in helping others, and a sense of connection in their communities. To dismiss atheism as "base" is both insulting and inaccurate.
You ask us to consider whether the Rambam, Ramchal, and Gr’a could all have been wrong. I posit that you consider billions of Chinese Buddhists, a religion without a God, or Indian Hindus who believe in polytheism, wrong. The fact that a tradition is old or revered doesn’t make it true.
The Charedi approach, as you’ve described it, relies on circular reasoning, avoids difficult questions, and dismisses alternative worldviews without seriously engaging with them. While it may work for those who are already committed to the system, it fails to address the concerns of anyone approaching these issues with skepticism or intellectual honesty.
I appreciate your openness to dialogue, and I hope this response has given you some food for thought. I remain open to continuing the conversation.
1. My evidence is that there were thousands of people throughout history, Jewish and non-Jewish alike who experienced this other reality of incorporeality. Not just as an interesting idea or discussion, but as a reality. They all claim that through a process of removing one's self from his base desires, he can reach a perception of "sensing" and "feeling" his soul, as real as the other five senses. The fact that they describe this is undeniable; the only question, IMO, is if they are to be believed. One can argue that it seems incredible (in its literal sense) and unprovable, and I can't actually argue on that. But I can show why we should give these ideas a second thought.
To that end, anyone can try to at least taste this experience and see that the more he tries, the more he gets there, and even if he never fully "got there" - which is only available after hours and days and sometimes weeks of arduous and intense self restraint, so most (like really, most) people don't - he can already extrapolate what could or would happen if he would go further.
This is the methodology of Charediism that I was describing. They teach "kulo Torah" and we get a glimpse of what the Vilna Goan's entire life was like, or Reb Moshe or Reb Elyashiv. (Or for our discussion, Aristotle, Ibn Sina, Aquinas, and Buddha.) Some are okay extrapolating with only a little exposure, some need more. And ultimately, for the denier, this won't be enough. My goal is only to show that there is this distinct possibility that there is another sense out there you don't know about. And the claim is because we are too "bodily" and "base", which is hard to disprove, but I can't blame you if you don't want to accept it.
My analogy (based on the Rambam) would be if we all went blind, no scientific data would allow us to know if the accounts of those who saw for thousands of years were true. And we wouldn't blame a denier for not accepting the evidence for something that seems fantastical - perceiving an entire room in one shot, shades and colors from a blind person's perspective seem totally magical - but if there was a way to show him a process where he can catch even a vague glimpse of what sight is, he may be more receptive to the accounts, especially if there are people in his current circle who really can see somewhat. Again, wouldn't blame the denier, but there is what to think about.
But this analogy answers your question, the sense of sight is "real" but there is absolutely no impact on the physical world. (There are differences, but not at this point of the discussion.)
2. I think I dealt with 2, except for the comparative religion addition, in which I'll say again, there is little to distinguish the different religions and most of them are saying the same thing about the soul and perfection. Any of the ancient religions aren't religions as much as ways towards perfection, order, happiness. The later religions were offshoots of Judaism which was post an actual mass revelation that exceeded the realities of perfection claimed by the ancient religions. I'm happy to expound more but this is really an entirely separate part of the discussion.
3. I don't disagree with much of number 3, except that which you claim that it doesn't work. It does. There are hundreds of ehrilche yidden who have strong belief in the mesorah.
4. Precisely because of your issue is why the MO approach saves many. But giving credit to the questions and giving apologetic answers is also not a good idea. If that were all I had, I'd probably choose atheism. I was appalled by Rabbi Sachs's debate with Dawkins. Nothing against him and those who follow him, but it don't work for me.
5 and 6 are very chat gpt-ish and the responses aren't as complicated so if you don't mind we'll stick with these points - unless you want to clarify something further.
Thanks for your comprehensive response! As an atheist, I actually mostly agree with your first point. I do find personal experience compelling and for this reason I'm not a materialist. The idea that the world is simply the physical world in front of us and nothing more goes against my own personal experience of love, meaning, etc. However, it's a rayah for *something* more than us and not a rayah to any specific faith or divine being. I am not going to pretend to know what that *something* is. Instead, I'd rather humbly say I don't know and won't jump to any conclusions without evidence.
Yes. That we can't yet know precisely how the universe came about or where it came from is no reason to suggest that there's a god, because now we just need to explain where the god came from.
It solves absolutely nothing and merely introduces quite unparsimonious assertions of the supernatural, which we don't know to exist and have no good reason to assume do.
>>>In response to the fine-tuning argument, most atheists posit an (unfalsifiable) multiverse theory.
I do not, and I really don't understand why they think they ought to do so. I think it's silly, and anyone who's not steeped in physics can really explain it. The problem that results is that Dawkins will mention is but not explain it, saying that he's a biologist, and he repeats it because he hears it from his buddies Lawrence Krauss and Neil deGrasse Tyson and Eric Weinstein, etc. But when these guys (or other physicists) mention is, they explain it in such a way that does not permit someone who's not a physicist to really grasp what they're saying and why they're saying it. So who am I, a non-physicist to say it's dumb or otherwise comment in depth. But as I understand it, it's not necessary and I agree with your assessment.
>>>Calling G-d supernatural doesn't make Him less parsimonious, when the arguments posit that He is as necessary as anything physical.
Just because you want a sandwich doesn't mean you have a sandwich. So, too, just because you want a supernatural entity to explain the thing that you otherwise can't explain doesn't mean you have one. And to say that a supernatural entity is the only way to explain what we see is a god-of-the-gaps argument. So far in the history of humankind, so much had been attributed to a god and so far, so much of that has become explained by science and it's hard to see how people thought a god was needed to explain such a thing. Now granted, only hard in the way that an illusionist's trick could have been marveled at prior to knowing how the trick is done, so I'm not here mocking those who didn't understand the science. And it's difficult to even mock the ancients for believing in a god or gods because they just didn't know any better. But it certainly seems like we do.
>>>Calling G-d supernatural doesn't make Him less parsimonious
I'm not calling god "supernatural," but merely explaining what people mean. There's no evidence that such a category even exists. All claims and references to the supernatural have either been proven to be fictitious or have yet to have evidence provided for them. So maybe there is a fairy in the garden -- that's Dawkins' favorite example, and maybe there's a closet goblin -- that's Forrest Valkai's favorite example. But it's not that there are driveway fairies and basement goblins and that we're merely claiming a new species with no evidence or with bad evidence. It's that it's become so transparently obvious, once one increases their perspective on things, that so much had been claimed in the previous millennia and so much wasn't understood. And none of the claims have ever panned out -- astrology, haunted houses, witches, vampires, werewolves, bigfoots, fairies, sirens, mermaids and the list goes on and on. Nothing that has ever violated the natural order of things has ever been demonstrated and that's why there's a large collection of things like this -- let's call them silly things -- that we collectively refer as mythology and then we call on them when we need to populate a comedy like Hotel Transylvania. They are the butt of jokes and no one has a problem recognizing that they are all atheists when it comes to all of the gods that they do not believe in.
How many Orthodox Jews worry that they only prayed 3 times today and not 5 because maybe the Old Testament is a forgery and maybe Ishmael was the chosen son and maybe Allah is the one true god and Muhammed was his prophet. And how many fervently observant Muslims are concerned that they omitted יעלה ויבוא from this morning's prayers? And how many of either is concerned that they haven't burned incense for Lord Vishnu is a sufficient amount of time to avoid his wrath? And how many Jews or Muslims or Christians bury their dead with coins for heavenly toll booths and mummified dogs for protection along the highway to heaven and fruit so they can have something to eat on the journey. The only thing keeping the religious religious is really the insularity, as Dennett said so often. It's denominator neglect.
By this time, I forgot already which of the various similar substack posts mentioned it, but someone wrote about how any non-Mormon would think it's just so beyond silly to have a 138-page document to defend Mormonism. "Of course it's not true...I can see that in a second!" So, too, here...the only people who come up with crazy left arm over the head to touch the right ear explanations of how the god or his bible or the religion (or any holy books or any religions) could be possibly be true are the ones who are in those religions and already believe these ridiculous things for bad reasons. They've been indoctrinated and so they didn't arrive at these conclusions in the proper way...with good reasons leading to good conclusions. They were taught the religion from the age of 3 with honey on the aleph-bet and kissing the tzitzis and Uncle Moishy (or Uncle Achmed, for the Muslims, let's say, and Uncle Patil for the Hindus) and now they're 25 years old and they just don't want to let go. So they read (or write) silly books like Permission to Believe and give read/write books and give/listen to shiurum about the Kuzari Principle or the fine tuning argument, all along really knowing that they'd never come to god with any of this and that it's all backfill because they're pre-suppositionalists from the age of 3 when Mommy and Tatty lifted them on their shoulders and threw them in the air and shouted out משה אמת ותורתו אמת. But it's just not the case and if you talk about it, you become an outcast.
So to get back to your point, it's not that I'm calling god supernatural, but that if he's not supernatural, then he's not the god everyone's pretending exists. And if he is supernatural, and the explanation for why we believe in him is because how else can the world have come into being, then that's the wrong way to think of it. It's a bad answer using bad logic and bad reason. And yes, of course everything we say here must be reasonable, because as soon as someone says "oh, you want to know why I think there's a god?" and then answers that question, they are using reason. They are forming a sentence that represents an idea that dictates that the reason why they believe in B is because of A. So if not A, then how do we get to B? Hmm...I don't know. And neither do they.
If the reason why we know there's a god is because how else could everything else be here, then you're subjecting the universe to inquiry: "how did it get here?" and you don't seem to be taking any silly answers. "Oh, it just made itself! That's silly!!" they'll say. So they're making it seem like they need good answers to questions, but when you ask them where god came from or who made god, then they're all aghast that you dare mock their deity. And so yes, to posit a god because you think you need him solves nothing. It's unparsimonious, which means that it's assuming more than you ought to. It's multiplying assumptions. We don't know how the world came about, and so we say "we don't know." The pious would say "I know how the world came about, but I don't know how a god came about" and so it solves nothing except now they look silly because there's no way they could possibly know about this god who's never ever indicated that he exists. The bible is a work of men and it's so transparent. We could discuss that, but it's so much quicker if people would just read Dawkins and Harris and Pinker and Dennett, but messaging me privately is always welcome and we could talk or I could make some recommendations. But I go to great lengths here to explain as much as I can without just telling people, "oh, you haven't read XYZ...go do y our homework" because people are afraid and they don't like to do homework. So let's just talk it out.
Let's posit that something exists outside of the natural realm. Why should I assume it's theism. It could be anything. Actually, the short story The Egg is the most compelling thing I've seen on what the supernatural realm may be. However, I'm agnostic in the classical definition and think it's impossible for us humans to understand what's out there. It's like an ant trying to understand the s&p 500. There is no possible world where an ant can even begin to understand human finances. instead of looking into the other ant theories and religions we've come up with, I prefer to say I don't understand until presented with a theory with actual evidence.
The reason to believe in theism is for two reasons: (I thought I'd get to both, but I'll have to write part II later, gotta run...)
1. Matan Torah. Once one understands the incorporeal, like really understand, the ideas such as the soul and the immortality of the soul and how this body is a hinderance to that true pleasure and that one can see the idea of an obvious road to perfection and happiness, this will obviously change what's important in life, and although at this point there is no proof of a G-d unless He reveals Himself, the entire ethos of the world changes and things like heaven and hell in their true (non-physical) sense are obvious, not as punishments and rewards, but as basic understandings of the eternal pleasure and pain of the soul. Also, in this reality, the physical sciences do nothing to explain any of it (they're still nada in areas of the mind beyond some ideas of neurology which don't explain anything except what parts of the brains effect which emotions) and furthermore, the world of the physical is simply less important since it is "only" the physical. In such a world, even if we ignore the accounts of magic and actual hard, physical data in the world as we know (as pre-Greco cultures all claim), these ethos make accounts of angels and interaction with the "other world" not quite so irrational, and if there is a mass revelation from the other world, there is no reason to not believe that just as we believe any reasonable historic account with even far less eye-witness and evidence. Only to us, who never experienced the actual incorporeal and it all seems magical, this makes claims like Matan Torah extraordinary and we should first be inclined to explore other options such as the "evolving mythohistory explanations" people offer today. This does not make it true, but again, it should give pause to at least examine this other account of the world. And given the scientific questions which stand against, we need to weigh all the evidence very well, but to just shut down the conversation before understanding the other side is dishonest.
You are starting with your conclusion. That's a logical fallacy. You were asked to provide evidence for a god, and you're beginning your explanation with, "so a god paid us a visit."
>>>like really understand
What do you want us to understand. The story was made up. Do you understand, like really understand, how important it is to bury the dead with coins so they can get through the toll booth to travel the highway to the next realm. If you say no, then you're not *really* understanding.
>>>the ideas such as the soul and the immortality of the soul
Souls don't exist. They are stories made up because people are afraid of the unknown and of death, which is one of the biggest unknowns. So they made up an idea that your mind can continue after death. It's really as simple as that.
>>>and although at this point there is no proof of a G-d unless He reveals Himself
I don't know if you're conflating evidence with proof, but if you are, then we have just arrived! There is no good evidence, and the time to believe is after evidence has been collected, analyzed and determined to be sufficient...not before that time.
>>>...He reveals Himself, the entire ethos of the world changes and things like heaven and hell in their true (non-physical) sense are obvious, not as punishments and rewards, but as basic understandings of the eternal pleasure and pain of the soul.
You go on and on and on about all the things that follow as a result of revelation of a god that didn't happen, but it seems like you are presenting a framework of understanding as a result of this revelation prior to it occurring, when you actually have no good reason to assume it'll ever happen. This is like you making carpool plans with your kids' parents, who will drive to and who will drive back from Diagon Alley to pick up the books and cauldrons for next semester, before you've gotten confirmation that Hogwarts even exists!
>>>Also, in this reality, the physical sciences do nothing to explain any of it (they're still nada in areas of the mind beyond some ideas of neurology which don't explain anything except what parts of the brains effect which emotions) and furthermore, the world of the physical is simply less important since it is "only" the physical.
It's odd that you think this is an argument. One thousand years ago, the Native Americans were saying the same things during their powwows about the sunrise and the sunset, the famine and the bounty and the babies born and the infertile. They were building their totem poles and smoking their holy pipes and waving their dreamcatchers in the wind because they didn't understand basic fundamentals of the universe that every 8th grade kid can tell you about cells or DNA or water cycles, nitrogen fixation and when we get to high school and college, we can even learn about the citric acid cycle and osteoporosis.
Almost no one (maybe some Muslims) think the physical world doesn't matter because it's just a preparatory phase before the real world arrives. You speak as though you're so detached from reality that it's truly a wonder.
>>>these ethos make accounts of angels and interaction with the "other world" not quite so irrational
How so?
>>>and if there is a mass revelation from the other world, there is no reason to not believe that just as we believe any reasonable historic account with even far less eye-witness and evidence. Only to us, who never experienced the actual incorporeal and it all seems magical, this makes claims like Matan Torah extraordinary and we should first be inclined to explore other options such as the "evolving mythohistory explanations" people offer today.
You write so much about so little. Please just give evidence to any of these claims, instead of spending so much time discussing the claims, as though step 8 or 12 or 23 are important when you haven't even established, in all of this back and forth for the past 3 months, that we're even able to start counting from 1.
>>>This does not make it true, but again, it should give pause to at least examine this other account of the world.
I wonder if you're so wrapped up in this nonsensical view that you can't properly evaluate how ridiculous the thing you continually describe is. All of this has been evaluated and it has been determined to lack any merit whatsoever.
>>>we need to weigh all the evidence very well
For what must be the 15th or 20th time already...please give us the evidence already. After we've confirmed the school supply list, we'll all accompany you to Diagon Alley. But please quit telling us what you'll be wearing and what you'll be thinking and who you'll be sitting next to and what will be in your pocket and if your wand will be holly or birch or chestnut. You're so intoxicated with excitement about the endless possibilities of what you'll spend with all your lottery winnings that you've completely overlooked that there were no tickets sold by the non-existent lottery commission.
>>>2. Coming soon...
See, there you go again, focusing on step 2 before getting through step 1.
It's clear to all here that you've super excited to have a god and be blessed by him and to follow his dictates and be rewarded by him, and to gain deeper insights into your own mind and on and on and on. But wishful thinking doesn't make a god.
I do like the Rambams positions in many ways. Like, I love his idea of negative theology and how the only things we can say about God is what he's not. However, I do not see the mesorah as something with any more reliability than any other man made religion.
Of course atheism is inherently based. There is no inherent meaning in atheism. Just because some (many?) atheists rise above that and find some illusory meaning doesn't in any way change the fact that it lacks any meaning outside of animalistic behaviors. It's just more of this classic Chareidi thinking that somehow the OTDers never go off the derech from. If only they would leave that behind along with the religion.
If this was true then Buddhism wouldn't exist. Atheism isn't a set of beliefs but a lack of belief in a supernatural God. Personally, I'm an atheist but also not a materialist and believe there is *something* beyond but that something is definitely not a personal God like Hashem who gave us religion.
No belief in higher beings or modes of existence does not equate to no meaning. Beauty, family, friends, and artistic or professional pursuits are all common sources of meaning that are not animalistic.
Not at all. My point was not to bash atheists. If you follow the convo, it's about why religion provides more meaning as opposed to atheism as a reason to choose it. And i I think it does and saying otherwise would be illogical (although of course that has no relationship to its truth value).
Black and white dichotomic thinking. Assuming that faith is a binary and not a spectrum. Lack of nuance. Assuming that if some atheists have meaning then atheism has meaning (just as if some Chareidim find meaning in Torah it means that that is ultimate meaning?.
I think that the fact certain low intelligence styles of thought are prevalent among Charedim is mainly due to the fact that the Charedim put most of their energy into low intelligence people and expect the high-intelligence people to be mature and independent and figure things out by themselves, the opposite of the DL and MO world.
I fed it the essay and asked it to refute it. It was mostly just a fun exercise. Should have made it clear in my comment that it's chatgpt. Typically, I use chatgpt once I finish writing something and I ask it to polish it up. https://poe.com/s/Sd5CSl3qM77w6JutwlPm
If you're referring to maaseh bereishes, we don't have much precedent to say it's only metaphorical except the Rambam's "maybe" (which he posits if the universe were *proven* to be eternal), which we can possibly apply to our evidence of evolution and the Big Bang, like r slifkin and ash confidently would. I don't reject such an approach at all. I'm just unsure if it's true given that I have counter evidence to believe the kabalistic account. How we deal with the contradiction is either to reject one, or to somehow synthesize them. I'm open to all options.
That's kind of funny. In asking that question I did not intend even the slightest semblance of the sophistication and complexity that your answer implied.
And I wasn't referring to anything except what the author of the article himself was referring to when he used those words, "understanding the early parts of the Torah".
But that's okay. Even simple, naive questions can very often admit of complex sophisticated answers. ;-)
Reading your comments on your post it seems like you're advocating some sort of experience that comes after you do a 10-hour hardcore chazon ish style learning session. That once we would have that experience we would understand what you're talking about.
I would counter that by saying that the sort of “divine-esq" experience and sensations you're referring to are universal was anyone who put themselves through and endures a mentally and physically exhausting challenge.
The fact that you feel these special feelings, and that they fit into your narrative of the divine, tells us nothing other than humans have this very common experience of euphoria / a sense of the infinite, etc. and that were very good at plugging that into whatever our metaphysical framework for reality.
That is also quite a different argument than the one it seemed like you're advocating in your post. This exercise is kind of just something that you made up. There's no specific regimen that all are leaders specifically went on or that is part of our masorah.
I'll ask the same question to you as I ask anybody who offers me personal experience, their own or others, as proof that Hashem exists: What do you feel about the millions of extremely smart Christians who personally experienced and attest to Jesus as son of God? Or the millions of smart people who personally experienced and attest to Vishnu, the Hindu god?
I think they are point in my favor, not against me. If the Hindus and Christians and Buddhists and Zoroastrians and Jainists and philosophers all agree that this other experience exist, to me that says there may be something to it. We may have a different term for how we describe this experience (which, short of actual Nevuah, is possible to have a level of unclarity as to the nature of this experience), but the experience is universal. There are tow explanations for this. 1. They all got it wrong entirely, and we can extrapolate from our own weak examples of this experience (like a good Neilah or a good kumzitz) and assume that is what they were all describing, but since it is pure speculation, science's version of reality which they clearly didn't have is far superior. Or 2. The experience described by the ancients was much, much more powerful than ours because they were less indulgent amongst other factors. The Rambam's description of this experience (which he says is a fraction of Nevuah) in his preface to the Moreh goes far beyond any of our experiences and he explains that it takes a lot a lot of work to get there. I'm open to both possibilities, and I am highly skeptical to think the first version is so obviously correct.
Why I am a Jew and not a Christian is a separate question which we can discuss, but is probably pointless if we don't assume this as a possibility (if even if just for the sake of this discussion).
You sound like you hold a shittah of the divine which sees all religions, even polytheist ones like Hinduism, as legitimate expressions of this divine realm. That's very much not chareidi. Boom I win 😎
I said that as a joke but honestly curious how Hinduism and Buddhism can describe the same divine real/experiences as frum Judaism if either of you want to explain
Are you not aware that the Gemara in Shabbos mentions, in a *halachic* context, that the “*chamei Tiveria*” (hot springs of Tiberias) are heated by the fires of *Gehinom*? The *Ramban* – perhaps in *Toras HaAdam* – even provides measurements, and the *Chofetz Chaim*, whom I recently learned, states that these fires are 60 times hotter.
This is also not a discussion of atheists still wearing their first pair of *tzitzis*. On the contrary, it’s often the *frum* individuals – those who don’t truly think deeply about their faith – who are usually stuck in the third-grade version. Many of us, in contrast, are well-versed in *halacha* and *hashkafa*.
Atheism also presents a third layer of difficulty: If one truly believes and attempts to follow everything, the results is dysfunctional (which is why nobody really does it).
As for the GRA, for example. I deeply respect him. I’ve worked through hundreds of his cryptic comments on *Orach Chaim* and *Yoreh Deah*, as well as his writings on the *Yerushalmi* in *Zeraim*. My respect lies in his mastery of a highly specific and niche area of human knowledge: Torah. But outside of that realm, he had no special expertise in any other discipline.
For example, how does the GRA or anyone on your list deal with the issues presented here in a way that meets modern scientific or rational standards.
(And dare I say, that if the Rambam would be alive today, I have a strong feeling that he would not be Orthodox)
Just this past *Shabbos*, I revisited the first few chapters of *Derech Hashem* by the Ramchal. While beautifully written, the text offers no real reasons or explanations. Instead, it asks you to accept numerous assumptions and premises, concluding that it simply “must be this way” because “*Gezeirah Chochmaso Yisbarach*”.
I’ve also been a devoted reader of the Abarbanel, who does not shy away from addressing difficult issues. However, his ideas only resonate if you already possess faith; they don’t provide the foundation to convince someone who doesn’t believe in the first place.
Furthermore, we face a significant bind within Judaism itself. There is a prohibition against even contemplating thoughts that oppose the faith. This creates a paradox: either these questions haven’t been worked out due to the prohibition itself, or those who wrestled with them disregarded a fundamental tenet of Judaism in the process.
I'll break up your points to address them appropriately. Thanks for taking the time.
1. As far as the Gemara in Shabbos, I don't have a full response, but it doesn't negate the fact that Chazal were aware that Gehinnom is not a literal fire because they knew that the souls who go there aren't physical. I imagine that Gemara is similar to how the physical Beriah mirrors the spiritual one or something to that effect.
2. I think plenty of believing Charedim are very much still wearing their first pair of Tzitzis as well. But I'm not sure what your argument is therefore - you're welcome to explain.
3. The results are only dysfunctional if the person is not holding there and is jumping. You can check out my comment here: https://exit98.substack.com/p/locked-in-the-exhibit/comment/81786432 - actually just realized that comment was addressed to you, and I just read your response, I'll respond there!
4. As far as the Rambam, that he wouldn't be orthodox, you guys love saying that, but you haven't read the Rambam well then. I mean, anything is possible, but there is zero proof that the Rambam would echo any anti-Torah ideas we hear today. His opinion diminishing miracles and the like comes from a very specific point. For example, the Torah says that Hashem "spoke". It even says He spoke "פה אל פה". But Hashem isn't physical. He has no mouth. He doesn't say words. Is the Torah lying? The Rambam spends the entire first section of the Moreh explaining how these terms work when referring to the incorporeal, how these words are metaphors and convey certain messages and ideas about incorporeality that are very much true, see thereat length, אכמ''ל. The Rambam then extends that to things like talking donkeys and angels, that these things can also be understood to be referring to an incorporeal reality, and the Torah only meant it in that sense. The line where the Rambam draws when to say this and when not is very specific but it was not "rationality" in the sense people mean it today that led him to his beliefs. (In fact, with most of his "chiddushim", the mekubalim actually meet him halfway; to understand the Ramban's approach on, say the Malachim in Vayera, one first needs to understand the Rambam's approach first because it is basically a refined version of that...)
5. My basic response to your issue that all these writers and scholars (Ramchal, Abarbenel) are claiming that there needs to be some level of trust to get the ball rolling, I mean, that's kind of automatic unless one experienced actual Nevuah, right? But one can experience "yiraas Shamayim" which is very real and puts personal perspective on what Nevuah claims to be, since there are levels all the way up.
6. As far as the issur of reading atheistic works and of doubt, well, if you weren't exposed to these things, Judaism would be a lot simpler. From a religious perspective, presuming its truth, it makes sense to tell people not to confuse themselves by reading these other stuff, especially if the answers are internal in a sense, like I'm pointing out. However today we have the internet and I think we need to be able to provide answers to the burning questions. Not that we should change the curriculum, but there should be adults available for those struggling. As you have pointed out more than once, this has been sorely lacking.
It is a lengthy piece, but here is a snippet about its physical characteristics:
אלו קצת המקומות שספרו בהן עניין גיהנם וצערו וענשו בגמרא ובמדרשים ומדדו את תכנית ודברים הללו וכיוצא בהן אין לתלות אותם במשל שהרי הזכירו מקומו ומדתו ארכו ורחבו ודנו עליו לעניין איסור והיתר והוא מוזכר להם בעניין הדינים ושאר כמה מקומות שלא הזכרנו.
I don't think you can have an opinion without seeing that source.
2) Your whole point was that atheists are unaware of the sophisticated versions of Judaism, but it is precisely the opposite.
3) I'll discuss there too.
4) I don't really care too much about this.
5) This it is circular as many have pointed out, in addition to far more people having these same feelings with other religions.
6) I think you missed my point. What I meant is this: How did those great rabbis research the subject of atheism and all questions on Judaism if it is something prohibited by the Torah?
If they didn't think about these issues but simply believed, there is no reason for anyone who does question to trust them.
1) I've read the Ramban in Shaar Hagemul in the past and he makes my point. And it's worth it to start a few paragraphs earlier.
2) No, it is not the opposite. Many people are unaware of "sophisticated Judaism", religious and not religious alike. And for our discussion, even some who are technically "aware", they still have no clue what incorporeal means, which isn't surprising being that it's an experience unexperienced and unfamiliar.
5) The "other religions" argument is a point in my favor, not against. I am currently discussing this with BZ Wolf. I guess we should get into that if you're interested in further discussion.
6) I hear the point and idk. But they do discuss it here and there.
RYBS ZL also stressed the vast difference between legitimate Chiddushim rooted innzChazalvand inappropriate Shinyuim based on readings of the Gemara that were not rooted in Chazal
I agree that innovation is an acceptable part of the mesorah.
But it is highly questionable from a believer's standpoint to claim that Chazal, Rishonim, Achronim were all clueless about the true pshat until Biblical scholarship found a new home in the Gush in the last 50 years.
Is this a rehashed version of the "Great minds believed it so I will"? The Steipler Slither? The Kanievsky Kopium?
It's a ridiculous argument. There are dozens of beliefs of the Rambam that we all reject out of hand; orthodox or atheist. Spontaneous reproduction, infinite age of earth, kill all the apikorsim, biblical angels were all dreams, aristotelian Bs, etc. Same with Aristotle; Clearly a great thinker, not going to stop me from throwing out most of what he believed. Presumably from a statistical perspective there are many more great thinkers of nonjewish persuasion throughout history. Whether atheist, Christian,Muslim, hindu etc. We all reject hundreds of these beliefs. What exactly is your argument?
"Is this a rehashed version of the "Great minds believed it so I will"?" No.
"It's a ridiculous argument." Okay.
"There are dozens of beliefs of the Rambam that we all reject out of hand; orthodox or atheist." Well, let's not mix discussions here. Let's take each one seperately:
"Spontaneous reproduction" - right we disproved their physical sciences
"infinite age of earth" - the Rambam didn't believe that, but again, our knowledge of the physical world is way better than theirs!
"kill all the apikorsim" ummm...
"biblical angels were all dreams" - froman orthodox perspective, yah, because the Rambam didn't have the kabalistic traditions which explain those stories very differently.
"aristotelian Bs" - again, his knowledge of the physical world we reject, sure.
"Presumably from a statistical perspective there are many more great thinkers of nonjewish persuasion throughout history. Whether atheist, Christian,Muslim, hindu etc." True. We can discuss why I believe in Judaism once we can establish my premise that there may be a reality of the incorporeal.
"What exactly is your argument?" I'm not giving the whole picture here, only the first step, which is, in short: I believe there is an incorporeal world which we can experience through the process highlighted by many people who came before us and those who haven't experienced the incorporeal would naturally have a hard time thinking it's rational because it seems strange to discuss an experience never had. So let's examine if this reality is true since so many great people before us discussed this experience (not as a theory) openly. If we prove them wrong, I'm on your side. (I wrote that quickly, I'll try to be more clear when I'm not rushed.)
One can continue to examine this reality with the mindset that the burden of proof is on that claim. Many thinkers have been arguing for the truth of chirstian theology for a long time. One can examine its validity while standing on the outside. It's hard to examine the water while you're swimming in it.
Either way the question of some incorporeal deity is immaterial for most atheists. It's pretty much a philosophical curiosity irrelevant to daily life. The real question here is whether any religion has gotten anything correct.
You say the question of incorporeality is immaterial (no pun intended, I presume;) for most atheists, but if that were true, that's only because they presuppose it to be "obviously" false. If we accept the idea of a soul and a world of immaterial, that does a lot to give our tradition validity.
But besides, I don't think you're correct. I think most atheist begin by comparing G-d to the spaghetti sauce monster, validating their cute that they are nothing more than skeptics and asking for proof, and work from there. My response is basically that we have "proof" from all of these many sources, from people who I contend were just as skeptical, but experienced the incorporeal and couldn't reject their experience.
Would that bring validity to anything? The religions across the world are so far removed from that foundation they're almost floating. Especially orthodox judaism. Praying, learning legal codes and celebrating holidays commemorating historical events are three of the most central tenets of orthodoxy and are all very removed from their being a deity out there in the vast universe.
Also the Rambam and Aristotle are very bad examples of using their experience to semi bring validity. As you said they were quite skeptical of the religious environment they were raised in respectively and developed a belief system built up from their understanding of the universe. Prime mover and rationalization like that. It's sort of a paradox. If you aren't so skeptical you go along blindly and if you have a powerful mind you can develop great constructs within your respective religous system. And if you are skeptical you come up with some rationalization. Someone had to: have created all those animals, give humans their intelligence, create the universe, start the planets spinning, exist for all those great thinkers to believe in him.
The problem with this final realization it's it's ultimately flawed. Its sort of like the God answer. You're just kicking the question down the line. If you beleive because the Steipler believed then find out why he believed. If he believed because he fell for thr Divine Watchmaker parable then you'll have to rethink your rationalization. If he believed because the Rambam believed, and Rambam believed because of Aristotles proofs of God, and you don't believe those then we'll need another rationalization
Aristotle and Rambam were not skeptical of their religious environment. Aristotle was raised with the environment of philosophy, not religion.
And the Rambam was never trying to apologize for his beliefs; that's a common misnomer.
Prime Mover is another word for G-d.
You can reconstruct what the Rambam was doing from your standpoint, but you're not reading his words well then.
My question is, what if they believed because of a reality you're not aware of and not because of false logic and reasoning? That changes the discussion obviously.
(btw are you yoyo93 from reddit? You're both into the steipler thing...)
I'll accept your framing as I'm not too knowledgeable of their religious beliefs.
When I say prime mover I mean the rationalization of someone must've started the planets turning. He couldnt use the creation of universe as for him it was never created.
I too have felt what feels like god in the past. I used to daven with tremendous kavana. When I started searching more I came to certain conclusions and those feelings slowly faded away. Schizos have many strong feelings as well.
This is a very christian idea btw. The argument from personal experience. Thousands of rational Christians have experienced god this year.
I wouldnt give any more credence to an experience of Rambam than to Johnny down the block. Especially in an age when almost everyone on earth had such experiences.
No not him from. Must've seen his post cause i havent heard of that in years
The Divine Watchmaker is not as refutable as you think it is. And if you believe it is refutable, well thats just because you believed in Dawkins, you'll have to rethink your rationalization.
Luckily I haven't fallen for this rationalization so I still retain the ability of self assessing information.
Though I agree with Dawkins on this I don't necessarily agree with him on everything.
Once we admit evolution occurs the entire argument goes out the window. We can reinterpret the argument to something we haven't explained yet, like to the existence of a replicator but that completely destroys the argument and creates one anew.
It's not difficult to explain the existence of a human because it clearly arose from a chimp like creature. It'd not difficult to explain a chimp because it clearly arose from a monkey like creature. Etc.
There is a lot I agree with here. I agree that trust plays a large role in justification of most charedim and I don’t think that’s irrational. I agree that many people in the yeshiva system experiences rabbis dismissing their question when the question are indeed good ones and are turned off by it. I agree every system can learn from others and improve, even charedi and MO systems.
However, I disagree with a couple of points. First, the atheists I engage with (and myself) don’t just shun out propositions about incorporeality and spirituality, they analyze the propositions and come to a conclusion. Maybe the ones who are loud voices do as you say, but the ones I speak to, by large don’t. I also disagree that one must strongly consider the views of the Gra and the like. Why must someone consider their wisdom? Genuinely asking.
I wouldn’t try to convince you to not be charedi because from your post, you seem to be a rational charedi. One that bases their beliefs on trusting individuals. I don’t know the nature of the trust or why you trust them. But assuming that the trust is justified, then your view is justified as well. But just the same, I don’t trust those same people. I used to. I don’t have reason to trust them anymore, so my justification for being charadi fell away. If you have reasons that even I should trust the people you do, then I am really interested in hearing about that.
My point with the gra and the like is that the rejection isn't justified because it is born from ignorance. It's not like these people ever gave his words a chance. I contend that if you would give these ideas a fair shot, you may not reject them so quickly.
I don’t understand why someone should give the Gra a chance. And what it means to give the Gra a chance. Like many of us as myself learning in post HS yeshivas seriously for many years. Is that enough of a chance? Or are you referring to specific books or readings that address atheism?
It doesn't have to be the Gra, it could be the Rambam who is even more clear about the way this supposed other reality is to be accessed. They all explain that is only accessable through a certain process which they describe. How can someone deny this reality until they honestly give the process a try? (The Rambam is in Moreh 3:51 extensively. I can provide a list of sources if you're interested in further reading.)
I guess to answer your question, it's specific reading.
Yeah I understood the gra was just an example. Why should someone have to give any process a try? Is there prior reason to think that that process might work?
If hundreds of people, each respected by anyone who knew them or their works for hundreds or thousands of years, people who were clearly not gullible, from all different backgrounds tried and said it worked, and their processes explain why it wouldn't be readily understandable for those who haven't yet tried the process, wouldn't you think we should at least look into it?
Yes I agree. I haven’t been presented with evidence that that is the case that:
“hundreds of people, each respected by anyone who knew them or their works for hundreds or thousands of years, people who were clearly not gullible, from all different backgrounds tried and said it worked”.
But if so, yes it would likely be sufficient evidence to try out the process.
Do you think most OTD atheists have even heard of such a process existing? I haven’t. Sure I’ve heard that some say there is one, but not to the level of testimony like you state above.
“The Chareidi answer is that intellectual analysis of these concepts is the wrong method of analysis. There is a subliminal sense called the soul which understand things through experience - not just direct experience with the world but also through interactions with other people (this is the concept of shimush talmidei chachamim).”
This is part of what I mean about analyzing propositions. One way to analyze a proposition is if you understand it through some kind of experience. I didn’t mean analyzing in a very limited sense.
“When using the faculties of logic and reason, it's perfectly rational to seek out those who showcase the greatest aptitude at those”
Agreed. It’s rational to do that, but not prudent. There are perhaps millions of those brilliant at logic and reason (and on these topics), one doesn’t have to read all that all of them wrote. It’s rational to, but also rational not to.
“In addition, Judaism asserts that a 'stained' soul has the ability to corrupt a person's thought processes, which will lead them to an incorrect conclusion and that they will lack the meta self awareness that their thinking is crooked. People like the Gra had a reputation for saintliness, which would mean their thinking less apt to be corrupted by a 'stain'.”
That’s fine. But this argument won’t affect an interlocutor who hasn’t yet accepted this position about the soul, so it’s not really a useful argument in the context of why a nonbeliever should consider the Gra seriously.
“If someone claims to have finished the maze, and they are smart, and a good person, it is very rational to give their prescribed route a real good shot.”
I don’t know why I would trust someone claiming they finished the maze. I would have to independently trust them. Also, What is the maze in this analogy to us and how do I know the Gra got out?
“You'd need to accept the prima facie reasonable epistemology that considers the soul to be real, even if it doesn't automatically make the logical gear in your head go 'click'.”
When it comes to epistemology, I can’t just accept something. It just clicks or it doesn’t. I don’t feel the same responsibility from my forefathers as you do I guess. Also, I think I did give it a good try, so maybe I’m Yoyzei and I still keep a lot of mitzvot.
Either way, I was challenging a part of the post that put us atheists in a very negative closed minded light that I think is probably true about some people in all camps but very not true about the people I have interacted who left Judaism. You seem to be more on board with us being rational than the post seemed.
Thank you for this respectful engagement. I really appreciate it!
“Indeed, Judaism is not a proselytising religion. And from Judaism' perspective, that interlocutor is perfectly entitled to their opinion.“
But I was addressing a claim that atheists such as myself should take the Gra etc. seriously. I thought you were defending this claim with the soul stuff. But now it sounds like you agree that from the atheists perspective, the soul aspect isn’t a reason for the atheist to consider the Gras position seriously.
“You trust them because they have achieved the things you want to achieve, which are wisdom, self discipline and happiness.”
There are plenty of people that have achieved those things other than the Dali Lama. I am not even convinced that the rabbis you mentioned achieved those. Even if they did, I’m not sure they would have access to the knowledge of how to achieve that. It reminds me of when people ask really old people what the secret to living a long life is, as if what they say is likely correct.
“firstly because they are the default”
I don’t know what default means in this context and why it should have any weight at all.
“presumably gleaned at least some wisdom from it.”
Sure. But there’s wisdom everywhere.
“This is where 'faith' comes in. It is not an irrational concept. Instead, imagine you had an existing trust that the Gra is incredibly wise and very often right. If that were the case, you could have faith in his method and engage with it, despite it not 'clicking', with an expectation that eventually the method would, or at least could, lead to a 'click'. Your 'faith', in this context, would actually be in your self, in that you'd be confident enough in your assessment that the Gra is a trustworthy and wise person, that it is worth engaging in the method despite no apriori 'click'.”
I agree with this but I don’t have that initial reason like trust in the Gra.
I did get that from charedi society and I was mesmerized by wisdom and authenticity. That trust has just fallen away. I still think they are great artists and logicians when it comes to Gemara and Halacha, but not epistemology, systems, and human relations.
I have always had the impression that when confronted with irreconcilable differences, Haredi will opt out rather than accept modernity.
15 years ago, I was in a sushi place in Monsey and a 20 something year old kid behind the counter was in a tee shirt and regular kippah, speaking unquestionable Hasidic Yiddish. I was intrigued. The young man was a Skverer and still living at home.
He was looked upon as a pariah and it did affect the shidduch prospects of his family members.
I personally doubt he remains MO. That picture of life was likely on the way out. Maybe he came back? Sans real physical trauma, it’s a possibility.
The point was the intolerance of any MO approach, making the divide inevitable. MO/ZO will be condemned as treif as Conservative Judaism.
The isolationist approach of Haredim can only last so long. Once they approach the tipping point of majority, they must face modernity. How they will incorporate modernity is the issue. Only when it furthers their own power, especially to have ‘others’ support them, as all ‘others’ are gentiles, even the ones who are MO.
I hope I am wrong, but many agree that the Haredi ideal political solution will be the admiration of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Internally, Haredi governance now is eerily familiar to Tehran, they just don’t have the prison system yet.
Failing. Perhaps the same may occur to MO/ZO, as the losses to both Haredi and non orthodox are at similar rates. Nonetheless, there is a considerable majority ‘middle’ that is remaining MO. Certainly, in Israel, ZO is growing- not as fast as Haredi-but growing. There are more MO yeshivot in the USA than ever before.
MO is not Conservative Judaism. The fact that Haredi treat MO as such does not make it true. Defining a group from the outside? That falls under bias/bigotry.
….meaning, that until now, the hatred is one way. Marrying into MO? Only if the kid went OTD. Schools? Never!
That is going to change, the more we go to shiva visits of friend with Torah dedicated fathers who fought to defend us. Too many orphans and widows. When they pray, I believe Hashem pays attention.
>>>However, I must point out that it’s often a band-aid solution.
When someone is bleeding to death, a band-aid doesn't help. If Judaism cannot defend itself, then it doesn't deserve to be defended. The only people apologetics work for are for those who have already decided on a conclusion and are trying to back-fill justification. But that's not how being reasonable works and those who are truly מבקשי אמת will recognize that this is all special pleading, which is an illegal move.
>>>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.
Slifkin's approach does not solve the problems Judaism has because answering 90% of questions does us insufficient good. At the end, he says, "god chose a bunch of evolved apes and implanted souls into them." But where is the evidence for that? The same way a young earth is rejected by science (because all of the evidence points another way) a soul is rejected by science (because there's no reason to assume something fanciful when there's no evidence for a soul and the mind fulfills all of the criteria for everything we do perceive).
>>>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.
Oh yes...once we start looking to science to answer question A, there's no good reason to not look to science to answer question B. To do otherwise would be to violate special pleading.
>>>It’s much easier to believe that the Torah is made up and was born in that time.
Yes; Daniel Dennett referred to this as universal acid for good reason.
>>>Those who embrace this approach may have to concede and appreciate that others may go a small step further and ignore the Torah entirely.
This was what I meant by special pleading. It's as though you're worried that people may be so reasonable so as to reject all nonsense and not just some of it.
>>>Lol. If you can prove that you have a novel prize in neuroscience
Perhaps you misunderstood what I was referring to. I meant that whatever one might claim is an attribute of the soul can be said to be attributed to the mind. Other than making wild claims, there's no need to ever claim there's a soul.
In other words, it's a conclusion not based on the results of hypothesis testing.
Neither is saying it is based on the mind. Mind and soul are essentially synonymous. It is the origin of consciousness and the I which is what we are dealing with.
What I'm saying is that while we may not understand the mind fully, that's not much different than saying we don't understand the kidney fully.
But what we do know is that like ether, the proposition that there's a soul that has any characteristics we cannot attribute to the mind is fallacious. As Sam Harris explains, one needs to argue there's a soul from a position that would be different if a soul didn't exist, but these two situations are a Venn diagram where the two circles overlap perfectly.
There is nothing we need a soul to explain and there's nothing that we observe that requires a soul. It's just wishful thinking to think we will each survive our own personal death.
The deeper my understanding of Judaism became, the more i felt myself thinking that Hashem is evil and rejecting him, instead i was being drawn to the teachings of Nachash ben Eden, the REAL hero of the Torah.
The more i studied ancient scripture, the more i found that what i REALLY believe in, is basically what modern westerners call "Satanism,"
I think the premise that MO embraces questions is just flat out false.
Basically no MO institutions are at the cutting edge of any topic that brings up questions. They only tackle questions decades after they’ve come to the forefront and become impossible to ignore.
The most obvious modern example is modern critical bible studies. When it was a relatively niche field MO institutions were quite aggressive about censoring it as Kfira (which at least if you accept the 13 principles of Rambam it kinda is). Only after it became inescapable did the apologetics move the goalposts to dealing with it as reality.
"Basically no MO institutions are at the cutting edge"
Rav Shagars Yeshiva. Machon Herzog. Both are on the forefront. You clearly are generalizing from YU and are unfamiliar with the breadth of modern day modern Orthodox scholarship, much of it peer reviewed.
Maybe I’m missing something but haven’t seen anything from those circles that raises new doubts.
Tackling them relatively early after they arise? Sure. But are they publishing new information that makes it harder to believe?
Obviously not a monolith-I think it can best be described as a spectrum. Everyone handles renegotiates problematic texts some are just much much quicker than others. Like even in my very hardcore Charedi upbringing (Bais Hatalmud/Ponovezh) we thought the one dude who was gonna die on the hill of geocentrism was a crazy person. We didn’t know any flat earthers though Chazal and even some of the Geonim clearly are flat earthers in at least some places. Like clearly if we were what we claimed to be (Torah ultimate source of truth above all else) we would be flat earthers. The whole concept of “Bizman Hazeh when we don’t have Sanhedrin” was clearly used to renegotiate texts centuries ago. Hell “Amoni Velo Amonis” is an obvious renegotiation that goes back forever. As is “Ba Sancheirev Ubilbel Kol Haumos”.
That’s one extreme. The other is staying up to date with critical bible studies and accepting most of it. Truly embracing questions would be if the modern research around the Temple at Motza was being done by orthodox people.
I know of dozens of orthodox people who are the forefront of biblical scholarship or history. Several that I know personally are Yigal Levin, Tova Ganzel, Joshua Berman, and Amar Yitzhak. All influential names.
Unfortunately the so called Gush derech has wrecked havoc in many MO schools with respect to the learning the many Yesodei Emunah that are developed from a learning of Chumash with the Gdolei HaMefarshimv
I think that a Pshat only approach to Chumash results in a generation that has no reverence for the Avos and Imahos and no awareness of Yetzias Mitzrayim or Maamad Har Sinai
Vomit worthy. "rage against the dying of the light", "sacred echoes", "noble sacrifice". Puke. This just shows that people have a deep religious compulsion and when they doesn't believe in G-d, they will sanctify godlessness instead.
So no one gets the wrong impression, I strongly accept scientific evidence and reasoning. I'm just not sure how the two approaches actually work together...
"Unfortunately, Charedi yeshivos are often cold and unapproachable"
Why is that?
Because we have put Torah knowledge as the most important pre requisite for a leadership position.
I think leadership means different things in different contexts. In general, a Jew is primarily here to be an eved Hashem and follow His will, and as such, a baal halacha will be the primary leader to help people serve Hashem best. And usually the genuine baalei halacha are the wisest and most devoted and kill themselves to learn every nuance of halacha out of their love fro Hashem, and with such devotion they become close to Hashem and can help individuals with their spiritual struggles as well. But someone who is learning halacha and doesn't appreciate that he is learning Hashem's torah and despite him knowing it intellectually, he separates his knowledge and his yiraas Shamayim, he can still be a leader for halacha (or give a fantastic shiur and give over the importance of halacha), but he will not be a good leader for matters of developing a real connection with Hashem. He will still be an optimal leader for the most important aspect of Judaism, but not for these kinds of things which are not his expertise.
Respectfully disagree.
You can't be a leader if you don't have empathy, comment sense or if you can't think critically.
Its irrelevant how much torah you know.
According to your definition someone that is a savant and knows all of torah but has zero interpersonal skills should be a leader...nope.
Sorry, I wasn't talking about not having empathy and basic common sense. If that's what you meant, I agree.
>we have put Torah knowledge as the most important pre requisite for a leadership position.
Halevai
Lol you know what I mean
Not sure, but I hope you know what I mean.
If would truly have a system which revolves around true Torah scholarship I think we would be a lot better off.
I’m pretty sure he’s saying it’s not Derech Eretz or Torah knowledge that is the main hiring criteria. Either would be great, but yeshivos generally hire based on last name and whether your father or father in law is already involved/important in the Yeshiva.
Leads to a lot of totally unqualified people in leadership roles. And a lot of bitter yungeleit who get passed over for a less qualified by more connected person.
Right so a true Torah scholar must have the highest level of derech eretz.
I fully agree with these comments.
https://daastorah.substack.com/p/guest-post-im-charedi-change-my-mind/comment/81815864
https://daastorah.substack.com/p/guest-post-im-charedi-change-my-mind/comment/81815336
>>>I strongly accept scientific evidence and reasoning
I disagree.
Science is universal, and it accepts no boundaries. It does not permit you to say, "I will reason up until here but no more. I will extend to fish and birds, planes and submarines, rocks and light bulbs, but will not touch your Torah." The pervasiveness of science is deep; it is universal acid.
And to think that science can be contained in the science class and won't affect the chumash class, as it appears you do, means that you do not accept science and reasoning. You want to have your microchip and eat it, too.
Not true. Even if i accept science as much as you, but I simultaneously have a strong bag of evidence which contradicts these excellent conclusions, that would necessarily complicate matters. Sure, we need to carefully examine the opposing evidence, but if it stands, my above statement is perfectly fair.
Anecdotal reporting of people having experienced feelings is not good evidence.
Do you believe in the stories of Satya Sai Baba? He had many thousands of devotees.
I liked this article. It felt authentic. I am working on a response to this and will share it hopefully tomorrow. My basic points are as follows:
1 - I think you are very much mischaracterizing the mindset of atheists. (“We stand during Shemona Esrei, saying “You” to this Being, but often feel like phonies—like we’re talking to no one.” It reminds me of the famous example of a man writing a woman’s perspective: “She breasted boobily down the stairs…”)
2 - We don't reject the incorporeal (as you called it). We are very open to it. But we would love evidence that holds up and so far we haven't found it.
3 - many atheists are often much more removed from gashmiyus and "spiritual" than frum people. (Have you ever listened to the Waking Up app by Sam Harris?) This feels like the mashgichim, who think the whole outside world looks like a cartoon version of Harlem. Conversely, and ironically, the frum community is probably one of the most indulgent and consumeristic communities out there. Walk into any shabbos kiddush in Lakewood and say I am wrong.
4 - Of course, there were many wise gedolim. But wisdom and genius is no cure for wrong ideas. Newton believed in alchemy. The only reliable fulcrum to get out bad ideas that we have found effective so far is the scientific method and the following evidence.
5 - Your argument seems to boil down to that it is not fair that we are not "finishing Shas and Poskim,” and spending 40 years before we learn kabblah before we ask questions. This argument fails because (1) many of us have given years of our lives to this system (certainly far more than you or I have given to any other truth claim out there), and (2) we only have one life. Tying the pursuit of truth to an endless amorphous process is impractical. The Ex-Muslim and Ex-JW and Ex-Mormon Reddit groups are packed with people who have been told that if only they spent 20 years learning x and doing y, then they would "see the light". I am confident that if you examine how you parse reality and how you examine hypotheses before accepting or rejecting them, in every other context, you would see that this is an unfair burden being placed on the scales.
Your point of the indulgence in the frum community is well taken. It is in my understanding extremely common in Lakewood. I think it is because the ones who are indulgent are the ones who did not enjoy learning, and were never taught to develop their own interests or hobbies, or even that such a thing is valued (after all its "bittul Torah".) as a result, they indulge in materialism which is an easy kosher interest.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. Looking forward to more.
1. You can say that I'm 'atheisplaining' but I'm inevitably right. If G-d came and spoke to you, that would be enough. And if He didn't but you felt His presence, that would be enough too. This doesn't mean there aren't other factors, including explaining the experience I'm discussing, but you can't deny that reality.
2. I don't think you're not open to it. I'm claiming that this reality is something you can feel through a specific process, and that would be your evidence. I don't expect anyone to apply different standards here than they would for any beliefs they have.
3. I don't condone the gashmiyus we find in Lakewood, when not done with the proper yiraas Shamayim. And I don't think someone like Sam Harris is a particularly indulgent person. My point is simply that we, as a generation, are undeniably far more materialistic today than we ever were in history. We are born with insane technology and a food industry with simple delicacies a king of yesteryear couldn't imagine. We are much lazier than they were; we can access more entertainment with a click of a button on our couch than anyone ever could have with a lot more work and we can literally travel around the world in a few hours.
4. Agreed. Aristotle, and Chazal, got many things wrong about science. Alchemy is the least of the problems. Science and skepticism has done an absolutely outstanding job arriving at the truth. It's undeniable. But the question here is if the ancients were therefore wrong about everything, and the reason is because they had a different criteria for arriving at conclusions; our epistemology evolved for the better as we see with the scientific revolution - that is the atheist's version of history. Or perhaps, they had access to this other reality they claimed to have access to and even though they were scientifically ignorant, they were "incorporeally knowledgeable". I think the fact that Aristotle was keen enough to understand that we believe things because of logos, ethos and pathos, and was able to break down these things and explain them to the world is a testament to his lucidity, clarity and ingullibilty (not a word, but you get the idea). And he was claiming to have an experience with the incorporeal (the Active Intellect) which, he would claim, we haven't personally experienced because we are so mired in our material selves. I'd love to see how any atheist can be so confident that he was wrong or lying given the data.
5. You want to have a discussion of why I think Judaism is correct and not any of the other religions? We can get to that soon. But we need to first establish the credibility of any religion as opposed to atheism which rejects religion entirely, and I am claiming that this is out of ignorance of something held by all religions and people ever to exist until recently. There are two options to explain this phenomenon. Is it because we know so much better? Or are we perhaps missing something they all had?
1.-2. I have felt the divine. I wasn’t sober but I did feel it.
I also see people feel the divine very regularly as I work in clinical neuroscience. There’s also tens of millions of Christians who have the Holy Spirit confirm to them all sorts of things very regularly.
If I felt the divine again I’d assume I was drugged.
I don’t know why you’re so confident that everyone thinks non externally reproducible personal experience is knock down evidence.
3. Having your needs met more readily doesn’t necessarily make you less spiritual. For many it means having time to meditate or think. At just about every point in history you could point out that standards of living were higher than they were prior (though accelerated post 1700). This is only relevant once you take for granted that convenience is bad.
4. Kant read Aristotle. Aristotle didn’t read Kant. And so on. The ancients were less insightful even in non empiricist fields because they simply weren’t standing on the shoulders of giants. I know more about physicians than Newton because I can watch YouTube videos of info he couldn’t dream of. That’s not unique to science even though it’s more measurable there.
Also there was much fewer of them. More swings at insight translates to more hits. Like you could believe that Aristotle was uniquely smart because he was the biggest fish in a pretty small pond but it’s statistically a lot likelier the the biggest fish in a much larger pond (with significantly better nutrition survival from disease education risk to life for rubbing the wrong person the wrong way etc) is probably smarter and more insightful.
5. Atheism doesn’t necessarily reject religion. I’m literally atheist and religious. Atheism rejects the truth claim of the divine. There are atheist religions (such as Jainism).
As far as saving the question “which spirit spoke to you” for another day I don’t think that’s valid. If you’re gonna establish feeling the spirit as reliable evidence to make life altering decisions based on you need to address the fact that it reliably provides multiple contradictory readouts at the credibility of argument stage.
1-2. Feeling "the divine" on drugs is not the same as experiencing the incorporeal. (Not that psychedelics can't assist to some extent)
3. True, I was being very simplistic. The fact that the immaterial was more accessible to them (as I am claiming) is because of a lot of things, probably primarily due to, but not limited to, what we call yeridas hadoros, where as we sin G-d "retreats" and it becomes harder and harder to feel Him.
4. Great points, but given what I said in "3", besides that there were as many fish then as today, if there was a reality of experiencing incorporeality that waned slowly over time, follow it through - the entire narrative changes. They were busy studying and dealing with this experience as it was waning, and as their interests shifted toward the material and they slowly became more and more aware of the physical sciences, things grew as people stood on the shoulders of giants and there was a great system and cycle of refinement, error and discovery, error and discovery. But this says little of the other world that was becoming less and less accessible simultaneously.
As always, there are two versions of history, either this reality of the incorporeal exists and they were experiencing it through their specific training, or it doesn't. Each version has its own narrative of how to explain history and I'm suggesting examining both honestly. If it was a load of baloney, man came from ape and got wiser and wiser and their experiences were but weak attempts at figuring out reality and should be discarded. The other version says they were able to access this reality because it was easier to work harder and concentrate or whatever and while this reality was accessible, it kind of overshadowed the fun of physical science when that reality was so much cooler and deeper, and as it waned, physical science became more and more necessary to discover and figure out because there is nothing else etc..
5. My point currently is to establish the possibility that there is something that we are having trouble seeing, despite it sounding pretty incredible and magical. The next step of why Judaism specifically has to do with Matan Torah and other ideas, but they are literally a follow-up on this discussion and without even acknowledging the point I'm making now, that discussion has almost no feet to stand on
1-2.
How would you know what the divine I felt on mushrooms was? Somehow you retain the ability to know what everyone else’s subjective experiences are and which are valid. I can just as easily dismiss your experiences of the incorporeal as fake because I don’t like them. (You kind of walked right in to why this is garbage tier evidence)
You can’t maintain the right to disqualify subjective experiences you don’t approve of while also using subjective experiences you do approve of to prove a point.
3. Or they were more superstitious less intelligent (by every measurable metric people get smarter over time) less educated and ran into more things they didn’t understand every day so they interpreted that as the divine more often. Or 16th century Spanish peasants attending an Auto Da Fe to burn the heretic Jew alive (this was described as a profound religious experience by contemporary authors) had much more access to god than me in yeshiva or on Har Habayis davening because “Yeridas Hadoros”.
IMHO the whole “Yeridas Hadoros” thing is a convenient excuse for why we, smarter more educated people, aren’t as superstitious. This is just sparkling “Nishtanu Hatevah”. The medicine in Bava Basra didn’t work any more than they were experiencing something real. This is just glorifying mediaeval and ancient superstitions fueled by ignorance.
4. You want to simultaneously have it (in part 1) that you can totally feel it - but also have it that smart educated people with time on their hands can’t. This is just awfully convenient. It is just accessible enough to evidence when you need it to be but also not accessible enough to be studied when people have much more time.
The narrative that everything they’re describing was real (but also you maintain the right to declare some experiences not real) stretches credulity. It relies on constantly fine tuning accessibility to remain one step beyond what we can study as we get smarter more educated and have more people working on the problem - but at the same time still be accessible to the Mormon teenager doing his temple ritual or Bar Mitzvah boy.
People are creative. I’m not denying you can make a narrative if you’re desperate enough but it’s an absurd one.
(And the idea there were the same number of “fish” then as now is just on its face ridiculous. There amount of people that had access to the money literacy texts and training to study philosophy in the ancient world is probably fewer than the student body at Yale Divinity right now alone)
5. I know you want to separate the steps. But you can’t. You can’t do a פלגינן דיבורא. We’re trying to determine the reliability of the Holy Spirit (or whatever it’s being called now that the idea has been imported into Yeshiva Judaism). The fact that it is reliably contradictory and predictably says whatever your culture says it says more or less goes to its very credibility. That can’t be dismissed as being saved for a comparative religion discussion.
These are great points.
As far as number one, i would not dismiss it as garbage level evidence. It may well be that there is some sort of spirituality behind it. The fact that you personally cannot verify it does not make it any more true and less valid of a reason to study it. But as a method of convincing somebody it of course fails horribly.
>>>As far as number one, i would not dismiss it as garbage level evidence.
See below.
>>>The fact that you personally cannot verify it does not make it any more true and less valid of a reason to study it.
There is no good evidence for the supernatural, and the time to assert claims of the supernatural is after it's been demonstrated, not before. Sure...let's study it! But let's make conclusions after hypotheses have been tested and results are favorable...not before just because shabbos is fun and kugel is yummy or bubby would otherwise be sad.
>>>But as a method of convincing somebody it of course fails horribly.
That's all evidence is good for, so I'm struggling to understand what you're really contrasting this with.
Assuming the goal of evidence is to prove, than it being exceptionally bad at proving (defined as ability to shift probability of truth for the observer) is kind of a synonym for garbage tier evidence.
Sure it is an incredibly interesting topic of study. But it is utterly worthless as a proof for the existence of the supernatural divine
Thanks again for taking the time. I don't know if we'll get anywhere, but I guess we need to try for the sake of getting the truth, whoever is holding it.
1-2. I never claimed to know what you felt on shrooms, but I have spent much time enjoying reading many accounts of descriptions people give of their trips and I have read the descriptions the ancients were talking about, and they aren't the same. There are similarities, sure, but they aren't the same. And I never said yours is invalid (or "not real" as you repeat later); you read that yourself somehow. I'm just saying it's different. (If I'm wrong, you're the first person to explain it as they did theirs, and that's fine. You can describe your trip and I'll explain how it's different if you'd like, here, in email or PM on substack...)
3. Yes, that is another version of the story and that they were unable to know the difference between reality or that they were actual charlatans. The way your version goes is that they didn't know science and clearly didn't care about the same level of evidence and we therefore have obvious proof that their whole epistemology was different (something I think Aristotle's organization of logos, ethos and pathos disproves to some extent), and since their logic was *clearly* underdeveloped, their experiences are to be discounted as well as unscientific and speculative. And it could be you're right. I am suggesting that it could be you're wrong and that the reason that they had a seemingly different way of thinking was because they were busier with this other reality.
Bringing in the stupidities of religion or whatever has nothing to do with this conversation. We know why they attended auto-da-fés in Spain or wherever. Let's not mix unrelated things please and discuss each to its own. (I understand that this is supposed to be a point in your favor - "see they were idiots!" - but from my POV this is entirely unrelated, I'm sure you understand.)
5. No I am not trying to "determine the reliability of the Holy Spirit" as you think. I am asking that we examine the accounts of many, many people from the spans of many generations from all areas of the world, until recently, and see if these accounts are something to think about. A lot of your arguments begin with a presupposition that they are false, but if they are not, much of your arguments fall away. This doesn't make them right, and this doesn't say you shouldn't be skeptical of these accounts, but let's at least be clear about why and deal with if those arguments are good and not confuse everything.
1-2. If you’re claiming there’s a real divine and some experiences are it and other divine experiences are not that’s saying those are fake. Even if you prefer euphemisms like “different”. If you’re gatekeeping which subjective experiences are actually the real divine and which are “different” (despite the massive overlap in terms used by people who experienced both and one or the other) you’re gonna have to do better than “PM me man I’ll *explain you* how your personal experience of the divine wasn’t the real™️ divine”
This is why using subjective personal experiences as evidence is such trash tier evidence. You’re completely at the mercy of making up on a whim which ones are included or excluded from your analysis.
3. Nobody is saying Aristotle or Rambam was an idiot or a charlatan. He just didn’t have the education that an average undergrad has today. He was insightful and intelligent he just had far far far fewer tools than you or I have. It’s even possible that his raw IQ would be above 3 standard deviations from the mean today (though statistically unlikely) he just didn’t read the Neoplatonics. Or anything written since his death.
And no - he wasn’t busier than we are with this “other reality”. In fact one of the largest criticisms of modern philosophy is people over sub specialize. Pick any topic - any framework - and there’s someone more focused on it than ever before. Hell there’s people more focused on any given book by Aristotle than Aristotle ever was. He was a generalist. There’s people who put their lives into things he spent 6 hours once thinking about. In every way we’re better equipped than them. That’s just how transmission of knowledge works. There’s a PhD candidate out there with a full undergrad philosophy background in the classics working on almost any given meaningful snippet of Aristotle. They don’t have anything on us.
I bring up Auto da fe not because it’s stupid and evil (it obviously is) but because people attending sometimes claimed to experience the divine at these events. As would be expected if I was correct. This lends credence to the theory that it’s just good old fashioned elevation emotion and strains the credulity of the theory that these religious experiences are super natural revelation. This is not merely to mock the stupid and evil things that various religions have done over time - it is specifically to address the core of your argument; that this experience of the divine people report is something external and supernatural rather than just elevation emotion. Or at least that such experiences are fully indistinguishable to the observer (maybe they should have PM’d you so you could explain to them that the experience they had that day was different).
5. Those accounts didn’t stop. They’re ongoing today. Due to sheer population growth there’s probably far more people reporting those experiences today than ever before. There’s no line where people stopped reporting them. There’s just a line where the people reporting them were no longer mainstream. It still forms a central part of many religious traditions in the US today including lots of mainstream Protestant traditions. Mormons are most notable because they have monthly sessions where they talk about these experiences to each other. Like you can walk to your local Mormon church and listen to dozens of people from children to the elderly swear that they’ve heard directly from the divine spirit. All that’s changed is the secular societal mainstream narrative moved away from considering subjective non replicable experiences to be worth taking seriously.
And no - my arguments don’t presuppose they’re false.
The argument can be boiled down to
1. These experiences are basically impossible to define the limits of. You have to arbitrarily make up what is and isn’t the actual divine experience vs the “different” or whatever euphemism you choose for “data I want to exclude in an attempt to make my conclusion seem more plausible”
2. They are reliably contradictory and reliably predictable by their cultural context. Mormons reliably experience the divine affirming Mormonism. Protestants reliably experience the divine experiencing Protestantism. Orthodox Jews exposed to the Jewishized versions of this belief … reliably find it to affirm Hashem.
3. Given the above the theory that “that’s just elevation emotion seen through your cultural lens” is much more plausible than
“See there’s this nebulous impossible to define superforce and you can experience it but it becomes less likely to experience it over time. For some unknown reason it always stays just difficult enough that it can’t be properly studied but just close enough that I can feel it. At the same time lots of others feel it and it says very different things to them but those are the same as opposed to other experiences with a ton of overlap that aren’t the same.”
You get the point. That’s a very far fetched theory and the only reason to believe it is an attempt to justify an already held belief. Presented with those 2 theories nobody would choose the latter.
The only reasons to choose the latter is either a massive ego (my experiences are so special that can’t be regular elevation emotion - the actual god of the actual universe must have been telling me hi) or someone is engaged in apologetics - by definition intellectual dishonesty. The object of apologetics is to reaffirm a prior belief.
https://www.reddit.com/r/exjew/comments/1hftryc/share_your_thoughts_and_stop_the_brainwashing/
you are on reddit
I made it in life!
I'm happy to talk to any of them if they're interested.
How is this brainwashing? While I disagree with a lot of it, I don’t get a brainwashing vibe at all. (Not saying you think it is brainwashing)
agreed....people are afraid of dialogue I guess
It would be ironic if they were the ones who are being "close-minded" and afraid I may have evidence against their position. Otherwise, they can confront me and change my mind.
Yes, Shulman...we'd like to see the evidence.
We are all and have been all waiting to see the evidence that you have for so long claimed to have. Evidence of the existence of anything supernatural whatsoever, let alone a specific god who forbids specific foods, hairstyles, sexual partners and methods of making guacamole on Saturdays.
I agree, but what does it have to do with this post specifically?
I’m sorry, but this argument seems quite misguided. You’ve created a binary, positioning Modern Orthodoxy on one side and Chareidi on the other, and then listed various issues with both. However, by eliminating these issues, you conclude that you’ll side with the Chareidi world and view Modern Orthodoxy as dangerous. The Chareidi world has its own serious issues—mental health stigma and handling sexual abuse, among others—that are often ignored. These are inherent to the Chareidi approach, whether you like it or not. Ultimately, you've hung your hat on a pole that doesn’t exist.
I hoped I was more clear, that I only take the Charedi position on this issue of combatting atheism. I'm no apologist for the dozens of issues Charedi society creates. Check out my second post about the army on the 'irrationalist modoxism' blog. I think the Charedi focus on torah to the exclusion of many really important values has caused and is causing a lot of harm in a lot of ways. Even the learning itself is often done wrong which leaves many with little merit. I'm extremely critical and unapologetic of the Charedi approach. I am only defending one, perhaps small, aspect of Charediism which itself needs better hasbara.
Well then you're probably not really "Chareidi" no offense. Plus the headline didn't make it sound like you're defending a small aspect. You should be way more clear about this because in my entire life of being in Chareidi enclaves all i hear is Chareidi life is the best system in the world blah blah blah. When in reality this is a result of survivorship bias, obfuscation, the no true Scotsman fallacy (i.e., that's not REALLY Chareidism, kind of like what you did, again, no offense) and hagiography to name some of the more egregious facets and I think this must change.
Fine, I'm not a "real" Charedi and my title was weak (I thought I'd was clever, oh well).
Now, what do you say to the argument I'm making in general?
I dont think its a one size fits all, some people are gonna feel a stronger "connection" to the mesorah in one way than in another way, I don't think either one is superior. I can't recall who says it but there's a rishon I believe who says if someone loses faith through sincere inquiry then we don't hold it against him. From my observations, some the more instinctual/visceral/emotional approach is not the one that's going to last. In addition, unfortunately the issues I've described above has turned off a ton of people that may have succeeded with your approach but our know quite disgruntled (present company included).
I agree, an important point, and we need people who can tailor the chinuch to each individual, I'll never stop stressing the importance of that and how a lot of our problems is because "the system" is by definition not individualistic. But we still should have a system that will be best for the masses. Either way, I have no issue with anyone who takes the MO approach and keeps their faith.
I hate to be nitpicky but I think it would be better to say you would support a person's choice if that was best for them. I understand that we have a value of kol areivim zeh lazeh but ultimately faith matters and life choices are ultimately deeply personal and people are usually just honestly trying to figure what is the "truth" (however we define that term). We shouldn't ever have an idea that a person's choice when it comes to faith may even have a chance to be a problem, it's most important to enable and empower not intrude or foist.
I disagree that ethos (or in your nomenclature) of the community should the Chareidi approach as well and if it it is it must redefine what "success" is. As things stand today a large faction of individuals by the definitions of that system will have to leave the studio hall and *nebach* go to work. That to me is abhorrent, in some ways that is what is a) the best for them and b) what materially is upholding the institutions. Nobody should feel lesser than for taking responsibility of their life when necessary. There maybe some sort of ethos necessary, which we could debate but that is one glaring issue that I think you've mentioned in your previous post.
>>>I only take the Charedi position on this issue of combatting atheism
As you have failed to present any good position combatting atheism, perhaps you should try another.
There's no mental health stigma by chareidim. Check any chareidi newspaper all they talk about is mental health. Therapists are filling up pages and pages of these newspapers with all their brilliant wisdom.
To the contrary, there is too much mental health awareness which is causing lots of problems.
I'm not sure what problems you're referring to. Are you referring to people being "over therapized", overly dependent, finding issues when they aren't etc.? Ultimately everyone should be empowered to do what's best for them without shame or disparagement and we need to develop this as part of the zeitgeist. Everything in the world is about finding a balance, there's no optimal one-size-fits all solution. The only one you could control is you and yours and talk to others with empathy (not saying you aren't, I'm just saying that's how I think we should approach this as individuals who may or may not be have any say in the matter).
I see the abundance of therapist articles as the slow killing of common sense. Anyone that has a few letters added to their name magically makes them an expert in parenting, discipline, and interpersonal skills. They are treated as if they have the answers to everything.
In reality, mental health and parenting are very complex issues and therapists rarely have a good solution. By treating everything as a science with one size fits all answers, it is taking away common sense from parents who are afraid to use their own judgement (which is very often superior to the therapist's).
The idea of credentialism and who is qualified is an issue that should be addressed, but that's something that's prevalent to many disciplines, the most relevant one in the Charedi world in my opinion being what constitutes/falls under the auspices of daas torah.
Ok. To me it sounds like your developing somewhat of a strawman. You're talking about magazine articles and methodology of the therapists which is different than being accepting of mental health in society in general. Many parents (present company's included) aren't equipped to deal with their children on their own either because of their own struggles or the child's. I understand it's a fine line but I don't think you and I are discussing the same point.
What does it mean "be accepting" of mental health?
What I'm about to say is purely anecdotal and you can correct me if I'm wrong but I've heard people say I can't put my rabbi who deals with people with at-risk behaviors on my resume because it "looks bad". This is problematic, I hold people in high esteem when they are trying to get help. In addition, I've heard people go of their psychotropic medication because of shidduchim. Lastly, generally there's an aversion I sense in more right wing communities to discuss vulnerabilities and a prioritization of appearance and conformity while meanwhile they're falling apart. Again this is anecdotal and what ive experienced. But I left the Chareidi world in 2013 so maybe things have changed for the better but I haven't gotten that impression from my periodic visits there.
You're right. It was a major issue 20 years ago when I was growing up. I think its better this way than that. It's a balance like everything else. There's still a subversive skepticism and way too much aversion in the name of, "what will it mean for shiddcuchim?", in my opinion.
Thank you for sharing this thoughtful and well-written piece. As someone who has stepped outside the bounds of traditional observance and belief, I’d like to challenge several of the claims you’ve presented—not dismissively, but in the spirit of intellectual honesty and dialogue. While your argument is compelling on the surface, I believe it contains several significant flaws that undermine its conclusions. Here is my attempt to "change your mind."
1. The “Rationalist Crisis” Is Misdiagnosed
You argue that atheism stems primarily from a lack of "feeling it"—a disconnect from the immaterial reality—and that the Charedi approach addresses this by fostering a more profound connection to Hashem. However, this diagnosis ignores the core issue underlying most crises of faith: the absence of evidence.
It’s not simply that atheists "don’t feel" Hashem’s presence; it’s that they see no reason to believe He exists in the first place. The Charedi emphasis on Torah study and withdrawal from physicality does not address the fundamental problem: that the claims of Judaism are unverifiable, and many are contradicted by observable evidence. For someone grappling with doubts, it’s not enough to strengthen a "connection" to a being they suspect may not exist. Without evidence, the entire endeavor feels hollow.
You suggest that doubts arise because people are stuck in immature, physical conceptions of Hashem. But this is a strawman. Most atheists I know—including former Charedim—understand that Judaism describes Hashem as incorporeal. The issue isn’t a childish misunderstanding of theology; it’s the lack of any tangible or logical basis for believing in an incorporeal, omnipotent being who intervenes in human affairs. You can’t "feel" what isn’t there.
2. The Appeal to Mysticism Is a Non-Starter
You write:
"The incorporeal is no less real than the physical, and our minds, which are not physical, are capable of grasping concepts beyond material reality."
This assertion sounds profound, but it’s ultimately empty. How do you define "real"? If something is real, it should have some observable impact on the world. Yet the "incorporeal" realities you describe—Hashem, Olam Haba, malachim—are entirely inaccessible to empirical verification. You might argue that this is by design, but that conveniently places these concepts outside the realm of scrutiny. Without evidence, how can we distinguish between the "incorporeal" truths of Judaism and the equally incorporeal claims of Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism?
Mysticism may provide a sense of meaning for those who already believe, but it’s unconvincing to someone approaching these questions with skepticism. You can’t expect someone to build their life around something they can neither see, feel, nor verify, no matter how much you insist it’s "real."
3. The Charedi Approach Is Not a Solution
You argue that the Charedi approach addresses the "rationalist crisis" by focusing on building a personal connection with Hashem through Torah study and withdrawal from physicality. But this approach raises several issues:
a) It Doesn’t Address Intellectual Doubt
The Charedi emphasis on trust and faith is inherently circular: it asks you to believe in Hashem because the Torah says so, and to believe in the Torah because it’s Hashem’s word. For someone grappling with serious questions about the historicity of the Torah, the morality of halacha, or the existence of Hashem, this approach offers no answers. Telling someone to "strengthen their connection" is meaningless if they’re not convinced there’s anything to connect to.
b) It’s Anti-Intellectual
You acknowledge that the Charedi system often dismisses or ignores difficult questions, but you frame this as a feature, not a bug. This dismissal might work for those who are already committed to the system, but for anyone with intellectual curiosity, it comes across as evasive and dishonest. In an age where information is readily available, refusing to engage with tough questions only alienates people further.
c) It Doesn’t Work
The Charedi world is not immune to skepticism or attrition. Many people raised in Charedi communities leave precisely because the system fails them—it doesn’t provide satisfying answers, it stifles intellectual inquiry, and it often feels stifling and oppressive. If the Charedi approach were truly effective, we wouldn’t see the many blogs here of those leaving the fold.
4. The MO Approach Is Not a “First Step Toward Atheism”
You argue that the Modern Orthodox (MO) approach, by addressing difficult questions and accommodating modernity, is a slippery slope to atheism. But this misrepresents both the MO perspective and the nature of skepticism.
Modern Orthodoxy doesn’t "reduce the Torah to nothing more than a product of its time"—it acknowledges the complexity of reconciling ancient texts with modern knowledge. This isn’t a weakness; it’s intellectual honesty. Many MO thinkers, from Rabbi Jonathan Sacks to Rav Soloveitchik, have shown that it’s possible to maintain a meaningful religious life while grappling with difficult questions.
The claim that the MO approach leads to atheism also ignores the fact that many people who leave Orthodoxy do so because of the rigidity and anti-intellectualism of the Charedi system. For some, Modern Orthodoxy is the *only* way to retain a connection to Judaism without sacrificing intellectual integrity.
5. The Appeal to Authority Is Unconvincing
You write:
"Do you truly believe these brilliant minds—who shaped generations—were wrong?"
Yes. People can be brilliant and wrong at the same time. Aristotle was a brilliant thinker, but he believed in geocentrism and spontaneous generation. The Rambam was a towering intellect, but he also believed in a cosmology that has been entirely debunked by modern science. Great minds are not infallible.
The fact that many great thinkers throughout history believed in Hashem doesn’t prove His existence. It simply reflects the cultural and intellectual context in which they lived. Today, we have access to scientific methods and evidence that allow us to critically evaluate these claims. Appealing to the authority of past thinkers doesn’t address the actual questions at hand.
6. The False Dichotomy Between Atheism and Charedi Judaism
Throughout your piece, you frame the debate as a binary choice between the Charedi and atheist worldviews. But this is a false dichotomy. Many people leave Charedi Judaism and find meaning in other forms of spirituality or religion. Others embrace secular humanism, finding fulfillment in science, art, relationships, and the pursuit of knowledge.
Atheism is not inherently "physical and base," as you suggest. Many atheists live deeply ethical, meaningful lives. They find wonder in the natural world, purpose in helping others, and a sense of connection in their communities. To dismiss atheism as "base" is both insulting and inaccurate.
You ask us to consider whether the Rambam, Ramchal, and Gr’a could all have been wrong. I posit that you consider billions of Chinese Buddhists, a religion without a God, or Indian Hindus who believe in polytheism, wrong. The fact that a tradition is old or revered doesn’t make it true.
The Charedi approach, as you’ve described it, relies on circular reasoning, avoids difficult questions, and dismisses alternative worldviews without seriously engaging with them. While it may work for those who are already committed to the system, it fails to address the concerns of anyone approaching these issues with skepticism or intellectual honesty.
I appreciate your openness to dialogue, and I hope this response has given you some food for thought. I remain open to continuing the conversation.
1. My evidence is that there were thousands of people throughout history, Jewish and non-Jewish alike who experienced this other reality of incorporeality. Not just as an interesting idea or discussion, but as a reality. They all claim that through a process of removing one's self from his base desires, he can reach a perception of "sensing" and "feeling" his soul, as real as the other five senses. The fact that they describe this is undeniable; the only question, IMO, is if they are to be believed. One can argue that it seems incredible (in its literal sense) and unprovable, and I can't actually argue on that. But I can show why we should give these ideas a second thought.
To that end, anyone can try to at least taste this experience and see that the more he tries, the more he gets there, and even if he never fully "got there" - which is only available after hours and days and sometimes weeks of arduous and intense self restraint, so most (like really, most) people don't - he can already extrapolate what could or would happen if he would go further.
This is the methodology of Charediism that I was describing. They teach "kulo Torah" and we get a glimpse of what the Vilna Goan's entire life was like, or Reb Moshe or Reb Elyashiv. (Or for our discussion, Aristotle, Ibn Sina, Aquinas, and Buddha.) Some are okay extrapolating with only a little exposure, some need more. And ultimately, for the denier, this won't be enough. My goal is only to show that there is this distinct possibility that there is another sense out there you don't know about. And the claim is because we are too "bodily" and "base", which is hard to disprove, but I can't blame you if you don't want to accept it.
My analogy (based on the Rambam) would be if we all went blind, no scientific data would allow us to know if the accounts of those who saw for thousands of years were true. And we wouldn't blame a denier for not accepting the evidence for something that seems fantastical - perceiving an entire room in one shot, shades and colors from a blind person's perspective seem totally magical - but if there was a way to show him a process where he can catch even a vague glimpse of what sight is, he may be more receptive to the accounts, especially if there are people in his current circle who really can see somewhat. Again, wouldn't blame the denier, but there is what to think about.
But this analogy answers your question, the sense of sight is "real" but there is absolutely no impact on the physical world. (There are differences, but not at this point of the discussion.)
2. I think I dealt with 2, except for the comparative religion addition, in which I'll say again, there is little to distinguish the different religions and most of them are saying the same thing about the soul and perfection. Any of the ancient religions aren't religions as much as ways towards perfection, order, happiness. The later religions were offshoots of Judaism which was post an actual mass revelation that exceeded the realities of perfection claimed by the ancient religions. I'm happy to expound more but this is really an entirely separate part of the discussion.
3. I don't disagree with much of number 3, except that which you claim that it doesn't work. It does. There are hundreds of ehrilche yidden who have strong belief in the mesorah.
4. Precisely because of your issue is why the MO approach saves many. But giving credit to the questions and giving apologetic answers is also not a good idea. If that were all I had, I'd probably choose atheism. I was appalled by Rabbi Sachs's debate with Dawkins. Nothing against him and those who follow him, but it don't work for me.
5 and 6 are very chat gpt-ish and the responses aren't as complicated so if you don't mind we'll stick with these points - unless you want to clarify something further.
Thanks for your comprehensive response! As an atheist, I actually mostly agree with your first point. I do find personal experience compelling and for this reason I'm not a materialist. The idea that the world is simply the physical world in front of us and nothing more goes against my own personal experience of love, meaning, etc. However, it's a rayah for *something* more than us and not a rayah to any specific faith or divine being. I am not going to pretend to know what that *something* is. Instead, I'd rather humbly say I don't know and won't jump to any conclusions without evidence.
>>>is it unreasonable to assume theism
Yes. That we can't yet know precisely how the universe came about or where it came from is no reason to suggest that there's a god, because now we just need to explain where the god came from.
It solves absolutely nothing and merely introduces quite unparsimonious assertions of the supernatural, which we don't know to exist and have no good reason to assume do.
>>>In response to the fine-tuning argument, most atheists posit an (unfalsifiable) multiverse theory.
I do not, and I really don't understand why they think they ought to do so. I think it's silly, and anyone who's not steeped in physics can really explain it. The problem that results is that Dawkins will mention is but not explain it, saying that he's a biologist, and he repeats it because he hears it from his buddies Lawrence Krauss and Neil deGrasse Tyson and Eric Weinstein, etc. But when these guys (or other physicists) mention is, they explain it in such a way that does not permit someone who's not a physicist to really grasp what they're saying and why they're saying it. So who am I, a non-physicist to say it's dumb or otherwise comment in depth. But as I understand it, it's not necessary and I agree with your assessment.
>>>Calling G-d supernatural doesn't make Him less parsimonious, when the arguments posit that He is as necessary as anything physical.
Just because you want a sandwich doesn't mean you have a sandwich. So, too, just because you want a supernatural entity to explain the thing that you otherwise can't explain doesn't mean you have one. And to say that a supernatural entity is the only way to explain what we see is a god-of-the-gaps argument. So far in the history of humankind, so much had been attributed to a god and so far, so much of that has become explained by science and it's hard to see how people thought a god was needed to explain such a thing. Now granted, only hard in the way that an illusionist's trick could have been marveled at prior to knowing how the trick is done, so I'm not here mocking those who didn't understand the science. And it's difficult to even mock the ancients for believing in a god or gods because they just didn't know any better. But it certainly seems like we do.
>>>Calling G-d supernatural doesn't make Him less parsimonious
I'm not calling god "supernatural," but merely explaining what people mean. There's no evidence that such a category even exists. All claims and references to the supernatural have either been proven to be fictitious or have yet to have evidence provided for them. So maybe there is a fairy in the garden -- that's Dawkins' favorite example, and maybe there's a closet goblin -- that's Forrest Valkai's favorite example. But it's not that there are driveway fairies and basement goblins and that we're merely claiming a new species with no evidence or with bad evidence. It's that it's become so transparently obvious, once one increases their perspective on things, that so much had been claimed in the previous millennia and so much wasn't understood. And none of the claims have ever panned out -- astrology, haunted houses, witches, vampires, werewolves, bigfoots, fairies, sirens, mermaids and the list goes on and on. Nothing that has ever violated the natural order of things has ever been demonstrated and that's why there's a large collection of things like this -- let's call them silly things -- that we collectively refer as mythology and then we call on them when we need to populate a comedy like Hotel Transylvania. They are the butt of jokes and no one has a problem recognizing that they are all atheists when it comes to all of the gods that they do not believe in.
How many Orthodox Jews worry that they only prayed 3 times today and not 5 because maybe the Old Testament is a forgery and maybe Ishmael was the chosen son and maybe Allah is the one true god and Muhammed was his prophet. And how many fervently observant Muslims are concerned that they omitted יעלה ויבוא from this morning's prayers? And how many of either is concerned that they haven't burned incense for Lord Vishnu is a sufficient amount of time to avoid his wrath? And how many Jews or Muslims or Christians bury their dead with coins for heavenly toll booths and mummified dogs for protection along the highway to heaven and fruit so they can have something to eat on the journey. The only thing keeping the religious religious is really the insularity, as Dennett said so often. It's denominator neglect.
By this time, I forgot already which of the various similar substack posts mentioned it, but someone wrote about how any non-Mormon would think it's just so beyond silly to have a 138-page document to defend Mormonism. "Of course it's not true...I can see that in a second!" So, too, here...the only people who come up with crazy left arm over the head to touch the right ear explanations of how the god or his bible or the religion (or any holy books or any religions) could be possibly be true are the ones who are in those religions and already believe these ridiculous things for bad reasons. They've been indoctrinated and so they didn't arrive at these conclusions in the proper way...with good reasons leading to good conclusions. They were taught the religion from the age of 3 with honey on the aleph-bet and kissing the tzitzis and Uncle Moishy (or Uncle Achmed, for the Muslims, let's say, and Uncle Patil for the Hindus) and now they're 25 years old and they just don't want to let go. So they read (or write) silly books like Permission to Believe and give read/write books and give/listen to shiurum about the Kuzari Principle or the fine tuning argument, all along really knowing that they'd never come to god with any of this and that it's all backfill because they're pre-suppositionalists from the age of 3 when Mommy and Tatty lifted them on their shoulders and threw them in the air and shouted out משה אמת ותורתו אמת. But it's just not the case and if you talk about it, you become an outcast.
So to get back to your point, it's not that I'm calling god supernatural, but that if he's not supernatural, then he's not the god everyone's pretending exists. And if he is supernatural, and the explanation for why we believe in him is because how else can the world have come into being, then that's the wrong way to think of it. It's a bad answer using bad logic and bad reason. And yes, of course everything we say here must be reasonable, because as soon as someone says "oh, you want to know why I think there's a god?" and then answers that question, they are using reason. They are forming a sentence that represents an idea that dictates that the reason why they believe in B is because of A. So if not A, then how do we get to B? Hmm...I don't know. And neither do they.
If the reason why we know there's a god is because how else could everything else be here, then you're subjecting the universe to inquiry: "how did it get here?" and you don't seem to be taking any silly answers. "Oh, it just made itself! That's silly!!" they'll say. So they're making it seem like they need good answers to questions, but when you ask them where god came from or who made god, then they're all aghast that you dare mock their deity. And so yes, to posit a god because you think you need him solves nothing. It's unparsimonious, which means that it's assuming more than you ought to. It's multiplying assumptions. We don't know how the world came about, and so we say "we don't know." The pious would say "I know how the world came about, but I don't know how a god came about" and so it solves nothing except now they look silly because there's no way they could possibly know about this god who's never ever indicated that he exists. The bible is a work of men and it's so transparent. We could discuss that, but it's so much quicker if people would just read Dawkins and Harris and Pinker and Dennett, but messaging me privately is always welcome and we could talk or I could make some recommendations. But I go to great lengths here to explain as much as I can without just telling people, "oh, you haven't read XYZ...go do y our homework" because people are afraid and they don't like to do homework. So let's just talk it out.
Let's posit that something exists outside of the natural realm. Why should I assume it's theism. It could be anything. Actually, the short story The Egg is the most compelling thing I've seen on what the supernatural realm may be. However, I'm agnostic in the classical definition and think it's impossible for us humans to understand what's out there. It's like an ant trying to understand the s&p 500. There is no possible world where an ant can even begin to understand human finances. instead of looking into the other ant theories and religions we've come up with, I prefer to say I don't understand until presented with a theory with actual evidence.
The reason to believe in theism is for two reasons: (I thought I'd get to both, but I'll have to write part II later, gotta run...)
1. Matan Torah. Once one understands the incorporeal, like really understand, the ideas such as the soul and the immortality of the soul and how this body is a hinderance to that true pleasure and that one can see the idea of an obvious road to perfection and happiness, this will obviously change what's important in life, and although at this point there is no proof of a G-d unless He reveals Himself, the entire ethos of the world changes and things like heaven and hell in their true (non-physical) sense are obvious, not as punishments and rewards, but as basic understandings of the eternal pleasure and pain of the soul. Also, in this reality, the physical sciences do nothing to explain any of it (they're still nada in areas of the mind beyond some ideas of neurology which don't explain anything except what parts of the brains effect which emotions) and furthermore, the world of the physical is simply less important since it is "only" the physical. In such a world, even if we ignore the accounts of magic and actual hard, physical data in the world as we know (as pre-Greco cultures all claim), these ethos make accounts of angels and interaction with the "other world" not quite so irrational, and if there is a mass revelation from the other world, there is no reason to not believe that just as we believe any reasonable historic account with even far less eye-witness and evidence. Only to us, who never experienced the actual incorporeal and it all seems magical, this makes claims like Matan Torah extraordinary and we should first be inclined to explore other options such as the "evolving mythohistory explanations" people offer today. This does not make it true, but again, it should give pause to at least examine this other account of the world. And given the scientific questions which stand against, we need to weigh all the evidence very well, but to just shut down the conversation before understanding the other side is dishonest.
2. Coming soon...
>>>Once one understands the incorporeal...
You are starting with your conclusion. That's a logical fallacy. You were asked to provide evidence for a god, and you're beginning your explanation with, "so a god paid us a visit."
>>>like really understand
What do you want us to understand. The story was made up. Do you understand, like really understand, how important it is to bury the dead with coins so they can get through the toll booth to travel the highway to the next realm. If you say no, then you're not *really* understanding.
>>>the ideas such as the soul and the immortality of the soul
Souls don't exist. They are stories made up because people are afraid of the unknown and of death, which is one of the biggest unknowns. So they made up an idea that your mind can continue after death. It's really as simple as that.
>>>and although at this point there is no proof of a G-d unless He reveals Himself
I don't know if you're conflating evidence with proof, but if you are, then we have just arrived! There is no good evidence, and the time to believe is after evidence has been collected, analyzed and determined to be sufficient...not before that time.
>>>...He reveals Himself, the entire ethos of the world changes and things like heaven and hell in their true (non-physical) sense are obvious, not as punishments and rewards, but as basic understandings of the eternal pleasure and pain of the soul.
You go on and on and on about all the things that follow as a result of revelation of a god that didn't happen, but it seems like you are presenting a framework of understanding as a result of this revelation prior to it occurring, when you actually have no good reason to assume it'll ever happen. This is like you making carpool plans with your kids' parents, who will drive to and who will drive back from Diagon Alley to pick up the books and cauldrons for next semester, before you've gotten confirmation that Hogwarts even exists!
>>>Also, in this reality, the physical sciences do nothing to explain any of it (they're still nada in areas of the mind beyond some ideas of neurology which don't explain anything except what parts of the brains effect which emotions) and furthermore, the world of the physical is simply less important since it is "only" the physical.
It's odd that you think this is an argument. One thousand years ago, the Native Americans were saying the same things during their powwows about the sunrise and the sunset, the famine and the bounty and the babies born and the infertile. They were building their totem poles and smoking their holy pipes and waving their dreamcatchers in the wind because they didn't understand basic fundamentals of the universe that every 8th grade kid can tell you about cells or DNA or water cycles, nitrogen fixation and when we get to high school and college, we can even learn about the citric acid cycle and osteoporosis.
Almost no one (maybe some Muslims) think the physical world doesn't matter because it's just a preparatory phase before the real world arrives. You speak as though you're so detached from reality that it's truly a wonder.
>>>these ethos make accounts of angels and interaction with the "other world" not quite so irrational
How so?
>>>and if there is a mass revelation from the other world, there is no reason to not believe that just as we believe any reasonable historic account with even far less eye-witness and evidence. Only to us, who never experienced the actual incorporeal and it all seems magical, this makes claims like Matan Torah extraordinary and we should first be inclined to explore other options such as the "evolving mythohistory explanations" people offer today.
You write so much about so little. Please just give evidence to any of these claims, instead of spending so much time discussing the claims, as though step 8 or 12 or 23 are important when you haven't even established, in all of this back and forth for the past 3 months, that we're even able to start counting from 1.
>>>This does not make it true, but again, it should give pause to at least examine this other account of the world.
I wonder if you're so wrapped up in this nonsensical view that you can't properly evaluate how ridiculous the thing you continually describe is. All of this has been evaluated and it has been determined to lack any merit whatsoever.
>>>we need to weigh all the evidence very well
For what must be the 15th or 20th time already...please give us the evidence already. After we've confirmed the school supply list, we'll all accompany you to Diagon Alley. But please quit telling us what you'll be wearing and what you'll be thinking and who you'll be sitting next to and what will be in your pocket and if your wand will be holly or birch or chestnut. You're so intoxicated with excitement about the endless possibilities of what you'll spend with all your lottery winnings that you've completely overlooked that there were no tickets sold by the non-existent lottery commission.
>>>2. Coming soon...
See, there you go again, focusing on step 2 before getting through step 1.
It's clear to all here that you've super excited to have a god and be blessed by him and to follow his dictates and be rewarded by him, and to gain deeper insights into your own mind and on and on and on. But wishful thinking doesn't make a god.
I do like the Rambams positions in many ways. Like, I love his idea of negative theology and how the only things we can say about God is what he's not. However, I do not see the mesorah as something with any more reliability than any other man made religion.
Of course atheism is inherently based. There is no inherent meaning in atheism. Just because some (many?) atheists rise above that and find some illusory meaning doesn't in any way change the fact that it lacks any meaning outside of animalistic behaviors. It's just more of this classic Chareidi thinking that somehow the OTDers never go off the derech from. If only they would leave that behind along with the religion.
If this was true then Buddhism wouldn't exist. Atheism isn't a set of beliefs but a lack of belief in a supernatural God. Personally, I'm an atheist but also not a materialist and believe there is *something* beyond but that something is definitely not a personal God like Hashem who gave us religion.
No belief in higher beings or modes of existence does not equate to no meaning. Beauty, family, friends, and artistic or professional pursuits are all common sources of meaning that are not animalistic.
They are artificial or manufactured meaning, not inherent meaning, which is the focus of this debate.
I missed the word inherent, sorry. Though I don't understand the need to gatekeep meaning.
Not at all. My point was not to bash atheists. If you follow the convo, it's about why religion provides more meaning as opposed to atheism as a reason to choose it. And i I think it does and saying otherwise would be illogical (although of course that has no relationship to its truth value).
> It's just more of this classic Chareidi thinking that somehow the OTDers never go off the derech from.
I can't decipher this.
Could you please explain?
Black and white dichotomic thinking. Assuming that faith is a binary and not a spectrum. Lack of nuance. Assuming that if some atheists have meaning then atheism has meaning (just as if some Chareidim find meaning in Torah it means that that is ultimate meaning?.
I still don't really understand, other than that you seem to be determined to blame every problem on Charedim.
Not every. But there are certain styles of thought which are prevelant,
I think that the fact certain low intelligence styles of thought are prevalent among Charedim is mainly due to the fact that the Charedim put most of their energy into low intelligence people and expect the high-intelligence people to be mature and independent and figure things out by themselves, the opposite of the DL and MO world.
Wolfgpt
It's tynaing shtark though
Haha
This is very well presented.
It's mostly chatgpt tho. Gotta give credit to meivi geulah le'oilam
As was obvious.
Really!? Curious about your prompt.
I fed it the essay and asked it to refute it. It was mostly just a fun exercise. Should have made it clear in my comment that it's chatgpt. Typically, I use chatgpt once I finish writing something and I ask it to polish it up. https://poe.com/s/Sd5CSl3qM77w6JutwlPm
Are mystical and "factual" our only options for understanding the early parts of the Torah (e.g.)?
What about just plain metaphorical/ allegorical?
I personally understand it as a polemic against early mythical understandings.
If you're referring to maaseh bereishes, we don't have much precedent to say it's only metaphorical except the Rambam's "maybe" (which he posits if the universe were *proven* to be eternal), which we can possibly apply to our evidence of evolution and the Big Bang, like r slifkin and ash confidently would. I don't reject such an approach at all. I'm just unsure if it's true given that I have counter evidence to believe the kabalistic account. How we deal with the contradiction is either to reject one, or to somehow synthesize them. I'm open to all options.
That's kind of funny. In asking that question I did not intend even the slightest semblance of the sophistication and complexity that your answer implied.
And I wasn't referring to anything except what the author of the article himself was referring to when he used those words, "understanding the early parts of the Torah".
But that's okay. Even simple, naive questions can very often admit of complex sophisticated answers. ;-)
Reading your comments on your post it seems like you're advocating some sort of experience that comes after you do a 10-hour hardcore chazon ish style learning session. That once we would have that experience we would understand what you're talking about.
I would counter that by saying that the sort of “divine-esq" experience and sensations you're referring to are universal was anyone who put themselves through and endures a mentally and physically exhausting challenge.
The fact that you feel these special feelings, and that they fit into your narrative of the divine, tells us nothing other than humans have this very common experience of euphoria / a sense of the infinite, etc. and that were very good at plugging that into whatever our metaphysical framework for reality.
That is also quite a different argument than the one it seemed like you're advocating in your post. This exercise is kind of just something that you made up. There's no specific regimen that all are leaders specifically went on or that is part of our masorah.
I'll ask the same question to you as I ask anybody who offers me personal experience, their own or others, as proof that Hashem exists: What do you feel about the millions of extremely smart Christians who personally experienced and attest to Jesus as son of God? Or the millions of smart people who personally experienced and attest to Vishnu, the Hindu god?
I think they are point in my favor, not against me. If the Hindus and Christians and Buddhists and Zoroastrians and Jainists and philosophers all agree that this other experience exist, to me that says there may be something to it. We may have a different term for how we describe this experience (which, short of actual Nevuah, is possible to have a level of unclarity as to the nature of this experience), but the experience is universal. There are tow explanations for this. 1. They all got it wrong entirely, and we can extrapolate from our own weak examples of this experience (like a good Neilah or a good kumzitz) and assume that is what they were all describing, but since it is pure speculation, science's version of reality which they clearly didn't have is far superior. Or 2. The experience described by the ancients was much, much more powerful than ours because they were less indulgent amongst other factors. The Rambam's description of this experience (which he says is a fraction of Nevuah) in his preface to the Moreh goes far beyond any of our experiences and he explains that it takes a lot a lot of work to get there. I'm open to both possibilities, and I am highly skeptical to think the first version is so obviously correct.
Why I am a Jew and not a Christian is a separate question which we can discuss, but is probably pointless if we don't assume this as a possibility (if even if just for the sake of this discussion).
You sound like you hold a shittah of the divine which sees all religions, even polytheist ones like Hinduism, as legitimate expressions of this divine realm. That's very much not chareidi. Boom I win 😎
If you are trying to win cheap debate points, yes. if you are trying to find out the truth you lose.
I said that as a joke but honestly curious how Hinduism and Buddhism can describe the same divine real/experiences as frum Judaism if either of you want to explain
Read Gil Locks's excellent book
Don't do the "educate yourself" shtick. Just tell me what you hold b'kitzur.
"There are no physical fires of Gehinnom"
Are you not aware that the Gemara in Shabbos mentions, in a *halachic* context, that the “*chamei Tiveria*” (hot springs of Tiberias) are heated by the fires of *Gehinom*? The *Ramban* – perhaps in *Toras HaAdam* – even provides measurements, and the *Chofetz Chaim*, whom I recently learned, states that these fires are 60 times hotter.
This is also not a discussion of atheists still wearing their first pair of *tzitzis*. On the contrary, it’s often the *frum* individuals – those who don’t truly think deeply about their faith – who are usually stuck in the third-grade version. Many of us, in contrast, are well-versed in *halacha* and *hashkafa*.
Atheism also presents a third layer of difficulty: If one truly believes and attempts to follow everything, the results is dysfunctional (which is why nobody really does it).
As for the GRA, for example. I deeply respect him. I’ve worked through hundreds of his cryptic comments on *Orach Chaim* and *Yoreh Deah*, as well as his writings on the *Yerushalmi* in *Zeraim*. My respect lies in his mastery of a highly specific and niche area of human knowledge: Torah. But outside of that realm, he had no special expertise in any other discipline.
For example, how does the GRA or anyone on your list deal with the issues presented here in a way that meets modern scientific or rational standards.
https://www.reddit.com/r/exjew/wiki/counter-apologetics/
(And dare I say, that if the Rambam would be alive today, I have a strong feeling that he would not be Orthodox)
Just this past *Shabbos*, I revisited the first few chapters of *Derech Hashem* by the Ramchal. While beautifully written, the text offers no real reasons or explanations. Instead, it asks you to accept numerous assumptions and premises, concluding that it simply “must be this way” because “*Gezeirah Chochmaso Yisbarach*”.
I’ve also been a devoted reader of the Abarbanel, who does not shy away from addressing difficult issues. However, his ideas only resonate if you already possess faith; they don’t provide the foundation to convince someone who doesn’t believe in the first place.
Furthermore, we face a significant bind within Judaism itself. There is a prohibition against even contemplating thoughts that oppose the faith. This creates a paradox: either these questions haven’t been worked out due to the prohibition itself, or those who wrestled with them disregarded a fundamental tenet of Judaism in the process.
I'll break up your points to address them appropriately. Thanks for taking the time.
1. As far as the Gemara in Shabbos, I don't have a full response, but it doesn't negate the fact that Chazal were aware that Gehinnom is not a literal fire because they knew that the souls who go there aren't physical. I imagine that Gemara is similar to how the physical Beriah mirrors the spiritual one or something to that effect.
2. I think plenty of believing Charedim are very much still wearing their first pair of Tzitzis as well. But I'm not sure what your argument is therefore - you're welcome to explain.
3. The results are only dysfunctional if the person is not holding there and is jumping. You can check out my comment here: https://exit98.substack.com/p/locked-in-the-exhibit/comment/81786432 - actually just realized that comment was addressed to you, and I just read your response, I'll respond there!
4. As far as the Rambam, that he wouldn't be orthodox, you guys love saying that, but you haven't read the Rambam well then. I mean, anything is possible, but there is zero proof that the Rambam would echo any anti-Torah ideas we hear today. His opinion diminishing miracles and the like comes from a very specific point. For example, the Torah says that Hashem "spoke". It even says He spoke "פה אל פה". But Hashem isn't physical. He has no mouth. He doesn't say words. Is the Torah lying? The Rambam spends the entire first section of the Moreh explaining how these terms work when referring to the incorporeal, how these words are metaphors and convey certain messages and ideas about incorporeality that are very much true, see thereat length, אכמ''ל. The Rambam then extends that to things like talking donkeys and angels, that these things can also be understood to be referring to an incorporeal reality, and the Torah only meant it in that sense. The line where the Rambam draws when to say this and when not is very specific but it was not "rationality" in the sense people mean it today that led him to his beliefs. (In fact, with most of his "chiddushim", the mekubalim actually meet him halfway; to understand the Ramban's approach on, say the Malachim in Vayera, one first needs to understand the Rambam's approach first because it is basically a refined version of that...)
5. My basic response to your issue that all these writers and scholars (Ramchal, Abarbenel) are claiming that there needs to be some level of trust to get the ball rolling, I mean, that's kind of automatic unless one experienced actual Nevuah, right? But one can experience "yiraas Shamayim" which is very real and puts personal perspective on what Nevuah claims to be, since there are levels all the way up.
6. As far as the issur of reading atheistic works and of doubt, well, if you weren't exposed to these things, Judaism would be a lot simpler. From a religious perspective, presuming its truth, it makes sense to tell people not to confuse themselves by reading these other stuff, especially if the answers are internal in a sense, like I'm pointing out. However today we have the internet and I think we need to be able to provide answers to the burning questions. Not that we should change the curriculum, but there should be adults available for those struggling. As you have pointed out more than once, this has been sorely lacking.
1) Please read the Ramban in "Shaar Hagemul" from here and on to become familiar with Chaza's understanding of Gehinnom:
https://www.sefaria.org/Sha'ar_HaGemul_of_the_Ramban.35?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
It is a lengthy piece, but here is a snippet about its physical characteristics:
אלו קצת המקומות שספרו בהן עניין גיהנם וצערו וענשו בגמרא ובמדרשים ומדדו את תכנית ודברים הללו וכיוצא בהן אין לתלות אותם במשל שהרי הזכירו מקומו ומדתו ארכו ורחבו ודנו עליו לעניין איסור והיתר והוא מוזכר להם בעניין הדינים ושאר כמה מקומות שלא הזכרנו.
I don't think you can have an opinion without seeing that source.
2) Your whole point was that atheists are unaware of the sophisticated versions of Judaism, but it is precisely the opposite.
3) I'll discuss there too.
4) I don't really care too much about this.
5) This it is circular as many have pointed out, in addition to far more people having these same feelings with other religions.
6) I think you missed my point. What I meant is this: How did those great rabbis research the subject of atheism and all questions on Judaism if it is something prohibited by the Torah?
If they didn't think about these issues but simply believed, there is no reason for anyone who does question to trust them.
Thanks for taking the time.
1) I've read the Ramban in Shaar Hagemul in the past and he makes my point. And it's worth it to start a few paragraphs earlier.
2) No, it is not the opposite. Many people are unaware of "sophisticated Judaism", religious and not religious alike. And for our discussion, even some who are technically "aware", they still have no clue what incorporeal means, which isn't surprising being that it's an experience unexperienced and unfamiliar.
5) The "other religions" argument is a point in my favor, not against. I am currently discussing this with BZ Wolf. I guess we should get into that if you're interested in further discussion.
6) I hear the point and idk. But they do discuss it here and there.
Doesn't the Ramban say something like #1?
On the contrary, it’s often the *frum* individuals – those who don’t truly think deeply about their faith
I would say that while it may be true if many Chareidim it is certainly not true of the Gush chevra.
Yes, I was into those guys for a while also. But it doesn't really line up with how the Mesorah was officially passed down.
They'll cite Philo as the pshat while he was never even mentioned in Chazal. Similarly, all the literary styles seem unknown to Jewish scholars
This is based again on a ridiculous Chareidi revisionist pshat of mesorah that denies any possibility of innovation.
RYBS ZL also stressed the vast difference between legitimate Chiddushim rooted innzChazalvand inappropriate Shinyuim based on readings of the Gemara that were not rooted in Chazal
I agree that innovation is an acceptable part of the mesorah.
But it is highly questionable from a believer's standpoint to claim that Chazal, Rishonim, Achronim were all clueless about the true pshat until Biblical scholarship found a new home in the Gush in the last 50 years.
In your opinion. Btw many rishonim and achronim agree with the literary approach as Nechamah Leibowitz makes clear.
Furthermore, drash Halacha often makes more sense.
Is this a rehashed version of the "Great minds believed it so I will"? The Steipler Slither? The Kanievsky Kopium?
It's a ridiculous argument. There are dozens of beliefs of the Rambam that we all reject out of hand; orthodox or atheist. Spontaneous reproduction, infinite age of earth, kill all the apikorsim, biblical angels were all dreams, aristotelian Bs, etc. Same with Aristotle; Clearly a great thinker, not going to stop me from throwing out most of what he believed. Presumably from a statistical perspective there are many more great thinkers of nonjewish persuasion throughout history. Whether atheist, Christian,Muslim, hindu etc. We all reject hundreds of these beliefs. What exactly is your argument?
"Is this a rehashed version of the "Great minds believed it so I will"?" No.
"It's a ridiculous argument." Okay.
"There are dozens of beliefs of the Rambam that we all reject out of hand; orthodox or atheist." Well, let's not mix discussions here. Let's take each one seperately:
"Spontaneous reproduction" - right we disproved their physical sciences
"infinite age of earth" - the Rambam didn't believe that, but again, our knowledge of the physical world is way better than theirs!
"kill all the apikorsim" ummm...
"biblical angels were all dreams" - froman orthodox perspective, yah, because the Rambam didn't have the kabalistic traditions which explain those stories very differently.
"aristotelian Bs" - again, his knowledge of the physical world we reject, sure.
"Presumably from a statistical perspective there are many more great thinkers of nonjewish persuasion throughout history. Whether atheist, Christian,Muslim, hindu etc." True. We can discuss why I believe in Judaism once we can establish my premise that there may be a reality of the incorporeal.
"What exactly is your argument?" I'm not giving the whole picture here, only the first step, which is, in short: I believe there is an incorporeal world which we can experience through the process highlighted by many people who came before us and those who haven't experienced the incorporeal would naturally have a hard time thinking it's rational because it seems strange to discuss an experience never had. So let's examine if this reality is true since so many great people before us discussed this experience (not as a theory) openly. If we prove them wrong, I'm on your side. (I wrote that quickly, I'll try to be more clear when I'm not rushed.)
One can continue to examine this reality with the mindset that the burden of proof is on that claim. Many thinkers have been arguing for the truth of chirstian theology for a long time. One can examine its validity while standing on the outside. It's hard to examine the water while you're swimming in it.
Either way the question of some incorporeal deity is immaterial for most atheists. It's pretty much a philosophical curiosity irrelevant to daily life. The real question here is whether any religion has gotten anything correct.
You say the question of incorporeality is immaterial (no pun intended, I presume;) for most atheists, but if that were true, that's only because they presuppose it to be "obviously" false. If we accept the idea of a soul and a world of immaterial, that does a lot to give our tradition validity.
But besides, I don't think you're correct. I think most atheist begin by comparing G-d to the spaghetti sauce monster, validating their cute that they are nothing more than skeptics and asking for proof, and work from there. My response is basically that we have "proof" from all of these many sources, from people who I contend were just as skeptical, but experienced the incorporeal and couldn't reject their experience.
Would that bring validity to anything? The religions across the world are so far removed from that foundation they're almost floating. Especially orthodox judaism. Praying, learning legal codes and celebrating holidays commemorating historical events are three of the most central tenets of orthodoxy and are all very removed from their being a deity out there in the vast universe.
Also the Rambam and Aristotle are very bad examples of using their experience to semi bring validity. As you said they were quite skeptical of the religious environment they were raised in respectively and developed a belief system built up from their understanding of the universe. Prime mover and rationalization like that. It's sort of a paradox. If you aren't so skeptical you go along blindly and if you have a powerful mind you can develop great constructs within your respective religous system. And if you are skeptical you come up with some rationalization. Someone had to: have created all those animals, give humans their intelligence, create the universe, start the planets spinning, exist for all those great thinkers to believe in him.
The problem with this final realization it's it's ultimately flawed. Its sort of like the God answer. You're just kicking the question down the line. If you beleive because the Steipler believed then find out why he believed. If he believed because he fell for thr Divine Watchmaker parable then you'll have to rethink your rationalization. If he believed because the Rambam believed, and Rambam believed because of Aristotles proofs of God, and you don't believe those then we'll need another rationalization
Aristotle and Rambam were not skeptical of their religious environment. Aristotle was raised with the environment of philosophy, not religion.
And the Rambam was never trying to apologize for his beliefs; that's a common misnomer.
Prime Mover is another word for G-d.
You can reconstruct what the Rambam was doing from your standpoint, but you're not reading his words well then.
My question is, what if they believed because of a reality you're not aware of and not because of false logic and reasoning? That changes the discussion obviously.
(btw are you yoyo93 from reddit? You're both into the steipler thing...)
I'll accept your framing as I'm not too knowledgeable of their religious beliefs.
When I say prime mover I mean the rationalization of someone must've started the planets turning. He couldnt use the creation of universe as for him it was never created.
I too have felt what feels like god in the past. I used to daven with tremendous kavana. When I started searching more I came to certain conclusions and those feelings slowly faded away. Schizos have many strong feelings as well.
This is a very christian idea btw. The argument from personal experience. Thousands of rational Christians have experienced god this year.
I wouldnt give any more credence to an experience of Rambam than to Johnny down the block. Especially in an age when almost everyone on earth had such experiences.
No not him from. Must've seen his post cause i havent heard of that in years
The Divine Watchmaker is not as refutable as you think it is. And if you believe it is refutable, well thats just because you believed in Dawkins, you'll have to rethink your rationalization.
I don't believe that all the way. Evolution in essence is an alternative. I accept Dawkins because I like his logic not because of him.
Luckily I haven't fallen for this rationalization so I still retain the ability of self assessing information.
Though I agree with Dawkins on this I don't necessarily agree with him on everything.
Once we admit evolution occurs the entire argument goes out the window. We can reinterpret the argument to something we haven't explained yet, like to the existence of a replicator but that completely destroys the argument and creates one anew.
It's not difficult to explain the existence of a human because it clearly arose from a chimp like creature. It'd not difficult to explain a chimp because it clearly arose from a monkey like creature. Etc.
There is a lot I agree with here. I agree that trust plays a large role in justification of most charedim and I don’t think that’s irrational. I agree that many people in the yeshiva system experiences rabbis dismissing their question when the question are indeed good ones and are turned off by it. I agree every system can learn from others and improve, even charedi and MO systems.
However, I disagree with a couple of points. First, the atheists I engage with (and myself) don’t just shun out propositions about incorporeality and spirituality, they analyze the propositions and come to a conclusion. Maybe the ones who are loud voices do as you say, but the ones I speak to, by large don’t. I also disagree that one must strongly consider the views of the Gra and the like. Why must someone consider their wisdom? Genuinely asking.
I wouldn’t try to convince you to not be charedi because from your post, you seem to be a rational charedi. One that bases their beliefs on trusting individuals. I don’t know the nature of the trust or why you trust them. But assuming that the trust is justified, then your view is justified as well. But just the same, I don’t trust those same people. I used to. I don’t have reason to trust them anymore, so my justification for being charadi fell away. If you have reasons that even I should trust the people you do, then I am really interested in hearing about that.
My point with the gra and the like is that the rejection isn't justified because it is born from ignorance. It's not like these people ever gave his words a chance. I contend that if you would give these ideas a fair shot, you may not reject them so quickly.
As for the rest of your comment, well said.
I don’t understand why someone should give the Gra a chance. And what it means to give the Gra a chance. Like many of us as myself learning in post HS yeshivas seriously for many years. Is that enough of a chance? Or are you referring to specific books or readings that address atheism?
It doesn't have to be the Gra, it could be the Rambam who is even more clear about the way this supposed other reality is to be accessed. They all explain that is only accessable through a certain process which they describe. How can someone deny this reality until they honestly give the process a try? (The Rambam is in Moreh 3:51 extensively. I can provide a list of sources if you're interested in further reading.)
I guess to answer your question, it's specific reading.
Yeah I understood the gra was just an example. Why should someone have to give any process a try? Is there prior reason to think that that process might work?
If hundreds of people, each respected by anyone who knew them or their works for hundreds or thousands of years, people who were clearly not gullible, from all different backgrounds tried and said it worked, and their processes explain why it wouldn't be readily understandable for those who haven't yet tried the process, wouldn't you think we should at least look into it?
Yes I agree. I haven’t been presented with evidence that that is the case that:
“hundreds of people, each respected by anyone who knew them or their works for hundreds or thousands of years, people who were clearly not gullible, from all different backgrounds tried and said it worked”.
But if so, yes it would likely be sufficient evidence to try out the process.
Do you think most OTD atheists have even heard of such a process existing? I haven’t. Sure I’ve heard that some say there is one, but not to the level of testimony like you state above.
“The Chareidi answer is that intellectual analysis of these concepts is the wrong method of analysis. There is a subliminal sense called the soul which understand things through experience - not just direct experience with the world but also through interactions with other people (this is the concept of shimush talmidei chachamim).”
This is part of what I mean about analyzing propositions. One way to analyze a proposition is if you understand it through some kind of experience. I didn’t mean analyzing in a very limited sense.
“When using the faculties of logic and reason, it's perfectly rational to seek out those who showcase the greatest aptitude at those”
Agreed. It’s rational to do that, but not prudent. There are perhaps millions of those brilliant at logic and reason (and on these topics), one doesn’t have to read all that all of them wrote. It’s rational to, but also rational not to.
“In addition, Judaism asserts that a 'stained' soul has the ability to corrupt a person's thought processes, which will lead them to an incorrect conclusion and that they will lack the meta self awareness that their thinking is crooked. People like the Gra had a reputation for saintliness, which would mean their thinking less apt to be corrupted by a 'stain'.”
That’s fine. But this argument won’t affect an interlocutor who hasn’t yet accepted this position about the soul, so it’s not really a useful argument in the context of why a nonbeliever should consider the Gra seriously.
“If someone claims to have finished the maze, and they are smart, and a good person, it is very rational to give their prescribed route a real good shot.”
I don’t know why I would trust someone claiming they finished the maze. I would have to independently trust them. Also, What is the maze in this analogy to us and how do I know the Gra got out?
“You'd need to accept the prima facie reasonable epistemology that considers the soul to be real, even if it doesn't automatically make the logical gear in your head go 'click'.”
When it comes to epistemology, I can’t just accept something. It just clicks or it doesn’t. I don’t feel the same responsibility from my forefathers as you do I guess. Also, I think I did give it a good try, so maybe I’m Yoyzei and I still keep a lot of mitzvot.
Either way, I was challenging a part of the post that put us atheists in a very negative closed minded light that I think is probably true about some people in all camps but very not true about the people I have interacted who left Judaism. You seem to be more on board with us being rational than the post seemed.
Thank you for this respectful engagement. I really appreciate it!
“Indeed, Judaism is not a proselytising religion. And from Judaism' perspective, that interlocutor is perfectly entitled to their opinion.“
But I was addressing a claim that atheists such as myself should take the Gra etc. seriously. I thought you were defending this claim with the soul stuff. But now it sounds like you agree that from the atheists perspective, the soul aspect isn’t a reason for the atheist to consider the Gras position seriously.
“You trust them because they have achieved the things you want to achieve, which are wisdom, self discipline and happiness.”
There are plenty of people that have achieved those things other than the Dali Lama. I am not even convinced that the rabbis you mentioned achieved those. Even if they did, I’m not sure they would have access to the knowledge of how to achieve that. It reminds me of when people ask really old people what the secret to living a long life is, as if what they say is likely correct.
“firstly because they are the default”
I don’t know what default means in this context and why it should have any weight at all.
“presumably gleaned at least some wisdom from it.”
Sure. But there’s wisdom everywhere.
“This is where 'faith' comes in. It is not an irrational concept. Instead, imagine you had an existing trust that the Gra is incredibly wise and very often right. If that were the case, you could have faith in his method and engage with it, despite it not 'clicking', with an expectation that eventually the method would, or at least could, lead to a 'click'. Your 'faith', in this context, would actually be in your self, in that you'd be confident enough in your assessment that the Gra is a trustworthy and wise person, that it is worth engaging in the method despite no apriori 'click'.”
I agree with this but I don’t have that initial reason like trust in the Gra.
I did get that from charedi society and I was mesmerized by wisdom and authenticity. That trust has just fallen away. I still think they are great artists and logicians when it comes to Gemara and Halacha, but not epistemology, systems, and human relations.
I have always had the impression that when confronted with irreconcilable differences, Haredi will opt out rather than accept modernity.
15 years ago, I was in a sushi place in Monsey and a 20 something year old kid behind the counter was in a tee shirt and regular kippah, speaking unquestionable Hasidic Yiddish. I was intrigued. The young man was a Skverer and still living at home.
He was looked upon as a pariah and it did affect the shidduch prospects of his family members.
I personally doubt he remains MO. That picture of life was likely on the way out. Maybe he came back? Sans real physical trauma, it’s a possibility.
The point was the intolerance of any MO approach, making the divide inevitable. MO/ZO will be condemned as treif as Conservative Judaism.
The isolationist approach of Haredim can only last so long. Once they approach the tipping point of majority, they must face modernity. How they will incorporate modernity is the issue. Only when it furthers their own power, especially to have ‘others’ support them, as all ‘others’ are gentiles, even the ones who are MO.
I hope I am wrong, but many agree that the Haredi ideal political solution will be the admiration of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Internally, Haredi governance now is eerily familiar to Tehran, they just don’t have the prison system yet.
How are the mo retention rates vis avis Chareidi? There are arguments to be made for MO, but yours is certainly not one of them
I made no argument for MO, other than it is treated the same way Conservative Judaism was views in pre-ww2 USA.
And how is conservativism doing now?
Failing. Perhaps the same may occur to MO/ZO, as the losses to both Haredi and non orthodox are at similar rates. Nonetheless, there is a considerable majority ‘middle’ that is remaining MO. Certainly, in Israel, ZO is growing- not as fast as Haredi-but growing. There are more MO yeshivot in the USA than ever before.
MO is not Conservative Judaism. The fact that Haredi treat MO as such does not make it true. Defining a group from the outside? That falls under bias/bigotry.
….meaning, that until now, the hatred is one way. Marrying into MO? Only if the kid went OTD. Schools? Never!
That is going to change, the more we go to shiva visits of friend with Torah dedicated fathers who fought to defend us. Too many orphans and widows. When they pray, I believe Hashem pays attention.
>>>However, I must point out that it’s often a band-aid solution.
When someone is bleeding to death, a band-aid doesn't help. If Judaism cannot defend itself, then it doesn't deserve to be defended. The only people apologetics work for are for those who have already decided on a conclusion and are trying to back-fill justification. But that's not how being reasonable works and those who are truly מבקשי אמת will recognize that this is all special pleading, which is an illegal move.
>>>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.
Slifkin's approach does not solve the problems Judaism has because answering 90% of questions does us insufficient good. At the end, he says, "god chose a bunch of evolved apes and implanted souls into them." But where is the evidence for that? The same way a young earth is rejected by science (because all of the evidence points another way) a soul is rejected by science (because there's no reason to assume something fanciful when there's no evidence for a soul and the mind fulfills all of the criteria for everything we do perceive).
>>>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.
Oh yes...once we start looking to science to answer question A, there's no good reason to not look to science to answer question B. To do otherwise would be to violate special pleading.
>>>It’s much easier to believe that the Torah is made up and was born in that time.
Yes; Daniel Dennett referred to this as universal acid for good reason.
>>>Those who embrace this approach may have to concede and appreciate that others may go a small step further and ignore the Torah entirely.
This was what I meant by special pleading. It's as though you're worried that people may be so reasonable so as to reject all nonsense and not just some of it.
the mind fulfills all of the criteria for everything we do perceive
Lol. If you can prove that you have a novel prize in neuroscience waiting. That statement doesn't even deserve to be taken seriously.
If you want to make a materialist philosophical argument, fine, but be aware many disagree with that and there's strong basis for it.
>>>Lol. If you can prove that you have a novel prize in neuroscience
Perhaps you misunderstood what I was referring to. I meant that whatever one might claim is an attribute of the soul can be said to be attributed to the mind. Other than making wild claims, there's no need to ever claim there's a soul.
In other words, it's a conclusion not based on the results of hypothesis testing.
Neither is saying it is based on the mind. Mind and soul are essentially synonymous. It is the origin of consciousness and the I which is what we are dealing with.
What I'm saying is that while we may not understand the mind fully, that's not much different than saying we don't understand the kidney fully.
But what we do know is that like ether, the proposition that there's a soul that has any characteristics we cannot attribute to the mind is fallacious. As Sam Harris explains, one needs to argue there's a soul from a position that would be different if a soul didn't exist, but these two situations are a Venn diagram where the two circles overlap perfectly.
There is nothing we need a soul to explain and there's nothing that we observe that requires a soul. It's just wishful thinking to think we will each survive our own personal death.
"while we may not understand the mind fully... " We understand virtually nothing about the mind.
I don't perceive the value of differentiating between 12% understanding and 73% understanding of the mind.
The soul isn't indicated and it's just something some people want to exist.
Looks like we're on the same page about something! (Edit - I agree to everything you said there except the part about the soul)
The deeper my understanding of Judaism became, the more i felt myself thinking that Hashem is evil and rejecting him, instead i was being drawn to the teachings of Nachash ben Eden, the REAL hero of the Torah.
The more i studied ancient scripture, the more i found that what i REALLY believe in, is basically what modern westerners call "Satanism,"
I think the premise that MO embraces questions is just flat out false.
Basically no MO institutions are at the cutting edge of any topic that brings up questions. They only tackle questions decades after they’ve come to the forefront and become impossible to ignore.
The most obvious modern example is modern critical bible studies. When it was a relatively niche field MO institutions were quite aggressive about censoring it as Kfira (which at least if you accept the 13 principles of Rambam it kinda is). Only after it became inescapable did the apologetics move the goalposts to dealing with it as reality.
"Basically no MO institutions are at the cutting edge"
Rav Shagars Yeshiva. Machon Herzog. Both are on the forefront. You clearly are generalizing from YU and are unfamiliar with the breadth of modern day modern Orthodox scholarship, much of it peer reviewed.
Maybe I’m missing something but haven’t seen anything from those circles that raises new doubts.
Tackling them relatively early after they arise? Sure. But are they publishing new information that makes it harder to believe?
Obviously not a monolith-I think it can best be described as a spectrum. Everyone handles renegotiates problematic texts some are just much much quicker than others. Like even in my very hardcore Charedi upbringing (Bais Hatalmud/Ponovezh) we thought the one dude who was gonna die on the hill of geocentrism was a crazy person. We didn’t know any flat earthers though Chazal and even some of the Geonim clearly are flat earthers in at least some places. Like clearly if we were what we claimed to be (Torah ultimate source of truth above all else) we would be flat earthers. The whole concept of “Bizman Hazeh when we don’t have Sanhedrin” was clearly used to renegotiate texts centuries ago. Hell “Amoni Velo Amonis” is an obvious renegotiation that goes back forever. As is “Ba Sancheirev Ubilbel Kol Haumos”.
That’s one extreme. The other is staying up to date with critical bible studies and accepting most of it. Truly embracing questions would be if the modern research around the Temple at Motza was being done by orthodox people.
There are people who have discovered new things that raise questions. Tova Ganzel on Ezekiel comes to mind. Malka Simkovich as well.
Btw, we know each other. Pm me!
I know of dozens of orthodox people who are the forefront of biblical scholarship or history. Several that I know personally are Yigal Levin, Tova Ganzel, Joshua Berman, and Amar Yitzhak. All influential names.
You are using MO as a monolith There definitely were those who censored. And there were those who innovated.
Unfortunately the so called Gush derech has wrecked havoc in many MO schools with respect to the learning the many Yesodei Emunah that are developed from a learning of Chumash with the Gdolei HaMefarshimv
Please elaborate? What yesodei emunah are missing?
I think that a Pshat only approach to Chumash results in a generation that has no reverence for the Avos and Imahos and no awareness of Yetzias Mitzrayim or Maamad Har Sinai
How familiar are you with RIETS and it’s RY?
Hi Steve, how'd you end up here? Did Cross-currents or Torah Musings link to us?
Oh boy, look at the comments here: https://exit98.substack.com/p/silence-that-speaks/comments
Vomit worthy. "rage against the dying of the light", "sacred echoes", "noble sacrifice". Puke. This just shows that people have a deep religious compulsion and when they doesn't believe in G-d, they will sanctify godlessness instead.
Turns out poetry is not dead, and he will be sorely missed.