"The point of the post is quite simple: Once someone believes the Torah is truth, because he feels it or knows it to the depth of his heart for whatever reason, all the questions melt away. There’s no reason to dwell on them."
This works equally well if one is an atheistic nihilist who believes they're the only sentient being and reality is one big LSD trip.
"However, the questions do bother those who do feel there’s a chance the Torah is not true. "
Precisely. This explains Slifkin and all the other fools.
"Then, unfortunately, the half-answers given by anyone from R Avigdor Miller to Gerald Schroeder won’t work. They’re obvious apologetics. I hate to say it, but the Torah loses. You can’t say I’ll reinterpret Bereshis to mean 6 million years but accept the mabul."
I hate to say it, but somebody who didn't believe in the Torah in the first place didn't need the Mabul as an excuse. And somebody who does believe in the Torah has no problem with "obvious apologetics", which describes literally almost every page in Shas and every Rashi al HaTorah (and all other commentators).
"You end up picking and choosing and looking foolish to both talmidei chachamim and scientists."
Fortunately, people with emunah don't care about being perceived as foolish by apikorsim. Do we care that dogs and chimpanzees think we're foolish? Do we care that goyim poke fun at our tzitzis and tefillin? That's literally what Yehudah been Taimah means by עז כנמר, as the Tur explains ועל כן הזהיר שתעיז פניך כנגד המלעיגין
Sure. Round-earth apologetics for all the questions on round-earth. They look foolish to flat-earthers. The solution is to say the earth is really flat and round-earth is really a myth, so you don't look foolish to flat-earthers.
I would define apologetics as an answer that said person would not believe except that he feels he's religiously required to believe it.
For example, IMO, no one would think that R Avrohom Ben Harambams Maamar on Chazal.is a forgery based solely on R Meiselmans evidence. Hence, if one does believe that, it's because they feel they are religiously required to. I also don't believe anyone would truly believe the earth is young if they didn't feel religiously required to.
Conversely, one can believe that evolution is false even if not believing in the Torah or Hod, and thus I wouldn't necessarily call that apologetics.
Obvious apologetics is when it looks like the person is trying to make an excuse to get around evidence that he would otherwise accept. If one holds like R Lerner he has no issues. Only once someone says he finds science compelling is he stuck with obvious apologetics.
I certainly don't think gemara is apologetics at all. It's a legal system and original intent isn't required, it's what the words say that matters.
"I also don't believe anyone would truly believe the earth is young if they didn't feel religiously required to."
Probably correct on that.
And that's one of the main problems with the current understanding of Rambam's 13. If only they were accepted as 13 polemics against, Islam, Christianity and Karaism!
Your definition fails since no one would admit to thinking they are "religiously required" to believe the Torah, but rather, they actually do believe the Torah. Just like you wouldn't admit to being "required to believe" the moon landing happened, and therefore you rely on obvious apologetics to answer the objections of the moon landing deniers.
So if your whole shtick with "obvious apologetics" is that you are starting from the premise that your interlocutor doesn't actually believe the Torah is true but just feels he is religiously required to, then you should make that clear from the beginning. You should write a post about how you think chareidim don't really believe in the Torah, and so they ought to be more bothered by science questions than they are. Of course you don't want to do that because it would expose your entire line of argument as a joke.
But לשיטתך, according to you, your answers are also obvious apoligetics, and even more blatantly. You would never say the Torah is G-d-given mythohistory if you didn't feel religiously required to accept the Torah, otherwise you would just say it's a false myth like any Hindu myth. You would never say about the Gemara "original intent isn't required" when everything in the entire history of Gemara study indicates otherwise, it's only because you feel required to accept the Gemara that you would even entertain such a ridiculous apologetic.
Actually, I am firmly convinced that even someone who believes that the Torah lacks divinity would agree based on my evidence that the Torah was originally written as monotheistic countermyth. That's why it's not apologetics.
As far as gemara goes that's a longer discussion and I'd rather not get into it here (yes I know I brought it up).
But your reading of history is obvious apologetics by your standards. Nobody who rejects the Torah's divinity, even if they would agree with you that this Torah-myth is meant to assert monotheism, would agree that this mythical collection of fairy tales was God-given. They wouldn't even consider it possible. It is only because you believe (or more accurately in your case "feel required to believe") that the Torah is Divine that you are even willing to entertain such a ridiculous apologetic.
In any case, as I said before, your entire line of reasoning is circular, since it requires in the first place rejecting the Divinity of the Torah, THE most important context of the Torah, in order to prove the Torah is a fairy tale. All the questions of the Mabul etc are superfluous and intellectually dishonest if you are rejecting the entire context of the Torah right off the bat.
I don't believe that one can prove the Torahs divinity. It's merely because a) I believe the Torah is true and b) I dont think Hashem is lying to us through science and 3) I think it makes perfect sense that Hashem would communicate in a context that the readers would understand. Therefore I can accept a and b together. If not, I'd have to reject a or b. What I am saying is not apologetics because even if one denies the divinity of the Torah he would still interpret the pesukim as I do.
I do not claim in this post to prove the Torah true. (I do think that some form of the Kuzari is valid though).
You are avoiding the point by perseverating on the fact that you would read the text the same as an atheist, thinking this saves you from the charge of apologetics, but ignoring the actual blatant apologetics you are engaging in (by your own definition).
Ash-"I would define apologetics as an answer that said person would not believe except that he feels he's religiously required to believe it."
The question- "How can this thing which appears to be a fairy tale be Divine narrative?"
The atheist's non-apologetic answer- "It's not a question, this is just a fairy tale, it's not Divine narrative".
Ash's obvious apologetic answerr- "It is Divine, but I came up with an answer to the scientific inaccuracies. I decided that Hashem is actually really telling us fairy tales, something that nobody in our history ever believed or even entertained, but which I am proposing now because it allows me to simultaneously believe a) and b). I feel religiously required to believe a), and I also believe b), so this is the answer that I am forced to come up with."
Ash has just engaged in apologetics by his own definition.
"So if your whole shtick with "obvious apologetics" is that you are starting from the premise that your interlocutor doesn't actually believe the Torah is true but just feels he is religiously required to, then you should make that clear from the beginning."
I think this is the core of the issue. People (myself included) tend to assume that *no one* could *truly* believe X. From there, it's off to the races with all manner of explanations for why the person *says* they believe X when they truly don't.
>> anyone from R Avigdor Miller to Gerald Schroeder.
I guess this is what you were referring to with the term Charedism?
Are there many Charedim who actually read those stuff? When I was in yeshiva they certainly didn't encourage it.
I thought real Charedim are those who feel there is nothing that speaks the truth more than a blatt gemara.
Please tell me: Am I missing something here? I really don't understand what is going on. The 2 options are either "anyone from R Avigdor Miller to Gerald Schroeder" or blind faith in Breslev nonsense?!
I agree with everything Happy wrote. I think the classic Charedi approach to all these questions is 'fun a kashya shtarbt min nisht'. They simply don't busy themselves with questions to which they don't know the answer. The rationality of understanding a blatt gemara does the trick for them. If that's all that you want from Lerner great. But that wasn't the point Lerner was making. He was saying that there is no point at all in trying to be logical or rational, that Yidishkeit is not based on rationality, and in fact the opposite is true. This is complete nonsense.
"He was saying that there is no point at all in trying to be logical or rational, that Yidishkeit is not based on rationality, and in fact the opposite is true."
He said that in the comments I believe. What you said I want from lerner is precisely that.
Ok. As long as you clarify that. It appeared to me that it was quite clear from almost every paragraph in his post, but as long as you clarify that this wasn't your intention I'll be fine.
He (Slifkin- and it appears Ash as well) thinks these questions (Creation, the Mabul, blah blah blah) will kill you, or at least make you very sick. So you MUST answer them! Now! Without answering them, there is no blatt Gemara in the first place! There is no Torah! Torah is just a cult! And if the answers of R' Miller and Gerald Schroeder don't work for you, if they "reek of apologetics", then you better come up with something else fast!
Not at all. I don't think the questions should bother anyone in the first place. I just feel I have a good answer.
I'll repeat: I think a good question is better than a bad answer. I have what I feel is a good answer and is 100% ok. If I am wrong I will not go off the derech. I'll just keep believing anyway. But what I have no patience for are the types who claim to have good answers and don't and "there are no questions" Aish or Chaim Vistrovsky type nonsense. I think they do more damage than not.
I have no idea what Lerner said therefore it is hard for me to understand this post.
In my view traditional (aka Charedi) Jewish emunah is something along the lines of what Rabbi Steven Gotlib writes (even if he himself is not Charedi). Everything tells us that consciousness is real and we have a purpose in life therefore religion is true. If it comes to a choice between religions I think the path is clear.
Am I wrong? Is this somehow related to anything Lerner wrote?
I can only repeat. It seems to me that everything Lerner wrote is complete nonsense. Perhaps I am missing something.
"The point of the post is quite simple: Once someone believes the Torah is truth, because he feels it or knows it to the depth of his heart for whatever reason, all the questions melt away. There’s no reason to dwell on them."
This works equally well if one is an atheistic nihilist who believes they're the only sentient being and reality is one big LSD trip.
It does. I won't deny that.
My main point is that the traditional Torah Science answers are worse...
I'm sorry you think that. 🤷
"However, the questions do bother those who do feel there’s a chance the Torah is not true. "
Precisely. This explains Slifkin and all the other fools.
"Then, unfortunately, the half-answers given by anyone from R Avigdor Miller to Gerald Schroeder won’t work. They’re obvious apologetics. I hate to say it, but the Torah loses. You can’t say I’ll reinterpret Bereshis to mean 6 million years but accept the mabul."
I hate to say it, but somebody who didn't believe in the Torah in the first place didn't need the Mabul as an excuse. And somebody who does believe in the Torah has no problem with "obvious apologetics", which describes literally almost every page in Shas and every Rashi al HaTorah (and all other commentators).
"You end up picking and choosing and looking foolish to both talmidei chachamim and scientists."
Fortunately, people with emunah don't care about being perceived as foolish by apikorsim. Do we care that dogs and chimpanzees think we're foolish? Do we care that goyim poke fun at our tzitzis and tefillin? That's literally what Yehudah been Taimah means by עז כנמר, as the Tur explains ועל כן הזהיר שתעיז פניך כנגד המלעיגין
I've made up a term called "science apologetics" for when they handwave tings by evolution or the big bang or happenstance or mother nature
Sure. Round-earth apologetics for all the questions on round-earth. They look foolish to flat-earthers. The solution is to say the earth is really flat and round-earth is really a myth, so you don't look foolish to flat-earthers.
I would define apologetics as an answer that said person would not believe except that he feels he's religiously required to believe it.
For example, IMO, no one would think that R Avrohom Ben Harambams Maamar on Chazal.is a forgery based solely on R Meiselmans evidence. Hence, if one does believe that, it's because they feel they are religiously required to. I also don't believe anyone would truly believe the earth is young if they didn't feel religiously required to.
Conversely, one can believe that evolution is false even if not believing in the Torah or Hod, and thus I wouldn't necessarily call that apologetics.
Obvious apologetics is when it looks like the person is trying to make an excuse to get around evidence that he would otherwise accept. If one holds like R Lerner he has no issues. Only once someone says he finds science compelling is he stuck with obvious apologetics.
I certainly don't think gemara is apologetics at all. It's a legal system and original intent isn't required, it's what the words say that matters.
"I also don't believe anyone would truly believe the earth is young if they didn't feel religiously required to."
Probably correct on that.
And that's one of the main problems with the current understanding of Rambam's 13. If only they were accepted as 13 polemics against, Islam, Christianity and Karaism!
Cheers
Your definition fails since no one would admit to thinking they are "religiously required" to believe the Torah, but rather, they actually do believe the Torah. Just like you wouldn't admit to being "required to believe" the moon landing happened, and therefore you rely on obvious apologetics to answer the objections of the moon landing deniers.
So if your whole shtick with "obvious apologetics" is that you are starting from the premise that your interlocutor doesn't actually believe the Torah is true but just feels he is religiously required to, then you should make that clear from the beginning. You should write a post about how you think chareidim don't really believe in the Torah, and so they ought to be more bothered by science questions than they are. Of course you don't want to do that because it would expose your entire line of argument as a joke.
But לשיטתך, according to you, your answers are also obvious apoligetics, and even more blatantly. You would never say the Torah is G-d-given mythohistory if you didn't feel religiously required to accept the Torah, otherwise you would just say it's a false myth like any Hindu myth. You would never say about the Gemara "original intent isn't required" when everything in the entire history of Gemara study indicates otherwise, it's only because you feel required to accept the Gemara that you would even entertain such a ridiculous apologetic.
Actually, I am firmly convinced that even someone who believes that the Torah lacks divinity would agree based on my evidence that the Torah was originally written as monotheistic countermyth. That's why it's not apologetics.
As far as gemara goes that's a longer discussion and I'd rather not get into it here (yes I know I brought it up).
But your reading of history is obvious apologetics by your standards. Nobody who rejects the Torah's divinity, even if they would agree with you that this Torah-myth is meant to assert monotheism, would agree that this mythical collection of fairy tales was God-given. They wouldn't even consider it possible. It is only because you believe (or more accurately in your case "feel required to believe") that the Torah is Divine that you are even willing to entertain such a ridiculous apologetic.
In any case, as I said before, your entire line of reasoning is circular, since it requires in the first place rejecting the Divinity of the Torah, THE most important context of the Torah, in order to prove the Torah is a fairy tale. All the questions of the Mabul etc are superfluous and intellectually dishonest if you are rejecting the entire context of the Torah right off the bat.
I don't believe that one can prove the Torahs divinity. It's merely because a) I believe the Torah is true and b) I dont think Hashem is lying to us through science and 3) I think it makes perfect sense that Hashem would communicate in a context that the readers would understand. Therefore I can accept a and b together. If not, I'd have to reject a or b. What I am saying is not apologetics because even if one denies the divinity of the Torah he would still interpret the pesukim as I do.
I do not claim in this post to prove the Torah true. (I do think that some form of the Kuzari is valid though).
You are avoiding the point by perseverating on the fact that you would read the text the same as an atheist, thinking this saves you from the charge of apologetics, but ignoring the actual blatant apologetics you are engaging in (by your own definition).
Ash-"I would define apologetics as an answer that said person would not believe except that he feels he's religiously required to believe it."
The question- "How can this thing which appears to be a fairy tale be Divine narrative?"
The atheist's non-apologetic answer- "It's not a question, this is just a fairy tale, it's not Divine narrative".
Ash's obvious apologetic answerr- "It is Divine, but I came up with an answer to the scientific inaccuracies. I decided that Hashem is actually really telling us fairy tales, something that nobody in our history ever believed or even entertained, but which I am proposing now because it allows me to simultaneously believe a) and b). I feel religiously required to believe a), and I also believe b), so this is the answer that I am forced to come up with."
Ash has just engaged in apologetics by his own definition.
"So if your whole shtick with "obvious apologetics" is that you are starting from the premise that your interlocutor doesn't actually believe the Torah is true but just feels he is religiously required to, then you should make that clear from the beginning."
I think this is the core of the issue. People (myself included) tend to assume that *no one* could *truly* believe X. From there, it's off to the races with all manner of explanations for why the person *says* they believe X when they truly don't.
Happy,
I'm sure what you wrote was very interesting, but I have no clue to what you were saying.
Perhaps you could translate to this simple mind.
Cheers,
mb
What do you think of my term, science apologetics? See response to happy above.
Not much. I have no idea what it means.
Sorry,
cheers
I want to be clear. I know what science means and I know the meaning of apologetics, but I don't know what science apologetics means.
Are you renaming scientism?
Cheers,
>> anyone from R Avigdor Miller to Gerald Schroeder.
I guess this is what you were referring to with the term Charedism?
Are there many Charedim who actually read those stuff? When I was in yeshiva they certainly didn't encourage it.
I thought real Charedim are those who feel there is nothing that speaks the truth more than a blatt gemara.
Please tell me: Am I missing something here? I really don't understand what is going on. The 2 options are either "anyone from R Avigdor Miller to Gerald Schroeder" or blind faith in Breslev nonsense?!
Chareidism is the "belief system " of most Chareidi people. Theres a small sunset of acceptable answers.
Slifkin is not OK. Schroeder by some is OK.
The 3rd option is understanding the Torah has a historical context. It's the mainstream Modern Orthodox approach nowadays.
I don't understand your response.
It seems we are not talking to each other.
I agree with everything Happy wrote. I think the classic Charedi approach to all these questions is 'fun a kashya shtarbt min nisht'. They simply don't busy themselves with questions to which they don't know the answer. The rationality of understanding a blatt gemara does the trick for them. If that's all that you want from Lerner great. But that wasn't the point Lerner was making. He was saying that there is no point at all in trying to be logical or rational, that Yidishkeit is not based on rationality, and in fact the opposite is true. This is complete nonsense.
"He was saying that there is no point at all in trying to be logical or rational, that Yidishkeit is not based on rationality, and in fact the opposite is true."
He said that in the comments I believe. What you said I want from lerner is precisely that.
Ok. As long as you clarify that. It appeared to me that it was quite clear from almost every paragraph in his post, but as long as you clarify that this wasn't your intention I'll be fine.
I think the key to understanding this is this page in Slifkin's book I quoted here https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/i/104322883/will-this-question-kill-you
He (Slifkin- and it appears Ash as well) thinks these questions (Creation, the Mabul, blah blah blah) will kill you, or at least make you very sick. So you MUST answer them! Now! Without answering them, there is no blatt Gemara in the first place! There is no Torah! Torah is just a cult! And if the answers of R' Miller and Gerald Schroeder don't work for you, if they "reek of apologetics", then you better come up with something else fast!
Not at all. I don't think the questions should bother anyone in the first place. I just feel I have a good answer.
I'll repeat: I think a good question is better than a bad answer. I have what I feel is a good answer and is 100% ok. If I am wrong I will not go off the derech. I'll just keep believing anyway. But what I have no patience for are the types who claim to have good answers and don't and "there are no questions" Aish or Chaim Vistrovsky type nonsense. I think they do more damage than not.
>> I think a good question is better than a bad answer.
Excellent.
I have no idea what Lerner said therefore it is hard for me to understand this post.
In my view traditional (aka Charedi) Jewish emunah is something along the lines of what Rabbi Steven Gotlib writes (even if he himself is not Charedi). Everything tells us that consciousness is real and we have a purpose in life therefore religion is true. If it comes to a choice between religions I think the path is clear.
Am I wrong? Is this somehow related to anything Lerner wrote?
I can only repeat. It seems to me that everything Lerner wrote is complete nonsense. Perhaps I am missing something.
", while hiding deeper mystical and other truths for later learners."
That's just as awful. A Divine Treasure Hunt. The winner gets 2 weeks in Maui.
What's wrong with a divine treasure hunt?
The idea that "things" were deliberately hidden is an anathema to rationalist thought.
Why?
Have you never read Wheres Waldo?
Actually, no.
As. For your first question, oy!