I feel funny agreeing with all the atheists here. This post has many good things in it. You did an excellent job of weaving together many strands of what makes the Torah and Judaism compelling and connecting them to what the Torah itself teaches in philosophy and practice. Almost a miniature "theory of everything" about the Torah. There are a bunch of things I disagree with, or that I believe are false and kefira, but they don't detract from the good parts.
First off - I hope you feel better and that your grandfather's Neshama should have an Aliyah.
Second - This is a great post. It should be read by nearly everyone at least semi-familiar with the arguments against Judaism and revelation. This is an appropriate understanding. While I have some very minor disagreements, this take is fantastic. I do think evolution is a bit of a bigger problem but ultimately reach the same conclusion. Same goes for the age of the universe, though I think in a traditional Jewish lens the age of the universe is not a focal point.
Just as an FYI - pretty sure you called me conservative for mentioning some of the same points in my Is the Torah True series 🤣.
I obviously disagree with most of what you wrote, and I probably will want to write a counterpost, but I want to give credit where credit is due. I do agree with lots of the material, and you have obviously approached these topics with due seriousness, intellectual honesty, and developed a clear and comprehensive position. Kudos!
"In my opinion, discounting the argument from design due to evolution is akin to saying one cannot prove an artist exists due to the existence of AI art. Of course that is true regarding the specific piece of art, but the existence of an AI in the first place shows that that a high intelligence exists. The fact that evolution works is just as amazing as the fact an AI works if not more so, and in my mind shows the existence of some sort of programmer."
There's a lot here to think about and to follow through on for someone with the time to go down the numerous rabbit holes, but I think you've succeeded in doing what a Substack of this length can do, which is giving "permission to believe," which is all some of us need. Well done and refuhah shalayma.
"Now, the alternative to this is not necessarily the one held by almost all frum Jews today - that every word is written by Moshe via prophecy. (Although I personally believe that, because that is what Halacha requires)"
What halacha are you talking about? It's not the 7th ikkar or the 8th ikkar. The 8th ikkar is that Moshe didn't write any part of the Torah on his own, not that every word of the Torah is from Moshe. It's true that the historical assumption of Chazal seems to be that the entire Torah was written by Moshe, except for perhaps the last few pesukim. Are you now of the opinion that the halacha requires you to accept every historical assumption of Chazal?
Question for you R' Ash. Regarding the general Kuzari proof, am I the only one who finds it super ironic that perhaps the biggest challenge to this proof is none other than the Kuzari story itself??
Obviously we believe the chaver in the story wasn't a swindler, but doesn't it seem not so far fetched that a smooth talking, religion inventor could convince a semi-gullible king that he has this authentic religion with a large following out west? If the king goes for it and makes his kingdom accept the religion as converts, 2-3 generations in they won't consider themselves converts anymore and they will consider themselves to be a simple link in the chain of the mesorah
Yes that is an obvious flaw. I don't think the Kuzari fully works. The Mormons actually have a pretty good success rate with the Native Americans because they believe Jesus revealed himself directly to them in a public manner (as recounted in the book of Mormon). Now that many Native Americans are Mormon, they are teaching their kids that Jesus revealed himself publicly to their grandparents. This is missing the unbroken chain element, but the Kuzari doesn't really have that either.
What the Kuzari does do well is if you could place the authorship of the Torah to ths claimed time period or immediately after, then it becomes almost unfalsifiable and likely to be true. Of course that is the challenge.
Furthermore It also makes it more likely that such an event happened once one accepts such an event could happen. For example, if there was a tradition that the Native Americans witnessed a volcanic eruption, I would likely believe it because such things can happen and there's a tradition. The issue with the Kuzari is that there is no history of revelation before that, making it an extraordinary claim. If one a priori downgrades the Kuzari claim of revelation as ordinary for whatever reason, then the Kuzari can work.
I don't think this is a problem with the Kuzari argument. It would only be a problem if we can point to a distinct Khazarian Jewish nation that thinks their ancestors left Egypt. But there is no such thing and there never was. Whatever type of conversion they performed (which probably wasn't a fully halachic conversion, and they probably didn't keep most mitzvos), they eventually assimilated with other non-Jews and Jews.
The Native American Mormons, just like other Mormons, all believe that the golden tablets are from Joseph Smith and he is the founder of their faith. There is no such thing as Native American Mormons who don't know about Joseph Smith and just think they have a Bible from 2,500 years ago.
1) And how do you know they didn't? We know the Jews at the beginning of the Second Temple intermarried with the Samaritans. There is certainly no evidence of "Chacham of the Kuzari" type figure who introduced the Torah to them. More likely they assimilated with the Jews who assimilated with them.
2) Joseph Smith is Mormon's Moshe Rabbeinu. Not their Ezra. It's these types of weak deflections that just show how powerful the Kuzari argument is.
Same thing. Why do Jews around the world tend to look somewhat like the regional non-Jews? Because of conversion and intermarriage. Many modern scholars (I think most) believe that Beta Israel has ancient Jewish origins. Not that they mass converted to Judaism at the urging of a "Chacham of the Kuzari" type figure.
However, I thought about this more, and even if you did find a tribe that mass converted a thousand years ago and forgot that they were converts, it wouldn't be a counterexample. The Kuzari argument says a cult leader couldn't come along and say "this happened to your ancestors" when it's obviously false since their ancestors never told them about such an important thing. But if the cult leader says, "It did not happen to your ancestors, I but I urge you to join the people that this *did* happen to their ancestors", then they would have no problem accepting. So I guess if you want to deflect the Kuzari argument, you would say that Ezra or whoever convinced the Jews that they're not really the Jews, and that some other nation, the real Jews, had accepted the Torah centuries prior, and then this Ezra figure succeeded in converting the "fake" Jews to the Torah. But you know that's not what happened, and is just another example that shows how powerful the argument is (when stated correctly).
The claim would be that WE are that Khazarian nation - meaning someone convinced one of our royal ancestors that Judaism is authentic and had a revelation. Our said royal ancestor was duped and bought in and the rest is history.
I didn't mean that we are literally the Khazarian nation. I'm just presenting a challenge that we may have been some random kingdom that was "duped" and converted to and became what is now the Jewish nation, complete with a Torah and mesorah of a public revelation
Right, so that's a complete historical fantasy that even the Palestinian conspiracy theorists haven't thought of (yet). If this is the type of retort somebody must resort to in order to counter the Kuzari argument, it's just a demonstration how powerful the Kuzari argument is.
While I disagree with almost everything here, I admire your deep reflection on your beliefs in a methodical way.
What do you mean that denying free will is a violation of Occam’s razor? Free will is an extra ontology (and brute randomness depending on how you define it) so isn’t the position of no free will better by virtue of Occam’s razor?
For that we can also use Occam’s razor because saying we are living in the matrix is one specific ontology so adding it makes that hypothesis less likely.
What is a "specific ontology?" Do you mean explanation of being? existence? Free will can neither be proven nor disproven. But believing there is no free will is full of paradoxes, not the least of which is that the whole question of belief then becomes a cosmic joke because neither your disbelief nor my belief can be anything more than the product of the roll of dice.
Why is that a paradox? Whether or not your belief is determined by a free agency on your part or not it has no ramifications regarding the truth value of your beliefs. Just as a computer which is programmed to calculate a result properly it's results will be evaluated by judging the merits of it's methodology and reasoning, the same should be for our cognitive faculties, and the discussion of free will has no bearing on the veracity of the results of your (semi)rational mind.
Calling something a paradox implies nothing about truth. It simply calls attention to the irony or seeming contradiction. If you don't see the paradox, irony, or cosmic joke in being programmed to believe in free will, I can't help you. But, of course, how could I help you, since you’ve been programmed to believe what you believe and whatever I say that seems to “help” is just predestined counter programming?
By “specific ontology” I just meant that it is picking specific characteristics of how the world is. When we add parts to a hypothesis of how the world is without reason to add it that is when Occam’s razor is supposed to apply according to my understanding of the principle. I hope that clarifies things.
My main point wasn’t about discussing arguments for and against free will, it was about how I don’t see why Occam’s razor should be invoked to defend free will.
In terms of the substantive arguments, I’m not sure what you mean by “paradox”. Do you mean logical contradiction? Because then you say belief is a cosmic joke (which I’m not sure what you mean either) which seems different.
Honestly, I don’t believe in free will because I don’t really understand the concept. When people explain it to me, it seems like a contradiction. But in my experience, people conceive of it differently and I’m open to hearing new ways to think about it.
"When we add parts to a hypothesis of how the world is without reason to add it that is when Occam’s razor is supposed to apply"
"Honestly, I don’t believe in free will because I don’t really understand the concept. "
Seems to me that you're contradicting yourself. If you don't understand the concept of free will, how can you possibly opine on which way Occam's razor cuts in regards to it versus eg determinism? Maybe it is in fact the simplest way to describe existence?
Can you explain this line - I think the halacha matters based on ones expression. It's an ideal - I don't know what you mean there.
Do you mean to say that halacha requires you to act as if you believe at the very least, and hopefully you get to the point where you actually believe?
Regarding God and quantum mechanics, my Jewish husband had this insight / message from God while we were high on psilocybin in 2023:
"“God’s power is fractal to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Observer Effect.”
Zach described God as “the eternal observer.” God’s power over human events primarily comes from our awareness that we were being observed."
The longer version of the story is in this essay. I'm going to attempt to argue the case for monotheism (including Original Monotheism -- that monotheism was the original religion and polytheism came later and was a symptom of societal corruption) in the next essay.
>>>I believe that Torah shebechtav is true and was given in some way to Moshe Rabeinu.
You made this audacious claim, and then proceed to make a whole bunch of other claims:
- the laws therein are divine and given by God
- The Torah contains no misinformation or stories
- the Torah was given to certain era and place
- The primary goal of the Torah is fourfold
- By [God] creating a nation
- He created a contract - a brit - for that nation forever
- God involves himself in history in hidden ways
- This was not teaching falsehood
and then, without any evidence for any of these claims, you state: "If one accepts this..." Why should anyone accept this?
YOUR EVIDENCE: Evidence for this position: Why, the Torah itself.
It would be mean to say something like "you must have been absent the day they taught evidence in school" because in text, you can't see my facial expression and you can't assess my tone. But I have heard Sam Harris and Michael Shermer and Daniel Dennett say such a thing, just in a kind and jovial manner. So please imagine someone saying this in a nice way.
The Torah cannot be used as evidence that the Torah is true. If someone thinks the entire book is a forgery, then nothing in the book constitutes evidence. Your burden is to give evidence about the book, and it's like you are ignoring that.
>>>I would say the success of the Bible is self-evident and evident.
This is immaterial, and the fact that you do not recognize this makes it clear that you're not evaluating this material properly. How popular or well-liked the bible is has no bearing on its truth.
>>>First, the success of the Torah - it is the ONLY ANE text to still be practiced and learned today
Again, if you think this is relevant, it only undermines my confidence in you understanding your task here. It doesn't matter how popular the bible is, and just saying that it matters over and over so that it fills up an essay doesn't make it so.
>>>Second, the success of the prophecies in Devarim, especially the modern day return to Israel.
It's frustrating that you repeatedly make the same bad arguments. Self-fulfilling prophecies do not constitute evidence. It would be like claiming the Koran is true because the prophecies about killing Jews and taking them hostage are being fulfilled. If the Koran tells of martyrs sacrificing themselves in the name of Allah, observing martyrs in the current time (which is the future relative to the time the Koran was written) is not a fulfilled prophecy. It's merely the result of indoctrination, teaching Muslims from their youth that when they grow up, they should become martyrs.
>>>most importantly I think that the Kuzari argument, while it fails by itself, is strong enough to grant that some sort of event happened, a divine stamp, as Sam Lebens puts it
You and Sam Lebens are incorrect. The bible claim cannot be substantiated by the claims of the bible. Again and again you repeat the same bad arguments.
>>>the miraculous escape from Egypt and the Manna plus some sort of divine revelation at Sinai and the other miracles claimed are extremely hard to dismiss as lies
There is no evidence that either of these stories are real. Manna is a miracle, but leaving Egypt could conceivably occur by natural means, and so what's really necessary is evidence of a god. There is none.
>>>I believe the Torah is saying the truth when it says it was written and who wrote it.
If anything you have written here was good evidence for people who don't already believe in it because of indoctrination, you'd have many new adherents. Why haven't you called into Matt Dillahunty to discuss this with him? He'd be your new director of Aish HaTorah. Why not reach out to Sam Harris and get him to join as well? Steven Pinker, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins...
It's because your comments are silly, your arguments are silly and they don't constitute any good reasons. They merely assuage your discomfort at believing in nonsense but not having anything good to say in response when someone challenges you, or asks you to challenge yourself.
"There’s simply no polite way to tell people they’ve dedicated their lives to an illusion."
Love the article. I don’t like the countermyth theory the most, but otherwise ethics is a great read.
I do have one question though.
You assume that the Kuzari principle is, on its own, pretty shaky, and that it requires enhancement with what you explained. How come you think the kuzari argument fails by itself?
I've had similar thoughts (baruch shekivanti), although you've thought out the TSBP out in more detail than I have. I liked the Chanukah example. I'm less sanguine about it being obvious that God exists, although I do get there in the end. I hope you're feeling better!
Very very nice. This is a great summary of what you and I call (for lack of a better term) the MO approach, and you've done a great job!
I think I may side with the atheists on many of their responses, and personally I think your approach is half baked (meaning, imo other ancient texts are actually very deep and wise, on par with the wisdom of the Torah itself and ideas like Marduk etc. are not as shallow as the MO make them or to be, just as the torah is much deeper according to kabbala (or even Rambam approach) than the MO approach paints it) and on top of that, I think the proper response to atheism is the deeper Judaism like the Baal hatanya says, but I do strongly appreciate the tremendous value in this (what I called the dumbed down) version as well. Kudos, feel better (sounds awful!), and the neshama should have an aliya.
True but we need terms to talk and have discussions and calling it the MO approach allows discussion without having to speak out the whole approach. We can also call it the ash approach but will only work for those who know ash.
There is a label here whether u like it or not. Ash's approach is not in a bubble and follows a certain path. As opposed to the "Charedi approach" which follows a different path. There may be nuanced of difference and I'm not putting down the work each individual put in to their conclusion but understanding that there is a general label is actually important to not ignore so you can know where the person is coming from. If to you the approaches are all so different that they don't follow a certain path, so be it - I think your missing the bigger picture...
In the beginning, sure. But after being in the sugya long enough, no disrespect to the individual, but there are basically two paths which people take and the pattern is very recognizable. I'm not going to pretend that pattern doesn't exist, nor is there value in doing so.
When you learn a complex sugya there are often difficult questions with certain general approaches. All the roshei yeshiva/gedolei achronim kneitch it in their own way but there is usually a general mehalech that is followed. And that's not a negative; it means you're thinking clearly. Each individual kneitch is important and the individual twist shows the אין דעותיהם שוות, but to identify there is a path is actually an important part of analyzing the information properly.
This is all fascinating. Another fascinating idea: no women are commenting on this post. I tried my hand at argumentation (with “Lakewood From Afar”), and I realized I just have a different brain. I suppose we are more intuitive or less inductive. דעת vs בינה? I don’t know. Just observing.
That is an absolutely fascinating observation. I think it's because women aren't as autistic in a way (this is probably the wrong word, but you know what I mean) as men. Most of the otd or questioning chevra (including me)are very logical to the expense of the interpersonal and emotional. I think that leads us to focus on the facts over the other aspects of religion, which is in many ways missing the boat.
I feel funny agreeing with all the atheists here. This post has many good things in it. You did an excellent job of weaving together many strands of what makes the Torah and Judaism compelling and connecting them to what the Torah itself teaches in philosophy and practice. Almost a miniature "theory of everything" about the Torah. There are a bunch of things I disagree with, or that I believe are false and kefira, but they don't detract from the good parts.
Who are all the atheists here?
Me? Shulman? Ish Yehudi?
I am not referring to you, Shulman, or Ish Yehudi
You've called me a closet atheist in the past I believe *shrug*. Happy (see what I did there?) to hear that you've retracted!
I don't remember calling you that.
It's fine. Pretty sure you did but I forgive you. I think if I didn't right this out I can hear how some may think that
I know you are not a fan of the countermyth angle, but I wonder if I have somehow won you over.
Thanks for the compliment! Feel free to cross post on IM.
First off - I hope you feel better and that your grandfather's Neshama should have an Aliyah.
Second - This is a great post. It should be read by nearly everyone at least semi-familiar with the arguments against Judaism and revelation. This is an appropriate understanding. While I have some very minor disagreements, this take is fantastic. I do think evolution is a bit of a bigger problem but ultimately reach the same conclusion. Same goes for the age of the universe, though I think in a traditional Jewish lens the age of the universe is not a focal point.
Just as an FYI - pretty sure you called me conservative for mentioning some of the same points in my Is the Torah True series 🤣.
Thank you!
As far as me calling you conservative, I think it depends on the framing.
I also wanted to see how'd you respond so I could use your response when people accuse me of that
Love this post!!! It's perfect in every way!!
I obviously disagree with most of what you wrote, and I probably will want to write a counterpost, but I want to give credit where credit is due. I do agree with lots of the material, and you have obviously approached these topics with due seriousness, intellectual honesty, and developed a clear and comprehensive position. Kudos!
"In my opinion, discounting the argument from design due to evolution is akin to saying one cannot prove an artist exists due to the existence of AI art. Of course that is true regarding the specific piece of art, but the existence of an AI in the first place shows that that a high intelligence exists. The fact that evolution works is just as amazing as the fact an AI works if not more so, and in my mind shows the existence of some sort of programmer."
R Moshe Averick makes essentially this point in his book. https://www.amazon.com/Nonsense-High-Order-Confused-Atheism/dp/1535018348 If design is really indistinguishable from chance, what's the point in looking for signals from extraterrestrials? They could just be random space junk.
This the best post of thus blog!
I have a few disagreements with it but too long for comment..probably write a post.
Good job!
Why, thank you!
There's a lot here to think about and to follow through on for someone with the time to go down the numerous rabbit holes, but I think you've succeeded in doing what a Substack of this length can do, which is giving "permission to believe," which is all some of us need. Well done and refuhah shalayma.
"Now, the alternative to this is not necessarily the one held by almost all frum Jews today - that every word is written by Moshe via prophecy. (Although I personally believe that, because that is what Halacha requires)"
What halacha are you talking about? It's not the 7th ikkar or the 8th ikkar. The 8th ikkar is that Moshe didn't write any part of the Torah on his own, not that every word of the Torah is from Moshe. It's true that the historical assumption of Chazal seems to be that the entire Torah was written by Moshe, except for perhaps the last few pesukim. Are you now of the opinion that the halacha requires you to accept every historical assumption of Chazal?
No.
But Halacha is also a social signifier, so I accept this Halacha as is commonly understood vis avis that.
Question for you R' Ash. Regarding the general Kuzari proof, am I the only one who finds it super ironic that perhaps the biggest challenge to this proof is none other than the Kuzari story itself??
Obviously we believe the chaver in the story wasn't a swindler, but doesn't it seem not so far fetched that a smooth talking, religion inventor could convince a semi-gullible king that he has this authentic religion with a large following out west? If the king goes for it and makes his kingdom accept the religion as converts, 2-3 generations in they won't consider themselves converts anymore and they will consider themselves to be a simple link in the chain of the mesorah
Yes that is an obvious flaw. I don't think the Kuzari fully works. The Mormons actually have a pretty good success rate with the Native Americans because they believe Jesus revealed himself directly to them in a public manner (as recounted in the book of Mormon). Now that many Native Americans are Mormon, they are teaching their kids that Jesus revealed himself publicly to their grandparents. This is missing the unbroken chain element, but the Kuzari doesn't really have that either.
What the Kuzari does do well is if you could place the authorship of the Torah to ths claimed time period or immediately after, then it becomes almost unfalsifiable and likely to be true. Of course that is the challenge.
Furthermore It also makes it more likely that such an event happened once one accepts such an event could happen. For example, if there was a tradition that the Native Americans witnessed a volcanic eruption, I would likely believe it because such things can happen and there's a tradition. The issue with the Kuzari is that there is no history of revelation before that, making it an extraordinary claim. If one a priori downgrades the Kuzari claim of revelation as ordinary for whatever reason, then the Kuzari can work.
I don't think this is a problem with the Kuzari argument. It would only be a problem if we can point to a distinct Khazarian Jewish nation that thinks their ancestors left Egypt. But there is no such thing and there never was. Whatever type of conversion they performed (which probably wasn't a fully halachic conversion, and they probably didn't keep most mitzvos), they eventually assimilated with other non-Jews and Jews.
The Native American Mormons, just like other Mormons, all believe that the golden tablets are from Joseph Smith and he is the founder of their faith. There is no such thing as Native American Mormons who don't know about Joseph Smith and just think they have a Bible from 2,500 years ago.
1) we can: the Samaritans think they personally left Egypt.
2) Joseph Smith may be similar to Ezra.
1) And how do you know they didn't? We know the Jews at the beginning of the Second Temple intermarried with the Samaritans. There is certainly no evidence of "Chacham of the Kuzari" type figure who introduced the Torah to them. More likely they assimilated with the Jews who assimilated with them.
2) Joseph Smith is Mormon's Moshe Rabbeinu. Not their Ezra. It's these types of weak deflections that just show how powerful the Kuzari argument is.
Ethiopian Jews are another exception.
Same thing. Why do Jews around the world tend to look somewhat like the regional non-Jews? Because of conversion and intermarriage. Many modern scholars (I think most) believe that Beta Israel has ancient Jewish origins. Not that they mass converted to Judaism at the urging of a "Chacham of the Kuzari" type figure.
However, I thought about this more, and even if you did find a tribe that mass converted a thousand years ago and forgot that they were converts, it wouldn't be a counterexample. The Kuzari argument says a cult leader couldn't come along and say "this happened to your ancestors" when it's obviously false since their ancestors never told them about such an important thing. But if the cult leader says, "It did not happen to your ancestors, I but I urge you to join the people that this *did* happen to their ancestors", then they would have no problem accepting. So I guess if you want to deflect the Kuzari argument, you would say that Ezra or whoever convinced the Jews that they're not really the Jews, and that some other nation, the real Jews, had accepted the Torah centuries prior, and then this Ezra figure succeeded in converting the "fake" Jews to the Torah. But you know that's not what happened, and is just another example that shows how powerful the argument is (when stated correctly).
The claim would be that WE are that Khazarian nation - meaning someone convinced one of our royal ancestors that Judaism is authentic and had a revelation. Our said royal ancestor was duped and bought in and the rest is history.
Uh, aside from Palestinian conspiracy theories, nobody believes we are the Khazarian nation. It's thoroughly debunked nonsense, see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazar_hypothesis_of_Ashkenazi_ancestry.
I didn't mean that we are literally the Khazarian nation. I'm just presenting a challenge that we may have been some random kingdom that was "duped" and converted to and became what is now the Jewish nation, complete with a Torah and mesorah of a public revelation
Right, so that's a complete historical fantasy that even the Palestinian conspiracy theorists haven't thought of (yet). If this is the type of retort somebody must resort to in order to counter the Kuzari argument, it's just a demonstration how powerful the Kuzari argument is.
While I disagree with almost everything here, I admire your deep reflection on your beliefs in a methodical way.
What do you mean that denying free will is a violation of Occam’s razor? Free will is an extra ontology (and brute randomness depending on how you define it) so isn’t the position of no free will better by virtue of Occam’s razor?
I would say I'm using it more colloquially. Denying free will is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.
The fact of free will is strongly proven from our experience of it. To disprove that would require strong evidence, not mere philosophy.
So you believe it unlikely that we are living in The Matrix, for example, because there is no extraordinary evidence that we are?
Yes.
For that we can also use Occam’s razor because saying we are living in the matrix is one specific ontology so adding it makes that hypothesis less likely.
What is a "specific ontology?" Do you mean explanation of being? existence? Free will can neither be proven nor disproven. But believing there is no free will is full of paradoxes, not the least of which is that the whole question of belief then becomes a cosmic joke because neither your disbelief nor my belief can be anything more than the product of the roll of dice.
Why is that a paradox? Whether or not your belief is determined by a free agency on your part or not it has no ramifications regarding the truth value of your beliefs. Just as a computer which is programmed to calculate a result properly it's results will be evaluated by judging the merits of it's methodology and reasoning, the same should be for our cognitive faculties, and the discussion of free will has no bearing on the veracity of the results of your (semi)rational mind.
Calling something a paradox implies nothing about truth. It simply calls attention to the irony or seeming contradiction. If you don't see the paradox, irony, or cosmic joke in being programmed to believe in free will, I can't help you. But, of course, how could I help you, since you’ve been programmed to believe what you believe and whatever I say that seems to “help” is just predestined counter programming?
By “specific ontology” I just meant that it is picking specific characteristics of how the world is. When we add parts to a hypothesis of how the world is without reason to add it that is when Occam’s razor is supposed to apply according to my understanding of the principle. I hope that clarifies things.
My main point wasn’t about discussing arguments for and against free will, it was about how I don’t see why Occam’s razor should be invoked to defend free will.
In terms of the substantive arguments, I’m not sure what you mean by “paradox”. Do you mean logical contradiction? Because then you say belief is a cosmic joke (which I’m not sure what you mean either) which seems different.
Honestly, I don’t believe in free will because I don’t really understand the concept. When people explain it to me, it seems like a contradiction. But in my experience, people conceive of it differently and I’m open to hearing new ways to think about it.
"When we add parts to a hypothesis of how the world is without reason to add it that is when Occam’s razor is supposed to apply"
"Honestly, I don’t believe in free will because I don’t really understand the concept. "
Seems to me that you're contradicting yourself. If you don't understand the concept of free will, how can you possibly opine on which way Occam's razor cuts in regards to it versus eg determinism? Maybe it is in fact the simplest way to describe existence?
-Although I personally believe that, because that is what Halacha requires
I'm having trouble with this line. Is it possible to believe something just because that is what halacha requires? Is that really called belief?
I was waiting for someone to ask that!
Can there be a mitzva to believe something? Can a person convince himself of something false knowingly?
I think the halacha matters based on ones expression. It's an ideal
Ha! sorry to keep you waiting so long :-)
Can you explain this line - I think the halacha matters based on ones expression. It's an ideal - I don't know what you mean there.
Do you mean to say that halacha requires you to act as if you believe at the very least, and hopefully you get to the point where you actually believe?
Regarding God and quantum mechanics, my Jewish husband had this insight / message from God while we were high on psilocybin in 2023:
"“God’s power is fractal to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Observer Effect.”
Zach described God as “the eternal observer.” God’s power over human events primarily comes from our awareness that we were being observed."
The longer version of the story is in this essay. I'm going to attempt to argue the case for monotheism (including Original Monotheism -- that monotheism was the original religion and polytheism came later and was a symptom of societal corruption) in the next essay.
https://thecassandracomplex.substack.com/p/talking-to-god-on-psychedelics-part-two
>>>I believe that Torah shebechtav is true and was given in some way to Moshe Rabeinu.
You made this audacious claim, and then proceed to make a whole bunch of other claims:
- the laws therein are divine and given by God
- The Torah contains no misinformation or stories
- the Torah was given to certain era and place
- The primary goal of the Torah is fourfold
- By [God] creating a nation
- He created a contract - a brit - for that nation forever
- God involves himself in history in hidden ways
- This was not teaching falsehood
and then, without any evidence for any of these claims, you state: "If one accepts this..." Why should anyone accept this?
YOUR EVIDENCE: Evidence for this position: Why, the Torah itself.
It would be mean to say something like "you must have been absent the day they taught evidence in school" because in text, you can't see my facial expression and you can't assess my tone. But I have heard Sam Harris and Michael Shermer and Daniel Dennett say such a thing, just in a kind and jovial manner. So please imagine someone saying this in a nice way.
The Torah cannot be used as evidence that the Torah is true. If someone thinks the entire book is a forgery, then nothing in the book constitutes evidence. Your burden is to give evidence about the book, and it's like you are ignoring that.
>>>I would say the success of the Bible is self-evident and evident.
This is immaterial, and the fact that you do not recognize this makes it clear that you're not evaluating this material properly. How popular or well-liked the bible is has no bearing on its truth.
>>>First, the success of the Torah - it is the ONLY ANE text to still be practiced and learned today
Again, if you think this is relevant, it only undermines my confidence in you understanding your task here. It doesn't matter how popular the bible is, and just saying that it matters over and over so that it fills up an essay doesn't make it so.
>>>Second, the success of the prophecies in Devarim, especially the modern day return to Israel.
It's frustrating that you repeatedly make the same bad arguments. Self-fulfilling prophecies do not constitute evidence. It would be like claiming the Koran is true because the prophecies about killing Jews and taking them hostage are being fulfilled. If the Koran tells of martyrs sacrificing themselves in the name of Allah, observing martyrs in the current time (which is the future relative to the time the Koran was written) is not a fulfilled prophecy. It's merely the result of indoctrination, teaching Muslims from their youth that when they grow up, they should become martyrs.
>>>most importantly I think that the Kuzari argument, while it fails by itself, is strong enough to grant that some sort of event happened, a divine stamp, as Sam Lebens puts it
You and Sam Lebens are incorrect. The bible claim cannot be substantiated by the claims of the bible. Again and again you repeat the same bad arguments.
>>>the miraculous escape from Egypt and the Manna plus some sort of divine revelation at Sinai and the other miracles claimed are extremely hard to dismiss as lies
There is no evidence that either of these stories are real. Manna is a miracle, but leaving Egypt could conceivably occur by natural means, and so what's really necessary is evidence of a god. There is none.
>>>I believe the Torah is saying the truth when it says it was written and who wrote it.
If anything you have written here was good evidence for people who don't already believe in it because of indoctrination, you'd have many new adherents. Why haven't you called into Matt Dillahunty to discuss this with him? He'd be your new director of Aish HaTorah. Why not reach out to Sam Harris and get him to join as well? Steven Pinker, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins...
It's because your comments are silly, your arguments are silly and they don't constitute any good reasons. They merely assuage your discomfort at believing in nonsense but not having anything good to say in response when someone challenges you, or asks you to challenge yourself.
"There’s simply no polite way to tell people they’ve dedicated their lives to an illusion."
-Daniel Dennett
Thank you for your time in writing this.
Love the article. I don’t like the countermyth theory the most, but otherwise ethics is a great read.
I do have one question though.
You assume that the Kuzari principle is, on its own, pretty shaky, and that it requires enhancement with what you explained. How come you think the kuzari argument fails by itself?
I've had similar thoughts (baruch shekivanti), although you've thought out the TSBP out in more detail than I have. I liked the Chanukah example. I'm less sanguine about it being obvious that God exists, although I do get there in the end. I hope you're feeling better!
Very very nice. This is a great summary of what you and I call (for lack of a better term) the MO approach, and you've done a great job!
I think I may side with the atheists on many of their responses, and personally I think your approach is half baked (meaning, imo other ancient texts are actually very deep and wise, on par with the wisdom of the Torah itself and ideas like Marduk etc. are not as shallow as the MO make them or to be, just as the torah is much deeper according to kabbala (or even Rambam approach) than the MO approach paints it) and on top of that, I think the proper response to atheism is the deeper Judaism like the Baal hatanya says, but I do strongly appreciate the tremendous value in this (what I called the dumbed down) version as well. Kudos, feel better (sounds awful!), and the neshama should have an aliya.
>(for lack of a better term)
The best term is generally no term.
Why give labels?
Doesn't every person have their own unique intellectual and spiritual journey?
True but we need terms to talk and have discussions and calling it the MO approach allows discussion without having to speak out the whole approach. We can also call it the ash approach but will only work for those who know ash.
Care to explain why you need terms?
Isn't it cheapening to take an article like this which summarizes many years of research and put it in a box and label it?
There is a label here whether u like it or not. Ash's approach is not in a bubble and follows a certain path. As opposed to the "Charedi approach" which follows a different path. There may be nuanced of difference and I'm not putting down the work each individual put in to their conclusion but understanding that there is a general label is actually important to not ignore so you can know where the person is coming from. If to you the approaches are all so different that they don't follow a certain path, so be it - I think your missing the bigger picture...
I don't agree.
I think it is important to ignore the labels so you can see where the individual is coming from.
But I think it is important to have this debate.
In the beginning, sure. But after being in the sugya long enough, no disrespect to the individual, but there are basically two paths which people take and the pattern is very recognizable. I'm not going to pretend that pattern doesn't exist, nor is there value in doing so.
When you learn a complex sugya there are often difficult questions with certain general approaches. All the roshei yeshiva/gedolei achronim kneitch it in their own way but there is usually a general mehalech that is followed. And that's not a negative; it means you're thinking clearly. Each individual kneitch is important and the individual twist shows the אין דעותיהם שוות, but to identify there is a path is actually an important part of analyzing the information properly.
This is all fascinating. Another fascinating idea: no women are commenting on this post. I tried my hand at argumentation (with “Lakewood From Afar”), and I realized I just have a different brain. I suppose we are more intuitive or less inductive. דעת vs בינה? I don’t know. Just observing.
That is an absolutely fascinating observation. I think it's because women aren't as autistic in a way (this is probably the wrong word, but you know what I mean) as men. Most of the otd or questioning chevra (including me)are very logical to the expense of the interpersonal and emotional. I think that leads us to focus on the facts over the other aspects of religion, which is in many ways missing the boat.
You have a point, but it doesn't need to be framed so negatively :)
Still, it gives me חיזוק to hear rational arguments. I just can’t make the arguments myself.