Charedism is a 20th century mass counterculture movement (the only one that was successful at standing up against developmental idealism and maintain high fertility in cities) run by the 20th century idea of gedolim (as explained in Binyamin Zev's recent essay).
Polymaths like Reb Yisroel Belsky and Reb Yakov Weinberg just aren't good at running mass counterculture movement. My hope is that Charedism will transfer successfully from being a counterculture movement to becoming a thriving culture of its own. I think this should be a shared goal of all of us.
I don't think ignorance in any form is bliss. Ignorance is the beginning of a society's descent into madness so no... I will not accept a willfully ignorant Jewish leader.
Precisely the opposite. Unless you are a brainwashed new atheist who now has Sam Harris as one of his new gedolim to replace his old ones he left behind
100% Ash. As you know Yehudah, I believe that atheism generally and new atheism in particular have been exposed as being pretty horrible societal builders. Religion is still to date the best tool we have for healthy society formation. Read up a little on the techno-Christian movement within the new Silicon Valley that is beginning to form with Gen Z and Gen alpha; they are trying to reform Christianity to show that it is a driver of progress and healthy growth; Peter Thiel is also on board. I highly recommend you take the time to go through this stuff seriously. The biblical myths still hold incredible power over humanity and are not going away anytime soon nor would we necessarily want them to
I was realizing recently how cognitively dissonant the whole yeshivishe velt.
We have such an extensive fear of punishment, from our past generations tramau. That our whole view point of religion is in punishment.
Walk into shul - most guys look like they wana be anywhere but shul, yet they force themselves there, so they don’t go to gehinim.
It is not that there is no focus on self awareness, the most basic awareness is shunned and mocked.
That’s how a guy can be 40 years old. Know nothing even in terms of learning, because he learns super lomdus, yet still think he is smarter and more talented then the average.
I think it's pretty clear. But they know everything that is found in seforim. Nothing found in external sources. Hence, R Chaim Kanievskys knowledge of science stems entirely from Sefer Habris or what others have told him and nothing from reading a primary scientific source.
It was clear to you, because you are much smarter (not to mention more knowledgeable and better informed) than I am. Thank you for elucidating. Now I see.
Can’t speak to all of them but Rav Belsky was family for me. 1. He’s dead and has been for a while. He’s a product of an era where Yeshivas had very high quality secular education through 12th grade and many of the better students went to college. In fact that was his plan. 2. He was consistently mocked and marginalized within the Yeshiva world despite being nearly universally begrudgingly respected. I can’t tell you how many times I heard absolutely nasty stuff about him any time he took any positions that was even slightly moderate (like bugs in water controversy). There’s a reason he spent his days in the OU and Torah V’daas and not Yeshivish circles. Those types don’t do well in Lakewood. 3. He did not touch any of the sensitive no touch topics. While I’ve picked up physics books from his bathroom and read them personally he was extremely conservative in Hashkafah. He didn’t take on any of the difficult topics. Yeah dude was smart as hell and pretty curious but he followed the convention of not touching scary topics
While I don't believe he was an old earther, he gave some haskamos to Slikfins early books and certainly held that an old earther wasnt kefira. (I think he personally held like the tifered yisroel that the world was created and redestroyed)
Not that that pshat actually works, but at least he tried to explain it like most gedolim
Even when he did take non classical-yeshiva positions (ie spontaneous generation isn’t real) he did so by arguing that we were idiots for ever thinking Chazal meant spontaneous generation. I remember him using some pretty strong language at the Shabbos Table dunking on the notion that they believed in spontaneous generation (they did lol) and explaining that it meant his reinterpretation. Don’t think he ever publicly took a “Chazal were wrong about xyz” position. He was much more aligned with your 8th grade yeshiva rebbe “the medicine in Bava Basra used to work before Nishtanu Hatevah” than with “yeah they were repeating some very wrong local traditions”
Except for Rav Lopiansky they are all dead. Who in the next generation is like them? You wrote etc etc I seriously doubt that and additionally I am not that sure that even the names that you mentioned actually had wide knowledge. Rav Moshe Shapiro for example was big in machshava but I don’t know that he had any broad non Torah knowledge.
Not sure what that's supposed to mean. I'm not in any sort of filter bubble. I'm aware of at least the basics of carbon dating, fossils, evolution etc. R Gottlieb and R Lopiansky certainly aren't filter-bubble types. R Gottlieb teaches in Ohr Somayach, for crying out loud. He's not dealing with a bunch of naive lakewood mesivta kids who don't have access to the internet.
Not the teachers. But if your knowledge stems from R Gottlieb and R Lopiansky you are only reading one side. Also, I've never heard a decent answer about the mabul issues from them.
I didn't say that it does. But it's beside the point. *They've* certainly read the other side.
"Also, I've never heard a decent answer about the mabul issues from them."
That's a separate issue than age of the U. (You lumped in a few things in your list of 'obviously unbelievable' things which aren't equally insisted upon by charedi gedolim. I don't think all young earth creationists insist that rishonim knew everything. Even Rabbi Meiselman doesn't claim that.)
It strikes me that you're reasoning backwards from your own experiences 1) you learnt science and it proved certain things to your owned satisfaction. 2) You then turned around and assumed that the science is so compelling that anyone who believes in a young earth or global mabbul must not be aware of it.
No. It seems to me that the world being young is as likely as it is being flat, and anyone who disagrees is being disingenuous, dishonest, or delusional.
>>>This godol would be the closest thing we get to the rishonim, especially the Rambam. Unfortunately, those type of people either descend into modern Orthodoxy (nebach) or go off the Derech fully.
I take the thrust of Slifkin's The Challenge of Creation and his subsequent positions taken on his blog to essentially be that *if* Maimonides were around today, that his position on matters of science and halacha would be what Slifkin presents as his own: a reasoned conclusion based on all current information.
But I wonder if that's wishful thinking. Maybe if we restricted the choice for Maimonides to "what kind of Orthodox position would you take?" he'd be compelled into what Slifkin draws out for him. But if we'd just ask him, "what's your take on Judaism?" that he would be compelled to say, "I'm with Sam Harris."
I doubt it. Because the philosophical foundations of atheism were already around in the Rambam's time, yet he rejected it. Anyone who says something like this has clearly never read Moreh Nevuchim.
I think the foundations of atheism were not taken as seriously as someone can take them now. That was the era of belief and we are now in the era of reason.
My main approach is that they were intentional rewriting of ancient polytheistic myths into monotheistic ones. They may have some actual truth also in the nature of myth.
How is your approach so different from Rabbi sacks, Slifkin, etc? (Pretty sure Slifkin has an entire chapter about the torah talking to the times. Just cuz he never mentions Marduk doesn't mean his approach is all that different...)
Afaict, the approach is usually "the ancients were dumb so Hashem presented it to them in their worldview because the truth would hurt them"
my approach is "the ancients were smart and would have tolerated the truth. But Hashem wasn't aiming for the truth, he was trying to turn polytheism into monotheism, and using myth was the single most powerful way to do that before writing became common. The torah was not dumbing things down nor saying history. It has an entirely different goal, one which succeeded admireably."
I'm actually working on a post right now. I believe the Torah was given to guide both the individual and the world closer to monotheism. We are oblivious to this because the Torah has largely been successful. The Oral law is a mix of ancient traditions, Rabbinic enactments, and moral updates.
Someone for whom factual truth is not the supreme value. For you, the spiritual connection is, which is enough for you to overlook facts. (I have nothing against such an approach btw).
If that's how you understand my view, you missed the boat and are projecting something on to me that is not mine (and I say that from reading comments of yours about your own subjective experience)
The main point that must be stressed here is that the Charedi system is not designed. Period.
https://ishyehudi.substack.com/p/analyzing-the-system/comment/22043694
100%.
Let me clarify this a little further.
Charedism is a 20th century mass counterculture movement (the only one that was successful at standing up against developmental idealism and maintain high fertility in cities) run by the 20th century idea of gedolim (as explained in Binyamin Zev's recent essay).
Polymaths like Reb Yisroel Belsky and Reb Yakov Weinberg just aren't good at running mass counterculture movement. My hope is that Charedism will transfer successfully from being a counterculture movement to becoming a thriving culture of its own. I think this should be a shared goal of all of us.
https://ishyehudi.substack.com/p/my-opinion-on-the-orthopraxy-conversation/comment/81261723
not too shill my stack, but here is a response on the science part
https://open.substack.com/pub/ishyehudi/p/how-i-resolve-torah-and-science-pt?r=27kmtk&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Shill away! It's a great stack
Great Post.
I don't think ignorance in any form is bliss. Ignorance is the beginning of a society's descent into madness so no... I will not accept a willfully ignorant Jewish leader.
Interesting.
So are you of the opinion that an optimal society would be one without religion? Would it not otherwise be promoting ignorance?
Precisely the opposite. Unless you are a brainwashed new atheist who now has Sam Harris as one of his new gedolim to replace his old ones he left behind
100% Ash. As you know Yehudah, I believe that atheism generally and new atheism in particular have been exposed as being pretty horrible societal builders. Religion is still to date the best tool we have for healthy society formation. Read up a little on the techno-Christian movement within the new Silicon Valley that is beginning to form with Gen Z and Gen alpha; they are trying to reform Christianity to show that it is a driver of progress and healthy growth; Peter Thiel is also on board. I highly recommend you take the time to go through this stuff seriously. The biblical myths still hold incredible power over humanity and are not going away anytime soon nor would we necessarily want them to
Very succinctly and well put.
I was realizing recently how cognitively dissonant the whole yeshivishe velt.
We have such an extensive fear of punishment, from our past generations tramau. That our whole view point of religion is in punishment.
Walk into shul - most guys look like they wana be anywhere but shul, yet they force themselves there, so they don’t go to gehinim.
It is not that there is no focus on self awareness, the most basic awareness is shunned and mocked.
That’s how a guy can be 40 years old. Know nothing even in terms of learning, because he learns super lomdus, yet still think he is smarter and more talented then the average.
Agreed with every single word but nebach 🤣
Concise and well put
This should have been my initial response, but it is never too late to say thank you.
I think this was the best and most on target of all your posts and I feel the same way.
You're welcome!
>> able to learn all of Torah
>> simultaneously without knowing
>> anything that isn't written in a sefer.
Your double negative there has me completely confused. Could you perhaps rephrase that in clearer terms? Thanks.
I think it's pretty clear. But they know everything that is found in seforim. Nothing found in external sources. Hence, R Chaim Kanievskys knowledge of science stems entirely from Sefer Habris or what others have told him and nothing from reading a primary scientific source.
It was clear to you, because you are much smarter (not to mention more knowledgeable and better informed) than I am. Thank you for elucidating. Now I see.
Check out... Rav Yaakov Kamentsky, Rav Yitzchok Hutner, Rav Yaakov Weinberg, Rav Moshe Shapiro, Rav Yisroel Belsky, Rav Aharon Lopiansky... etc etc
Many on that list predate the internet. R Yaakov for example read Anna Karenina which does not have the same emuna impact as say The Elegant Universe.
Say it ain’t so!!! 😄. Now you will tell us that Rav Moshe Feinstein read the NYT! שקר וכזב!!!😄
I think it's number one : world was created old. Which is actually a flawless answer, ignoring the mabul.
I don't think that at all.
RAL is literally MO dressed up in yeshivish garb. He cannot stand the Agudah it's honestly hilarious and sad at the same time.
Can’t speak to all of them but Rav Belsky was family for me. 1. He’s dead and has been for a while. He’s a product of an era where Yeshivas had very high quality secular education through 12th grade and many of the better students went to college. In fact that was his plan. 2. He was consistently mocked and marginalized within the Yeshiva world despite being nearly universally begrudgingly respected. I can’t tell you how many times I heard absolutely nasty stuff about him any time he took any positions that was even slightly moderate (like bugs in water controversy). There’s a reason he spent his days in the OU and Torah V’daas and not Yeshivish circles. Those types don’t do well in Lakewood. 3. He did not touch any of the sensitive no touch topics. While I’ve picked up physics books from his bathroom and read them personally he was extremely conservative in Hashkafah. He didn’t take on any of the difficult topics. Yeah dude was smart as hell and pretty curious but he followed the convention of not touching scary topics
While I don't believe he was an old earther, he gave some haskamos to Slikfins early books and certainly held that an old earther wasnt kefira. (I think he personally held like the tifered yisroel that the world was created and redestroyed)
Not that that pshat actually works, but at least he tried to explain it like most gedolim
Even when he did take non classical-yeshiva positions (ie spontaneous generation isn’t real) he did so by arguing that we were idiots for ever thinking Chazal meant spontaneous generation. I remember him using some pretty strong language at the Shabbos Table dunking on the notion that they believed in spontaneous generation (they did lol) and explaining that it meant his reinterpretation. Don’t think he ever publicly took a “Chazal were wrong about xyz” position. He was much more aligned with your 8th grade yeshiva rebbe “the medicine in Bava Basra used to work before Nishtanu Hatevah” than with “yeah they were repeating some very wrong local traditions”
His 'Table' is now in print and anyone can read exactly what you are saying.
Table?
https://zbermanbooks.com/שות-שלחן-הלוי-חא-בלסקי
He didn't write it, but yeah.
so basically everyone that is dead....not very encouraging
Except for Rav Lopiansky they are all dead. Who in the next generation is like them? You wrote etc etc I seriously doubt that and additionally I am not that sure that even the names that you mentioned actually had wide knowledge. Rav Moshe Shapiro for example was big in machshava but I don’t know that he had any broad non Torah knowledge.
"obviously incorrect - ridiculously incorrect - things like the world is 6000 years old"
I'm a young earth creationist. I can't prove that the universe *isn't* older, but I'm confident that it isn't 'obviously incorrect.'
See here starting at around 12 minutes in.
https://torahanytime.com/lectures/190990
This is worth listening to as well.
https://shiurim.eshelpublications.com/da-mah-shetashiv-25-the-age-of-the-universe/
I've heard those. It's obviously incorrect if you don't stay inside your filter bubble.
Not sure what that's supposed to mean. I'm not in any sort of filter bubble. I'm aware of at least the basics of carbon dating, fossils, evolution etc. R Gottlieb and R Lopiansky certainly aren't filter-bubble types. R Gottlieb teaches in Ohr Somayach, for crying out loud. He's not dealing with a bunch of naive lakewood mesivta kids who don't have access to the internet.
Not the teachers. But if your knowledge stems from R Gottlieb and R Lopiansky you are only reading one side. Also, I've never heard a decent answer about the mabul issues from them.
I didn't say that it does. But it's beside the point. *They've* certainly read the other side.
"Also, I've never heard a decent answer about the mabul issues from them."
That's a separate issue than age of the U. (You lumped in a few things in your list of 'obviously unbelievable' things which aren't equally insisted upon by charedi gedolim. I don't think all young earth creationists insist that rishonim knew everything. Even Rabbi Meiselman doesn't claim that.)
It strikes me that you're reasoning backwards from your own experiences 1) you learnt science and it proved certain things to your owned satisfaction. 2) You then turned around and assumed that the science is so compelling that anyone who believes in a young earth or global mabbul must not be aware of it.
No. It seems to me that the world being young is as likely as it is being flat, and anyone who disagrees is being disingenuous, dishonest, or delusional.
Ohr sameach BT's are also very naive.Many come from traditional Bucharian backgrounds where belief in magic and demons is the norm.
>>>This godol would be the closest thing we get to the rishonim, especially the Rambam. Unfortunately, those type of people either descend into modern Orthodoxy (nebach) or go off the Derech fully.
I take the thrust of Slifkin's The Challenge of Creation and his subsequent positions taken on his blog to essentially be that *if* Maimonides were around today, that his position on matters of science and halacha would be what Slifkin presents as his own: a reasoned conclusion based on all current information.
But I wonder if that's wishful thinking. Maybe if we restricted the choice for Maimonides to "what kind of Orthodox position would you take?" he'd be compelled into what Slifkin draws out for him. But if we'd just ask him, "what's your take on Judaism?" that he would be compelled to say, "I'm with Sam Harris."
I doubt it. Because the philosophical foundations of atheism were already around in the Rambam's time, yet he rejected it. Anyone who says something like this has clearly never read Moreh Nevuchim.
I think the foundations of atheism were not taken as seriously as someone can take them now. That was the era of belief and we are now in the era of reason.
You clearly haven't read it.
So you found answers to the global flood, age of the universe etc? Are those answers different than the MO answers?
My main approach is that they were intentional rewriting of ancient polytheistic myths into monotheistic ones. They may have some actual truth also in the nature of myth.
In other words one of the standard MO approaches.
Not really. I wish it were.
How is your approach so different from Rabbi sacks, Slifkin, etc? (Pretty sure Slifkin has an entire chapter about the torah talking to the times. Just cuz he never mentions Marduk doesn't mean his approach is all that different...)
Afaict, the approach is usually "the ancients were dumb so Hashem presented it to them in their worldview because the truth would hurt them"
my approach is "the ancients were smart and would have tolerated the truth. But Hashem wasn't aiming for the truth, he was trying to turn polytheism into monotheism, and using myth was the single most powerful way to do that before writing became common. The torah was not dumbing things down nor saying history. It has an entirely different goal, one which succeeded admireably."
No, the approach is the latter. Read shadal, nachum sarna, Joshua berman or any of the sources from that chevra. They clearly say what you're saying.
Can you summarize your religous beliefs?
I'm actually working on a post right now. I believe the Torah was given to guide both the individual and the world closer to monotheism. We are oblivious to this because the Torah has largely been successful. The Oral law is a mix of ancient traditions, Rabbinic enactments, and moral updates.
And the oral law is something god commands you to follow?
It's circular, but yes.
I'm a frum young earth creationist. But I know what you're talking about
I'm just curious, from what you know of me, where do you place someone like me on this list?
Someone for whom factual truth is not the supreme value. For you, the spiritual connection is, which is enough for you to overlook facts. (I have nothing against such an approach btw).
If that's how you understand my view, you missed the boat and are projecting something on to me that is not mine (and I say that from reading comments of yours about your own subjective experience)
Can you explain?
Maybe you should (edit- can) explain which facts you think I overlook and we'll take it from there.