Comments on Rationalist Judaism: The Mystique of Silence

I asked R' Shmuel Irons, Rosh Kollel of th...

2009-11-01T10:00:00.885+02:00

I asked R' Shmuel Irons, Rosh Kollel of the Detroit Kollel how it was that he's cited the same sources as you have on the age of the universe, in a public lecture on Shavuot, from the amud, and he's the Rosh Kollel and your books get put in cherem.

Rabbi Irons laughed and said, "Some people have mazal".

Right, Rabbi Slifkin has the mazal to become a world-renowned figure who is probably more 'successful' by any standard measure than any stam Rosh Kollel.

Rabbi Slifkin, I asked R' Shmuel Irons, Rosh ...

2009-10-29T05:54:04.223+02:00
Rabbi Slifkin,

I asked R' Shmuel Irons, Rosh Kollel of the Detroit Kollel how it was that he's cited the same sources as you have on the age of the universe, in a public lecture on Shavuot, from the amud, and he's the Rosh Kollel and your books get put in cherem.

Rabbi Irons laughed and said, "Some people have mazal".

Of course Rabbi Irons is very wise as well as very smart. He once told me that it's a big problem when a talmid chacham says something that makes himself look foolish.

So it's clear to me that there are people within the community who can see things as they really are.

I didn’t know that. I have to think about it (hop...

2009-10-26T16:39:44.593+02:00
I didn’t know that. I have to think about it (hope this comment isn’t lack of derech eretz) the convention in the blogosphere is to allow anonymous comments and I do hope you realize no lack of derech eretz is intended. I ask your forgiveness, and possibly your indulgence for continuing. Are we sinning against you if you allow such comments but take them as a lack of derech eretz toward you?

Maybe its for dramatic effect, because they do...

2009-10-20T10:49:32.017+02:00

Maybe its for dramatic effect, because they don’t trust the “masses” to be intelligent enough to respond to anything but emotional appeals?

Probably the biggest obstacle in the way of any kind of 'rational' approach to religion is the simple fact that the 'masses' really do exist, and they really are just as dumb as advertised. Talk to some of them sometime, and you'll see. (Of course, every one of us likes to think that we don't belong...)

> I think that we both agree that everyone shou...

2009-10-20T03:37:15.342+02:00
> I think that we both agree that everyone should be a bit more humble in their beliefs, because while some of us can discuss them more rationally than others, and can analyze more deeply than others, none of us has a direct line to 'THE TRUTH'.

Amen

> why do they run away from the questions and curse out anyone who is interested in them?

Maybe because the culture labels such questions evil, and so they find the questions offensive? Maybe its for dramatic effect, because they don’t trust the “masses” to be intelligent enough to respond to anything but emotional appeals? Or maybe your right. Its hard to say what’s going on inside someone else’s head without ever having met them.

They say exactly the same thing about people w...

2009-10-19T10:09:22.823+02:00

They say exactly the same thing about people who disagree with them. I don’t think either they or you are right.

And I think we're both right. Everyone is insecure; everyone is looking for some kind of certainty or even a chance of it. Whenever you see someone get so emotional (like Rav Schechter) about a belief, you know they are insecure.

They aren’t insecure. They sincerely believe that they are correct, and that their position is unassailable. They don’t think they have anything to fear from the silly scientists.

Then why do they run away from the questions and curse out anyone who is interested in them?

To G*3, I think that we both agree that everyone ...

2009-10-19T05:48:34.732+02:00
To G*3,

I think that we both agree that everyone should be a bit more humble in their beliefs, because while some of us can discuss them more rationally than others, and can analyze more deeply than others, none of us has a direct line to 'THE TRUTH'.

Best wishes...

> Why is just saying ‘we don’t know’ any more r...

2009-10-18T17:29:54.075+02:00
> Why is just saying ‘we don’t know’ any more rational than saying ‘we don’t know, but choose to believe’? After all, if one can rationally explain their belief (understanding that this doesn’t prove that it’s right), and further, that belief brings them benefits such as peace of mind, a feeling of self worth, or what have you,

If you’re saying, “I understand that there’s no evidence to support my belief, but I believe in spite of that due to these other pragmatic reasons,” then I agree, that’s rational.

The problem is when people try to use the lack of conclusive evidence to equivocate belief and lack of belief. There are lots of things that we lack conclusive evidence for one way or the other, like bigfoot. Yet most people would agree that it is more rational to assume that bigfoot does not exist until they are shown conclusive evidence that it does. When it comes to religion, some people try to claim that the lack of evidence means that belief is as valid as assuming not until proven.

To use the bigfoot example again, that we don’t have conclusive evidence regarding its existence does not make it equally valid to assume that bigfoot does exist or to assume that he doesn’t exist. We assume he doesn’t until proven otherwise. The same standard should be applied to religious beliefs. If one accepts that, but chooses to believe despite that, that’s fine, but that’s called faith.

> True, but what is ‘expert analysis’ other than the personal opinion of someone who (hopefully) has more information and expertise—but is also limited in knowledge?

You’re right, and I’ll say even better. If even expert opinion can be and often is wrong, then the layman’s opinion can be expected to be wrong even more often. That people choose to do things and accept points of view despite not being able to know that they are right is an unfortunate necessity, as we need to in order to function in the uncertainty of the real world. That this is necessary should not be taken as justification for accepting something without evidence, and we should look at all of out positions as tentative and contingent on gathering further evidence and re-evaluating the position based on that evidence.

> Likewise, look at the ‘experts’ on the economy and investments, where few mutual fund managers even match the market over time.

The stockmarket is a particularly bad example of an “expert,” as studies have shown that expert stockbrokers do no better than amateurs.

ephraim said...
> Probably most of their absolutist ideas just stem from an insecurity and fear,

They say exactly the same thing about people who disagree with them. I don’t think either they or you are right. They aren’t insecure. They sincerely believe that they are correct, and that their position is unassailable. They don’t think they have anything to fear from the silly scientists.

Can a person who believes that the world is 577...

2009-10-18T13:20:47.391+02:00
Can a person who believes that the world is 5770 years old be rated as "quite knowledgeable secularly"? I can see room for disagreement on that.

Of course he's very knowledgeable; he just has weird ideas.

So they're not. Big deal. What's your ...

2009-10-18T13:19:39.684+02:00

So they're not. Big deal. What's your point?

What's your point?

You sound pretty cynical and burnt-out, and that's too bad, because I personally think that there's a lot of good to be found even among the people who seem the most narrow-minded about emunah issues. Probably most of their absolutist ideas just stem from an insecurity and fear, and we could all gain if we could convince them to work to bring Judaism into the real world.

Rabbi moshe Meiselman is certainly a talmid cha...

2009-10-18T10:14:10.658+02:00
Rabbi moshe Meiselman is certainly a talmid chahcham and quite knowledgable secularly

Can a person who believes that the world is 5770 years old be rated as "quite knowledgeable secularly"? I can see room for disagreement on that.

Have you heard any update as to if/when that work will be available.

I heard that it's in the reviewing process, and I also heard a rumor that Feldheim turned it down (smart move on their part!)

im sure you will critique it then.

Yes, of course. I also have some predictions for the book:

It won't discuss the mud-mouse.

It won't discuss prehistoric man and ancient humans.

It won't quote the comments of Rav Hirsch on evolution and on Chazal/science.

It won't mention the comments of R. Lampronti on kinnim, Maharam Schick on Pesachim 94b or Rav Herzog on bereishis/chazal.

So the gemara is right, and the evidence of ou...

2009-10-18T10:07:03.729+02:00

So the gemara is right, and the evidence of our senses are not to be trusted.

Don't we read the Gemara with our eyes?

Alex,

You are right, I was generalizing in a way which is not justified based on only this one example. However, I do have many more examples, both personal and general, most prominently, of course, the original ban of Rabbi Slifkin's works which was far more intense than just shouting when asked a question. (And yes, Rabbi Schechter does 'yell' at the questioner in the video.)

>Does it really make perfect sense to them that...

2009-10-18T05:27:47.755+02:00
>Does it really make perfect sense to them that the Torah, read on anything near a literal level, describes the history of the world in a way which is completely false according to the solidly proven evidence we have today?

Yes, it really does. I was once such a person, so I can speak with some authority. Trust me, in that mindset it all makes perfect sense. Torah is not only true without question, but it is lightyears, ridculously many lightyears ahead of any other possible discipline or kind of thinking. Yes, it *really* makes perfect sense to them.

>Does it really make perfect sense to them that the Gemara is full of statements about the physical world which are just plain wrong or extremely primitive, as anyone can see today?

Yes.

>If these things seem "perfectly sensible" to these Rabbis, then they aren't living in the real world.

So they're not. Big deal. What's your point?

You listed 3 gedolim who have published or spoken ...

2009-10-16T22:14:41.621+02:00
You listed 3 gedolim who have published or spoken in public against your work. While his credentials as a "gadol" may be a point of discussion, Rabbi moshe Meiselman is certainly a talmid chahcham and quite knowledgable secularly (granted his degree is in math yet he has had a collegiate level education in natural sciences). I know that you consulted him in preparation of at least one of your books and that he took offense to the acknowledgement as it appearedtaht he agreed with your work. He also spoke in a semi-public format criticizing your work to which you responded.
I understand that he was in the midst of writing (either alone or collaborating with Rabbi Gottlieb) a book length discussion on science and faith. Have you heard any update as to if/when that work will be available. im sure you will critique it then.

G*3 “One may certainly choose to believe in God wi...

2009-10-16T17:49:21.150+02:00
G*3 “One may certainly choose to believe in God without conclusive evidence, but that is faith. Saying that we don’t know, therefore it is as rational as anything else is not true. The most rational approach is to look to the evidence and just say we don’t know.”

Why is just saying ‘we don’t know’ any more rational than saying ‘we don’t know, but choose to believe’? After all, if one can rationally explain their belief (understanding that this doesn’t prove that it’s right), and further, that belief brings them benefits such as peace of mind, a feeling of self worth, or what have you, why is that less rational than what might (at least for them) be a less fulfilling feeling of uncertainty? After all, what is rational for me (because of my circumstances) might be irrational for you (because of your different circumstances)

S- One can believe that capitalism/socialism/communism is the best economic model despite not understanding every nuance of economics

G*3 - That would be a personal opinion, not an expert analysis of competing economic models. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but we should recognize that people’s opinions are often wrong.

Shalom- True, but what is ‘expert analysis’ other than the personal opinion of someone who (hopefully) has more information and expertise—but is also limited in knowledge? After all, look at the ‘experts’ on the environment who wrote volumes about the danger of ‘global cooling’ back in the 70s and 80s, then the danger of ‘global warming’ in the last several years, and now it’s been quiet because it’s actually been getting cooler now. Likewise, look at the ‘experts’ on the economy and investments, where few mutual fund managers even match the market over time.

Of course ya gotta remember that there is the whol...

2009-10-15T23:18:46.005+02:00
Of course ya gotta remember that there is the whole concept of Chok, which was designed not to be questioned.

Ephraim, I get the impression that some in the rig...

2009-10-15T23:02:51.258+02:00
Ephraim, I get the impression that some in the right wing chareidi camp implicitly reject empiricism as a valid epistemology. According to this view, the only way we know anything is based on what’s written in Torah sources. It is a given that the Torah is the source of all knowledge, and that the Torah is always correct. Therefore if we come across something that contradicts the Torah, it is automatically wrong.

So the gemara is right, and the evidence of our senses are not to be trusted.

> If these things seem "perfectly sensible" to these Rabbis, then they aren't living in the real world.

That’s the main downside of their point of view. Of course, they would say that they are the ones living in the real world, and we are all living in an olam shel sheker. Unfortunately for them, one has to start out already believing that to be true in order for it to be plausible.

"Why do these Rabbis think that yelling at pe...

2009-10-15T14:33:11.785+02:00
"Why do these Rabbis think that yelling at people is the way to popularize Torah?"

Ephraim, again with the "these"? Do you ALWAYS generalize? (smirk)

Besides, you need not equate "raising one's voice in a lecture" with "yelling at people."

I was 'Anonymous' at 10:19, if anyone is i...

2009-10-15T14:06:23.553+02:00
I was 'Anonymous' at 10:19, if anyone is interested.

You're right that they may be lacking in e...

2009-10-15T10:19:35.301+02:00

You're right that they may be lacking in empathy, but I'm pretty sure that they *can* conceive that there are people who very much want to live a spiritual, Orthodox Jewish life, and that part of that is actually believing something that makes sense to them. Why? Because they are those people; or they believe they are those people. It makes perfect sense to them.

Does it really make perfect sense to them that the Torah, read on anything near a literal level, describes the history of the world in a way which is completely false according to the solidly proven evidence we have today? (I'm intentionally not using the words 'science' or 'scientists' which, as mentioned, conjure up in some people's minds some evil group of atheists who are "out to get us". We're talking about evidence which is pretty much in everyone's grasp if they just are interested.)
Does it really make perfect sense to them that the Gemara is full of statements about the physical world which are just plain wrong or extremely primitive, as anyone can see today? (Again, no need to refer to any elite group of 'scientists').
If these things seem "perfectly sensible" to these Rabbis, then they aren't living in the real world.
BTW, I finally got around to hearing Rav Aharon Schecter's talk, and it is a classic example where the 'tone' is everything. Out of a 12-minute speech, there is maybe 10 seconds of actual content, and if he would have expressed it without shouting, making fists, and generally insulting the listeners, it might even be rather compatible with what RNS writes in his books. Basically, as far as I could tell, if he says anything relevant, it is that there may be (!) good questions, and we may not (!) know the answers, but that there are deeper levels of understanding to the Torah. (Of course, what these "deeper levels" may be is a subject which is open to controversy, but the basic direction is reasonable.) Why do these Rabbis think that yelling at people is the way to popularize Torah?

Shalom, Cherry Hill said... > Not at all. My po...

2009-10-15T07:18:22.796+02:00
Shalom, Cherry Hill said...
> Not at all. My point is that since *everyone* lacks complete understanding in *all* topics, but we still decide to adopt a basic worldview, the decision to believe in G-d despite not having all the answers is no less rational than any other belief.

Still an argument from ignorance. The best you can do with this line of reasoning is to say that we have insufficient data to come to a valid conclusion regarding God, and therefore we don’t know. One may certainly choose to believe in God without conclusive evidence, but that is faith. Saying that we don’t know, therefore it is as rational as anything else is not true. The most rational approach is to look to the evidence and just say we don’t know.

> One can believe that capitalism/socialism/communism is the best economic model despite not understanding every nuance of economics

That would be a personal opinion, not an expert analysis of competing economic models. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but we should recognize that people’s opinions are often wrong.

shadesofgray.gray said...
> Getting back to the Rambam, there are answers for all questions, but there is what to fear from free inquiry because a person may draw wrong conclusions.

So there are answers, we just shouldn’t go looking for them because our puny minds may come to the wrong conclusions – the wrong conclusions being defined as anything that disagrees with Torah precepts. This is assuming what you are trying to prove. Given that the Torah is right, then it follows that anything that shows it is false is wrong. But we haven’t established that the Torah is right, except for the Rambam’s assurance that there are answers for all of our questions (answers that he tells us not to look for). And we should just take the Rambam’s word for this?

> However, the Jewish community should validate and have an attitude of openness towards those who honestly ask questions just as the Rambam wrote the Moraeh,

Yes, they should, though I would leave out the modifier “honestly.” 1) Who gets to decide if a question is “honest” or is an excuse? Especially given the belief that all non-trivial hashkafa questions are really excuses? 2) Questions stand on their own, regardless of the motivation of the one asking. A good question is a good question.

> lest one conclude, as the above-mentioned organization does, that we are afraid of questions as a community.

They’re wrong?

The quote from R’ Weinman is a nice take on questioning, but based on the url that follows it, it seems that it was meant for ballei teshiva. There is a common perception in the frum community that it is okay for a baal teshuva to ask questions, but someone raised frum shouldn’t. Nisht paas. I also find the last bit of the url, “what-must-one-believe,” to be odd, as per my comment above about belief not actually being subject to an act of will.

Here is a positive approach to questions from an a...

2009-10-15T05:49:01.929+02:00
Here is a positive approach to questions from an article by Rabbi Max Weinman:

"Regarding your feeling of being uncomfortable with something. You never have to accept something that makes you uncomfortable in the way you mean it[see original question about Avroham not looking at Sarah untill before Mitzrayim]. Always try to articulate what is bothering you. That’s part of Machkim es Rabo, one of the 48 Things from the 6th Chapter, 6th Mishna of Pirkey Avot. You may have an obligation to say, “I’m not clear on what this means.” “I find this hard to understand.” And you should badger teachers and Rabbis until someone can explain it to you in a way that sits right with you. However, many great sages had questions that made them “uncomfortable” for years. We don’t always get an answer, but we go to the grave trying."

http://www.beyondbt.com/2009/06/17/what-must-one-believe/

(Continued) While an individual may be proscribed...

2009-10-15T05:26:49.832+02:00
(Continued)

While an individual may be proscribed from studying heresy to satisfy his curiosity, obviously as a *community*, Orthodox representatives can not say to any non-Orthodox scholar, "we are not thinking about your questions", because of the Rambam in Avodah Zarah!

There is an organization in Israel which attempts to bombard Israeli Charedim with questions about faith that they can not handle. They ask the following general question about Charedie education (in realty the question is not only on "Charedim"):

"If the "Divine truth" is in the pocket of the Charedi, why are they so afraid to teach their students Biblical criticism, the results of archeological research, and to teach them whether their faith passes the test of reasonable critique?"

Getting back to the Rambam, there are answers for all questions, but there is what to fear from free inquiry because a person may draw wrong conclusions. However, the Jewish community should validate and have an attitude of openness towards those who honestly ask questions just as the Rambam wrote the Moraeh, lest one conclude, as the above-mentioned organization does, that we are afraid of questions as a community.

"Do you realize what you’re saying? This impl...

2009-10-15T05:21:35.090+02:00
"Do you realize what you’re saying? This implies that if someone is allowed to pursue investigation into hashkafa unchecked, he will inevitably lose his belief in the Torah"

I didn't realize that I implied that, but let's go back to the Rambam in Avodah Zarah(translation from R. Carmy's article in TUM Journal 2):

"Any thought which leads a human being to uproot one of the principles of the Torah, we are enjoined not to take it upon our heart, and we should not divert our minds to such, and dwell [upon it] and be drawn after the thoughts of the heart. This is because man's understanding is slight, and not all minds can attain truth thoroughly. If a man is drawn after the thoughts of his heart he may destroy the world as a result of his limited understanding. How? At times he will rove after idolatry. At times he will think about God being one: maybe it is so, maybe it isn't. What is above, what is below, what is before, what is after. And sometimes about prophecy: maybe it is true, maybe it isn't. And sometimes about the Torah: maybe it is from Heaven, maybe it is not. And he does not know the categories by which he should judge [ha-middot she-yadin bahen] in order to know truth thoroughly; hence he is liable to deviate into minut. "

The Rambam clearly implies that there are answers for any question, but, " not all minds can attain truth thoroughly", and " he does not know the categories by which he should judge in order to know truth thoroughly".

Indeed the Rambam wrote the Moreh to deal with such questions. One can further question, however, what the Rambam would have done with today's questions, some of which are of a different type than those in the Moreh.

Hi, G*3 S- > After all, who can truly fully un...

2009-10-14T21:05:57.910+02:00
Hi, G*3

S- > After all, who can truly fully understand the human condition, the environment, economics, and so on, but we all decide on what basic world view to hold.

G*3- Argument from ignorance. We don’t understand how all this works, therefore God.

S- Not at all. My point is that since *everyone* lacks complete understanding in *all* topics, but we still decide to adopt a basic worldview, the decision to believe in G-d despite not having all the answers is no less rational than any other belief. One can believe that capitalism/socialism/communism is the best economic model despite not understanding every nuance of economics, and one can believe/disbelieve in G-d despite not understanding every issue also.