Amazing stuff. The Rishonim like Ramban have no problem ascribing things to miracles (let alone the other Rishonim who were mysteriously left unmentioned here who have no problem with unstressed miracles throughout Tanach; eg. Yocheved giving birth at 130 was, as some rishonim say, 'not such a big deal that it had to be mentioned', et al.).
However: if they'd be alive today they'd agree with Natan. Why? Cuz he says so. And he's an authority on these matters, you see.
Maybe if the Ran would be alive today and see that his theory doesn't fit scientifically he'd agree with Ramban? Nah. Natan doesn't say so.
Or maybe almost nothing actually observable has changed since the time of the Rishonim as far as the viability of the story? They couldn't think of the question of ventilation? Or of how they survived in the conditions? Ah, the primitive Ramban didn't chap that animals tend to have different habitats. After all, he thought elephants can jump so maybe he assumed they, like, took turns with the other animals keeping their feet on the floor. Thank god (or whomever) for zoologists.
The myth of the Rebbe who embarrassed a teen for asking questions is a canard invented by otds seeking to justify themselves.
Most Rebbeim will answer "I don't know the answer, and it's best if you don't think too much about this". They don't embarrass a teen for asking questions on emuna at all.
If someone interrupts the shiur on Bava Kama with an emuna question and refuses to back down, he may be embarrassed. And he may misrepresent the story as having been embarrassed for asking a question. But that would not be the truth.
"Your honor, of course I went to the bathroom. Everyone goes to the bathroom, it's a natural function of life".
"Yes, but not in the middle of a dance floor at a wedding".
So now you've moved on to sulking about those crazy rigid fundamentalists who are not tolerant enough to allow others who are not as fundamental as them a place in Judaism. We should rename you Natan the Chameleon.
Well, if all you'd do is open a Gateways or Arachim seminar, that would be one thing. But you feel the need to go and consistently attack the Charedim for following the traditional approach by understanding that Genesis is from the deepest secrets of the Torah and far beyond our comprehension, as it is described by Chazal.
And let's not forget your proposed solutions that completely disregard the framework of Torah. As HGL so aptly pointed out, the Torah is not some malleable lump of silly putty that you can just mold to fit your own agenda. If you have a solution that works within traditional parameters and doesn't involve saying that the Torah is fabricated or other flat-out heresy, that would be fine. Unless, of course, you're willing to throw out the whole thing and declare parts of the Torah a complete fabrication. You know, like those early Reformers who ended up turning Judaism into a watered-down mess. Great idea, champ.
What does the Rambam have to do with this? Do you mean the Rambam that rules that someone who says that even one word of the Torah is of human origin is a heretic and deserves to be killed? I thought so.
Anyhow, I like your reasoning. A "long line of people" (I call those people Rishonim) felt that some of the Rambam's views may be heresy, so now you're allowed to say things which by all accounts are heresy. And I'm just a fanatic like those "people". Nice.
"But you feel the need to go and consistently attack the Charedim for following the traditional approach..." You've got it backwards. I don't care if people reject science. I just care that they condemn others for not rejecting science.
"And let's not forget your proposed solutions that completely disregard the framework of Torah." Please re-read the opening paragraph. It’s easy for you to just disqualify approaches that you consider theologically problematic, without having to actually deal with the challenges that people are grappling with. I would hope that you would recognize this and keep your opinions to yourself, unless you are comfortable with making people feel that they cannot be part of the religious Jewish community.
No, you've got it backwards. You can say whatever in the world you want to make the Torah fit with science, and I have absolutely no issue with that. But if it crosses the line of what Chazal define as heresy, you're not doing anyone a service.
And not sure why all of the sudden I'm supposed to be keeping my opinions to myself. You seem to have no problem spewing all your opinions about people that you have absolutely nothing to do with.
Cute how in the last post we were 'fundamentalists'; now it's 'Kentucky Christians' and 'moder charedim', just in time to assume the adult-in-the-room posture and tsk tsk at those who don't respect people with whom they disagree or whatever. Chameleon indeed.
"You've got it backwards. I don't care if people reject science. I just care that they condemn others for not rejecting science."
You can really look at it that they condemn others for trying to influence chareidim to follow the scientific view over the Torah.
Between me and you, if you would have originally published your books as "Rabbi Dr Natan Slifkin", as opposed to "Nosson Slifkin" and gotten a haskama from Jonathan Sacks instead of Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky, they wouldn't have come out against you. It was only because your books were becoming mainstreamed.
Well Rabbi Ribner is busy with anything and everything under the sun, that's not wat I'm referring to. The reason why Natan was put in cherem was because there was fear that his views would infiltrate mainstream chareidi society. If he would just write books about science as a MO zoologist, yes there would be people criticizing him, but he would not be getting nearly as much attention.
Take Jonathan Sacks, for example. An apikorus limehadrin just like Slifkin (or worse), yet for some reason the gedolim weren't busy with him. Why? The same reason they're not busy with reform rabbis. He minded his own business, left the chareidim alone, and just espoused his kefirah to whoever was interested in listening.
Anything that goes against your childish belief in the Chazal’s interpretation of a document that was already ancient by the time they got it is heresy. I guess you think putting modern empirically based explanations in that cubby hole stifles any debate? The Torah was incredibly ancient by the time the ancient (to us) interpreters (Chazal and medieval) came up with their interpretations which were based on erroneous assumptions. Genesis was based on or even plagiarized from even more ancient sources and there was no way those people could have known about them. They did the best they could with them commentary but didn’t have the benefit of modern science, archeological findings, literary criticism, and ANE literary comparison. Even Ibn Ezra knew that parts of the Torah were not written by Moses. Guess he’s a heretic too. 🤦♂️
"It’s easy for them to just disqualify approaches that they consider theologically problematic, without having to actually deal with the challenges that the people in the aforementioned category are grappling with."
You don't have to answer all the challenges in Judaism, especially when your "solution" is worse than the challenge. See that part of my essay here "Will this question kill you?"
"I would hope that they would recognize this and keep their opinions to themselves, unless they are comfortable with making people feel that they cannot be part of the religious Jewish community."
People with the attitude that such questions are a deal breaker for Judaism are already not part of the Jewish religious community. Certainly I don't consider you as that.
"There is no mention whatsoever of all the extraordinary miracles - far greater than that of Kriyas Yam Suf - which Rabbi Meiselman’s approach requires."
Meaningless nonsense. What does it mean for a miracle to be greater or lesser than והמים להם חומה מימינם ומשמאלם? The Mabul was also a much greater scale than Kriyas Yam Suf. Chazal add a whole bunch of miracles that the pasuk doesn't mention, both with the Mabul and Kriyas Yam Suf. Let us just say this objection... doesn't hold water!!🥁
"And they describe the extreme difficulties involved in managing so large a task, rather than saying that Noach had supernatural assistance."
Yeah but they still agree the Mabul was supernatural, and even add miracles that the Torah doesn't mention. The idea that they would be ideologically opposed to more miracles, if necessary, is just ludicrous.
"Rambam does not discuss the logistics of the Ark, but with his general strong preference to minimize the supernatural, it’s safe to assume that he would not have been willing to say that such miracles occurred with the Ark."
Only if there is a better solution. Your preferred solution is worse.
"Ramban, on the other hand, famously asks that the Ark could not have been big enough to hold all the animals, especially including such things as elephants, and answers that this was a miracle. ... Second, he doesn’t simply wave it off as being all miracles, but rather fits it into a previous known category of miracles in which something small can encompass something large."
What is "known category of miracles"??? You just made up that concept on the spot!!! 😂😂 Also, who told you about מיעוט מחזיק את הרובה in the first place? There is absolutely no mention in the pesukim of that, it is an interpretation of Chazal and is to answer the challenge from מציאות. Just like the Ramban and all those who add miracles to the Mabul are doing.
"And more recent rabbinic authorities, such as my own mentor Rav Aryeh Carmell ztz”l, preferred to see the story as being designed to impart powerful theological messages."
This doesn't solve any of the challenges, unless (as is likely the case) you are willing to say the Mabul is fictional, like you said with Bereishis in TCOC.
"We can see that they did not want to just write everything off as being miraculous, and they would have been especially opposed to miracles that are designed to mislead."
And your solution is that the Torah was designed to mislead.
"People with the attitude that such questions are a deal breaker for Judaism are already not part of the Jewish religious community." What a strange and disturbing thing to say. Are you claiming that there is nobody in the Torah-observant community who seriously struggles with emunah questions? Or that people in Torah-observant community who are seriously bothered by such questions might as well just leave the Torah-observant community?
Huh? I never said that. I struggle with emunah questions all the time. But it is VERY IMPORTANT to know that just because you have questions, or "Questions", as you say in your book, your commitment to and belief in the Torah is NOT at stake. Having questions, or Questions, is normal and good. But if your "solution" is much worse than the Question, like in your case, then you have gained nothing.
It's very nice for you that nothing at all would make you question your belief in Torah. But how on earth can you expect everyone to be the same way? What would you say about an atheist who says that nothing at all would make him believe in God, or a Christian (or Messianic Jew) who says that nothing at all would make him question his belief in Jesus?
And meanwhile, there definitely ARE people whose questions make them struggle with commitment to Judaism. So what do you mean by saying that they are "already not part of the Jewish religious community"? That we should just write them off and it doesn't matter if they stop keeping mitzvos?
Well, to start with, I wouldn't compare the Torah to atheism.
I wouldn't compare the Torah to Christianity.
I wouldn't compare the Torah to a cult.
These comparisons *already* take you out of the religious community. I'm amazed that you are so far gone, you don't understand this.
Regarding people who struggle with their commitment to Judaism, there are a variety of methods to draw them closer, none of which validate their inclination to abandon it, telling them "You know what, you're right. If you can't find a satisfactory solution to every single one of you questions on faith, then you should give up on Judaism." No. That is not what you should tell them. And you certainly shouldn't write a book from that perspective.
It is totally fine to say we don't have a good answer for every Question. It is totally fine to say that the Torah is very deep, and we don't understand it completely. It is totally fine to say "I don't know, maybe a miracle- or maybe not". This is absolutely honest, normative Judaism.
I wasn't comparing the Torah to atheism or Christianity or a cult. Please work on understanding what I am saying rather than trying to distort it so that you can dismiss it.
And it's also totally fine to admit that although you find certain approaches to be inconsistent with proper theology, greater people than yourself have disagrees with you, from Rambam to Rav Carmell.
But to respond to that point (and I am astonished that I am even bothering to do so, it does not deserve a response), the way it works is this: I have good reason to believe Judaism in the first place, so I still believe it, even with Questions. In fact, the nature of the Torah itself makes me expect many questions. But I have good reason to *reject* atheism and Christianity in the first place. Not like you think, that atheism, Christianity, and Judaism are otherwise equal, and you only reject the first two because you have Questions on them, but you imagine you somehow escaped all Questions on Judaism. No. That is not how it works.
It is a joke to quote Rambam or Rav Carmell, when you reject the whole concept of Mesorah in the first place. Who gave the Rambam any authority at all? If he would have doubled down and explicitly denied Techias Hameisim, he would be a kofer. Thank God that didn't happen.
"I don't know, but these are various possibilities and in the meantime I'll be machmir and not eat mammoth but also not burn terumah that I touch after carrying it" is, as you say, totally fine. "I don't know and it's not important to me" is not.
Ok, I'm gonna make peace with HGL and Natan. Hear me out.
It seems the the two of you are not even arguing with each other. Well you're arguing, but not with each other. I've seen this play out in many other arguments with other people in the past as well. The two of you are making separate points, but nobody is really addressing the other guys point. Let me explain.
Nathan is making two main points 1. He is offering an approach to reconcile the Torah with modern science, for those who are bothered by the issue in the first place. 2. He is criticizing chareidim for not being bothered by these questions. ("Imagine other religions would say mshtarbt nisht fun a kasha")
Now HGL argues with both of these points, 1. He thinks Natan's pshat is heresy. 2. He thinks it is a horrible thing to attack chareidim for nor being bothered by these questions. So what do I mean they are not addressing each other? Because Natan's main issue is #1, how to reconcile the Torah with science. And HGL's main problem is #2 , don't attack us for not being bothered by these questions.
Once that is settled, I think we can find common ground on the other issues. On point #1 , HGL, you may think Natan's pshat is kefirah, but he is making a point that he is not the first guy to say such ideas. You are definitely entitled to completely disregard his theory, (as I myself do), but in an of itself I don't think it's the end of the world to offer a crazy pshat for a problem that is very much bothering him. Obviously if you don't want to read his book, you don't have to (I indeed didn't).
Now with point #2, I think Natan should agree that HGL is right. Ok, you want a pshat that makes you happy, so you can share with your fellow science lovers. All fine and dandy. But HGL has a great point, that there's nothing wrong if someone simply believes the Torah and is not bothered by this. So I suggest the following: Natan stop attacking the chareidim for not be bothered by your scientific problems. And I don't think the chareidim have much of a problem if you teach some of your highly original approaches to people that are extremely bothered by these issues.
Just don't send those books in our seforim stores, we'll be OK without them.
Your point #2 is incorrect. I've never criticized charedim for not being bothered by these questions. I only criticize them for insisting that OTHER people should not be bothered by them.
People absolutely do go OTD because they are tempted by modernism. Do you think the Haskalah was a good thing? I am guessing yes. In that case, we will never agree.
I don't think Natan is horrible person for having questions in the first place. I have the same questions as he does. But it is fundamentally false, at the deepest level, to think that Judaism will answer all your Questions, and it's a big emergency if it somehow doesn't, and is worth giving such "solutions" as Natan does, to stop the fire. No. This entire attitude is 100% incorrect and anti-Torah. Anybody least acquainted with the Torah will see that it generates, deep, perplexing, and uncomfortable Questions, and very few people, including the greatest Torah giants will say they have all the answers. And if they do, be *very* suspicious.
As you say, "try to respond to my students’ questions in a sensitive and appropriate way, rather than dismissing their concerns and worries out of hand." 100%.That is a good thing. But don't give "solutions" that just make things worse, such as that one of the most important parts of the Torah is a fiction, a myth. And don't tell people that if they can't answer all the Questions, then Judaism is no different from atheism or a cult. And certainly don't write a book from that perspective.
You didn't read my whole comment. As I said, I HAVE questions and doubts. And I take these questions seriously. In fact, I will discuss some approaches on an upcoming post on Irrationalist Modoxism, including an approach I haven't yet seen in any Jewish source. But it is still VERY important to know that "From a question, you don't die". There are so many serious questions in Judaism, and if somebody tells you he has all the answers, well, be very suspicious. There is not a single Gadol in the world who would tell you otherwise.
When someone has a question, and they say “well, I read such in Slifkin’s book”, and I disagree with that, I wouldn't just say “Slifkin’s an apikores, and you should shut up because questions won’t kill you”. That would be a very rude and insensitive response. But I would say (warmly, and preferably over a steaming bowl of cholent) “I may not have a solution you would deem satisfactory, and that's ok. Questions are par for the course in Judaism. I will think about it more, and try to come up with something you will like better. But unfortunately, Slifkin's so-called 'solutions' are unacceptable and just makes things worse.”
The question of why G-d has not redeemed His chosen people for over 2000 years is an extremely serious question. I am not aware of any solution that satisfies me. But guess what? The Christians have a great, simple answer. Does that mean I should go with them? I just wrote a post about this, here
And, may I add, that scientists also have to deal with deeply disconcerting and uncomfortable questions. There are thousand of perplexing questions that in fact challenge the very axiomatic premises of science that science just does not have the answers for. Yet scientists don't just say, "Oh, darn it. I think I'm going to ditch science and critical thinking and become a Hari Krishna!"
This commenter claims he teaches "pre-medical students", primarily from the "Yeshivish world", who are terrified that if their Roshei Yeshiva finds out they have questions, they'll be "driven out of their community."
BALONEY. Sheer baloney. Not a word of this is true. The strange phrasing alone betrays a lack of first hand knowledge of either pre-med students or the yeshiva world. The idea that yeshivah students old enough to be in pre-med are worried about such things is also nonsense. The claim that Roshei Yeshivahs are worried about college students asking questions about Noach's Ark is vaiter riddiculous. And the bit about "being driven from the community" shows the commenter has watched a few too many Netflix films.
You're changing your story. Your first post was all about how secret groups of Roshei Yeshivah were skulking around, looking for pre-med students who were "asking questions", so the young men could be "thrown out of their communities". That was baloney, and you know it.
NOW you're saying that they're complaining about YOU, and that you're TEACHING their students apikorsis. I have no idea whether you are or are not, but at least that's a plausible scenario. Since you claim your Dean told you stop teaching hashkafic and halachic issues (2 different things, but whatever), there's only one school in the country this could possibly refer to, so your claim is easily verifiable, if anyone cared to do so.
I’ve deleted all my comments in this thread. I responded in the heat of emotion in an improper way, and it was inappropriate of me to project my thoughts and opinions on this matter. I’ll stick to teaching MCAT classes and I will keep my mouth shut about Torah subjects of any kind, which I clearly and obviously know absolutely nothing about.
I never implied you don't know Torah subjects. I think it's especially important for front-line people like yourself to deal with these questions, of course, in a way that respects the integrity of the Torah (meaning, not like our dear friend). Sometimes that involves honestly telling students you don't have the answer, just like even the greatest Gedolim themselves would say. That's all. However, it's vital to have an answer as to why you believe in the Torah in the first place, and I'm sure you do.
I wouldn't be surprised that a child from Lakewood was sent away from home. I also wouldn't be surprised to hear that he blamed it on 'asking questions'. I just don't think he is saying the truth.
Do you know the story of the fellow who was expelled from his town for not washing Mayim Acharonim?
“This is a magnificent life-size reproduction of Noah’s Ark and is the largest timber frame structure in the USA. Interpreting a cubit as 20 inches rather than 18, it’s over five hundred feet long!”
It’s amusing to learn some people are under the impression (I assume you’re quoting Ark Adventure propaganda) this is the largest timber frame structure in the US. I can assure you that is incorrect. Your Ark would look pretty puny if situated next to the real largest structure in the US (and possibly the world) which is TRESTLE -also about 12 stories tall. (We used to use it to simulate the effects of nuclear EMP on large strategic bombers in flight, and needed a platform without any metal that might deform the impinging free field electromagnetic wave. Lack of metal extended to joints and connectors and the whole contraption was held together with glue.) TRESTLE was decommissioned after the fall of the Soviet Union (when, sadly, other really cool activities in US western deserts were abruptly canceled), and I haven’t been back to Kirtland AFB is some years, but I believe it’s still standing. Because what after all, were you going to do with the thing.
"This post was written for those who are committed to the tenets of Judaism"
Which tenets of Judaism? Charity? Ohhh, you mean *Orthodox* Judaism. Most Judaism isn't Orthodox, so you should be more specific. The majority of Judaism is not challenged by the fact that the Torah contains a flood myth (well, two, kinda).
"unless they are comfortable with making people feel that they cannot be part of the religious Jewish community"
Plenty of religious Jews welcome those who understand the Torah that way: they're called non-fundamentalists. You meant the *Orthodox* Jewish community.
I think everybody, including Reb Noson, and Rabbi Meiselman (and even the Kentucky Christians) can support their positions from Tanach, Chazal and/or reason. However, in reality, in a sense, they are all barking up the wrong tree. I have written an English language Torah thesis entitled, Creation and Divine Providence (subtitled: Four Treatises that Explain and Elucidate the Subjects from the Torah Rational Logical Approach). It is composed of pieces from my Sefer Nachal Chaim, translated (from Hebrew) and rewritten. It is available for download (nachalchaim@gmail.com)
I think the reticence of the modern Chareidi approach in dealing with the technicalities of the mabul/ark is
1. The focus is mostly on the lesson of the flood. Thus while they may think that the whole earth was flooded and they take all the midrashim literally, it ultimately doesn't make much difference whether the flood encompassed the entire earth or just the Middle East - the lesson is the same.
2. Deep down, Chareidim know it is ridiculous to rewrite history like the Fundamentalist Christians do, and therefore would not explicitly do so.
@2. Overall, Chareidim are hardly aware that the flood is scientifically challenging, and assume that the answers they have for explaining creation, with a few adjustments, resolve any issues from the flood.
I don't see a problem with RNS explanation or the Ark Encounter as both work for some people. Charedi approach is more evolitionary sound for the survival of the group as it keeps more people within the fold and avoids greater confusion by exposing people to theories which more often then not lead to the denial of כל התורה כולה. If Torah is of primary importance to you and you want to see בנים ובני בנים עוסקים בתורה ובמיצוות charedi way is the way to go. There is no better alternative with all the shortcomings notwithstanding, or at least this is what I think.
Charedim are practicing the עשו סייג לתורה, which is what enabled our survival for 2,500 years since this principal had been established. From the evolutionary perspective they have done better then any other approach and I don't understand why this blog, written by an evolutionist, keeps beating a dead horse.
What I say is that an evolutionist of all people should understand that charedi ideology is an evolutionary adaptation that benefits the survival of the group. Study of science, serving in the army and finding theory of creation ridiculous doesn't.
This is all very simple.
What good is evolution if its understanding doesn't lead to the improvement of the survival prospects?
I don’t know. How about actually saving lives? Here’s a nice article that explains how the discovery of biological evolution and natural selection has improved medicine and public health. Btw, I never mentioned biological evolution. Do you enjoy being humiliated?
A strange question indeed. I prefer to be proven wrong rather then being right, for it improves my understanding and I gain knowledge. Evolution is true and evolutionary adaptarions are manifest in all religions and societies, but some are more succesful then others. At this point in history the charedim have an upper hand in having a more optimal system for preserving Judaism. We don't know if it will always be so, but it may. This is what I was talking about. Understanding the process helps to save lives and make better choices in life.
What kind of Judaism are they preserving? As Rabbi Slifkin points out, their refusal to work for a living, accept welfare instead of supporting their own families goes against what the sages themselves said. Is that preserving Judaism? They depend on others to protect them instead of contributing to the safety of Israel by serving in the IDF so they are sniveling cowards. Is that worth preserving? Their children are cheated out of an education that prepares them to function in the modern world. Seems like a race to the bottom to me.
When work doesn't endanger their lifestyle, they work harder then most and are succesful. Not being able to function in the modern society is an advantage to their survival. The savages, who would kill all the strangers like the Andaman islanders, are still around. The ones that were more tolerant were whiped out. This is evolution and survival of the fittest. Can it be that hundreds of thousands of people are just cowards? Their behaviour is well thoight out.
You've told us what you believe is the "approach" that "Charedim" - all hundreds of thousands of them, apparently - have on the Ark. What do you think is the "approach" of the MO? Or of the Yeshiva world generally (unless you view this world as "charedim", which would be news to those in America.) What are their "approaches"? Is it any different than Charedim? Are you again letting your biases cloud your thinking? Maybe pretty much all orthodox Jews in their millions, of whatever stripe, have the same approach, and it is only you, Professor Slifkin, and a few others, that think otherwise?
When a person has a Question, it is usually a product of a lot of questions. If the person asking the questions has a basis in Judaism, and understands that לא מחשבותי מחשבותיכם and it is a feature of G-d's actions in this world that they will not be fully understandable by the limited human logic, he will often find answers and his questions will not lead him to kefira. It is when those questions are treated like life and death questions, telling the teen that he does not need to follow that which his puny mind does not understand, that the questions become Questions.
And there is no answer to Questions. They will eventually kill a person. When I hear or read them from people I sometimes am shocked by the frivolity of the questioner, about how little appreciation they have for the abstract, and how limited their thought processes are. But once they have told themselves that their own understanding is the only thing that counts, as foolish as this opinion is, there is no way back.
Of course, this is a dishonest way to live. Nobody needs to understand engineering to enter a building or drive across a bridge. Yet, when it comes to Yiddishkeit, it is insufficient that really really wise people, like the Chafetz Chaim, Rabbi Akiva Eger and the Ramban, all dedicated their lives to Torah uMitzvos. Without their own understanding, there is nothing to go with. This is dishonest and people should recognize it as such.
If you don’t understand the answers, or even the questions, than all you have is dogma, which I guess is good enough for people who want easy (and wrong) answers
So it's 'dogma' that has you traveling across bridges that rely on engineering that you don't understand. It's 'dogma' that has you taking medications based on chemistry, biology and statistics that you don't understand. Every single apikores, every single otd, relies on the experts to arrive at the correct decision, and knows not to second guess them. If they do wish to study the topic, they enter the classroom with the basic idea that the lesson being taught them is true. Anything that they cannot understand, they chalk up to their own lack of knowledge, not the subject matter being untrue.
When a person has questions about emuna, and refuses to accept that smarter people have the answers, he will never accept the answers. The questions will niggle at him constantly, because he does not have the basis on which to receive the answers. Once he understands and appreciates that the answers were provided by people who are a. exponentially wiser and smarter than him, and b. heavily invested in the truth of these answers, he will be able to accept them, and that is when he will actually understand them.
We do not have the answers for the otd apikorsim, there is nothing we can tell them that will change their mind. But not because the answers don't exist, but because they have conditioned their minds not to accept them.
Tell me you don’t understand science without telling me that you don’t understand science. The scientific method that you scoff at is the polar opposite of what you think is some “wise man” does because you think they have some supernal knowledge imparted to them due their supernatural abilities. I don’t have to know how a bridge works to know that the knowledge of how to build that bridge comes from generation after generation of men standing on the shoulders of men who came before them. I know that the science behind the medicine comes from experimentation and peer review by hundreds and thousands of men doing the work and the proof is in the results.
As for mind changing, if someone shows me convincing empirical evidence that goes against what the current scientific consensus says in any field, I would change my mind in a heartbeat, but I doubt very much that you would say the same. Telling me that the answers exist (surely some wise man must know what it is) is tantamount to saying that you won’t change your mind no matter what physical empirical evidence you are shown.
And you can take your name calling (apikores) and shove it up your mf ass.
Make my point without saying you're making my point.
Before you asked the question, you knew already that the engineers have generations behind them and are to be relied on, but the Ba'alei Torah, the Talmidei Chachamim of generations, are not so.
And that is exactly my point. Without a basis of trust, no knowledge can be acquired. But ask for that trust in theology, and it's 'dogma'. Ask for that trust in engineering and its 'convincing'.
None of the knowledge that Rabbi Akiva Eger acquired, was acquired supernaturally. Like the knowledge of Robert Moses.
You are continuing to make my point, comment by comment.
If you think Rabbi Akiva Eiger made amulets, you are a victim of 'bubbe maises'. And someone who hasn't been introduced to the intellectual depth and breadth of Rabbi Akiva Eiger (I use him as an example, the Shach, Ketzos Nesivos etc are no different), has no way of evaluating the Sugya.
Only someone who begins studying Emuna with a frivolous attitude will end up with unanswerable questions. If people took it as seriously as they took engineering, the questions would not bother them that much, and that is when they would actually find the answers.
Chazal usually contradicted each other even in the same Gemara. Modern science often gets it wrong but eventually gets it right because it is a human system of peers keeping each other honest by repeating experiments and checking facts, and eventually a consensus emerges that holds up to further evidence.
Not aware of an answer to the Mabul question that is both intellectually honest and consistent with Torah. Local flood approach or Myth/Allegory/Metaphor approaches are full of holes and will sink. I consider the Mabul a major challenge to Orthodox Judaism. ACJA
You mean more accurately, that you don't want the Torah getting in the way of your lifestyle...... These are answers that you have not questions! These are answers to why you live the way you live......
Amazing stuff. The Rishonim like Ramban have no problem ascribing things to miracles (let alone the other Rishonim who were mysteriously left unmentioned here who have no problem with unstressed miracles throughout Tanach; eg. Yocheved giving birth at 130 was, as some rishonim say, 'not such a big deal that it had to be mentioned', et al.).
However: if they'd be alive today they'd agree with Natan. Why? Cuz he says so. And he's an authority on these matters, you see.
Maybe if the Ran would be alive today and see that his theory doesn't fit scientifically he'd agree with Ramban? Nah. Natan doesn't say so.
Or maybe almost nothing actually observable has changed since the time of the Rishonim as far as the viability of the story? They couldn't think of the question of ventilation? Or of how they survived in the conditions? Ah, the primitive Ramban didn't chap that animals tend to have different habitats. After all, he thought elephants can jump so maybe he assumed they, like, took turns with the other animals keeping their feet on the floor. Thank god (or whomever) for zoologists.
The myth of the Rebbe who embarrassed a teen for asking questions is a canard invented by otds seeking to justify themselves.
Most Rebbeim will answer "I don't know the answer, and it's best if you don't think too much about this". They don't embarrass a teen for asking questions on emuna at all.
If someone interrupts the shiur on Bava Kama with an emuna question and refuses to back down, he may be embarrassed. And he may misrepresent the story as having been embarrassed for asking a question. But that would not be the truth.
"Your honor, of course I went to the bathroom. Everyone goes to the bathroom, it's a natural function of life".
"Yes, but not in the middle of a dance floor at a wedding".
He punished me for going to the bathroom!
Well, well, well, look who's feeling oh-so-noble with their fancy introduction. After snarkily attacking Charedim for not having their own Genesis and Great Flood museums, your arguments were completely demolished by HGL https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/part-3-the-intellectually-challenged and Rational Traditionalist https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/natan-and-the-cavemen,
So now you've moved on to sulking about those crazy rigid fundamentalists who are not tolerant enough to allow others who are not as fundamental as them a place in Judaism. We should rename you Natan the Chameleon.
Well, if all you'd do is open a Gateways or Arachim seminar, that would be one thing. But you feel the need to go and consistently attack the Charedim for following the traditional approach by understanding that Genesis is from the deepest secrets of the Torah and far beyond our comprehension, as it is described by Chazal.
And let's not forget your proposed solutions that completely disregard the framework of Torah. As HGL so aptly pointed out, the Torah is not some malleable lump of silly putty that you can just mold to fit your own agenda. If you have a solution that works within traditional parameters and doesn't involve saying that the Torah is fabricated or other flat-out heresy, that would be fine. Unless, of course, you're willing to throw out the whole thing and declare parts of the Torah a complete fabrication. You know, like those early Reformers who ended up turning Judaism into a watered-down mess. Great idea, champ.
I wonder if you realize that you are no different from the long line of people who called Rambam's views heresy.
What does the Rambam have to do with this? Do you mean the Rambam that rules that someone who says that even one word of the Torah is of human origin is a heretic and deserves to be killed? I thought so.
Anyhow, I like your reasoning. A "long line of people" (I call those people Rishonim) felt that some of the Rambam's views may be heresy, so now you're allowed to say things which by all accounts are heresy. And I'm just a fanatic like those "people". Nice.
"But you feel the need to go and consistently attack the Charedim for following the traditional approach..." You've got it backwards. I don't care if people reject science. I just care that they condemn others for not rejecting science.
"And let's not forget your proposed solutions that completely disregard the framework of Torah." Please re-read the opening paragraph. It’s easy for you to just disqualify approaches that you consider theologically problematic, without having to actually deal with the challenges that people are grappling with. I would hope that you would recognize this and keep your opinions to yourself, unless you are comfortable with making people feel that they cannot be part of the religious Jewish community.
No, you've got it backwards. You can say whatever in the world you want to make the Torah fit with science, and I have absolutely no issue with that. But if it crosses the line of what Chazal define as heresy, you're not doing anyone a service.
And not sure why all of the sudden I'm supposed to be keeping my opinions to myself. You seem to have no problem spewing all your opinions about people that you have absolutely nothing to do with.
Cute how in the last post we were 'fundamentalists'; now it's 'Kentucky Christians' and 'moder charedim', just in time to assume the adult-in-the-room posture and tsk tsk at those who don't respect people with whom they disagree or whatever. Chameleon indeed.
"You've got it backwards. I don't care if people reject science. I just care that they condemn others for not rejecting science."
You can really look at it that they condemn others for trying to influence chareidim to follow the scientific view over the Torah.
Between me and you, if you would have originally published your books as "Rabbi Dr Natan Slifkin", as opposed to "Nosson Slifkin" and gotten a haskama from Jonathan Sacks instead of Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky, they wouldn't have come out against you. It was only because your books were becoming mainstreamed.
And today nobody is really busy with you anymore.
Well Rabbi Ribner is busy with anything and everything under the sun, that's not wat I'm referring to. The reason why Natan was put in cherem was because there was fear that his views would infiltrate mainstream chareidi society. If he would just write books about science as a MO zoologist, yes there would be people criticizing him, but he would not be getting nearly as much attention.
Take Jonathan Sacks, for example. An apikorus limehadrin just like Slifkin (or worse), yet for some reason the gedolim weren't busy with him. Why? The same reason they're not busy with reform rabbis. He minded his own business, left the chareidim alone, and just espoused his kefirah to whoever was interested in listening.
Lol, you aren't 1/100 the person Rabbi Sacks was.
Are you insinuating that he wasn't an apikores?
Anything that goes against your childish belief in the Chazal’s interpretation of a document that was already ancient by the time they got it is heresy. I guess you think putting modern empirically based explanations in that cubby hole stifles any debate? The Torah was incredibly ancient by the time the ancient (to us) interpreters (Chazal and medieval) came up with their interpretations which were based on erroneous assumptions. Genesis was based on or even plagiarized from even more ancient sources and there was no way those people could have known about them. They did the best they could with them commentary but didn’t have the benefit of modern science, archeological findings, literary criticism, and ANE literary comparison. Even Ibn Ezra knew that parts of the Torah were not written by Moses. Guess he’s a heretic too. 🤦♂️
"It’s easy for them to just disqualify approaches that they consider theologically problematic, without having to actually deal with the challenges that the people in the aforementioned category are grappling with."
You don't have to answer all the challenges in Judaism, especially when your "solution" is worse than the challenge. See that part of my essay here "Will this question kill you?"
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/part-3-the-intellectually-challenged
"I would hope that they would recognize this and keep their opinions to themselves, unless they are comfortable with making people feel that they cannot be part of the religious Jewish community."
People with the attitude that such questions are a deal breaker for Judaism are already not part of the Jewish religious community. Certainly I don't consider you as that.
"There is no mention whatsoever of all the extraordinary miracles - far greater than that of Kriyas Yam Suf - which Rabbi Meiselman’s approach requires."
Meaningless nonsense. What does it mean for a miracle to be greater or lesser than והמים להם חומה מימינם ומשמאלם? The Mabul was also a much greater scale than Kriyas Yam Suf. Chazal add a whole bunch of miracles that the pasuk doesn't mention, both with the Mabul and Kriyas Yam Suf. Let us just say this objection... doesn't hold water!!🥁
"And they describe the extreme difficulties involved in managing so large a task, rather than saying that Noach had supernatural assistance."
Yeah but they still agree the Mabul was supernatural, and even add miracles that the Torah doesn't mention. The idea that they would be ideologically opposed to more miracles, if necessary, is just ludicrous.
"Rambam does not discuss the logistics of the Ark, but with his general strong preference to minimize the supernatural, it’s safe to assume that he would not have been willing to say that such miracles occurred with the Ark."
Only if there is a better solution. Your preferred solution is worse.
"Ramban, on the other hand, famously asks that the Ark could not have been big enough to hold all the animals, especially including such things as elephants, and answers that this was a miracle. ... Second, he doesn’t simply wave it off as being all miracles, but rather fits it into a previous known category of miracles in which something small can encompass something large."
What is "known category of miracles"??? You just made up that concept on the spot!!! 😂😂 Also, who told you about מיעוט מחזיק את הרובה in the first place? There is absolutely no mention in the pesukim of that, it is an interpretation of Chazal and is to answer the challenge from מציאות. Just like the Ramban and all those who add miracles to the Mabul are doing.
"And more recent rabbinic authorities, such as my own mentor Rav Aryeh Carmell ztz”l, preferred to see the story as being designed to impart powerful theological messages."
This doesn't solve any of the challenges, unless (as is likely the case) you are willing to say the Mabul is fictional, like you said with Bereishis in TCOC.
"We can see that they did not want to just write everything off as being miraculous, and they would have been especially opposed to miracles that are designed to mislead."
And your solution is that the Torah was designed to mislead.
"People with the attitude that such questions are a deal breaker for Judaism are already not part of the Jewish religious community." What a strange and disturbing thing to say. Are you claiming that there is nobody in the Torah-observant community who seriously struggles with emunah questions? Or that people in Torah-observant community who are seriously bothered by such questions might as well just leave the Torah-observant community?
Huh? I never said that. I struggle with emunah questions all the time. But it is VERY IMPORTANT to know that just because you have questions, or "Questions", as you say in your book, your commitment to and belief in the Torah is NOT at stake. Having questions, or Questions, is normal and good. But if your "solution" is much worse than the Question, like in your case, then you have gained nothing.
It's very nice for you that nothing at all would make you question your belief in Torah. But how on earth can you expect everyone to be the same way? What would you say about an atheist who says that nothing at all would make him believe in God, or a Christian (or Messianic Jew) who says that nothing at all would make him question his belief in Jesus?
And meanwhile, there definitely ARE people whose questions make them struggle with commitment to Judaism. So what do you mean by saying that they are "already not part of the Jewish religious community"? That we should just write them off and it doesn't matter if they stop keeping mitzvos?
Well, to start with, I wouldn't compare the Torah to atheism.
I wouldn't compare the Torah to Christianity.
I wouldn't compare the Torah to a cult.
These comparisons *already* take you out of the religious community. I'm amazed that you are so far gone, you don't understand this.
Regarding people who struggle with their commitment to Judaism, there are a variety of methods to draw them closer, none of which validate their inclination to abandon it, telling them "You know what, you're right. If you can't find a satisfactory solution to every single one of you questions on faith, then you should give up on Judaism." No. That is not what you should tell them. And you certainly shouldn't write a book from that perspective.
It is totally fine to say we don't have a good answer for every Question. It is totally fine to say that the Torah is very deep, and we don't understand it completely. It is totally fine to say "I don't know, maybe a miracle- or maybe not". This is absolutely honest, normative Judaism.
I wasn't comparing the Torah to atheism or Christianity or a cult. Please work on understanding what I am saying rather than trying to distort it so that you can dismiss it.
And it's also totally fine to admit that although you find certain approaches to be inconsistent with proper theology, greater people than yourself have disagrees with you, from Rambam to Rav Carmell.
You literally did make those comparisons. Sorry.
But to respond to that point (and I am astonished that I am even bothering to do so, it does not deserve a response), the way it works is this: I have good reason to believe Judaism in the first place, so I still believe it, even with Questions. In fact, the nature of the Torah itself makes me expect many questions. But I have good reason to *reject* atheism and Christianity in the first place. Not like you think, that atheism, Christianity, and Judaism are otherwise equal, and you only reject the first two because you have Questions on them, but you imagine you somehow escaped all Questions on Judaism. No. That is not how it works.
It is a joke to quote Rambam or Rav Carmell, when you reject the whole concept of Mesorah in the first place. Who gave the Rambam any authority at all? If he would have doubled down and explicitly denied Techias Hameisim, he would be a kofer. Thank God that didn't happen.
You don't have to be bothered by the questions, but you do have to take them seriously when they affect halacha.
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/are-mammoths-kosher
"I don't know, but these are various possibilities and in the meantime I'll be machmir and not eat mammoth but also not burn terumah that I touch after carrying it" is, as you say, totally fine. "I don't know and it's not important to me" is not.
Ah yes, the very timely, important, and relevant halachic question of mammoth meat. Wouldn't want to be leaving that one undecided, would we?
You dishonestly jumped from 'seriously struggles with emunah' to 'deal breaker for Judaism'.
Why are your posts and comments constantly filled with dishonesty of this sort? Is it a feature or a bug?
Ok, I'm gonna make peace with HGL and Natan. Hear me out.
It seems the the two of you are not even arguing with each other. Well you're arguing, but not with each other. I've seen this play out in many other arguments with other people in the past as well. The two of you are making separate points, but nobody is really addressing the other guys point. Let me explain.
Nathan is making two main points 1. He is offering an approach to reconcile the Torah with modern science, for those who are bothered by the issue in the first place. 2. He is criticizing chareidim for not being bothered by these questions. ("Imagine other religions would say mshtarbt nisht fun a kasha")
Now HGL argues with both of these points, 1. He thinks Natan's pshat is heresy. 2. He thinks it is a horrible thing to attack chareidim for nor being bothered by these questions. So what do I mean they are not addressing each other? Because Natan's main issue is #1, how to reconcile the Torah with science. And HGL's main problem is #2 , don't attack us for not being bothered by these questions.
Once that is settled, I think we can find common ground on the other issues. On point #1 , HGL, you may think Natan's pshat is kefirah, but he is making a point that he is not the first guy to say such ideas. You are definitely entitled to completely disregard his theory, (as I myself do), but in an of itself I don't think it's the end of the world to offer a crazy pshat for a problem that is very much bothering him. Obviously if you don't want to read his book, you don't have to (I indeed didn't).
Now with point #2, I think Natan should agree that HGL is right. Ok, you want a pshat that makes you happy, so you can share with your fellow science lovers. All fine and dandy. But HGL has a great point, that there's nothing wrong if someone simply believes the Torah and is not bothered by this. So I suggest the following: Natan stop attacking the chareidim for not be bothered by your scientific problems. And I don't think the chareidim have much of a problem if you teach some of your highly original approaches to people that are extremely bothered by these issues.
Just don't send those books in our seforim stores, we'll be OK without them.
Your point #2 is incorrect. I've never criticized charedim for not being bothered by these questions. I only criticize them for insisting that OTHER people should not be bothered by them.
Was your substack account hacked? Who authored this article above?
Nah, I'll take a pass on this "compromise".
People absolutely do go OTD because they are tempted by modernism. Do you think the Haskalah was a good thing? I am guessing yes. In that case, we will never agree.
I don't think Natan is horrible person for having questions in the first place. I have the same questions as he does. But it is fundamentally false, at the deepest level, to think that Judaism will answer all your Questions, and it's a big emergency if it somehow doesn't, and is worth giving such "solutions" as Natan does, to stop the fire. No. This entire attitude is 100% incorrect and anti-Torah. Anybody least acquainted with the Torah will see that it generates, deep, perplexing, and uncomfortable Questions, and very few people, including the greatest Torah giants will say they have all the answers. And if they do, be *very* suspicious.
As you say, "try to respond to my students’ questions in a sensitive and appropriate way, rather than dismissing their concerns and worries out of hand." 100%.That is a good thing. But don't give "solutions" that just make things worse, such as that one of the most important parts of the Torah is a fiction, a myth. And don't tell people that if they can't answer all the Questions, then Judaism is no different from atheism or a cult. And certainly don't write a book from that perspective.
You didn't read my whole comment. As I said, I HAVE questions and doubts. And I take these questions seriously. In fact, I will discuss some approaches on an upcoming post on Irrationalist Modoxism, including an approach I haven't yet seen in any Jewish source. But it is still VERY important to know that "From a question, you don't die". There are so many serious questions in Judaism, and if somebody tells you he has all the answers, well, be very suspicious. There is not a single Gadol in the world who would tell you otherwise.
When someone has a question, and they say “well, I read such in Slifkin’s book”, and I disagree with that, I wouldn't just say “Slifkin’s an apikores, and you should shut up because questions won’t kill you”. That would be a very rude and insensitive response. But I would say (warmly, and preferably over a steaming bowl of cholent) “I may not have a solution you would deem satisfactory, and that's ok. Questions are par for the course in Judaism. I will think about it more, and try to come up with something you will like better. But unfortunately, Slifkin's so-called 'solutions' are unacceptable and just makes things worse.”
The question of why G-d has not redeemed His chosen people for over 2000 years is an extremely serious question. I am not aware of any solution that satisfies me. But guess what? The Christians have a great, simple answer. Does that mean I should go with them? I just wrote a post about this, here
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=profile_page
And, may I add, that scientists also have to deal with deeply disconcerting and uncomfortable questions. There are thousand of perplexing questions that in fact challenge the very axiomatic premises of science that science just does not have the answers for. Yet scientists don't just say, "Oh, darn it. I think I'm going to ditch science and critical thinking and become a Hari Krishna!"
Neither did scientists find a perplexing question and turn around and say, well God did that and just give up on finding a naturalistic answer.
This commenter claims he teaches "pre-medical students", primarily from the "Yeshivish world", who are terrified that if their Roshei Yeshiva finds out they have questions, they'll be "driven out of their community."
BALONEY. Sheer baloney. Not a word of this is true. The strange phrasing alone betrays a lack of first hand knowledge of either pre-med students or the yeshiva world. The idea that yeshivah students old enough to be in pre-med are worried about such things is also nonsense. The claim that Roshei Yeshivahs are worried about college students asking questions about Noach's Ark is vaiter riddiculous. And the bit about "being driven from the community" shows the commenter has watched a few too many Netflix films.
You're changing your story. Your first post was all about how secret groups of Roshei Yeshivah were skulking around, looking for pre-med students who were "asking questions", so the young men could be "thrown out of their communities". That was baloney, and you know it.
NOW you're saying that they're complaining about YOU, and that you're TEACHING their students apikorsis. I have no idea whether you are or are not, but at least that's a plausible scenario. Since you claim your Dean told you stop teaching hashkafic and halachic issues (2 different things, but whatever), there's only one school in the country this could possibly refer to, so your claim is easily verifiable, if anyone cared to do so.
I’ve deleted all my comments in this thread. I responded in the heat of emotion in an improper way, and it was inappropriate of me to project my thoughts and opinions on this matter. I’ll stick to teaching MCAT classes and I will keep my mouth shut about Torah subjects of any kind, which I clearly and obviously know absolutely nothing about.
The above is meant sincerely, I genuinely regret becoming involved in this discussion, and I’m very sorry if I’ve offended anyone.
I stand by what I’ve said, but it was improper for me to comment in public and I crossed the line into lashon harah and offensiveness.
I never implied you don't know Torah subjects. I think it's especially important for front-line people like yourself to deal with these questions, of course, in a way that respects the integrity of the Torah (meaning, not like our dear friend). Sometimes that involves honestly telling students you don't have the answer, just like even the greatest Gedolim themselves would say. That's all. However, it's vital to have an answer as to why you believe in the Torah in the first place, and I'm sure you do.
I wouldn't be surprised that a child from Lakewood was sent away from home. I also wouldn't be surprised to hear that he blamed it on 'asking questions'. I just don't think he is saying the truth.
Do you know the story of the fellow who was expelled from his town for not washing Mayim Acharonim?
“This is a magnificent life-size reproduction of Noah’s Ark and is the largest timber frame structure in the USA. Interpreting a cubit as 20 inches rather than 18, it’s over five hundred feet long!”
It’s amusing to learn some people are under the impression (I assume you’re quoting Ark Adventure propaganda) this is the largest timber frame structure in the US. I can assure you that is incorrect. Your Ark would look pretty puny if situated next to the real largest structure in the US (and possibly the world) which is TRESTLE -also about 12 stories tall. (We used to use it to simulate the effects of nuclear EMP on large strategic bombers in flight, and needed a platform without any metal that might deform the impinging free field electromagnetic wave. Lack of metal extended to joints and connectors and the whole contraption was held together with glue.) TRESTLE was decommissioned after the fall of the Soviet Union (when, sadly, other really cool activities in US western deserts were abruptly canceled), and I haven’t been back to Kirtland AFB is some years, but I believe it’s still standing. Because what after all, were you going to do with the thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS-I
"This post was written for those who are committed to the tenets of Judaism"
Which tenets of Judaism? Charity? Ohhh, you mean *Orthodox* Judaism. Most Judaism isn't Orthodox, so you should be more specific. The majority of Judaism is not challenged by the fact that the Torah contains a flood myth (well, two, kinda).
"unless they are comfortable with making people feel that they cannot be part of the religious Jewish community"
Plenty of religious Jews welcome those who understand the Torah that way: they're called non-fundamentalists. You meant the *Orthodox* Jewish community.
I think everybody, including Reb Noson, and Rabbi Meiselman (and even the Kentucky Christians) can support their positions from Tanach, Chazal and/or reason. However, in reality, in a sense, they are all barking up the wrong tree. I have written an English language Torah thesis entitled, Creation and Divine Providence (subtitled: Four Treatises that Explain and Elucidate the Subjects from the Torah Rational Logical Approach). It is composed of pieces from my Sefer Nachal Chaim, translated (from Hebrew) and rewritten. It is available for download (nachalchaim@gmail.com)
The point that you make in the last paragraph is excellent! (Not to detract from the article itself).
Why does Ark encounter depice the ark streamlined like a ship? It was a box. It didn't have to go anywhere. It just had to float.
Because there's almost no information in the text and people who read it make assumptions that fit their worldview.
You'll also notice that there's artificial lighting inside, rather than comporting with the way the text explains how there was light.
A boat with a flat bottom would be pretty rough on any waves.
Yes, but the ark didn't need a prow.
Possibly. I don't know enough about it. But maybe Noach would have had the same thought?
I think the reticence of the modern Chareidi approach in dealing with the technicalities of the mabul/ark is
1. The focus is mostly on the lesson of the flood. Thus while they may think that the whole earth was flooded and they take all the midrashim literally, it ultimately doesn't make much difference whether the flood encompassed the entire earth or just the Middle East - the lesson is the same.
2. Deep down, Chareidim know it is ridiculous to rewrite history like the Fundamentalist Christians do, and therefore would not explicitly do so.
My two cents.
@2. Overall, Chareidim are hardly aware that the flood is scientifically challenging, and assume that the answers they have for explaining creation, with a few adjustments, resolve any issues from the flood.
I don't see a problem with RNS explanation or the Ark Encounter as both work for some people. Charedi approach is more evolitionary sound for the survival of the group as it keeps more people within the fold and avoids greater confusion by exposing people to theories which more often then not lead to the denial of כל התורה כולה. If Torah is of primary importance to you and you want to see בנים ובני בנים עוסקים בתורה ובמיצוות charedi way is the way to go. There is no better alternative with all the shortcomings notwithstanding, or at least this is what I think.
Charedim are practicing the עשו סייג לתורה, which is what enabled our survival for 2,500 years since this principal had been established. From the evolutionary perspective they have done better then any other approach and I don't understand why this blog, written by an evolutionist, keeps beating a dead horse.
You say evolutionist like it’s a bad thing. Evolution has all the evidence behind it and the “poof” theory of creation is ridiculous
What I say is that an evolutionist of all people should understand that charedi ideology is an evolutionary adaptation that benefits the survival of the group. Study of science, serving in the army and finding theory of creation ridiculous doesn't.
This is all very simple.
What good is evolution if its understanding doesn't lead to the improvement of the survival prospects?
I don’t know. How about actually saving lives? Here’s a nice article that explains how the discovery of biological evolution and natural selection has improved medicine and public health. Btw, I never mentioned biological evolution. Do you enjoy being humiliated?
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(08)61877-2/fulltext
A strange question indeed. I prefer to be proven wrong rather then being right, for it improves my understanding and I gain knowledge. Evolution is true and evolutionary adaptarions are manifest in all religions and societies, but some are more succesful then others. At this point in history the charedim have an upper hand in having a more optimal system for preserving Judaism. We don't know if it will always be so, but it may. This is what I was talking about. Understanding the process helps to save lives and make better choices in life.
What kind of Judaism are they preserving? As Rabbi Slifkin points out, their refusal to work for a living, accept welfare instead of supporting their own families goes against what the sages themselves said. Is that preserving Judaism? They depend on others to protect them instead of contributing to the safety of Israel by serving in the IDF so they are sniveling cowards. Is that worth preserving? Their children are cheated out of an education that prepares them to function in the modern world. Seems like a race to the bottom to me.
When work doesn't endanger their lifestyle, they work harder then most and are succesful. Not being able to function in the modern society is an advantage to their survival. The savages, who would kill all the strangers like the Andaman islanders, are still around. The ones that were more tolerant were whiped out. This is evolution and survival of the fittest. Can it be that hundreds of thousands of people are just cowards? Their behaviour is well thoight out.
A race to the bottom and dragging Israel down with them
You've told us what you believe is the "approach" that "Charedim" - all hundreds of thousands of them, apparently - have on the Ark. What do you think is the "approach" of the MO? Or of the Yeshiva world generally (unless you view this world as "charedim", which would be news to those in America.) What are their "approaches"? Is it any different than Charedim? Are you again letting your biases cloud your thinking? Maybe pretty much all orthodox Jews in their millions, of whatever stripe, have the same approach, and it is only you, Professor Slifkin, and a few others, that think otherwise?
LOLOLOL!!!
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/a-trip-to-the-local-church
When a person has a Question, it is usually a product of a lot of questions. If the person asking the questions has a basis in Judaism, and understands that לא מחשבותי מחשבותיכם and it is a feature of G-d's actions in this world that they will not be fully understandable by the limited human logic, he will often find answers and his questions will not lead him to kefira. It is when those questions are treated like life and death questions, telling the teen that he does not need to follow that which his puny mind does not understand, that the questions become Questions.
And there is no answer to Questions. They will eventually kill a person. When I hear or read them from people I sometimes am shocked by the frivolity of the questioner, about how little appreciation they have for the abstract, and how limited their thought processes are. But once they have told themselves that their own understanding is the only thing that counts, as foolish as this opinion is, there is no way back.
Of course, this is a dishonest way to live. Nobody needs to understand engineering to enter a building or drive across a bridge. Yet, when it comes to Yiddishkeit, it is insufficient that really really wise people, like the Chafetz Chaim, Rabbi Akiva Eger and the Ramban, all dedicated their lives to Torah uMitzvos. Without their own understanding, there is nothing to go with. This is dishonest and people should recognize it as such.
If you don’t understand the answers, or even the questions, than all you have is dogma, which I guess is good enough for people who want easy (and wrong) answers
So it's 'dogma' that has you traveling across bridges that rely on engineering that you don't understand. It's 'dogma' that has you taking medications based on chemistry, biology and statistics that you don't understand. Every single apikores, every single otd, relies on the experts to arrive at the correct decision, and knows not to second guess them. If they do wish to study the topic, they enter the classroom with the basic idea that the lesson being taught them is true. Anything that they cannot understand, they chalk up to their own lack of knowledge, not the subject matter being untrue.
When a person has questions about emuna, and refuses to accept that smarter people have the answers, he will never accept the answers. The questions will niggle at him constantly, because he does not have the basis on which to receive the answers. Once he understands and appreciates that the answers were provided by people who are a. exponentially wiser and smarter than him, and b. heavily invested in the truth of these answers, he will be able to accept them, and that is when he will actually understand them.
We do not have the answers for the otd apikorsim, there is nothing we can tell them that will change their mind. But not because the answers don't exist, but because they have conditioned their minds not to accept them.
Tell me you don’t understand science without telling me that you don’t understand science. The scientific method that you scoff at is the polar opposite of what you think is some “wise man” does because you think they have some supernal knowledge imparted to them due their supernatural abilities. I don’t have to know how a bridge works to know that the knowledge of how to build that bridge comes from generation after generation of men standing on the shoulders of men who came before them. I know that the science behind the medicine comes from experimentation and peer review by hundreds and thousands of men doing the work and the proof is in the results.
As for mind changing, if someone shows me convincing empirical evidence that goes against what the current scientific consensus says in any field, I would change my mind in a heartbeat, but I doubt very much that you would say the same. Telling me that the answers exist (surely some wise man must know what it is) is tantamount to saying that you won’t change your mind no matter what physical empirical evidence you are shown.
And you can take your name calling (apikores) and shove it up your mf ass.
Make my point without saying you're making my point.
Before you asked the question, you knew already that the engineers have generations behind them and are to be relied on, but the Ba'alei Torah, the Talmidei Chachamim of generations, are not so.
And that is exactly my point. Without a basis of trust, no knowledge can be acquired. But ask for that trust in theology, and it's 'dogma'. Ask for that trust in engineering and its 'convincing'.
None of the knowledge that Rabbi Akiva Eger acquired, was acquired supernaturally. Like the knowledge of Robert Moses.
The engineers built a fkn bridge and your Talmidei Chachamim created bubbe maises. I’ll take the vaccine, you can keep your amulets lol
You are continuing to make my point, comment by comment.
If you think Rabbi Akiva Eiger made amulets, you are a victim of 'bubbe maises'. And someone who hasn't been introduced to the intellectual depth and breadth of Rabbi Akiva Eiger (I use him as an example, the Shach, Ketzos Nesivos etc are no different), has no way of evaluating the Sugya.
Only someone who begins studying Emuna with a frivolous attitude will end up with unanswerable questions. If people took it as seriously as they took engineering, the questions would not bother them that much, and that is when they would actually find the answers.
Coming from someone who trusts "modern scientists" with a proven agenda of falsifying facts....... more than Chazal.....
Chazal usually contradicted each other even in the same Gemara. Modern science often gets it wrong but eventually gets it right because it is a human system of peers keeping each other honest by repeating experiments and checking facts, and eventually a consensus emerges that holds up to further evidence.
Not aware of an answer to the Mabul question that is both intellectually honest and consistent with Torah. Local flood approach or Myth/Allegory/Metaphor approaches are full of holes and will sink. I consider the Mabul a major challenge to Orthodox Judaism. ACJA
You mean more accurately, that you don't want the Torah getting in the way of your lifestyle...... These are answers that you have not questions! These are answers to why you live the way you live......
How do you know that my lifestyle inconsistent with traditional Jewish values ? Anyway, what is your solution to the Mabul question ?
This is the answer to your question:
https://youtu.be/5Bajte-9GnY
It is a long video and skipped around a little and may have missed it, but can you direct me to where the Rabbi answers the Mabul questions ? Thanks
Hilarious that he says he posted a video that answers your question that doesn't answer your question. LOLOL