It's funny that you seem to take such issue with the Charedi trolls. For the record, I think I dropped one comment on that post. HGL didn't post too many more than that either. The atheists, on the other hand, FLOODED the comments section. Howard Schranz alone left 50 comments. There was one possibly Charedi fellow, Inquire, who did leave a lot of comments (much less than the atheists though), but he was mostly trolling the atheists, not you.
It's your complex with Charedim which leads you to this paranoia.
Insults are in the eye of the beholder. You personally often insult entire swathes of Jews, and don't even appear aware of it. Swear words, by contrast, (curse words, off color language) are objectively inappropriate, regardless of point of view. And yet I have only seen such filth from left wing commenters.
This comment thread is evidence of nothing, except insofar as it confirms the inability of the self-described left-wing commenters to debate coherently, succinctly, and intelligently. By contrast, there are no Charedim on this site. No inferences in their regard, right or wrong, can be drawn.
Of course not, by definition. The Charedim hated by NS dont speak English, certainly not well enough to participate on this site. They dont use the internet (and while we know that's not *entirely* true, it's true more often than not, and they're certainly not going online to hack in "Rationalist Judaism")
"I should also clarify that any degree of religious observance can provide some degree of benefit. But in order to gain the full benefit, it doesn’t help to just keep whichever aspects of religion are appealing. The full benefits only occur as a result of commitment to a way of life. And that means the full package." Is that borne out by the studies you refer to, or is that coming from your personal experience in Orthodox Judaism?
" But if you’re born Jewish, then [b]naturally Judaism would be the religion that is the best fit[/b], and which would be best positioned to provide the benefits."
Why do you believe that "the religion that is the best fit" is genetically determined? Or (even stranger) determined by the genetics of one's mother, who might be a convert?
I'll check the rest of the comments -- someone else should have caught that problem in logic.
I suppose if you’re born into a Muslim family , then naturally Islam would be the religion that is the best fit, and which would be best positioned to provide the benefits. The reason may be the difficult of getting the benefits from a not as familiar religion. Or perhaps the person is already part of the particular community. Or it is possible the real intent is perpetuation of the religion you are born into.
The very categorization of Judaism as a mere religion conforming to the worldwide phenomenon of spirituality is a sign of a very secularized mentality. Why weigh the pros and cons of belief? If one believes the cons are irrelevant. If one does not believe the benefits are also irrelevant as it is irrational to live a lie.
"Religious beliefs in national superiority or the rights to certain resources can lead to deadly conflict." Not only can, but has done so. So what do you do when a religion which provides the benefits also demands superiority/choseness ?
"Judaism itself maintains that there are religious paths for non-Jews that are praiseworthy." For non Jews, but not Jews. Explain why a path that is good is not open for Jews to pursue.
Thank you R' Slifkin for signaling that you intend to take back the comments section.
I suggest you also add a link to the Irrational Moxodism blog, for the benefit of readers who are interested in viewing and in posting the types of comments that will no longer be allowed here.
I welcome as well your banning trolls of all stripes, whether they be anti-Slifkin, anti-Torah, anti-Orthodox Judaism, anti-vax, or anti-reasonable-argumentation in general.
You just showed that you equate anti-orthodox Judaism, anti-Torah, and anti-covid vaccines. Which means, many millions of people think you're a fool. So should you be banned from commenting because you hold such foolish and irresponsible beliefs? Or do you think its your opinion and you have a right to it, and you should be allowed to believe whatever you believe?
I asked about your beliefs. And you think you should have the right to believe whatever you want, no matter how foolish other people might think you for it. Got it. So now you're both naïve AND a hypocrite. Buddy, you gotta start rethinking your positions in life. This is no way to win friends and influence people.
"And you think you should have the right to believe whatever you want, no matter how foolish other people might think you for it." I don't remember your positions. Are you anti-Orthodoxy? The vast majority of the world's population finds Orthodox Judaism to be false.
The vast majority of the world has no opinion, whatsoever, on orthodox Judaism, and does not know there even exists such a concept.
In any event, my point was to David, not David Ohsie. (I presume you are different people, its poor form to post twice under sock puppet names.) He believes in covid vaccines, which millions of people find foolish, yet somehow thinks *he* is entitled to his opinion, but no one else is. Both naive and hypocritical at the same time.
That is because they there are a million religions out there and their opinion is that is a waste of time to look at them all. But it matter not. The vast majority of people who do know find Orthodox Judaism to be false. In fact a majority of Jews find Orthodox Judaism to be false.
Covid vaccines are OTOH thought to be beneficial by the vast majority of the population. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion even if it is incorrect.
Are you aware of the Rambam's high regard for Aristotle and other thinkers who did not accept Noachide law as coming from God nor as binding on them (in the unlikely event that they ever even heard of the concept).
Thanks for reminding me; that had slipped my mind. Either that needs to be added to the list of stirahs between MT & MN, or an answer needs to be looked for. Do you (or anyone) remember the MN's context? Does it allow that Rambam is only commending Aristotle's wisdom in the spirit of קבל את האמת ממי שאמרו but not the person?
Regarding the unlikeliness of all gentiles having heard of Moshe, that is indeed an issue especially for those in the Americas (and even closer) etc. In the case of Aristotle, there are sources that indicate that he was aware of him, or more specifically, of the Jews and their wisdom, from which we can extrapolate that, as a curious person, he investigated who their teacher was.
Rambam thinks that the afterlife is dependent on intellectual attainment, not performance of specific mitzvos. Those are only a helper to understanding. He channels Aristotle in MT as well but without attribution. There is no contradiction here.
As always, you try to take both sides of every position: "I'm going with Judaism, but all religion is good." Religion is good, but it can also be bad." "Atheism is bad, but so are charedim" Even with comments: "Everyone should have an opinion, but I don't want trolls."
Has it really never occurred to you that EVERYONE thinks they're practicing the golden mean? I mean this seriously, because I am genuinely curious: Do you really think you're smarter than the rest of the world? You would never actually say that, of course, but do you, in your heart of hearts, actually think you've managed to hit that sweet spot that NO ONE ELSE has ever managed to find? I have no other way to understand why you continue to pump out these posts with essentially the same commonplace theme, apparently thinking you're delivering some kind of unique wisdom or view. From an armchair shrink perspective, I'd love to understand what you're thinking.
>>While their bitterness against religion is perhaps understandable, it’s still distressing that they are so determined to avoid acknowledging any benefit in religion, no matter what the evidence.>>
Here, Rav Slifkin is making an excellent point ; that we should value evidence when deciding what's true and what is false.
If there's evidence that religion is beneficial then we should believe that it's beneficial. If there's no evidence that religion is beneficial, then we should not believe that religion is beneficial.
Evidence should be the gold standard of how we form our beliefs about the world. So far so good!
But watch what happens when we change the topic to Judaisms extraordinary truth claims:
If there's evidence that Judaism is true we should believe that it's true. If there's no evidence that Judaism is true, then we should not believe that Judaism is true.
I'd respectfully like to know if Rav Slifkin values evidence when it comes to the truth claims of Judaism....
If he does, I'd like to know what evidence he has
If he doesn't, I'd like to know why he has a double standard when it comes to the value of forming beliefs about the world proportional to the evidence available.
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm just noting what pragmatism is. Although perhaps a better way to say it is that truth claims are evaluated based on the benefits of belief rather than evidence.
"The full benefits only occur as a result of commitment to a way of life. And that means the full package."
That can be difficult for someone who thinks that there are no objective proofs for the truth of Judaism. Especially since many of the benefits are a direct result of absolute faith.
It's funny that you seem to take such issue with the Charedi trolls. For the record, I think I dropped one comment on that post. HGL didn't post too many more than that either. The atheists, on the other hand, FLOODED the comments section. Howard Schranz alone left 50 comments. There was one possibly Charedi fellow, Inquire, who did leave a lot of comments (much less than the atheists though), but he was mostly trolling the atheists, not you.
It's your complex with Charedim which leads you to this paranoia.
Just take a look at this comment thread.
Right, because now you came out and attacked Charedim. Don't you notice the correlation?
Stop being so mean! You're hurting his feelings! That's not derech eretz!!
Balko? That's a new name around here. If I had to guess, you're a reincarnation of Inquire. The style is exactly the same.
Clearly cookie. Inquire was the Wallerstein cultie.
Try again. LOL
Must be cookie the anti vax nut job. He was getting eaten so he changed his name.
I couldn't care less about their insults but it spoils the reading experience for everyone else.
Insults are in the eye of the beholder. You personally often insult entire swathes of Jews, and don't even appear aware of it. Swear words, by contrast, (curse words, off color language) are objectively inappropriate, regardless of point of view. And yet I have only seen such filth from left wing commenters.
This comment thread is evidence of nothing, except insofar as it confirms the inability of the self-described left-wing commenters to debate coherently, succinctly, and intelligently. By contrast, there are no Charedim on this site. No inferences in their regard, right or wrong, can be drawn.
Huh?
What didn't you understand?
There are no Charedi commenters on this site??
Of course not, by definition. The Charedim hated by NS dont speak English, certainly not well enough to participate on this site. They dont use the internet (and while we know that's not *entirely* true, it's true more often than not, and they're certainly not going online to hack in "Rationalist Judaism")
I said that the last post was trolled by a combination of chatedi zealots and atheist zealots. It was, just as this one is.
We were also wondering where all your friends went:
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/where-are-natans-friends
What exactly does "trolling" mean?
Maybe you mean like this, zealots on both sides are wrong, but the Chareidi ones are (the most) annoying.
Looking forward to this.
"I should also clarify that any degree of religious observance can provide some degree of benefit. But in order to gain the full benefit, it doesn’t help to just keep whichever aspects of religion are appealing. The full benefits only occur as a result of commitment to a way of life. And that means the full package." Is that borne out by the studies you refer to, or is that coming from your personal experience in Orthodox Judaism?
" But if you’re born Jewish, then [b]naturally Judaism would be the religion that is the best fit[/b], and which would be best positioned to provide the benefits."
Why do you believe that "the religion that is the best fit" is genetically determined? Or (even stranger) determined by the genetics of one's mother, who might be a convert?
I'll check the rest of the comments -- someone else should have caught that problem in logic.
I think that he is speaking culturally, not genetically.
I suppose if you’re born into a Muslim family , then naturally Islam would be the religion that is the best fit, and which would be best positioned to provide the benefits. The reason may be the difficult of getting the benefits from a not as familiar religion. Or perhaps the person is already part of the particular community. Or it is possible the real intent is perpetuation of the religion you are born into.
The limits of being a kofer:
You get to make up your own rules and morals.
But that only gets you so far and leaves a deep spiritual emptiness.
Then you die and face the God you spent your whole life fighting and denying.
You also really have nothing to pass on to your children, and your children will think they are superior to you.
Keep making fun, while you can.
That's if you ever get around to having children. More and more secular people these days don't.
Actually, the average non-religious person leaves a much larger carbon footprint than the average charedi person.
Wow, it looks like you're turning over a new leaf! Can I offer you a guest post on Irrationalist Modoxism?
The very categorization of Judaism as a mere religion conforming to the worldwide phenomenon of spirituality is a sign of a very secularized mentality. Why weigh the pros and cons of belief? If one believes the cons are irrelevant. If one does not believe the benefits are also irrelevant as it is irrational to live a lie.
I was asked last night about ideas on the פיוטים that we say in תפילת טל.
I came across this from Reb Moshe Yehudah Rosenwasser. His works on explaining פיוטים are legendary.
https://www.machonso.org/hamaayan/?gilayon=61&id=1804
Enjoy.
"Religious beliefs in national superiority or the rights to certain resources can lead to deadly conflict." Not only can, but has done so. So what do you do when a religion which provides the benefits also demands superiority/choseness ?
"I’m not aware of any scientific studies regarding the benefits of Judaism specifically." Check out Permission to Receive by RK
"Judaism itself maintains that there are religious paths for non-Jews that are praiseworthy." For non Jews, but not Jews. Explain why a path that is good is not open for Jews to pursue.
Thank you R' Slifkin for signaling that you intend to take back the comments section.
I suggest you also add a link to the Irrational Moxodism blog, for the benefit of readers who are interested in viewing and in posting the types of comments that will no longer be allowed here.
I welcome as well your banning trolls of all stripes, whether they be anti-Slifkin, anti-Torah, anti-Orthodox Judaism, anti-vax, or anti-reasonable-argumentation in general.
You just showed that you equate anti-orthodox Judaism, anti-Torah, and anti-covid vaccines. Which means, many millions of people think you're a fool. So should you be banned from commenting because you hold such foolish and irresponsible beliefs? Or do you think its your opinion and you have a right to it, and you should be allowed to believe whatever you believe?
Right to believe, yes.
Right to troll, no.
I asked about your beliefs. And you think you should have the right to believe whatever you want, no matter how foolish other people might think you for it. Got it. So now you're both naïve AND a hypocrite. Buddy, you gotta start rethinking your positions in life. This is no way to win friends and influence people.
"And you think you should have the right to believe whatever you want, no matter how foolish other people might think you for it." I don't remember your positions. Are you anti-Orthodoxy? The vast majority of the world's population finds Orthodox Judaism to be false.
The vast majority of the world has no opinion, whatsoever, on orthodox Judaism, and does not know there even exists such a concept.
In any event, my point was to David, not David Ohsie. (I presume you are different people, its poor form to post twice under sock puppet names.) He believes in covid vaccines, which millions of people find foolish, yet somehow thinks *he* is entitled to his opinion, but no one else is. Both naive and hypocritical at the same time.
That is because they there are a million religions out there and their opinion is that is a waste of time to look at them all. But it matter not. The vast majority of people who do know find Orthodox Judaism to be false. In fact a majority of Jews find Orthodox Judaism to be false.
Covid vaccines are OTOH thought to be beneficial by the vast majority of the population. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion even if it is incorrect.
Who does that leave besides you?
LOL! You totally excluded yourself.
LOL! Says you!
LOL. Gaslighting atheist loser.
Yes.
And with all those disaffected and disenfranchised voters, the Moxodism blog will just explode.
And who knows, perhaps with the disappearance of the trolls, this site as well might gain a regular reader or two?
"Judaism itself maintains that there are religious paths for non-Jews that are praiseworthy."
With only 20,000 plus Noachides, out of ~<8 billion in the world, there's no significant number to study, because as Rambam Hil. Melachim 8:11 says,
כָּל הַמְקַבֵּל שֶׁבַע מִצְוֹת וְנִזְהָר לַעֲשׂוֹתָן הֲרֵי זֶה מֵחֲסִידֵי אֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם. וְיֵשׁ לוֹ חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. וְהוּא שֶׁיְּקַבֵּל אוֹתָן וְיַעֲשֶׂה אוֹתָן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁצִּוָּה בָּהֶן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בַּתּוֹרָה וְהוֹדִיעָנוּ עַל יְדֵי משֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ שֶׁבְּנֵי נֹחַ מִקֹּדֶם נִצְטַוּוּ בָּהֶן. אֲבָל אִם עֲשָׂאָן מִפְּנֵי הֶכְרֵעַ הַדַּעַת אֵין זֶה גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב וְאֵינוֹ מֵחֲסִידֵי אֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם וְלֹא מֵחַכְמֵיהֶם:
And the Girsa אֶלָּא מֵחַכְמֵיהֶם doesn't ameliorate matters much.
I would also change your "there are religious paths" to "there is a religious path".
Are you aware of the Rambam's high regard for Aristotle and other thinkers who did not accept Noachide law as coming from God nor as binding on them (in the unlikely event that they ever even heard of the concept).
Thanks for reminding me; that had slipped my mind. Either that needs to be added to the list of stirahs between MT & MN, or an answer needs to be looked for. Do you (or anyone) remember the MN's context? Does it allow that Rambam is only commending Aristotle's wisdom in the spirit of קבל את האמת ממי שאמרו but not the person?
Regarding the unlikeliness of all gentiles having heard of Moshe, that is indeed an issue especially for those in the Americas (and even closer) etc. In the case of Aristotle, there are sources that indicate that he was aware of him, or more specifically, of the Jews and their wisdom, from which we can extrapolate that, as a curious person, he investigated who their teacher was.
Rambam thinks that the afterlife is dependent on intellectual attainment, not performance of specific mitzvos. Those are only a helper to understanding. He channels Aristotle in MT as well but without attribution. There is no contradiction here.
As always, you try to take both sides of every position: "I'm going with Judaism, but all religion is good." Religion is good, but it can also be bad." "Atheism is bad, but so are charedim" Even with comments: "Everyone should have an opinion, but I don't want trolls."
Has it really never occurred to you that EVERYONE thinks they're practicing the golden mean? I mean this seriously, because I am genuinely curious: Do you really think you're smarter than the rest of the world? You would never actually say that, of course, but do you, in your heart of hearts, actually think you've managed to hit that sweet spot that NO ONE ELSE has ever managed to find? I have no other way to understand why you continue to pump out these posts with essentially the same commonplace theme, apparently thinking you're delivering some kind of unique wisdom or view. From an armchair shrink perspective, I'd love to understand what you're thinking.
>>While their bitterness against religion is perhaps understandable, it’s still distressing that they are so determined to avoid acknowledging any benefit in religion, no matter what the evidence.>>
Here, Rav Slifkin is making an excellent point ; that we should value evidence when deciding what's true and what is false.
If there's evidence that religion is beneficial then we should believe that it's beneficial. If there's no evidence that religion is beneficial, then we should not believe that religion is beneficial.
Evidence should be the gold standard of how we form our beliefs about the world. So far so good!
But watch what happens when we change the topic to Judaisms extraordinary truth claims:
If there's evidence that Judaism is true we should believe that it's true. If there's no evidence that Judaism is true, then we should not believe that Judaism is true.
I'd respectfully like to know if Rav Slifkin values evidence when it comes to the truth claims of Judaism....
If he does, I'd like to know what evidence he has
If he doesn't, I'd like to know why he has a double standard when it comes to the value of forming beliefs about the world proportional to the evidence available.
Something can be false or very likely false yet provide "benefits". Certain religions/cults may fall into such a category.
Look up pragmatism. The idea is that embracing a religion can have benefits independent of the validity of the specific truth claims of the religion.
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm just noting what pragmatism is. Although perhaps a better way to say it is that truth claims are evaluated based on the benefits of belief rather than evidence.
My point was to ask Rav Slifkin a simple question: When does he value evidence and when does he not value evidence. And why
https://musingsonthetorah.blogspot.com/2023/02/what-is-torahs-aim_18.html?m=1
"The full benefits only occur as a result of commitment to a way of life. And that means the full package."
That can be difficult for someone who thinks that there are no objective proofs for the truth of Judaism. Especially since many of the benefits are a direct result of absolute faith.
It's all utilitatrian to Slifkin.