Yup, the new international kiruv movement begins right here. Never mind that the very methods dismissed in this post are responsible for tens of thousands of baalei teshuva over the past 50 years; now we're finally gonna do it right.
For all the naysayers who think it's hard to be mekarev people to Judaism if you don't actually believe in Judaism, just stand back and watch the revolution. In the upcoming series of posts we will demonstrate all the practical benefits of being Jewish WHILE maintaining your atheistic beliefs, from a sociological, psychological, and dermatological perspective (plus if you sign up for Judaism now you can take advantage of our group car rental rates and theatre discounts!)
So don't listen to those elitest snobs who don't consider you a religious Jew unless you, I don't know, subscribe to Judaism or something. Click here to join your local chapter of Jews for A, and together we'll show 'em how real inclusive kiruv is done.
But seriously folks, for the real reason we should not be engaging with this post, see here:
Clearly you don't know anybody 'in kiruv'. None of the methods used in the last 50 years work particular well in today's internet, woke, whatever generation - You can't use 'Permission to believe' type proofs if a simple internet search provides numerous conunter proofs in a millisecond.
I would suggest that the wildcard here is the word "proof". Of course they can find the counterarguments. Then they have to weigh the evidence rationally and see what they find compelling. Like in every other intellectual judgement. You're right there are no "proofs" in the sense of God appearing in front of the seminar and announcing "Here I am, boys". We do live in a tekufa of hester panim. But there are compelling frameworks that I think intellectually honest people do consider dispositive (please don't ask me to present them here - it's not my thing - but you can look up the various serious intellectuals who do it. And yes, you have to choose carefully. Not everyone out there peddling Judaism is particularly bright. There's nothing we can do about that; just be sure to find the right ones).
But to the point - I certainly don't see how you'll do a BETTER job in kiruv with the pitch of - "yeah, I don't find this particularly compelling either, but check out all these practical benefits of pretending to be religious (as preached in some atheist's books)." I hate to say it, but the whole approach seems regrettably naïve to me.
"Never mind that the very methods dismissed in this post are responsible for tens of thousands of baalei teshuva"
That's a strong claim. Maybe you should be a little more clear about which methods you are referring to? Has RNS dismissed all the methods? Or just some of them? Has he dismissed even one of them?
Just because he wrote, " There are no intellectual proofs that Judaism is true" doesn't mean he dismisses such arguments. All he wrote was " many intelligent and intellectually honest people realize that this is naive. "- the implication is that such arguments alone would not be sufficient motivation to convince all to become Torah observant.
I had a long series of comments on this idea of "proofs" of Torah a while back, which I may find and repost. It had to do mainly with logical fallacies that are used to prove Torah.
One thing I always start with is how risible the standards are. An easy one is that a court (secular or Jewish) has a standard for testimony: no second hand accounts.
Yet, the masorah is a very long telling and retelling of an account. No Jewish court would dream of accepting such testimony as part of evidence in a trial.
So, if you were on trial, you would cry "foul" at a second hand account (heresay) of what you are accused of doing. But, with an account that goes back thousands of years, you see GOOD evidence for Torah?
It's not a serious search for truth, this search to prove Torah. It starts with Torah is true, and a "gentlemen's agreement" to use any and all kinds of weak arguments (pretzel logic) to affirm that. That's what people smell in all religious apologetics.
When one person testifies with second hand accounts, it would be unacceptable.
The argument here is about tens of thousands of people who would not have colluded to keep a myth going if it weren't true. These tens of thousands of people not only retold a story, but they lived that story and passed it on to their children whom they have no interest in fooling.
When the story is multiplied so many times, it makes sense that it is true.
If a court wouldn't accept it, too bad for the court.
I wrote about this a while back, and found my comments. I will repost here. I added some additional comments at the top. Sorry so long - this is verbatim from the old comments:
New comments first:
You are using the "argument from authority" fallacy. The Torah tells us it is telling us the truth. We consider the Torah authoritative, therefore it is true. It's weak (we understand this at a gut level when we hear other religions quote "the truth" from their texts.)
Second, and related, it is a non-falsifiable assertion that the Torah makes. This means we simply can't confirm it happened. Unfalsifiable fallacies occur when someone makes a claim that is impossible to prove wrong. It is very weak. An example is "faith can move mountains." If you can't move a mountain by your faith? You just have too weak a faith, I guess. Religions excel at this.
(One final new comment, before the old, long, comment I reposted, follows: there is actually ONE falsifiable assertion that Judaism makes: Moshiach will arrive by the year 6000. That year is actually going to arrive (G-d willing) and, at that point, I believe the world will wait to see what happens. If nothing happens -- the rabbis will come up with a new year, well off in the future, I am guessing. They will likely say 6000 was always just an idea. That the real year is now, drum roll please, 7000! We see here that religion must always win - it cannot be disproven, according to them. But, it will be an interesting moment, as it is falsifiable. It can be tested as a "truth.")
Now follows a long comment, from months ago:
We don't know that it is the one true religion, actually. We say we know that. That's what all mass movements do. That's what all true believers, who are part of mass movements, say.
The anxiety arises when we find statements in the religion that don't seem correct. That's when the pretzel logic begins. The strained apologetics.
Every adherent to every religion, or any other mass movement, knows it is factually correct. Every mesorah, of every religion, attests to its truth.
A Jewish beis din, however, does not permit a second hand account as valid testimony. This form of testimony is called "hearsay." It is inherently unreliable.
However, the mass movements and religions depend on the "reliable transmission of tradition." They claim this is a fact.
Why the difference? Because a beis din seeks truth - and therefore is careful about what kind of testimony is acceptable in this search. It has a higher standard.
Religions have a far lower standard for determining truth - which is what they need to survive.
The problem is people who are not true believers are aware of this low standard. It is partly why indoctrination is so important - to avoid seriously questioning the low standards ALL religions and mass movements have for claiming truth.
The assertion that all mass movements require believing they have "the truth" is obvious from research. Religions, of course, each believe they have the truth. And, at least the ones I've been exposed to in the US seem to share a predilection for passed down traditions. I know I saw one main line religion here that even used the trope of naming the individual who passed the tradition to the next individual in the next generation. (Maybe copied from Judaism? It’s persuasive sounding.)
In terms of hearsay, or second hand stories. Yes, there are exigencies where western courts recognize that they will need to rely on a second hand story to resolve a situation. The best one (a classic for courts and beis dins, I guess) is when a husband is missing. Perhaps killed in war, perhaps dies at sea, or perhaps is just gone - the wife will need, for a variety of reasons (including remarriage, and probably other reasons) to have a court declare the husband dead. In that case, a second hand account may figure in to their decision to declare him dead. But let’s keep in mind: sometimes the husband shows up, years later. This is a “second hand account” weakness, well known to the courts.
The masorah, of course, is a far longer string of telling and retelling - over generations. Obviously, it is not a very high standard for determining the truth of what is thought to have happened eons ago. Jewish and other courts would not permit it as testimony. It's just too low standards for them. It’s too “weak sauce,” or “thin gruel.” Courts are serious places. They aren’t looking to come to some predetermined outcome in order to justify a religious belief system.
However, religions rely on a “reliably transmitted” tradition. So, what happens (in all religions) is clear: the “thin gruel” (in the beis din) is deemed “thick” (outside of the beis din) - it is deemed reliable - and the stories and narratives built around it serve to support, and not upend, tradition.
There is a kind of "gentleman's agreement" among leaders to certify the masorah as true, regardless of how many twists and sleights of hand it takes to give that contention teeth.
Some scratch their heads at the contortions (the pretzel logic) and leave the religion. Some keep their mouths shut. Many are “True Believers.” Well indoctrinated, or perhaps just conformists, generally.
Also, rabbis and religious teachers are kind of like politicians. Like politicians, their role is to inspire. To carry on the movement. To defeat the forces of the other side.
The rules are different from a beis din - the standards, far, far lower. Also, they are not under oath, as in a court or a hearing, where lying can lead to severe repercussions.
We have seen many times politicians make all kinds of pronouncements in the court of public opinion. Say all kinds of things. In a real court or, say, congressional hearing, under oath – they say something very different. They quietly disavow all that they said to the news cameras. Different standards at work, here.
Please don't think I am picking on Judaism. All religions, all political movements, all movements seeking to (as they see it) "improve" the world, rely heavily on low standards of truth being declared as the truth. They all heavily invest in the rightness and unalterable truth of whatever it is they are fighting for. I've been in those fights. It's great to be a part of something (which is why so many are a part of one mass movement or another, at least when they are young and more credulous, and likely, more idealistic.)
I would always like to see more truthfulness, more realness, in Judaism. But, I understand, that such an undertaking puts you on a slippery slope.
Another comment I made, months ago, to the same post:
I think all mass movements rely on a low standard of truth, in comparison to how courts pursue finding the truth.
But first, you mention the copying of the Torah – this doesn’t tell us the Torah is from Moses, or divine in origin. It’s a red herring, as an argument, I think.
Second, a court has at its disposal tools to examine closely a case. Mass movements (and religions) have apologetics.
Courts use (and religions eschew) the well-honed tools of modern juris prudence for ensuring the most honestly arrived at outcome in a case.
A few of these tools come to mind (I’m not a lawyer, by the way):
Lawyers in courts can object when opposing lawyers ask questions that “assume facts not in evidence.”
Lawyers can ask questions/bring witnesses/bring evidence that challenge (or support) a witness’ credibility, and/or character.
Related, courts have a “Dead Man’s Statute.” Since dead people cannot be cross examined or interrogated – only under very limited conditions is a dead person’s “testimony” accepted by the court.
Much of religious apologetics elides all this. They assume facts not in evidence. They rely on stories and writings of people who are not around to cross examine, or have tests put to their credibility or character.
None of these tests can be put to the Rambam or others of an age long ago.
They can’t be deposed by attorneys either. They can’t be voir dired.
So, the truth used by leaders of religions to “prove” their movement true, would never make it to court – because the case would (as they say in court) “lack foundation.”
(I believe this is exactly the way religious apologetics must work. The whole idea is to build a case that resists interrogation or challenge. One way? Use dead people and old stories – just declare them as “irrefutable fact.”)
What religious apologetics amounts to? A show trial (where the result is preordained.) And those undertaking this “trial” are engaging in the antics of a kangaroo court (a court that ignores recognized standards of law or justice.)
By the way, I’m not a lawyer. But, I’ve watched enough and read enough about religions proclaiming they have the truth, to have thought about it a little.
There is an old saying in law: “Fiat Justitia, Ruat Coelum,” which translates to “let justice be done though the heavens fall.”
It’s meaning?
The maxim signifies the belief that justice must be realized regardless of consequences. (from Wikipedia.)
This standard would never work for those “proving” religions, or indoctrinating students in to those religions.
They are not searching for the truth. They say they have “the truth.”
And, if a person has a reason to think it’s not that simple? Or, their arguments are flawed or not rigorous, or overlook basic methods for establishing facts? Probably best to not make a fuss. Mass movements are not interested in such discussions. In the end, the mass movement “wins,” and there is no “right to appeal.” (Which is another feature of a serious, modern, justice system…)
"Because a beis din seeks truth - and therefore is careful about what kind of testimony is acceptable in this search. It has a higher standard."
The reason that a Beis Din does not accept hearsay and that courts in "innocent, until proven guilty" systems do not accept hearsay, is because of the high standard needed to prove guilt. It has nothing to do with "truth." If you wanted all sides to get to the truth, hearsay could have value.
another reason to respect courts more than religious apologetics. Religions engage in the antics of a kangaroo court, by proclaiming they have the truth. They put on a show trial, where the result is preordained, and the other side can't speak.
Courts are too serious and have too much integrity to engage in such facile, bogus, manipulative tactics.
i think what religions do when it comes to their bogus tactics of "proving" is the informal fallacy knows as the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Shoot the arrow, then draw the bullseye around it.
No serious court could engage in such antics. But snake oil salesman, gurus, and cult leaders, take note: this is your playbook.
"Courts are too serious and have too much integrity to engage in such facile, bogus, manipulative tactics."
What reality are you living in? Which courts are "too serious" to do that? Not to mention the fact that you twisted what I said, and likely would have twisted anything positive I could have said.
there is a deep well of faulty, persuasive tactics at the heart of religious apologetics, i think. it is why there is a deep need to exclude outside voices from the arguments they make for "the truth" of their position.
Communism in the former Soviet Union required the same sleight of hand. "the West and capitalism is decadent and weak and classist and racist. Communism is the obvious truth." Only - if you wanted to see for yourself, and go to the West, they shot you in the back, or put you in their version of herem, a forced labor camp. The truth, indeed.
Meanwhile, in the West you can study and buy the Communist Manifesto, and be whatever you want, have whatever commitments you like. You can come and go as you please. You are free to learn about communism, and labor economics and the like, and draw your own conclusions. It's this freedom mass movements (including religion) can't tolerate.
There is a clear problem with mass movements - they proclaim they have the truth. They are not looking for what is likely the truth, or provable "beyond a reasonable doubt."
That is what I mean by courts being serious places. They sift evidence with a standard that makes religious apologists blush (and run, and hide.!)
The system of juris prudence doesn't even try to pretend they know what the truth is, either. They have a commitment to proving "beyond a reasonable doubt," what happened. They don't need to con anyone with unprovable, non-falsifiable, pablum passing itself off as fact.
The level of honesty, and integrity, to such a set of ideals, is deeply refreshing. The only ones who have a sour response? Fake gurus, religious apologists, and snake oil salesman.
Such a standard puts an end to their whole seductive, fun, fantastical system of "proofs."
The difference between Judaism's argument and that of other mass movements begins at mass revelation, the fact (claim, for now) that the Jewish people experienced (and survived) divine revelation on a national scale. That, together with זכרון דברים's comment above, prove the truth of our religion, because you won't have millions of people claiming, (and transmitting to their children,) that they saw god together, unless it actually happened.
Today, take a class of fifty Jews who know nothing. Have them at a kiruv center in Jerusalem. Have an older, wise sounding, rabbi tell them that we received the Torah from Mt. Sinai. Have him tell them we know we did because it was passed on as a tradition.
Some will buy it. Maybe most will buy it. Some will not, and not continue to learn.
The ones that buy it - there's you're "everybody." There's your "everybody believed it."
If forty walk out not believing, and ten stay and believe - you got your "everybody" who believed, right there.
Why will they believe? One of the oldest charlatan tricks in the book: because an authority figure told them.
Some people believe authority figures. Those people are your "everybody."
There are other tricks at work, tricks used to trick people with bad logic that sounds good.
The argument from Tradition is another logical fallacy at work. Basically "it's old, it's been around a long time, it must be true."
Again, some are easy prey for logical fallacies. Some are mentally more sound in their thinking.
Rabbis should be ashamed at "proving" Judaism to others.
But, that's their cheap trick shtick in 21st C Judaism: use thinking tricks. Wow em with bad thinking. Those who leave, leave. Those who are not much for logic, stay. Boom, we did our "job."
But, all you really did? Cheapen a religion.
Nice job, I guess...
And there are other logic fallacies at work, I'm sure. I'm no expert. But I can dig further. It's just kind of painful to seeing the circus that has become religion. The con men, pulling quarters out kids ears, and wowing them with "magic."
This isn't a proper response to your comment. Elsewhere D. Terrier allows people not to read long comments, & yours is too long right now. I'll only mention that Rambam says WITHIN his Kuzary style proof for the authenticity of Moshe's prophecy that
You likely employ the argument from authority (the authority being the Torah, and the rabbis) without realizing it. Granted, it may be closer to a different fallacy - I'm not an expert. But when someone says "the bible says so!" they are using it.
I'm not picking on Judaism. Without an argument form authority, the 190 year old Mormonism would never grow to be 11M (or so) worldwide. Would never have Brigham Young U, or Salt Lake City, Utah as its center.
I argued this with a rabbi once. He told the class the Kuzari argument. Roughly half loved it, and bought it. The other half (roughly) not so much.
When someone says the Jews would never buy the Torah claim, unless they had been there -- I answered to the rabbi -- "but half the class JUST bought it without being there, or having a family tradition of Torah Mt Sinai! Or even knowing if what you say is true Judaism!"
That's how authority works. Some people are prone to accepting what authorities say as simply true or likely, others not so much. All religions MUST rely on arguments from authority, or risk too much skepticism to continue on.
But, perhaps you will agree: it is ONE account, the Torah. We don't have 100,000 contemporaneous accounts. We don't have ten witness accounts.
I'll kind of accept your second notion about the timing of Moshiach - why? Because any half way competent con cannot have falsifiable proofs. So 6000 can only be "one idea." Why? Because you can't have a plainly disprovable assertion, if you expect the religion to survive and work for people. Too many cults have found this out, the hard way. Snake oil salesman, too. They make the claims, take the money, and skip town. That's what having falsifiable claims forces you to do.
After you left some personal information at an earlier comment I thought you might be a senior individual whom I should address more respectfully. This is a looong shot but your comments remind me of the colorful man at the book shop who learned in CHY and hated Rabbi B.
Anyway, till the Mishna there was no allowance for these notes, according to certain authorities. But this is neither here nor there.
I assure u that u got the wrong guy. I do not like to leave clues that might compromise my privacy.
I do not know what u mean there were no notes before the mishna. In fact the mishna and gemara were compiled from pre-existing notes. None of the 2M put down some squiggles?
How could it not be true if tens of thousands of people retold the story and also lived the story. Well, how do you know for sure that they lived the story? Because they believed the story, not that there is any clear evidence that the story was true. The old debunked Kuzari argument. An exercise in circular reasoning par excellence. And round and round we go.
We have ONE account of hundreds of thousands seeing it. We don't have hundreds of thousands of eye witness accounts (we don't even have ten.)
There is a lot wrong here. It is a non sequiter to say that because one account says everyone saw it, it actually happened that way. It is non-falsifiable, and cannot be disproven. It is an argument from ignorance, and cannot be disproven. It is assertion without evidence - we have no actual tesimony from the "hundreds of thousands of witnesses." It is a violation of "Dead Mans Statute" - you can't tell us what the dead saw. It is hearsay. It is an argument from authority (we view the Torah as authoritative. Whatever it says must be true.)
I'm sure there is more wrong with it. Fallacies are inherently weak, and a form of snake oil salesmanship.
Finally, I'm not sure what this is called, but it strains credibility that everyone there actually saw the same thing. Eye witnesses identify the WRONG suspect 1 out of 4 times. They report different things, even when they were all at the crime. Suspects are described differently, wearing different clothes, different heights are reported, different weapons, different number of suspects, what the suspects said.
You know what the "tell" is in the Torah? EVERYONE saw the same thing!
If I tell you "I am a great friend to all who know me. Everybody says so." I hope you will at least have some skepticism of the "evidence" I have to this assertion. Because it is weak. It is certainly not a good proof.
You sure live your life with a lot of rules. Things have to be falsifiable, otherwise they didn't happen. Then there's this Dead Man's Statute, that is supposed to obligate all of us.
But your proof from the 'great friend' takes the cake. Your frivolous way of thinking will always produce foolishness. It's the nature of the beast.
falsifiable (aka verifiable) is what people use who respect their audience. non-falsifiable is what people use who want to manipulate their audience.
When a man says "you will burn in hell for this." That is non-falsifiable. Not only does he not know, there is no way of knowing. That man is not arguing, he is fear mongering. Manipulating.
When a man says "if it doesn't happen by ten PM, I'll take it back." He is respecting the rules of good argument. He is ready to be proven wrong. His hubris, and his need to control you with illegitimate arguments is not on display.
"There are people who are totally certain that God created the universe (and they believe that it happened just a few thousand years ago!) and that He gave the Torah at Sinai, but they are not particularly motivated to observe halacha. This can be a particular problem with teenagers."
It isn't only a problem with teenagers. As an adult, I cannot reconcile the harsh punishments of hundreds or perhaps thousands of harmless ritual observances, with a kind and benevolent God.
For example, how does one accept the punishment of "kares" (eternal physical and spiritual destruction, yes eternal, forever and ever and ever) for not keeping every detail of an extremely abstract extension of every form of constructive activity on Shabbos. Or if one is lazy and waits a day or two to blacken his "retzuos" (which is the equivalent of not wearing tefillin since non black inavalidates the mitzvah), that he will suffer an awful punishment of "poshai yisroel" (see Shulchan Aruch O.C. 37 with Bach and Mishnah Berurah). The same applies to many other areas of halacha.
The truth actually is, that Klal yisroel has not really accepted halacha. Although we pay lip service to accepting every detail, but the reality is that about 95% of people (including Roshei Yeshivah and Kollel guys) keep what they knew from their homes and their yeshivos (which not only don't learn halacha, but disdain any serious pursuit of it), and if we were to test them on the thousands of details in Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim, Yoreh Deah and Choshen Mishpat, they would fail miserably.
I agree(, however, I understood him to be referring to a gap between "V'yodata Hayom" and "Vahasheivosa el Levavecha", which is probably more endemic to teenagers...)
"how does one accept the punishment of "kares"... for not keeping every detail of...Shabbos...Or if one is lazy...he will suffer an awful punishment of "poshai yisroel""
That argument doesn't hold water on its own. If there is a G-d, He gets to set up the value system. And it doesn't even have to make sense to YOU. (As it happens, the poor examples you gave only apply to a Meizid, which means he's choosing to ignore the severity that Hashem communicated to about that Mitzva. And with your second example in particular, I don't remember all the shitos right now, but someone on the daf there in RH says that it only applies to one who NEVER put on Tefillin.)
"Klal yisroel has not really accepted halacha"
wow.
"95% of people (including Roshei Yeshivah and Kollel guys) keep what they knew from their homes and their yeshivos"
Eh, I wonder, in which circles do *you* wander around... (including which Yeshiva/os/ot and Kollels/ot/im)
"yeshivos (which not only don't learn halacha, but disdain any serious pursuit of it)"
The Yeshivos that I was in (all mainstream Chareidi), starting in Elementary, all had AT LEAST Halacha seder, if not whole chaburos fully dedicated to learning Halacha, not to mention well-attended voluntary Shiurim, and individuals learning on their own and B'chavrusa. In addition, most yungerleit go over to Halacha after a few years in Kollel. Let's not even get into the numerous Halacha programs for Baalei Batim...
"if we were to test them on the thousands of details in Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim, Yoreh Deah and Choshen Mishpat, they would fail miserably"
So would most professionals in any field. Retention and acceptance do not have to go hand in hand.
I believe what R’ Slifkin is saying is that it is not necessary to resort to facile “intellectual” proofs to demonstrate why adherence to Torah/halachah is worthwhile for the individual and beneficial to the world.
As R’ Slifkin implies in his post, if such “proofs” convince you, great, “ashrecha v’tov lach”. But the fact remains that, in an objective intellectual sense, these proofs are easily refutable and so constitute an unsteady foundation upon which to build an edifice of faith. (I’ve known people who went “off the derech” when they realized the fallacy/fallibility of these arguments.)
If honesty to your spouse, yourself, and your kids means anything, how can u teach what u do not believe? If u think frumkeit is merely a beautiful way of life, then say so, and let the chips fall where they may.
You (and others here) seem to be starting from a mistaken premise.
Recognizing/admitting the simple fact that it is not possible to *prove* the truth of Judaism (or the existence of G-d, etc) intellectually is *not the same* as asserting that Judaism is not true (or “intellectually compelling”, as “Frankie” says below).
In fact, I would suggest (and I think R’ Slifkin would agree) that if your faith is dependent on such “proofs”, you may find yourself on unsteady theological footing (as I said above).
I would argue your faith is on much unsteadier footing if it is dependent upon pop psychology "arguments" from liberal atheist Jonathan Haidt about the supposed generic psychological benefits of acting religious (And by the way, to the extent they "work", such arguments work just as well for any religion, not just Judaism.)
I was wondering the same thing. It seems he is writing for guys like himself, who do not believe in the truth of the Torah, yet want to stay religious for some of the other reasons he mentioned in the beginning of this post. So the question is, if I am practicing a fake religion (in his eyes) for social reasons, how do I make myself feel good about it, since I'm doing it anyways?
The arrogance with which you tar others as “not believ[ing] in the truth of the Torah” and “practicing a fake religion … for social reasons” is really quite breathtaking.
You have a very strange definition of arrogant. Why on earth do you feel the need to tie yourself in knots to explain things for Dr. Slifkin? He's right here to explain himself, if he so wills.
The man just announced that he does not intellectually find Judaism compelling. What's arrogant about taking him at his word?
Fantastic question. Why would slifkin want to perpetuate a falsehood???
Indeed, discussing benefits vs harms of a particular social system is extremely difficult. It's even more challenging when the beliefs holding up that system are false. Furthermore, many conflicting values are at play. Individual vs societal. Immediate vs long term. Etc
Let's discuss orthopraxy:
It's fun keeping shabbat sometimes, but is orthopraxy sustainable for an entire lifetime???....what about being truthful to your kids, your spouse, your friends??? What about your own cognitive dissonance???
What about the problem of tacitly perpetuating falsehood which is usually detrimental in the long run???
What about societal costs????
Generally truth is better than falsehood, and orthopraxy is tacitly perpetuating falsehood. When societies are held together by false beliefs it can lead to disastrous effects.
I wonder what people mean when they say they believe in something. If someone has got no good reason to believe in something, but they say they still believe, are they to be taken seriously? Is that, actually a belief that they maintain, or are they merely believing in belief?
I used to work in a deli and a particular man would come in and make sure that whenever we wrapped his food in aluminum foil that we only touched his food with the matte side of the foil and not the shiny side of the foil. He was very concerned that it was dangerous. This was in the late 1990s. Fast-forward to today when you can google it and you'll see that the two sides of the foil are chemically identical and the shiny vs matte sides are merely a result of the way the foil is rolled out and compressed. But information was not widespread back then and so people were even more ignorant than they are now. Now go back 100 years or 1000 years and think about how ignorant people were then, but I digress.
So this guy, who happened to be a (non-medical) doctor, he "believed" that the shiny side of the foil was dangerous. But if you ask him why, he would have nothing to say other than "I'm the customer, this is what I want and I didn't ask to be interrogated or otherwise challenged." But is that really a way to defend your belief?
What could this man possibly say about the shiny side of the foil? Where did he even come up with this idea that it was dangerous? It's a nonsense belief literally based on nothing of substance, and when you scrutinize it in this manner, the only conclusion, really, is to consider this man a weirdo.
Now maybe it would have turned out that the shiny side was dangerous. But it's not like he had advanced knowledge of this. He would have survived while everyone else would have suffered greatly, because even if you get matte touching your deli food 50% of the time, if you are a repeat customer, you will likely end up having the shiny side touch your food one time or another and if even a single exposure is dangerous, then all those other people would have suffered from whatever ailments the shiny side would have caused, but it would've been only that this doctor happened to, by chance, choose to eschew something that no one yet knew was dangerous.
So when someone says that they believe but they cannot defend their belief, how is that a belief to be taken seriously? This guy believed that the shiny side was dangerous because he had heard it somewhere and we all considered him to be a nutjob. But we wanted his business and he didn't seem to be dangerous, so we made sure to always wrap his food with shiny side out. But to say "I believe" as though it's a defense of your actions...isn't that like a kid saying "because"?
Discrete O-P is hic et ubique among educated men. Many frum wives quietly accept it, so as not to mess up your kids' shiduchim. My frum ex-fiancée (I was going OTD), poor innocent girl, even offered me a set of rules I could not accept.
This is a holdover from 20 years ago when the internet was mostly synonymous with computers and gaming and coding and STEM. If you read Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers" you'll see the same thing as in the 'rise of software' films "The Social Network" and the two Steve Jobs films -- that this was a realm for guys and not girls. Not because girls are dumb or unclever, but because that's what happened, for this reason or that.
And to access information in the internet era and have it change your mind, it seems that you need 10,000 hours of it, and so you can't be a 40 yo BY girl because you've been married for 20 years and busy with your family and before then, you didn't spend all this time on the internet. But guys don't have that barrier.
I think the next generation will see a shift. Girls are on the internet as much as boys are these days. Maybe Jordan Peterson is correct when he cites an 80/20 ratio of people on YouTube, and no one can say for sure, but in 10 or 25 years, when all the girls who have been exposed to the internet as much as boys are adults, information will be more free and accessible and anyone can watch a YouTube video of Daniel Dennett and have their eyes opened. And I've had girls contact me to talk to me about evolution and orthopraxy and God and Sam Harris -- they might not post on this forum, but that doesn't mean they're not there.
As Dennett says, this is universal acid. There is no flask that can contain it and it's just a matter of time. It might be slow and barriers might be erected to reduce its speed, but given enough time, it will dissolve anything in its path.
Orthopraxy is a massive burden of work if u do not believe the underpinnings to be true. Come on--u r waiting alone for your delayed connecting flight, mamesh weak with hunger, and all u can find is Mickey D's. Even if u r a tsadik gamur, what is so bad about a 1-off?
"You can try convincing people that Judaism is true. But the problem with this is that many intelligent and intellectually honest people realize that this is naive. There are no intellectual proofs that Judaism is true"
These 3 statements have little to do with one another. Even though there are logical proofs that G-d exists in some form or another, I don't know of any strict proof that Judaism is true. Nevertheless, being convinced that Judaism (like any other idea) is true doesn't require proof, for an intelligent and intellectually honest person.
Additionally, I would say that a huge motivator is that when a person (including myself here) believes that G-d is real, and created the universe and everything leading up to that person's life, and the person actually appreciates their life, this makes a person want to thank their Creator. Similarly, understanding the existence and awesomeness of G-d can give a yearning to know more, come closer, and follow.
The most powerful force driving people toward Torah obsevance that I've seen is social desire. Seeing a nice Shabbos table, or a group of guys/girls that is close-knit and dedicated toward some higher goal, makes a lot of people want more of that.
I think what R’ Slifkin is referring to is attempts by guys like Lawrence Keleman (and perhaps those “Discovery” seminars that were popular in the ‘90s) to rationally/intellectually prove the truth of Judaism or the existence of G-d or some such.
I agree with him that these *approaches* are wrongheaded and doomed to fail. Of course, that does not mean that Judaism is not true or that G-d doesn’t exist, which is kind of R’ Slifkin’s point.
Have you statistics to back up your prediction of failure? As Chareidim etc. "fall" for the proofs, so do the irreligious. Such as,
Reactions from Discovery participants
"The depth and breadth of the information presented was overwhelming - intellectually and spiritually. I could spend a year and feel like I've barely scratched the surface."
Hank Brandon
"I've absolutely loved every minute of this seminar -- something I didn't plan on. What it's done has been to make me want to learn more."
Gladys Grey
"It worked! I learned, learned and learned. I loved every part of it and would like more! Discovery even touched my 14-year-old. That was the best part."
Gail Slater
"This seminar is a must for all Jews."
Larry Smith
"This seminar has reminded me of what it really means to be Jewish."
Carol Rothenberg
"I feel very special right now about being a Jew, and I hope I can encourage the people that are closest to me to come to Discovery and feel 'special' too."
Rob Daley
About the Discovery Seminar: The Discovery Seminar was developed in 1985 by a team of Scholars with the goal to present a scientific rational evidence for the Divine authorship of the Bible. The seminar was prepared in English by Aish Hatorah and has been attended by over 100,000 Jews in audiences around the world.
Asked by a frum person what Discovery's success rate is, Rabbi __ said. "100%". "How is that", he was asked. "They all hate you less", he answered. A smaller percentage reacted as above.
WADR, I'm not understanding how you are following the thread. JuCu (I assume he doesn't want to be referred to as JC :) ) says that it's doomed to fail. I understood him to be making a sweeping statement. I thought *he* was saying, to use your words, "there must not be any other reaction". To which I tried to say *that* isn't true. I wasn't claiming the other extreme.
The statistics are in the biography of R Noach Weinberg. I misplaced mine but maybe someone else has it and can report back.
Page 359: "A survey of several hundred participants in seminars in the early 1990s found that 14 percent of the participants had become Shomer Shabbos within six months of attending the seminar." You may call that an 86 percent failure to reach that particular bar.
But what bar are you working with? I find parts of these letters http://www.zootorah.com/controversy/effects.html exceedingly inspiring. I am moved even now when I read for example, "I wanted to let you know Rav Slifkin that you have helped me more than any Rebbeim I have had in all my years. The amount of Hakaras HaTov that I owe you is innumerable. No amount of thanks or gratitude can be given. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for saving my life from a life off the Derech Hashem."
I.e., you too have received the type of emotion laden accolades that Discovery cites for itself. But going back to their statistic of 14%, that is the specific line of Mechalel Shabbos to Shomer Shabbos. What are your statistics, and which line did you get them across? They failed that line a whopping 86% of the time. What are the stats your failures? Did you also work with people with hardly any background and got them OnTD? Or did they have some sort of head start and you moved them from shaky to firmer ground?
A certain piece of the puzzle is missing. People are subjective. Or call them naive. Once you are entertaining becoming Frum for the benefits even if it's a lie that they recognize, go entertain that people can become Frum out of adherence to their naive subjective notion of truth. Let there be a multi-pronged approach. Send people to Discovery (I have no idea if it still exists). Those who it doesn't work for should go to you.
I'm also very curious what kind of letters you got for your newer books, if they were grateful and impassioned like the letters about your earlier books. Maybe for a different time. Cheers!
I found Discovery helpful in proving the point there was much more to Judaism than the shallow caricature I imagined it to be. Of course it was also a much more intense 3.5 day version of the seminar, not the highly abridged and condensed one day version that it later became.
You are still stuck in the "shallow caricature" phase of your life. Sad at your age.
Those are lovely sentiments, and I hope they resulted in these folks maintaining a lasting connection with G-d and yiddishkeit.
But for every “success story” they tout on *their own* website (see: selection bias), I can unfortunately cite:
A) an irreligious person who was unconvinced by the “scientific rational evidence”,
B) an irreligious person who became temporarily interested in frumkeit after exposure to Aish/Discovery but lapsed back into their former lifestyle once the “high” wore off, or
C) a frum person who went “off the derech” when intellectual challenges to their faith became too much for them.
I would really love to see an article where the Rav speaks about his personal experience with faith. The Rav is seen by many as a skeptic within Orthodox Judaism, so it would interest me great to hear the Rav's personal "Why I believe" thoughts.
Why would that be necessary? We’re not Christians; commitment to yiddishkeit and halachah is not about so shallow a concept as “belief”. The fact that so many folks seem to think it is only demonstrates how little they understand legitimate (halachic) Judaism.
“The Rav” is obviously a practicing Orthodox Jew (i.e., shomer mitzvot), he has devoted his life not only to thinking deeply about challenging matters of Torah and chochmah—as well as confronting important issues that affect the Jewish People—but also to educating his fellow Jews about them.
What more could be necessary to mark one as a “member in good standing” of the halachic community of k’lal yisrael?
How is "belief" a shallow concept? I'm not talking about "believe and you will be saved." I'm talking about a rational argument: If a story has holes, I have trouble believing in the totality of the message of the story. Rabbi Slifkin has pointed out holes in the story, yet continues to believe in the message. I'm curious as to the why, because I am struggling with it myself.
He has articles on that from years ago. He says for him its Jewish history and personal experienve. Plus I am sure the reasons he will give in this series.
My apologies. I've been trying to work on my language skills, and I was trying to speak as I did back in Chaim Berlin to my rebbeim, using the third person.
"What motivates people to observe Jewish law and be part of the Jewish community? It’s usually one or more of the following factors: childhood conditioning, belief that Judaism is true and therefore binding, a sense of responsibility, and because they find benefits in doing so. (If I’ve left anything out, please let me know!)"
I know of a guy who became a ba'al teshuva from being a med student and they were so blown away from their undergraduate biology course and the workings of the human body and science's very inconclusive explanation on how it came into being on its own, that he ultimately became frum. But I guess the reason he became frum and not, say, Hindu, was probably because he was Jewish to begin with. Although I've never asked him.
Yeah. Workings of the human body. When a friend of mine recovered miraculously from a serious (I mean serious) illness (can't give to many details, but it was trauma based, not a cancer type thing) friends told me after what happened there is no excuse for any reasonable and rationalist doctor to not believe in God and miracles.
I looked at him, smiled and sighed, and told him "They also deal with toddlers dying of brain tumours or leukaemia'.
Yep, I LOVE those stories that purportedly support frumkeit. I like: 1) there was not a dry eye in the house. 2) the biggest surgeons (atheists) were dumbfounded when they saw the patient's diseased kidney looked exactly like the L. Rebbe described. 3) Einstein (or Wiesel) admitted that God exists, despite Auschwitz. 4) Jews, only .00001% of the world population, won 95% of all Nobel prizes. 5) the Bible Code and Nostradamus.
It is a bit ironic that Natan is giving his full throated indorsement to the Shmeltzer approach, in the Shmeltzer-Sapirman debate. Given the fact that Shmeltzer was the chief architect of the Slifkin ban some 20 years ago.
another way of stating that is that each community has expected standards of practice, so you can think of observance of ritual and avoidance of taboos as "the entry cost" for being part of the community.
"Accordingly, it’s valuable to understand how Judaism is actually beneficial." So can being a member of certain other religions/cults/organizations religious or other. ACJA
I was ready to make the jump to Orthodoxy anyway. The children were the catalyst. They have long since married and made Torah true lives. Meanwhile I am making up for lost time by working on my learning and observance. In short - the needs of the children merely speeded up what was happening anyway, but for some people it is the children who are the push towards observance.
I'm looking forward to the articles in this series and would really appreciate if you could eloborate on what you wrote here: "There are no intellectual proofs that Judaism is true... in fact, there are a number of serious challenges."
I know you're busy but if you could refer me to good resources on the topic I'd be very grateful. And do you think it's plausible that there are good intellectual proofs that you haven't seen yet?
The basis for the jewish belief in God is the miracle that we all witnessed at Mt. Sanai. All other religions are based upon and individual or possibly a few individuals about what they witnessed. But all the jews that left Egypt experienced the revelation at Har Sinai
Something else. There are jewish laws that are illogical. The famous one is the Red Heifer (Parah Adumah: Those involved in it become Tamai. On the other hand, it is the only way to become Tahor if you are Tumas Hameis.) Human beings wouldnt intentionally make such illogical laws. Remember that one of the prophets reminds us that God doesnt "think" like a human being
Have you heard of Sathya Sai Baba? I hadn't either. I recommend you check him out on Wikipedia. In 2007, he reportedly had over 1 million people attend his 80th birthday party and many people, over the years, had witnessed him perform miracles of transitioning item 1 into item 2, such as ash to paper other such non-trivial things. But no one cares because no one believes these false accounts of magical activity -- that is, no one other than the estimated six to one hundred million followers her has.
Have you heard of the Miracle of the Sun? I hadn't either. I recommend you check it out on Wikipedia. In 1917, a bunch of kids in Portugal made a prophecy and at least 30,000 people were in attendance to confirm that prophecy, which they claimed occurred. Or maybe it was 40,000 or maybe 100,000. But no one cares, unless you're Catholic. Everyone else ignores these stories as nonsense, silliness and confirmation bias.
I wonder how many people in a group epiphany make it substantial enough. I get the idea that 3 people seeing Jesus walking around after he had died is not as good as 600,000 Jews (or 2 million, if you count all the men, women and children), but to me, 30K or 40K is way better than 3 people and sufficient for me. Had there been only 30K Jews to leave Egypt, I would not say "well, it's not like there are 2 million!"
And yet, it seems that no one is convinced by these stories. No one except the people who were raised from the age of 5 years old and indoctrinated in religious schools by religious teachers.
To suggest that we have an old tradition -- well, does that make it better or worse? The older a tradition, the more gullible people were and the more likely they would be to perpetuate myths that they thought were real. Just like today, when Bubby makes some cockamamie claim, and all you need to do to refute it is google it, but she doesn't know how to even get to Google.com.
It's bizarre to the people who don't believe that the people who say they believe think that the things they rest their beliefs on are so transparent and flawed and don't see that. But I guess it really is the case that people cannot see themselves.
Again, I'm unclear as to what point you're trying to make. Are you arguing for or against these various proofs?
How many people do you need to have included in a mass revelation for it to be plausible, vs say, a private revelation that is merely hearsay? I'd say that 7 million is no better than 5 million -- would you agree? In other words, there's a point on the graph where the charted line plateaus and greater magnitude of witnesses adds nothing.
For me, that plateau starts fairly early -- that was my point. I don't even need the 2 million purported Jews of the Exodus. I'm ok with 20K or 30K or 50K people, but maybe you're not, and that's ok -- each of us gets to decide for ourselves how compelling the evidence needs to be to convince us. But we ought not instruct others to accept 2M but not 50K -- I don't see how they differ.
If you are arguing in favor o the Kuzari principle, you should direct your argument to Slifkin, who has stated that, in his view, it is a failed argument (seemingly, from his post). Maybe he'll respond to you in that regard.
To get the gist read the link and their follow ups. The Sun MIracle is often misrepresented. Thousands attending the event claim something miraculous occurred. The link is arguing that the Sun miracle satisfies R. Gottlieb's KUzari Principle. The link discusses the evolution of a National Tradition followed in real time ! RG actually read my post and commented at his own blog, and he has been informed of my counterargument to his blog post. So far he is silent.
I hear what you say. But the revelation at Har Sinai is the basis of our faith. The prophetic experience that the jewish people had at that time was so unique. But there is no smoking gun. That is why religion is based on faith Not even the stories about the plagues and the splitting of the sea is the basis of our faith since even magicians can create illusions. Even Pharoahs magicians were able to create some illusions. Look at the magicians who performed on the tv show America's Got Talent.
>>>But the revelation at Har Sinai is the basis of our faith.>>>
This appears to be an argument from utility -- in other words, since we want something or need something to be the case, we can therefore say that it is the case. But that's putting the cart before the horse. Premises need to be evaluated first for accuracy, credibility and plausibility and only after they have been verified, then we can rely on them.
>>>The prophetic experience that the jewish people had at that time was so unique.>>>
Everything is unique, but everything is also the same -- it just depends on the resolution of the image you are looking at. You and I are very, very, very different, but to an earthworm we pass on the street, you and I are the same, and both of us may easily be confused for the lamppost.
Modern day Judaism is not very good at teaching comparative religion -- partly because the teachers are uninformed and partly because teaching the other religions might appear to place them all on the same shelf. Whatever uniqueness Judaism holds, the other religions claim similar yet different uniquenesses.
>>>That is why religion is based on faith>>>
Yes! That is exactly the point here. It's an interesting phenomenon that it usually takes at least half a conversation for someone to get to this point -- why talk about Sinai or uniqueness at all, if this is going to be your next statement? Does that make sense? It's the idea of turtles all the way down -- look that up on Wikipedia, if you haven't already heard of it. You can say that Earth is supported by standing on a giant turtle, but then what's that turtle standing on, and if you say another turtle, then I will ask what about that turtle. So the response is either "ok, on an even bigger turtle," as though the obvious retort to that will not be "ok, and what supports that turtle?" The only thing one may say is that it's turtles all the way down. Well why didn't we just say that in the first place?
Faith is a neat word for an exceedingly messy idea, concept and notion. Secularists will explain that it means believing in something without sufficient evidence, and then the faith-holder often takes that the wrong way, as though it's some sort of badge to display. But it's not -- it's a deep challenge, and until the faithful realizes that, they proclaim to have faith as though it's the highest virtue. So it's like getting to the turtle supporting the turtle supporting the previous turtle.
The question is, if there's no good evidence, why have faith? The answer is inexplicable for the faith holder. It's obvious to the secularist, though -- because the faith-holder was raised by his or her parents and exposed and indoctrinated from early on to accept these stories and rules as truth, it's difficult to shake them when they get to adulthood. Santa and the tooth fairy are not good analogies, because no adults actually believe them. There is a point, whether it's when you're 7 or 9 years old, when your father sits you on his lap and tells you that there really is no Santa, and there never was. But religion doesn't do that. Instead, the older you get, the more they inform you. You start off with Uncle Moishy and you end up with whether you can use kli shlishi for tea on shabbos or no...even kli asiri is insufficient and you need tea-essence. But why? It's not an issue of mesorah and it's not an issue of uniqueness and it's not an issue of any of the other needlessly circuitous paths taken through dense forests of puzzlingly circular cul-de-sacs of logic. No, it's just that this is what you want to do and this is how you want to do it. Which is fine, it really is. But the secularist wonders why the faith-holder insists on saying "asher nason lanu toras emes." There is no "my truth" and "your truth." There is only one truth. And if you have no good evidence for something, how can you claim it is the truth?
That is the question, and it's truly exhausting for the teenager to have adults give them weird, roundabout and truly dumb answers when all they want to know is the truth but the parents and teachers are truly unequipped to provide them. And then they come to me and want to know not only answers to their questions, but why all of their family members and rabbinical guidance personalities are utterly complete morons who think they were providing wisdom, when the kids already knew how their answers were going to be given because they had read Dawkins and Harris. And I must admit to these teenagers that, yes, the people they have spoken to before me are really just so ignorant of this topic that they should have not tried to help.
Well said. But what % of teens are so indoctrinated by their immutable theology, that counter arguments are dismissed out of hand and deemed a test of their emunah?
All kids raised in Orthodoxy are thoroughly indoctrinated and a large percentage of them retain these uncritically scrutinized ideas about life until they die because most people don't think clearly and deeply about anything, let alone the basis for all that they do. These are very grandiose ideas.
A lot of kids who dismiss religion do so not for intellectual reasons. Rather, they do so because they might have been taught that there are 39 melachos on shabbos or that there are 5 prayers on YK or that Chana prayed with her lips moving but with no audible voice, but either they saw religion merely as something to learn and do but not to live and enjoy, or they decided that it wasn't for them. People think there is a secret formula for keeping kids frum, but there is none. Some people will want it and others will not, and if only religious people could see that it's not for everyone, they'd have an easier time dealing with those who are irreligious, regardless if they had been raised observant.
It's a very small fraction of kids who come across intellectual arguments against religion early on in life, especially when they are raised in such an isolated environment, despite internet access. When I grew up in NYC in the 1990s, I had no non-Jewish friends, I went to school only with Jews, all the teachers were Jews, the bus driver was Satmer from Williamsburg, and I didn't really meet non-Jews until went to a local performing arts camp for a summer when I was 8 or so. But then I went to Moshava and Mogen Av and again had no real access to non-Jews until after YU and I started professional school. And then I got married within a year.
Talking to kids who are intellectually challenges by Judaism is difficult because they often don't have the emotional maturity to embrace the fullness of ideas, at least in my experience. I much prefer and specialize in adults who are of college age or older -- sometimes married with a number of kids -- who come to me with questions and they often feel like they're lost. They've come across something or other, wonder about it, and someone refers them to me, knowing that I'm very well versed in these topics, and they've usually spoken to so many people before they get to me that they feel like they will never gain clarity.
As an aside, just like I don't know what belief is, I don't know what emunah is. The fact that someone could be having trouble with Judaism and when they go to their rebbe, the rebbe says to them "you need to have more emunah" -- it's odd to me that these rebbes think that that's a meaningful thing to say. It's like someone complaining that they aren't in love with their wife, and the marriage counselor says "oh, so now we have the answer -- you need to love your wife more!" but thinks that's the end of the conversation.
So I don't know what emunah is and, necessarily, I do not know what a test of one's emunah is.
And I don't know what you mean by seeing the light. Do you want to know how teens can be convinced to be more observant or how teens can be made to see the fundamental flaws in religion and leave completely? It's a little ambiguous, not knowing which side of the aisle you sit on.
Believers say: a story as crazy as Sinai would not last 3500 years if it were not true. It must have happened! The riposte: except, accepting Sinai as reality is crazier yet! Which crazy story do u prefer? The craziness that a false story could last all these years, or the craziness of the Sinai story itself?
Your comment assumes that human logic is God's logic. The first Karias shema bracha that we say every morning is (Yotzer Or..) - He forms light and creates darkness, makes peace and creates ALL. The rabbis used the word ALL as a euphemism and as a substitute for the word EVIL. (see Isaiah 45:7) So God created evil in this world. So for the human mind, it is surely not logical for God to create evil in this world. But the prophet says (sorry, I cant cite the specific reference right now), that God does not think like humans think. Also, you might recall the story about Moshe wanting to "see" God in the chumash Shmos. Seeing meant that Moshe wanted to understand the nature of God - to understand what makes Him "tick". But God answers Moshe that as long as you are alive, you can't "see" me. Children grow up and think that this meant that if you saw God, you would die. But it means that as long as you are alive, you cannot understand me. People ask all kinds of valid questions such as why did the holocaust happen. There really is no answer. People speculate but we really dont know. Our job is if you believe in God and believe in the written and oral Torah and the prophets and the KAsuvim, our job is to try to do the mitzvohs and leave the why's to God. That is the faith
Have you read Sam Harris' "The End of Faith" and Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion"? Those will include most if not all of the challenges against religion. They specifically target Islam and Christianity, respectively, but only because Judaism is such a small religion and its adherents are mostly not a danger to the survival of mankind as fundamentalist Christianity and Islam are, but in your mind, just exchange the religions they are targeting, and you'll see what Slifkin means.
As for specific challenges against some of the ideas you'll hear from scientifically uninformed Jews trying to reconcile science and Torah, Slifkin's "The Challenge of Creation" covers them from page 139 and onward, explains why they are incorrect and why earlier attempts at concordism (such as Schroeder's) missed the mark completely.
It seems that this is a list of repudiated proofs for god, the Torah, Judaism, etc. Were you trying to show that there's a list of good evidence or a list of bad evidence?
I do not think Harris and Dawkins religion counter arguments will work against Orthodox Judaism's "proofs" . For example do they discuss R.Gottleibs Kuzari Arguments ? Or Proof from Schmittah etc ? I do not think so. I think Rabbis and Theologians on their own, and at times with with the help of sympathetic scientists and philosophers have come up with arguments for Orthodox Judaism that need to be specifically addressed. I do not think the arguments are easily dismissed, especially by those ignorant of Jewish history, philosophy, Torah-Talmud and it's commentators and the abuse or misuse of science.
If one doesn't accept the historicity of the bible, how can stories in the bible serve as proof of the validity of the bible? It's using the bible to justify god and god to justify the bible. I think the issues surrounding the Miracle of the Sun are important features, not bugs. There's so much discrepancy and so much ignorance about it, and how can that be if it was to have been so public? These issues themselves serve to undergird the argument against the Kuzari story. It's disputed, it's not compelling, it's written in the bible and being used to justify the bible and even the Jews who were supposedly there (at Sinai) didn't seem to be convinced of it 5 minutes later during the golden calf. People were so awed by solar eclipses and earthquakes and volcanic eruption back then that it's a wonder that we can trust anything that exceedingly gullible ancients attested to.
Shmittah is a difficult ask and people accepted it, so that's proof of its validity. I never thought that was compelling. Isn't that like saying that women stuck being chained to abusive husbands is proof of the validity because no woman would permit herself to be chained to a fake god and a non-existent reality? When girls can't find a guy to marry because of a shidduch crisis and families can't afford to send their kids to school because they have too many kids, too low-paying jobs and thought that god would provide, is the fact that they don't give up religion in both cases proof that Judaism is true? I don't think so. So perhaps shmittah, on its more national scale, is a compounded version of these more private affairs, but it doesn't add up for me.
It's like claiming the Torah is true and Moses really existed because who else would write a Torah where they are literally criticized by God himself and then permit that to be promulgated? Only a real Moses and a real religion would take that in stride.
I think rabbis don't understand the way to think about religion outside of religion because they are very much in the religion, and they are not really addressing the questioners' issues, but merely stressing the need for greater adherence and greater dedication and greater commitment without truly grasping that the person with questions is not just in love with his non-Jewish co-worker (or wanting to sleep with her, even if they aren't in love) or addicted to pornography or just bored to sit in shul for 2.5 hrs on Shabbos morning listening to stories they don't connect with. This is not about connection -- it's about honesty, and the people with questions are turned off in a major way when the people they go to with their trouble with the honesty of the delivery are replied to in a side-stepping manner that the problem is that they need to daven for more siyata d'shmaya.
Some people misuse science, but some people also misuse relationships -- this is not a stain on relationships, but on the manipulative nature of people. Just like guns don't kill people (people kill people), science just means observing and documenting and then finding patterns and testing if they are legitimate patterns. So are there some doofus scientists? Of course -- Gerald Schroeder is one of them! And that's why no one cares about him anymore. He is so bereft of reasonableness that his charm wore off when the internet came around and we moved into a new era of information. His explanations are quite dumb, but frankly, we were all quite dumb in the 1980s and 1990s. And since he can't reinvent himself (because he was supposed to have access to the science the entire time -- he is the great scientist, after all), we just toss him to the side and don't even bother with him, unless you're someone still living in the 1980s without internet access and having zero appreciation for the biological sciences.
I've read all that a little while ago and thought Harris and Dawkins made good points about the risks of blind religious faith but I don't remember them touching upon specific religious apologetic arguments such as the Kuzari or even the argument for Jesus's ressurection, Quran's inimitability, etc.
I have read and really enjoyed Slifkin's Challenge of Creation, and most of his books and monographs, but some bad attempts at concordism doesn't mean there are no good "intellectual proofs that Judaism is true"
Pretty scary, just realized that Natan left the Yeshiva world, not because of some sort of set of ideological beliefs, but rather because he rationalized his way out of the yeshiva lifestyle...... Which is why he keeps revisiting the topic of chareidim....... His conscience hasn't left him but the need to rationalize carries on.......
I understand that you're obsessed with my blog, but please stop flooding the comments section. It's not polite. (And it doesn't win anyone over to your cause, either.)
ad hominem. (you likely seek to chill debate, I'm guessing.) you get a good grade from cultists, not so much from free speech advocates. I'll give you a grade of 20, and caution you that you have the makings of a bully. "Check yourself, don't wreck yourself," as the kids say...
I think where it's holding now, is that Natan is ready to come out as a full blown atheist. But what's holding him back, even more than social pressures etc., is that doing so would retroactively vindicate the cherem on him.
speculation. mind reading. ad hominem. You have the makings of a bully. When people stop engaging with you, it's not because you "won," it's because they tire of your cheap shots. Don't let anyone tell you different.!
Mind reading is a kind of "red herring" fallacy (an attempt to change the subject) but, in the comment in question, by engaging in ad hominem attack on the writer of this blog.
By calling people "kofrim," he is showing he is afraid to engage the topic. Attack the argument, not the man. If you dare.
These aren't atheists, Torah and God were in their way so they needed to find a way to get God out of the way. What better way than to say that God doesn't exist and the Torah was written by man.....
Obsessed? How ironic. You're the one who's obsessed here. You've even admitted that over 90% of your posts are about Charedim. Perhaps the reason why he's fascinated by your blog is because you are constantly posting nasty, bigoted, and condescending posts about him and his lifestyle.
I don't have a cause. No one even knows who I am for that matter. Just countering what I see as rejection of Judaism under the guise of "questions on belief".
I do not reject Judaism or God. I do not need to. Neither 1 has made a plausible case for themselves. God had 1000's of opportunities to "prove" to me his existence. He never made the slightest effort.
I agree Howard, you definitely should not practice Judaism and you certainly should not be looking for plausible reasons to believe in God. This website provides ample refutation of God and Torah. Certainly since Jews and Judaism have been around for over 3,000 years, probable cause says it's all a mistake. Oh, and the world just happened it wasn't created, it was a mistake....Yup, galaxies universe the oceans they just created themselves some atoms exploded and somehow the universe just happened....... and anyone who believes this is not foolish....
but it's a non-sequitor to go from the mysteries of the universe (again, a forever conversation among mankind) to the specific answers posed by religion - answers that are "not to be questioned," because, why again?
Religion, more so Judaism, answers none of the fundamental questions of who we r and why we exist. It merely distracts us with 1000's of books of rules for shabbos and kashrus, as if that is the key to the secrets of the universe. Even "2001: a Space Odyssey" had better answers than that.
Read up on what evolution really says. If God created the whole thing, who created God, as every 7 year old asks.
Despite the 3000 years, there were many more advanced civilizations before the Jews. Hinduism is older by 1000 years and still survives. The pyramids were built and erected (without Jews) before Abe was born.
Argument from Jewish Survival,;Argument from Design. Has been addressed. Non of the arguments I have heard or read about are convincing to informed skeptics.
And how do you think your countering has been going for readers here?
Think your countering has swayed people?
Seems to me that the type of people who'd find positive value in the videos you've linked to would not be reading this blog, other than to police it and pester.
What do YOU think you're accomplishing with your comments here?
Yes. Lesson learned from chabad, the more someone tells you he's not interested in teffilin, Judaism etc....the more counter pressure - those people usually become the most involved in Judaism.
Hence, the more pushback I'm getting - chances are that these "fighters" are slowly acknowledging that what they call "questions" on Judaism are really just rationalizations.....
Hmmm, that's an interesting idea. So I guess the more pushback I get on this website from HGL, Mecharker, and you, the chances are that you are slowly acknowledging that my approach is actually correct...
Maybe there's a difference between people who do things politely and with love and a smile (Chabad) vs those who do so with anger, arrogance, obnoxiousness, and sarcasm?
Chabad is full of white-collar criminal ganovim. They admit they lie to be mekarev people. They promote teen-age consumption of liquor. I read a story by a C-nik who managed to over-ride his grandmother's clear and explicit wish to be cremated. She had even named a non-relative, not her own son, as her post-mortem guardian in the hope of avoiding a Jewish burial.
That's not exactly precise either. I left the yeshiva world personally because of my books, but I turned against it becomes I realized that it was a fundamentally societally problematic hashkafa.
I would say that the bottom line depends on a few things:
Relaying the positive value of commitment to Judaism, while so many “frum Jews” wander the community, the stores, and the shuls looking downtrodden and unhappy.
At the same time seeing, and teaching others to see, around, through, and beyond those “religious Jews” who behave in ways inconsistent with the Torah’s ethical values, including realizing that their neighbors are created b’tzelem Elokim. Showing the historical flexibility of Halacha, in the ongoing path it has taken, in which there were varieties of opinions and minhagim, and the beauty of acknowledging and accepting that. And, of course, the idea of “hanoch l’na’ar al pi darko,” but applying it to adult seekers, acknowledging that not everyone wants to learn Gemara, or mysticism, or whatever is presented as “the only path.” As my late Rav once said, “There are 600,000 paths to the Torah.” Meanwhile making it relevant and legitimate in this generation.
And devotees of Rationalist Judaism say that your Halachic and spiritual hashkafa is the 600,001th. Who is to say they’re wrong and you’re right. After all calling Rav Slifkin, who is as Shomrei Mitzvos as you are, an atheist ( or as close to one) puts you out of the bounds of a true Yiras Shamayim. Sinas Chinam is your middle names.
דעות are apparently personal but you could see how that would be easily obfuscated (either innocently or by a ne'er do well) into there being 600,000 פנים. But even the 600,000 are limited that any more, it seems to my reading of מהרש"א, not only aren't sanctioned but aren't even possible.
חכם הרזים כו'. למאי דמסיק דאין אוכליסא פחות מס' רבוא יש בהן ג״כ ששים רבוא דעות מחולקין והוא כלל כל הדעות שע״כ נתנה התורה לס' רבוא במדבר להיות התורה כלולה מכל דעה וחכמה ואין להוסיף עליה ומה שאחז״ל כל מה שמחדש כל חכם בדורו מסיני הוא לפי שזה הדבר כבר היה בדעת אחת מאותן ששים רבוא שהיו בסיני כי אי אפשר שיהיה עוד דעת אתרת על ששים רבוא וק״ל:
Yup, the new international kiruv movement begins right here. Never mind that the very methods dismissed in this post are responsible for tens of thousands of baalei teshuva over the past 50 years; now we're finally gonna do it right.
For all the naysayers who think it's hard to be mekarev people to Judaism if you don't actually believe in Judaism, just stand back and watch the revolution. In the upcoming series of posts we will demonstrate all the practical benefits of being Jewish WHILE maintaining your atheistic beliefs, from a sociological, psychological, and dermatological perspective (plus if you sign up for Judaism now you can take advantage of our group car rental rates and theatre discounts!)
So don't listen to those elitest snobs who don't consider you a religious Jew unless you, I don't know, subscribe to Judaism or something. Click here to join your local chapter of Jews for A, and together we'll show 'em how real inclusive kiruv is done.
But seriously folks, for the real reason we should not be engaging with this post, see here:
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/are-we-trying-to-convince-the-atheists
Clearly you don't know anybody 'in kiruv'. None of the methods used in the last 50 years work particular well in today's internet, woke, whatever generation - You can't use 'Permission to believe' type proofs if a simple internet search provides numerous conunter proofs in a millisecond.
I would suggest that the wildcard here is the word "proof". Of course they can find the counterarguments. Then they have to weigh the evidence rationally and see what they find compelling. Like in every other intellectual judgement. You're right there are no "proofs" in the sense of God appearing in front of the seminar and announcing "Here I am, boys". We do live in a tekufa of hester panim. But there are compelling frameworks that I think intellectually honest people do consider dispositive (please don't ask me to present them here - it's not my thing - but you can look up the various serious intellectuals who do it. And yes, you have to choose carefully. Not everyone out there peddling Judaism is particularly bright. There's nothing we can do about that; just be sure to find the right ones).
But to the point - I certainly don't see how you'll do a BETTER job in kiruv with the pitch of - "yeah, I don't find this particularly compelling either, but check out all these practical benefits of pretending to be religious (as preached in some atheist's books)." I hate to say it, but the whole approach seems regrettably naïve to me.
"Never mind that the very methods dismissed in this post are responsible for tens of thousands of baalei teshuva"
That's a strong claim. Maybe you should be a little more clear about which methods you are referring to? Has RNS dismissed all the methods? Or just some of them? Has he dismissed even one of them?
Just because he wrote, " There are no intellectual proofs that Judaism is true" doesn't mean he dismisses such arguments. All he wrote was " many intelligent and intellectually honest people realize that this is naive. "- the implication is that such arguments alone would not be sufficient motivation to convince all to become Torah observant.
II suspect you've created a straw man.
I had a long series of comments on this idea of "proofs" of Torah a while back, which I may find and repost. It had to do mainly with logical fallacies that are used to prove Torah.
One thing I always start with is how risible the standards are. An easy one is that a court (secular or Jewish) has a standard for testimony: no second hand accounts.
Yet, the masorah is a very long telling and retelling of an account. No Jewish court would dream of accepting such testimony as part of evidence in a trial.
So, if you were on trial, you would cry "foul" at a second hand account (heresay) of what you are accused of doing. But, with an account that goes back thousands of years, you see GOOD evidence for Torah?
It's not a serious search for truth, this search to prove Torah. It starts with Torah is true, and a "gentlemen's agreement" to use any and all kinds of weak arguments (pretzel logic) to affirm that. That's what people smell in all religious apologetics.
When one person testifies with second hand accounts, it would be unacceptable.
The argument here is about tens of thousands of people who would not have colluded to keep a myth going if it weren't true. These tens of thousands of people not only retold a story, but they lived that story and passed it on to their children whom they have no interest in fooling.
When the story is multiplied so many times, it makes sense that it is true.
If a court wouldn't accept it, too bad for the court.
Hi,
I wrote about this a while back, and found my comments. I will repost here. I added some additional comments at the top. Sorry so long - this is verbatim from the old comments:
New comments first:
You are using the "argument from authority" fallacy. The Torah tells us it is telling us the truth. We consider the Torah authoritative, therefore it is true. It's weak (we understand this at a gut level when we hear other religions quote "the truth" from their texts.)
Second, and related, it is a non-falsifiable assertion that the Torah makes. This means we simply can't confirm it happened. Unfalsifiable fallacies occur when someone makes a claim that is impossible to prove wrong. It is very weak. An example is "faith can move mountains." If you can't move a mountain by your faith? You just have too weak a faith, I guess. Religions excel at this.
(One final new comment, before the old, long, comment I reposted, follows: there is actually ONE falsifiable assertion that Judaism makes: Moshiach will arrive by the year 6000. That year is actually going to arrive (G-d willing) and, at that point, I believe the world will wait to see what happens. If nothing happens -- the rabbis will come up with a new year, well off in the future, I am guessing. They will likely say 6000 was always just an idea. That the real year is now, drum roll please, 7000! We see here that religion must always win - it cannot be disproven, according to them. But, it will be an interesting moment, as it is falsifiable. It can be tested as a "truth.")
Now follows a long comment, from months ago:
We don't know that it is the one true religion, actually. We say we know that. That's what all mass movements do. That's what all true believers, who are part of mass movements, say.
The anxiety arises when we find statements in the religion that don't seem correct. That's when the pretzel logic begins. The strained apologetics.
Every adherent to every religion, or any other mass movement, knows it is factually correct. Every mesorah, of every religion, attests to its truth.
A Jewish beis din, however, does not permit a second hand account as valid testimony. This form of testimony is called "hearsay." It is inherently unreliable.
However, the mass movements and religions depend on the "reliable transmission of tradition." They claim this is a fact.
Why the difference? Because a beis din seeks truth - and therefore is careful about what kind of testimony is acceptable in this search. It has a higher standard.
Religions have a far lower standard for determining truth - which is what they need to survive.
The problem is people who are not true believers are aware of this low standard. It is partly why indoctrination is so important - to avoid seriously questioning the low standards ALL religions and mass movements have for claiming truth.
The assertion that all mass movements require believing they have "the truth" is obvious from research. Religions, of course, each believe they have the truth. And, at least the ones I've been exposed to in the US seem to share a predilection for passed down traditions. I know I saw one main line religion here that even used the trope of naming the individual who passed the tradition to the next individual in the next generation. (Maybe copied from Judaism? It’s persuasive sounding.)
In terms of hearsay, or second hand stories. Yes, there are exigencies where western courts recognize that they will need to rely on a second hand story to resolve a situation. The best one (a classic for courts and beis dins, I guess) is when a husband is missing. Perhaps killed in war, perhaps dies at sea, or perhaps is just gone - the wife will need, for a variety of reasons (including remarriage, and probably other reasons) to have a court declare the husband dead. In that case, a second hand account may figure in to their decision to declare him dead. But let’s keep in mind: sometimes the husband shows up, years later. This is a “second hand account” weakness, well known to the courts.
The masorah, of course, is a far longer string of telling and retelling - over generations. Obviously, it is not a very high standard for determining the truth of what is thought to have happened eons ago. Jewish and other courts would not permit it as testimony. It's just too low standards for them. It’s too “weak sauce,” or “thin gruel.” Courts are serious places. They aren’t looking to come to some predetermined outcome in order to justify a religious belief system.
However, religions rely on a “reliably transmitted” tradition. So, what happens (in all religions) is clear: the “thin gruel” (in the beis din) is deemed “thick” (outside of the beis din) - it is deemed reliable - and the stories and narratives built around it serve to support, and not upend, tradition.
There is a kind of "gentleman's agreement" among leaders to certify the masorah as true, regardless of how many twists and sleights of hand it takes to give that contention teeth.
Some scratch their heads at the contortions (the pretzel logic) and leave the religion. Some keep their mouths shut. Many are “True Believers.” Well indoctrinated, or perhaps just conformists, generally.
Also, rabbis and religious teachers are kind of like politicians. Like politicians, their role is to inspire. To carry on the movement. To defeat the forces of the other side.
The rules are different from a beis din - the standards, far, far lower. Also, they are not under oath, as in a court or a hearing, where lying can lead to severe repercussions.
We have seen many times politicians make all kinds of pronouncements in the court of public opinion. Say all kinds of things. In a real court or, say, congressional hearing, under oath – they say something very different. They quietly disavow all that they said to the news cameras. Different standards at work, here.
Please don't think I am picking on Judaism. All religions, all political movements, all movements seeking to (as they see it) "improve" the world, rely heavily on low standards of truth being declared as the truth. They all heavily invest in the rightness and unalterable truth of whatever it is they are fighting for. I've been in those fights. It's great to be a part of something (which is why so many are a part of one mass movement or another, at least when they are young and more credulous, and likely, more idealistic.)
I would always like to see more truthfulness, more realness, in Judaism. But, I understand, that such an undertaking puts you on a slippery slope.
Another comment I made, months ago, to the same post:
I think all mass movements rely on a low standard of truth, in comparison to how courts pursue finding the truth.
But first, you mention the copying of the Torah – this doesn’t tell us the Torah is from Moses, or divine in origin. It’s a red herring, as an argument, I think.
Second, a court has at its disposal tools to examine closely a case. Mass movements (and religions) have apologetics.
Courts use (and religions eschew) the well-honed tools of modern juris prudence for ensuring the most honestly arrived at outcome in a case.
A few of these tools come to mind (I’m not a lawyer, by the way):
Lawyers in courts can object when opposing lawyers ask questions that “assume facts not in evidence.”
Lawyers can ask questions/bring witnesses/bring evidence that challenge (or support) a witness’ credibility, and/or character.
Related, courts have a “Dead Man’s Statute.” Since dead people cannot be cross examined or interrogated – only under very limited conditions is a dead person’s “testimony” accepted by the court.
Much of religious apologetics elides all this. They assume facts not in evidence. They rely on stories and writings of people who are not around to cross examine, or have tests put to their credibility or character.
None of these tests can be put to the Rambam or others of an age long ago.
They can’t be deposed by attorneys either. They can’t be voir dired.
So, the truth used by leaders of religions to “prove” their movement true, would never make it to court – because the case would (as they say in court) “lack foundation.”
(I believe this is exactly the way religious apologetics must work. The whole idea is to build a case that resists interrogation or challenge. One way? Use dead people and old stories – just declare them as “irrefutable fact.”)
What religious apologetics amounts to? A show trial (where the result is preordained.) And those undertaking this “trial” are engaging in the antics of a kangaroo court (a court that ignores recognized standards of law or justice.)
By the way, I’m not a lawyer. But, I’ve watched enough and read enough about religions proclaiming they have the truth, to have thought about it a little.
There is an old saying in law: “Fiat Justitia, Ruat Coelum,” which translates to “let justice be done though the heavens fall.”
It’s meaning?
The maxim signifies the belief that justice must be realized regardless of consequences. (from Wikipedia.)
This standard would never work for those “proving” religions, or indoctrinating students in to those religions.
They are not searching for the truth. They say they have “the truth.”
And, if a person has a reason to think it’s not that simple? Or, their arguments are flawed or not rigorous, or overlook basic methods for establishing facts? Probably best to not make a fuss. Mass movements are not interested in such discussions. In the end, the mass movement “wins,” and there is no “right to appeal.” (Which is another feature of a serious, modern, justice system…)
"Because a beis din seeks truth - and therefore is careful about what kind of testimony is acceptable in this search. It has a higher standard."
The reason that a Beis Din does not accept hearsay and that courts in "innocent, until proven guilty" systems do not accept hearsay, is because of the high standard needed to prove guilt. It has nothing to do with "truth." If you wanted all sides to get to the truth, hearsay could have value.
another reason to respect courts more than religious apologetics. Religions engage in the antics of a kangaroo court, by proclaiming they have the truth. They put on a show trial, where the result is preordained, and the other side can't speak.
Courts are too serious and have too much integrity to engage in such facile, bogus, manipulative tactics.
i think what religions do when it comes to their bogus tactics of "proving" is the informal fallacy knows as the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Shoot the arrow, then draw the bullseye around it.
No serious court could engage in such antics. But snake oil salesman, gurus, and cult leaders, take note: this is your playbook.
"Courts are too serious and have too much integrity to engage in such facile, bogus, manipulative tactics."
What reality are you living in? Which courts are "too serious" to do that? Not to mention the fact that you twisted what I said, and likely would have twisted anything positive I could have said.
there is a deep well of faulty, persuasive tactics at the heart of religious apologetics, i think. it is why there is a deep need to exclude outside voices from the arguments they make for "the truth" of their position.
Communism in the former Soviet Union required the same sleight of hand. "the West and capitalism is decadent and weak and classist and racist. Communism is the obvious truth." Only - if you wanted to see for yourself, and go to the West, they shot you in the back, or put you in their version of herem, a forced labor camp. The truth, indeed.
Meanwhile, in the West you can study and buy the Communist Manifesto, and be whatever you want, have whatever commitments you like. You can come and go as you please. You are free to learn about communism, and labor economics and the like, and draw your own conclusions. It's this freedom mass movements (including religion) can't tolerate.
There is a clear problem with mass movements - they proclaim they have the truth. They are not looking for what is likely the truth, or provable "beyond a reasonable doubt."
That is what I mean by courts being serious places. They sift evidence with a standard that makes religious apologists blush (and run, and hide.!)
The system of juris prudence doesn't even try to pretend they know what the truth is, either. They have a commitment to proving "beyond a reasonable doubt," what happened. They don't need to con anyone with unprovable, non-falsifiable, pablum passing itself off as fact.
The level of honesty, and integrity, to such a set of ideals, is deeply refreshing. The only ones who have a sour response? Fake gurus, religious apologists, and snake oil salesman.
Such a standard puts an end to their whole seductive, fun, fantastical system of "proofs."
Apologies if I misunderstood you.
The difference between Judaism's argument and that of other mass movements begins at mass revelation, the fact (claim, for now) that the Jewish people experienced (and survived) divine revelation on a national scale. That, together with זכרון דברים's comment above, prove the truth of our religion, because you won't have millions of people claiming, (and transmitting to their children,) that they saw god together, unless it actually happened.
Today, take a class of fifty Jews who know nothing. Have them at a kiruv center in Jerusalem. Have an older, wise sounding, rabbi tell them that we received the Torah from Mt. Sinai. Have him tell them we know we did because it was passed on as a tradition.
Some will buy it. Maybe most will buy it. Some will not, and not continue to learn.
The ones that buy it - there's you're "everybody." There's your "everybody believed it."
If forty walk out not believing, and ten stay and believe - you got your "everybody" who believed, right there.
Why will they believe? One of the oldest charlatan tricks in the book: because an authority figure told them.
Some people believe authority figures. Those people are your "everybody."
There are other tricks at work, tricks used to trick people with bad logic that sounds good.
The argument from Tradition is another logical fallacy at work. Basically "it's old, it's been around a long time, it must be true."
Again, some are easy prey for logical fallacies. Some are mentally more sound in their thinking.
Rabbis should be ashamed at "proving" Judaism to others.
But, that's their cheap trick shtick in 21st C Judaism: use thinking tricks. Wow em with bad thinking. Those who leave, leave. Those who are not much for logic, stay. Boom, we did our "job."
But, all you really did? Cheapen a religion.
Nice job, I guess...
And there are other logic fallacies at work, I'm sure. I'm no expert. But I can dig further. It's just kind of painful to seeing the circus that has become religion. The con men, pulling quarters out kids ears, and wowing them with "magic."
This isn't a proper response to your comment. Elsewhere D. Terrier allows people not to read long comments, & yours is too long right now. I'll only mention that Rambam says WITHIN his Kuzary style proof for the authenticity of Moshe's prophecy that
כְּמוֹ שֶׁצִּוָּנוּ לַחְתֹּךְ הַדָּבָר עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין אִם הֵעִידוּ אֱמֶת אִם שֶׁקֶר.
I.e., that technically courts shouldn't even accept witnesses....
You started with a stark display of your own lack of reading comprehension
I never used the 'argument from authority'. If you thought I did, you need reading glasses.
And 'Judaism' does not claim that Moshiach will arrive by the year 6000. There is such a source in Jewish tradition, but it is by no means absolute.
You likely employ the argument from authority (the authority being the Torah, and the rabbis) without realizing it. Granted, it may be closer to a different fallacy - I'm not an expert. But when someone says "the bible says so!" they are using it.
I'm not picking on Judaism. Without an argument form authority, the 190 year old Mormonism would never grow to be 11M (or so) worldwide. Would never have Brigham Young U, or Salt Lake City, Utah as its center.
I argued this with a rabbi once. He told the class the Kuzari argument. Roughly half loved it, and bought it. The other half (roughly) not so much.
When someone says the Jews would never buy the Torah claim, unless they had been there -- I answered to the rabbi -- "but half the class JUST bought it without being there, or having a family tradition of Torah Mt Sinai! Or even knowing if what you say is true Judaism!"
That's how authority works. Some people are prone to accepting what authorities say as simply true or likely, others not so much. All religions MUST rely on arguments from authority, or risk too much skepticism to continue on.
But, perhaps you will agree: it is ONE account, the Torah. We don't have 100,000 contemporaneous accounts. We don't have ten witness accounts.
I'll kind of accept your second notion about the timing of Moshiach - why? Because any half way competent con cannot have falsifiable proofs. So 6000 can only be "one idea." Why? Because you can't have a plainly disprovable assertion, if you expect the religion to survive and work for people. Too many cults have found this out, the hard way. Snake oil salesman, too. They make the claims, take the money, and skip town. That's what having falsifiable claims forces you to do.
Your comments remind me of the book the God Virus.
A halakhic Beth Din would dismiss such "testimony" as hearsay. If 2M people saw it, why didn't some1 independently write a few notes? Not 1 did.
After you left some personal information at an earlier comment I thought you might be a senior individual whom I should address more respectfully. This is a looong shot but your comments remind me of the colorful man at the book shop who learned in CHY and hated Rabbi B.
Anyway, till the Mishna there was no allowance for these notes, according to certain authorities. But this is neither here nor there.
I assure u that u got the wrong guy. I do not like to leave clues that might compromise my privacy.
I do not know what u mean there were no notes before the mishna. In fact the mishna and gemara were compiled from pre-existing notes. None of the 2M put down some squiggles?
@זכרון דברים
How could it not be true if tens of thousands of people retold the story and also lived the story. Well, how do you know for sure that they lived the story? Because they believed the story, not that there is any clear evidence that the story was true. The old debunked Kuzari argument. An exercise in circular reasoning par excellence. And round and round we go.
Your comment is an exercise in lack of reading comprehension.
I was answering the claim of hearsay.
But when thousands of people witness something, that should be considered a proof. Hundreds of thousands didn't 'believe'. They saw.
But you called it 'debunked' so there it goes
Just to respond to this idea:
We have ONE account of hundreds of thousands seeing it. We don't have hundreds of thousands of eye witness accounts (we don't even have ten.)
There is a lot wrong here. It is a non sequiter to say that because one account says everyone saw it, it actually happened that way. It is non-falsifiable, and cannot be disproven. It is an argument from ignorance, and cannot be disproven. It is assertion without evidence - we have no actual tesimony from the "hundreds of thousands of witnesses." It is a violation of "Dead Mans Statute" - you can't tell us what the dead saw. It is hearsay. It is an argument from authority (we view the Torah as authoritative. Whatever it says must be true.)
I'm sure there is more wrong with it. Fallacies are inherently weak, and a form of snake oil salesmanship.
Finally, I'm not sure what this is called, but it strains credibility that everyone there actually saw the same thing. Eye witnesses identify the WRONG suspect 1 out of 4 times. They report different things, even when they were all at the crime. Suspects are described differently, wearing different clothes, different heights are reported, different weapons, different number of suspects, what the suspects said.
You know what the "tell" is in the Torah? EVERYONE saw the same thing!
If I tell you "I am a great friend to all who know me. Everybody says so." I hope you will at least have some skepticism of the "evidence" I have to this assertion. Because it is weak. It is certainly not a good proof.
You sure live your life with a lot of rules. Things have to be falsifiable, otherwise they didn't happen. Then there's this Dead Man's Statute, that is supposed to obligate all of us.
But your proof from the 'great friend' takes the cake. Your frivolous way of thinking will always produce foolishness. It's the nature of the beast.
falsifiable (aka verifiable) is what people use who respect their audience. non-falsifiable is what people use who want to manipulate their audience.
When a man says "you will burn in hell for this." That is non-falsifiable. Not only does he not know, there is no way of knowing. That man is not arguing, he is fear mongering. Manipulating.
When a man says "if it doesn't happen by ten PM, I'll take it back." He is respecting the rules of good argument. He is ready to be proven wrong. His hubris, and his need to control you with illegitimate arguments is not on display.
Which are you?
"There are people who are totally certain that God created the universe (and they believe that it happened just a few thousand years ago!) and that He gave the Torah at Sinai, but they are not particularly motivated to observe halacha. This can be a particular problem with teenagers."
It isn't only a problem with teenagers. As an adult, I cannot reconcile the harsh punishments of hundreds or perhaps thousands of harmless ritual observances, with a kind and benevolent God.
For example, how does one accept the punishment of "kares" (eternal physical and spiritual destruction, yes eternal, forever and ever and ever) for not keeping every detail of an extremely abstract extension of every form of constructive activity on Shabbos. Or if one is lazy and waits a day or two to blacken his "retzuos" (which is the equivalent of not wearing tefillin since non black inavalidates the mitzvah), that he will suffer an awful punishment of "poshai yisroel" (see Shulchan Aruch O.C. 37 with Bach and Mishnah Berurah). The same applies to many other areas of halacha.
The truth actually is, that Klal yisroel has not really accepted halacha. Although we pay lip service to accepting every detail, but the reality is that about 95% of people (including Roshei Yeshivah and Kollel guys) keep what they knew from their homes and their yeshivos (which not only don't learn halacha, but disdain any serious pursuit of it), and if we were to test them on the thousands of details in Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim, Yoreh Deah and Choshen Mishpat, they would fail miserably.
"It isn't only a problem with teenagers"
I agree(, however, I understood him to be referring to a gap between "V'yodata Hayom" and "Vahasheivosa el Levavecha", which is probably more endemic to teenagers...)
"how does one accept the punishment of "kares"... for not keeping every detail of...Shabbos...Or if one is lazy...he will suffer an awful punishment of "poshai yisroel""
That argument doesn't hold water on its own. If there is a G-d, He gets to set up the value system. And it doesn't even have to make sense to YOU. (As it happens, the poor examples you gave only apply to a Meizid, which means he's choosing to ignore the severity that Hashem communicated to about that Mitzva. And with your second example in particular, I don't remember all the shitos right now, but someone on the daf there in RH says that it only applies to one who NEVER put on Tefillin.)
"Klal yisroel has not really accepted halacha"
wow.
"95% of people (including Roshei Yeshivah and Kollel guys) keep what they knew from their homes and their yeshivos"
Eh, I wonder, in which circles do *you* wander around... (including which Yeshiva/os/ot and Kollels/ot/im)
"yeshivos (which not only don't learn halacha, but disdain any serious pursuit of it)"
The Yeshivos that I was in (all mainstream Chareidi), starting in Elementary, all had AT LEAST Halacha seder, if not whole chaburos fully dedicated to learning Halacha, not to mention well-attended voluntary Shiurim, and individuals learning on their own and B'chavrusa. In addition, most yungerleit go over to Halacha after a few years in Kollel. Let's not even get into the numerous Halacha programs for Baalei Batim...
"if we were to test them on the thousands of details in Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim, Yoreh Deah and Choshen Mishpat, they would fail miserably"
So would most professionals in any field. Retention and acceptance do not have to go hand in hand.
Kol tuv
Why do you want to motivate others to be religious is you have no intellectual proof/evidence that it's true?
It seems you are missing the point of this post.
I believe what R’ Slifkin is saying is that it is not necessary to resort to facile “intellectual” proofs to demonstrate why adherence to Torah/halachah is worthwhile for the individual and beneficial to the world.
As R’ Slifkin implies in his post, if such “proofs” convince you, great, “ashrecha v’tov lach”. But the fact remains that, in an objective intellectual sense, these proofs are easily refutable and so constitute an unsteady foundation upon which to build an edifice of faith. (I’ve known people who went “off the derech” when they realized the fallacy/fallibility of these arguments.)
If honesty to your spouse, yourself, and your kids means anything, how can u teach what u do not believe? If u think frumkeit is merely a beautiful way of life, then say so, and let the chips fall where they may.
You (and others here) seem to be starting from a mistaken premise.
Recognizing/admitting the simple fact that it is not possible to *prove* the truth of Judaism (or the existence of G-d, etc) intellectually is *not the same* as asserting that Judaism is not true (or “intellectually compelling”, as “Frankie” says below).
In fact, I would suggest (and I think R’ Slifkin would agree) that if your faith is dependent on such “proofs”, you may find yourself on unsteady theological footing (as I said above).
I would argue your faith is on much unsteadier footing if it is dependent upon pop psychology "arguments" from liberal atheist Jonathan Haidt about the supposed generic psychological benefits of acting religious (And by the way, to the extent they "work", such arguments work just as well for any religion, not just Judaism.)
I was wondering the same thing. It seems he is writing for guys like himself, who do not believe in the truth of the Torah, yet want to stay religious for some of the other reasons he mentioned in the beginning of this post. So the question is, if I am practicing a fake religion (in his eyes) for social reasons, how do I make myself feel good about it, since I'm doing it anyways?
The arrogance with which you tar others as “not believ[ing] in the truth of the Torah” and “practicing a fake religion … for social reasons” is really quite breathtaking.
You have a very strange definition of arrogant. Why on earth do you feel the need to tie yourself in knots to explain things for Dr. Slifkin? He's right here to explain himself, if he so wills.
The man just announced that he does not intellectually find Judaism compelling. What's arrogant about taking him at his word?
Fantastic question. Why would slifkin want to perpetuate a falsehood???
Indeed, discussing benefits vs harms of a particular social system is extremely difficult. It's even more challenging when the beliefs holding up that system are false. Furthermore, many conflicting values are at play. Individual vs societal. Immediate vs long term. Etc
Let's discuss orthopraxy:
It's fun keeping shabbat sometimes, but is orthopraxy sustainable for an entire lifetime???....what about being truthful to your kids, your spouse, your friends??? What about your own cognitive dissonance???
What about the problem of tacitly perpetuating falsehood which is usually detrimental in the long run???
What about societal costs????
Generally truth is better than falsehood, and orthopraxy is tacitly perpetuating falsehood. When societies are held together by false beliefs it can lead to disastrous effects.
RABBI Slifkin is not saying that Judaism is false. He is just saying that it cannot be proven conclusively. Big difference!
I'd be fascinated to know what slifkin actually thinks...
My guess is that he's orthoprax himself. What do u think?
Unless orthopraxy is ubiquitous, and then you don't need to guess.
Usually if someone says they believe in x , they probably believe in x. If slifkin says he believes in God/Torah he probably believes in God/Torah.
However, knowing that Slifkin knows so much about science, evolution, biblical criticism etc it becomes hard to take his beliefs seriously.
It's like an evolutionary biologist telling you they think the world is 6000 years old.
Or like a well respected doctor who tells you that he believes in the Stork theory of reproduction.
At some point you'll question the authenticity of their beliefs. I wonder whether slifkin has reached that point ...
I wonder what people mean when they say they believe in something. If someone has got no good reason to believe in something, but they say they still believe, are they to be taken seriously? Is that, actually a belief that they maintain, or are they merely believing in belief?
I used to work in a deli and a particular man would come in and make sure that whenever we wrapped his food in aluminum foil that we only touched his food with the matte side of the foil and not the shiny side of the foil. He was very concerned that it was dangerous. This was in the late 1990s. Fast-forward to today when you can google it and you'll see that the two sides of the foil are chemically identical and the shiny vs matte sides are merely a result of the way the foil is rolled out and compressed. But information was not widespread back then and so people were even more ignorant than they are now. Now go back 100 years or 1000 years and think about how ignorant people were then, but I digress.
So this guy, who happened to be a (non-medical) doctor, he "believed" that the shiny side of the foil was dangerous. But if you ask him why, he would have nothing to say other than "I'm the customer, this is what I want and I didn't ask to be interrogated or otherwise challenged." But is that really a way to defend your belief?
What could this man possibly say about the shiny side of the foil? Where did he even come up with this idea that it was dangerous? It's a nonsense belief literally based on nothing of substance, and when you scrutinize it in this manner, the only conclusion, really, is to consider this man a weirdo.
Now maybe it would have turned out that the shiny side was dangerous. But it's not like he had advanced knowledge of this. He would have survived while everyone else would have suffered greatly, because even if you get matte touching your deli food 50% of the time, if you are a repeat customer, you will likely end up having the shiny side touch your food one time or another and if even a single exposure is dangerous, then all those other people would have suffered from whatever ailments the shiny side would have caused, but it would've been only that this doctor happened to, by chance, choose to eschew something that no one yet knew was dangerous.
So when someone says that they believe but they cannot defend their belief, how is that a belief to be taken seriously? This guy believed that the shiny side was dangerous because he had heard it somewhere and we all considered him to be a nutjob. But we wanted his business and he didn't seem to be dangerous, so we made sure to always wrap his food with shiny side out. But to say "I believe" as though it's a defense of your actions...isn't that like a kid saying "because"?
Discrete O-P is hic et ubique among educated men. Many frum wives quietly accept it, so as not to mess up your kids' shiduchim. My frum ex-fiancée (I was going OTD), poor innocent girl, even offered me a set of rules I could not accept.
This is a holdover from 20 years ago when the internet was mostly synonymous with computers and gaming and coding and STEM. If you read Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers" you'll see the same thing as in the 'rise of software' films "The Social Network" and the two Steve Jobs films -- that this was a realm for guys and not girls. Not because girls are dumb or unclever, but because that's what happened, for this reason or that.
And to access information in the internet era and have it change your mind, it seems that you need 10,000 hours of it, and so you can't be a 40 yo BY girl because you've been married for 20 years and busy with your family and before then, you didn't spend all this time on the internet. But guys don't have that barrier.
I think the next generation will see a shift. Girls are on the internet as much as boys are these days. Maybe Jordan Peterson is correct when he cites an 80/20 ratio of people on YouTube, and no one can say for sure, but in 10 or 25 years, when all the girls who have been exposed to the internet as much as boys are adults, information will be more free and accessible and anyone can watch a YouTube video of Daniel Dennett and have their eyes opened. And I've had girls contact me to talk to me about evolution and orthopraxy and God and Sam Harris -- they might not post on this forum, but that doesn't mean they're not there.
As Dennett says, this is universal acid. There is no flask that can contain it and it's just a matter of time. It might be slow and barriers might be erected to reduce its speed, but given enough time, it will dissolve anything in its path.
I doubt it.
Orthopraxy is a massive burden of work if u do not believe the underpinnings to be true. Come on--u r waiting alone for your delayed connecting flight, mamesh weak with hunger, and all u can find is Mickey D's. Even if u r a tsadik gamur, what is so bad about a 1-off?
"You can try convincing people that Judaism is true. But the problem with this is that many intelligent and intellectually honest people realize that this is naive. There are no intellectual proofs that Judaism is true"
These 3 statements have little to do with one another. Even though there are logical proofs that G-d exists in some form or another, I don't know of any strict proof that Judaism is true. Nevertheless, being convinced that Judaism (like any other idea) is true doesn't require proof, for an intelligent and intellectually honest person.
Additionally, I would say that a huge motivator is that when a person (including myself here) believes that G-d is real, and created the universe and everything leading up to that person's life, and the person actually appreciates their life, this makes a person want to thank their Creator. Similarly, understanding the existence and awesomeness of G-d can give a yearning to know more, come closer, and follow.
The most powerful force driving people toward Torah obsevance that I've seen is social desire. Seeing a nice Shabbos table, or a group of guys/girls that is close-knit and dedicated toward some higher goal, makes a lot of people want more of that.
I think what R’ Slifkin is referring to is attempts by guys like Lawrence Keleman (and perhaps those “Discovery” seminars that were popular in the ‘90s) to rationally/intellectually prove the truth of Judaism or the existence of G-d or some such.
I agree with him that these *approaches* are wrongheaded and doomed to fail. Of course, that does not mean that Judaism is not true or that G-d doesn’t exist, which is kind of R’ Slifkin’s point.
Have you statistics to back up your prediction of failure? As Chareidim etc. "fall" for the proofs, so do the irreligious. Such as,
Reactions from Discovery participants
"The depth and breadth of the information presented was overwhelming - intellectually and spiritually. I could spend a year and feel like I've barely scratched the surface."
Hank Brandon
"I've absolutely loved every minute of this seminar -- something I didn't plan on. What it's done has been to make me want to learn more."
Gladys Grey
"It worked! I learned, learned and learned. I loved every part of it and would like more! Discovery even touched my 14-year-old. That was the best part."
Gail Slater
"This seminar is a must for all Jews."
Larry Smith
"This seminar has reminded me of what it really means to be Jewish."
Carol Rothenberg
"I feel very special right now about being a Jew, and I hope I can encourage the people that are closest to me to come to Discovery and feel 'special' too."
Rob Daley
About the Discovery Seminar: The Discovery Seminar was developed in 1985 by a team of Scholars with the goal to present a scientific rational evidence for the Divine authorship of the Bible. The seminar was prepared in English by Aish Hatorah and has been attended by over 100,000 Jews in audiences around the world.
Asked by a frum person what Discovery's success rate is, Rabbi __ said. "100%". "How is that", he was asked. "They all hate you less", he answered. A smaller percentage reacted as above.
Gosh, Discovery only shares positive feedback! I guess there must not be any other reaction!
WADR, I'm not understanding how you are following the thread. JuCu (I assume he doesn't want to be referred to as JC :) ) says that it's doomed to fail. I understood him to be making a sweeping statement. I thought *he* was saying, to use your words, "there must not be any other reaction". To which I tried to say *that* isn't true. I wasn't claiming the other extreme.
The statistics are in the biography of R Noach Weinberg. I misplaced mine but maybe someone else has it and can report back.
Page 359: "A survey of several hundred participants in seminars in the early 1990s found that 14 percent of the participants had become Shomer Shabbos within six months of attending the seminar." You may call that an 86 percent failure to reach that particular bar.
But what bar are you working with? I find parts of these letters http://www.zootorah.com/controversy/effects.html exceedingly inspiring. I am moved even now when I read for example, "I wanted to let you know Rav Slifkin that you have helped me more than any Rebbeim I have had in all my years. The amount of Hakaras HaTov that I owe you is innumerable. No amount of thanks or gratitude can be given. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for saving my life from a life off the Derech Hashem."
I.e., you too have received the type of emotion laden accolades that Discovery cites for itself. But going back to their statistic of 14%, that is the specific line of Mechalel Shabbos to Shomer Shabbos. What are your statistics, and which line did you get them across? They failed that line a whopping 86% of the time. What are the stats your failures? Did you also work with people with hardly any background and got them OnTD? Or did they have some sort of head start and you moved them from shaky to firmer ground?
A certain piece of the puzzle is missing. People are subjective. Or call them naive. Once you are entertaining becoming Frum for the benefits even if it's a lie that they recognize, go entertain that people can become Frum out of adherence to their naive subjective notion of truth. Let there be a multi-pronged approach. Send people to Discovery (I have no idea if it still exists). Those who it doesn't work for should go to you.
I'm also very curious what kind of letters you got for your newer books, if they were grateful and impassioned like the letters about your earlier books. Maybe for a different time. Cheers!
I found Discovery helpful in proving the point there was much more to Judaism than the shallow caricature I imagined it to be. Of course it was also a much more intense 3.5 day version of the seminar, not the highly abridged and condensed one day version that it later became.
You are still stuck in the "shallow caricature" phase of your life. Sad at your age.
Those are lovely sentiments, and I hope they resulted in these folks maintaining a lasting connection with G-d and yiddishkeit.
But for every “success story” they tout on *their own* website (see: selection bias), I can unfortunately cite:
A) an irreligious person who was unconvinced by the “scientific rational evidence”,
B) an irreligious person who became temporarily interested in frumkeit after exposure to Aish/Discovery but lapsed back into their former lifestyle once the “high” wore off, or
C) a frum person who went “off the derech” when intellectual challenges to their faith became too much for them.
See my response above/below to Rabbi S. Seems I took you too generally & you took me too generally.
I would really love to see an article where the Rav speaks about his personal experience with faith. The Rav is seen by many as a skeptic within Orthodox Judaism, so it would interest me great to hear the Rav's personal "Why I believe" thoughts.
Why would that be necessary? We’re not Christians; commitment to yiddishkeit and halachah is not about so shallow a concept as “belief”. The fact that so many folks seem to think it is only demonstrates how little they understand legitimate (halachic) Judaism.
“The Rav” is obviously a practicing Orthodox Jew (i.e., shomer mitzvot), he has devoted his life not only to thinking deeply about challenging matters of Torah and chochmah—as well as confronting important issues that affect the Jewish People—but also to educating his fellow Jews about them.
What more could be necessary to mark one as a “member in good standing” of the halachic community of k’lal yisrael?
How is "belief" a shallow concept? I'm not talking about "believe and you will be saved." I'm talking about a rational argument: If a story has holes, I have trouble believing in the totality of the message of the story. Rabbi Slifkin has pointed out holes in the story, yet continues to believe in the message. I'm curious as to the why, because I am struggling with it myself.
He has articles on that from years ago. He says for him its Jewish history and personal experienve. Plus I am sure the reasons he will give in this series.
Oh I thought he was talking about Rav Soloveitchik!
The anava!!
My apologies. I've been trying to work on my language skills, and I was trying to speak as I did back in Chaim Berlin to my rebbeim, using the third person.
Thank you for the response, I'll have to comb through archives. If someone happens to provide precise links, I'd be much obliged.
"There's simply no polite way to tell people they've dedicated their lives to an illusion "
~ Daniel Dennet
I disagree. You just did it!
But those people will not accept that. They r like Trump believers--they believe what they want to believe, despite intense challenges.
But apparently there are plenty of passive-aggressive ways to do that.
"What motivates people to observe Jewish law and be part of the Jewish community? It’s usually one or more of the following factors: childhood conditioning, belief that Judaism is true and therefore binding, a sense of responsibility, and because they find benefits in doing so. (If I’ve left anything out, please let me know!)"
I know of a guy who became a ba'al teshuva from being a med student and they were so blown away from their undergraduate biology course and the workings of the human body and science's very inconclusive explanation on how it came into being on its own, that he ultimately became frum. But I guess the reason he became frum and not, say, Hindu, was probably because he was Jewish to begin with. Although I've never asked him.
Yeah. Workings of the human body. When a friend of mine recovered miraculously from a serious (I mean serious) illness (can't give to many details, but it was trauma based, not a cancer type thing) friends told me after what happened there is no excuse for any reasonable and rationalist doctor to not believe in God and miracles.
I looked at him, smiled and sighed, and told him "They also deal with toddlers dying of brain tumours or leukaemia'.
That was the end of the conversation.
איהו סבר מדשתק ליה מודי ליה ולא היא אשגוחי לא אשגח ביה
Well said
And then everybody clapped.
Yep, I LOVE those stories that purportedly support frumkeit. I like: 1) there was not a dry eye in the house. 2) the biggest surgeons (atheists) were dumbfounded when they saw the patient's diseased kidney looked exactly like the L. Rebbe described. 3) Einstein (or Wiesel) admitted that God exists, despite Auschwitz. 4) Jews, only .00001% of the world population, won 95% of all Nobel prizes. 5) the Bible Code and Nostradamus.
No. Cried.
Better yet: then everybody crapped.
Ask him.
It is a bit ironic that Natan is giving his full throated indorsement to the Shmeltzer approach, in the Shmeltzer-Sapirman debate. Given the fact that Shmeltzer was the chief architect of the Slifkin ban some 20 years ago.
No he gave a third approach at the end of that article that he appears to be going with.
“Shmeltzer-Sapirman” whatnow?
He has attacked Sapirman many times in the past.
Who is “Sapirman”? Who is Shmeltzer, for that matter?
https://rationalistjudaism.blogspot.com/2016/07/strengthening-emunah-via-denying.html
Another reason for being a religious Jew is to conform with community behavior or fear of being ostracized for not conforming.
another way of stating that is that each community has expected standards of practice, so you can think of observance of ritual and avoidance of taboos as "the entry cost" for being part of the community.
"Accordingly, it’s valuable to understand how Judaism is actually beneficial." So can being a member of certain other religions/cults/organizations religious or other. ACJA
I was ready to make the jump to Orthodoxy anyway. The children were the catalyst. They have long since married and made Torah true lives. Meanwhile I am making up for lost time by working on my learning and observance. In short - the needs of the children merely speeded up what was happening anyway, but for some people it is the children who are the push towards observance.
I'm looking forward to the articles in this series and would really appreciate if you could eloborate on what you wrote here: "There are no intellectual proofs that Judaism is true... in fact, there are a number of serious challenges."
I know you're busy but if you could refer me to good resources on the topic I'd be very grateful. And do you think it's plausible that there are good intellectual proofs that you haven't seen yet?
Maybe this would help.
The basis for the jewish belief in God is the miracle that we all witnessed at Mt. Sanai. All other religions are based upon and individual or possibly a few individuals about what they witnessed. But all the jews that left Egypt experienced the revelation at Har Sinai
Something else. There are jewish laws that are illogical. The famous one is the Red Heifer (Parah Adumah: Those involved in it become Tamai. On the other hand, it is the only way to become Tahor if you are Tumas Hameis.) Human beings wouldnt intentionally make such illogical laws. Remember that one of the prophets reminds us that God doesnt "think" like a human being
Have you heard of Sathya Sai Baba? I hadn't either. I recommend you check him out on Wikipedia. In 2007, he reportedly had over 1 million people attend his 80th birthday party and many people, over the years, had witnessed him perform miracles of transitioning item 1 into item 2, such as ash to paper other such non-trivial things. But no one cares because no one believes these false accounts of magical activity -- that is, no one other than the estimated six to one hundred million followers her has.
Have you heard of the Miracle of the Sun? I hadn't either. I recommend you check it out on Wikipedia. In 1917, a bunch of kids in Portugal made a prophecy and at least 30,000 people were in attendance to confirm that prophecy, which they claimed occurred. Or maybe it was 40,000 or maybe 100,000. But no one cares, unless you're Catholic. Everyone else ignores these stories as nonsense, silliness and confirmation bias.
I wonder how many people in a group epiphany make it substantial enough. I get the idea that 3 people seeing Jesus walking around after he had died is not as good as 600,000 Jews (or 2 million, if you count all the men, women and children), but to me, 30K or 40K is way better than 3 people and sufficient for me. Had there been only 30K Jews to leave Egypt, I would not say "well, it's not like there are 2 million!"
And yet, it seems that no one is convinced by these stories. No one except the people who were raised from the age of 5 years old and indoctrinated in religious schools by religious teachers.
To suggest that we have an old tradition -- well, does that make it better or worse? The older a tradition, the more gullible people were and the more likely they would be to perpetuate myths that they thought were real. Just like today, when Bubby makes some cockamamie claim, and all you need to do to refute it is google it, but she doesn't know how to even get to Google.com.
It's bizarre to the people who don't believe that the people who say they believe think that the things they rest their beliefs on are so transparent and flawed and don't see that. But I guess it really is the case that people cannot see themselves.
The miracle of the sun was witnessed by THOUSANDS. The prophecy is something else. see my post on it. http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2017/06/kuzari-argument-part-13_28.html
Again, I'm unclear as to what point you're trying to make. Are you arguing for or against these various proofs?
How many people do you need to have included in a mass revelation for it to be plausible, vs say, a private revelation that is merely hearsay? I'd say that 7 million is no better than 5 million -- would you agree? In other words, there's a point on the graph where the charted line plateaus and greater magnitude of witnesses adds nothing.
For me, that plateau starts fairly early -- that was my point. I don't even need the 2 million purported Jews of the Exodus. I'm ok with 20K or 30K or 50K people, but maybe you're not, and that's ok -- each of us gets to decide for ourselves how compelling the evidence needs to be to convince us. But we ought not instruct others to accept 2M but not 50K -- I don't see how they differ.
If you are arguing in favor o the Kuzari principle, you should direct your argument to Slifkin, who has stated that, in his view, it is a failed argument (seemingly, from his post). Maybe he'll respond to you in that regard.
To get the gist read the link and their follow ups. The Sun MIracle is often misrepresented. Thousands attending the event claim something miraculous occurred. The link is arguing that the Sun miracle satisfies R. Gottlieb's KUzari Principle. The link discusses the evolution of a National Tradition followed in real time ! RG actually read my post and commented at his own blog, and he has been informed of my counterargument to his blog post. So far he is silent.
http://blog.dovidgottlieb.com/search/label/Reason%20to%20Believe%20-%20discussion%3A%20Apparent%20Counterexamples%20to%20the%20Kuzari%20Principle
I hear what you say. But the revelation at Har Sinai is the basis of our faith. The prophetic experience that the jewish people had at that time was so unique. But there is no smoking gun. That is why religion is based on faith Not even the stories about the plagues and the splitting of the sea is the basis of our faith since even magicians can create illusions. Even Pharoahs magicians were able to create some illusions. Look at the magicians who performed on the tv show America's Got Talent.
>>>But the revelation at Har Sinai is the basis of our faith.>>>
This appears to be an argument from utility -- in other words, since we want something or need something to be the case, we can therefore say that it is the case. But that's putting the cart before the horse. Premises need to be evaluated first for accuracy, credibility and plausibility and only after they have been verified, then we can rely on them.
>>>The prophetic experience that the jewish people had at that time was so unique.>>>
Everything is unique, but everything is also the same -- it just depends on the resolution of the image you are looking at. You and I are very, very, very different, but to an earthworm we pass on the street, you and I are the same, and both of us may easily be confused for the lamppost.
Modern day Judaism is not very good at teaching comparative religion -- partly because the teachers are uninformed and partly because teaching the other religions might appear to place them all on the same shelf. Whatever uniqueness Judaism holds, the other religions claim similar yet different uniquenesses.
>>>That is why religion is based on faith>>>
Yes! That is exactly the point here. It's an interesting phenomenon that it usually takes at least half a conversation for someone to get to this point -- why talk about Sinai or uniqueness at all, if this is going to be your next statement? Does that make sense? It's the idea of turtles all the way down -- look that up on Wikipedia, if you haven't already heard of it. You can say that Earth is supported by standing on a giant turtle, but then what's that turtle standing on, and if you say another turtle, then I will ask what about that turtle. So the response is either "ok, on an even bigger turtle," as though the obvious retort to that will not be "ok, and what supports that turtle?" The only thing one may say is that it's turtles all the way down. Well why didn't we just say that in the first place?
Faith is a neat word for an exceedingly messy idea, concept and notion. Secularists will explain that it means believing in something without sufficient evidence, and then the faith-holder often takes that the wrong way, as though it's some sort of badge to display. But it's not -- it's a deep challenge, and until the faithful realizes that, they proclaim to have faith as though it's the highest virtue. So it's like getting to the turtle supporting the turtle supporting the previous turtle.
The question is, if there's no good evidence, why have faith? The answer is inexplicable for the faith holder. It's obvious to the secularist, though -- because the faith-holder was raised by his or her parents and exposed and indoctrinated from early on to accept these stories and rules as truth, it's difficult to shake them when they get to adulthood. Santa and the tooth fairy are not good analogies, because no adults actually believe them. There is a point, whether it's when you're 7 or 9 years old, when your father sits you on his lap and tells you that there really is no Santa, and there never was. But religion doesn't do that. Instead, the older you get, the more they inform you. You start off with Uncle Moishy and you end up with whether you can use kli shlishi for tea on shabbos or no...even kli asiri is insufficient and you need tea-essence. But why? It's not an issue of mesorah and it's not an issue of uniqueness and it's not an issue of any of the other needlessly circuitous paths taken through dense forests of puzzlingly circular cul-de-sacs of logic. No, it's just that this is what you want to do and this is how you want to do it. Which is fine, it really is. But the secularist wonders why the faith-holder insists on saying "asher nason lanu toras emes." There is no "my truth" and "your truth." There is only one truth. And if you have no good evidence for something, how can you claim it is the truth?
That is the question, and it's truly exhausting for the teenager to have adults give them weird, roundabout and truly dumb answers when all they want to know is the truth but the parents and teachers are truly unequipped to provide them. And then they come to me and want to know not only answers to their questions, but why all of their family members and rabbinical guidance personalities are utterly complete morons who think they were providing wisdom, when the kids already knew how their answers were going to be given because they had read Dawkins and Harris. And I must admit to these teenagers that, yes, the people they have spoken to before me are really just so ignorant of this topic that they should have not tried to help.
@Dawkins Terrier,
Well said. But what % of teens are so indoctrinated by their immutable theology, that counter arguments are dismissed out of hand and deemed a test of their emunah?
How are these teens made to see the light?
All kids raised in Orthodoxy are thoroughly indoctrinated and a large percentage of them retain these uncritically scrutinized ideas about life until they die because most people don't think clearly and deeply about anything, let alone the basis for all that they do. These are very grandiose ideas.
A lot of kids who dismiss religion do so not for intellectual reasons. Rather, they do so because they might have been taught that there are 39 melachos on shabbos or that there are 5 prayers on YK or that Chana prayed with her lips moving but with no audible voice, but either they saw religion merely as something to learn and do but not to live and enjoy, or they decided that it wasn't for them. People think there is a secret formula for keeping kids frum, but there is none. Some people will want it and others will not, and if only religious people could see that it's not for everyone, they'd have an easier time dealing with those who are irreligious, regardless if they had been raised observant.
It's a very small fraction of kids who come across intellectual arguments against religion early on in life, especially when they are raised in such an isolated environment, despite internet access. When I grew up in NYC in the 1990s, I had no non-Jewish friends, I went to school only with Jews, all the teachers were Jews, the bus driver was Satmer from Williamsburg, and I didn't really meet non-Jews until went to a local performing arts camp for a summer when I was 8 or so. But then I went to Moshava and Mogen Av and again had no real access to non-Jews until after YU and I started professional school. And then I got married within a year.
Talking to kids who are intellectually challenges by Judaism is difficult because they often don't have the emotional maturity to embrace the fullness of ideas, at least in my experience. I much prefer and specialize in adults who are of college age or older -- sometimes married with a number of kids -- who come to me with questions and they often feel like they're lost. They've come across something or other, wonder about it, and someone refers them to me, knowing that I'm very well versed in these topics, and they've usually spoken to so many people before they get to me that they feel like they will never gain clarity.
As an aside, just like I don't know what belief is, I don't know what emunah is. The fact that someone could be having trouble with Judaism and when they go to their rebbe, the rebbe says to them "you need to have more emunah" -- it's odd to me that these rebbes think that that's a meaningful thing to say. It's like someone complaining that they aren't in love with their wife, and the marriage counselor says "oh, so now we have the answer -- you need to love your wife more!" but thinks that's the end of the conversation.
So I don't know what emunah is and, necessarily, I do not know what a test of one's emunah is.
And I don't know what you mean by seeing the light. Do you want to know how teens can be convinced to be more observant or how teens can be made to see the fundamental flaws in religion and leave completely? It's a little ambiguous, not knowing which side of the aisle you sit on.
"Human beings wouldnt intentionally make such illogical laws"
God is nonsensical is a proof!?
Believers say: a story as crazy as Sinai would not last 3500 years if it were not true. It must have happened! The riposte: except, accepting Sinai as reality is crazier yet! Which crazy story do u prefer? The craziness that a false story could last all these years, or the craziness of the Sinai story itself?
Your comment assumes that human logic is God's logic. The first Karias shema bracha that we say every morning is (Yotzer Or..) - He forms light and creates darkness, makes peace and creates ALL. The rabbis used the word ALL as a euphemism and as a substitute for the word EVIL. (see Isaiah 45:7) So God created evil in this world. So for the human mind, it is surely not logical for God to create evil in this world. But the prophet says (sorry, I cant cite the specific reference right now), that God does not think like humans think. Also, you might recall the story about Moshe wanting to "see" God in the chumash Shmos. Seeing meant that Moshe wanted to understand the nature of God - to understand what makes Him "tick". But God answers Moshe that as long as you are alive, you can't "see" me. Children grow up and think that this meant that if you saw God, you would die. But it means that as long as you are alive, you cannot understand me. People ask all kinds of valid questions such as why did the holocaust happen. There really is no answer. People speculate but we really dont know. Our job is if you believe in God and believe in the written and oral Torah and the prophets and the KAsuvim, our job is to try to do the mitzvohs and leave the why's to God. That is the faith
Have you read Sam Harris' "The End of Faith" and Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion"? Those will include most if not all of the challenges against religion. They specifically target Islam and Christianity, respectively, but only because Judaism is such a small religion and its adherents are mostly not a danger to the survival of mankind as fundamentalist Christianity and Islam are, but in your mind, just exchange the religions they are targeting, and you'll see what Slifkin means.
As for specific challenges against some of the ideas you'll hear from scientifically uninformed Jews trying to reconcile science and Torah, Slifkin's "The Challenge of Creation" covers them from page 139 and onward, explains why they are incorrect and why earlier attempts at concordism (such as Schroeder's) missed the mark completely.
There are arguments for Judaism not touched upon by those writers and others like them. see http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2017/05/index-of-posts-by-category_29.html
It seems that this is a list of repudiated proofs for god, the Torah, Judaism, etc. Were you trying to show that there's a list of good evidence or a list of bad evidence?
I do not think Harris and Dawkins religion counter arguments will work against Orthodox Judaism's "proofs" . For example do they discuss R.Gottleibs Kuzari Arguments ? Or Proof from Schmittah etc ? I do not think so. I think Rabbis and Theologians on their own, and at times with with the help of sympathetic scientists and philosophers have come up with arguments for Orthodox Judaism that need to be specifically addressed. I do not think the arguments are easily dismissed, especially by those ignorant of Jewish history, philosophy, Torah-Talmud and it's commentators and the abuse or misuse of science.
If one doesn't accept the historicity of the bible, how can stories in the bible serve as proof of the validity of the bible? It's using the bible to justify god and god to justify the bible. I think the issues surrounding the Miracle of the Sun are important features, not bugs. There's so much discrepancy and so much ignorance about it, and how can that be if it was to have been so public? These issues themselves serve to undergird the argument against the Kuzari story. It's disputed, it's not compelling, it's written in the bible and being used to justify the bible and even the Jews who were supposedly there (at Sinai) didn't seem to be convinced of it 5 minutes later during the golden calf. People were so awed by solar eclipses and earthquakes and volcanic eruption back then that it's a wonder that we can trust anything that exceedingly gullible ancients attested to.
Shmittah is a difficult ask and people accepted it, so that's proof of its validity. I never thought that was compelling. Isn't that like saying that women stuck being chained to abusive husbands is proof of the validity because no woman would permit herself to be chained to a fake god and a non-existent reality? When girls can't find a guy to marry because of a shidduch crisis and families can't afford to send their kids to school because they have too many kids, too low-paying jobs and thought that god would provide, is the fact that they don't give up religion in both cases proof that Judaism is true? I don't think so. So perhaps shmittah, on its more national scale, is a compounded version of these more private affairs, but it doesn't add up for me.
It's like claiming the Torah is true and Moses really existed because who else would write a Torah where they are literally criticized by God himself and then permit that to be promulgated? Only a real Moses and a real religion would take that in stride.
I think rabbis don't understand the way to think about religion outside of religion because they are very much in the religion, and they are not really addressing the questioners' issues, but merely stressing the need for greater adherence and greater dedication and greater commitment without truly grasping that the person with questions is not just in love with his non-Jewish co-worker (or wanting to sleep with her, even if they aren't in love) or addicted to pornography or just bored to sit in shul for 2.5 hrs on Shabbos morning listening to stories they don't connect with. This is not about connection -- it's about honesty, and the people with questions are turned off in a major way when the people they go to with their trouble with the honesty of the delivery are replied to in a side-stepping manner that the problem is that they need to daven for more siyata d'shmaya.
Some people misuse science, but some people also misuse relationships -- this is not a stain on relationships, but on the manipulative nature of people. Just like guns don't kill people (people kill people), science just means observing and documenting and then finding patterns and testing if they are legitimate patterns. So are there some doofus scientists? Of course -- Gerald Schroeder is one of them! And that's why no one cares about him anymore. He is so bereft of reasonableness that his charm wore off when the internet came around and we moved into a new era of information. His explanations are quite dumb, but frankly, we were all quite dumb in the 1980s and 1990s. And since he can't reinvent himself (because he was supposed to have access to the science the entire time -- he is the great scientist, after all), we just toss him to the side and don't even bother with him, unless you're someone still living in the 1980s without internet access and having zero appreciation for the biological sciences.
Thanks for your reply,
I've read all that a little while ago and thought Harris and Dawkins made good points about the risks of blind religious faith but I don't remember them touching upon specific religious apologetic arguments such as the Kuzari or even the argument for Jesus's ressurection, Quran's inimitability, etc.
I have read and really enjoyed Slifkin's Challenge of Creation, and most of his books and monographs, but some bad attempts at concordism doesn't mean there are no good "intellectual proofs that Judaism is true"
You should also look for Harris and Dawkins on YouTube. There are some very good presentations there.
This video is for you:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5Bajte-9GnY
Pretty scary, just realized that Natan left the Yeshiva world, not because of some sort of set of ideological beliefs, but rather because he rationalized his way out of the yeshiva lifestyle...... Which is why he keeps revisiting the topic of chareidim....... His conscience hasn't left him but the need to rationalize carries on.......
I understand that you're obsessed with my blog, but please stop flooding the comments section. It's not polite. (And it doesn't win anyone over to your cause, either.)
But I guess you're cool with all the atheists that flood you're blog, as they're on your team.
correct. Slifky and the kofrim are the exact same team, so slifky constantly links to them respectfully.
he never has a bad word for them but only for imperfect torah observers.
ad hominem. (you likely seek to chill debate, I'm guessing.) you get a good grade from cultists, not so much from free speech advocates. I'll give you a grade of 20, and caution you that you have the makings of a bully. "Check yourself, don't wreck yourself," as the kids say...
I think where it's holding now, is that Natan is ready to come out as a full blown atheist. But what's holding him back, even more than social pressures etc., is that doing so would retroactively vindicate the cherem on him.
You can't not pity the guy.
speculation. mind reading. ad hominem. You have the makings of a bully. When people stop engaging with you, it's not because you "won," it's because they tire of your cheap shots. Don't let anyone tell you different.!
Press and hold to confirm you're a human
Didn't "Slifky and the Kofrim" have a #1 hit on the charts in 1963?
mind reading. grade: 12 (not a passing grade.)
trolling grade: 2. You're a bully who ironically accuses others of bullying. I'm gonna eat you!
Mind reading is a kind of "red herring" fallacy (an attempt to change the subject) but, in the comment in question, by engaging in ad hominem attack on the writer of this blog.
By calling people "kofrim," he is showing he is afraid to engage the topic. Attack the argument, not the man. If you dare.
Yeah, but I saw you respond to a different comment somewhere on this post making fun of the guy that he's a bully. I found it quite ironic.
I'm a vampire! I'm gonna suck your blood!
These aren't atheists, Torah and God were in their way so they needed to find a way to get God out of the way. What better way than to say that God doesn't exist and the Torah was written by man.....
mind reading. appeal to guilt. grade: 6 (yes, 65 is still passing. work on it..!)
Obsessed? How ironic. You're the one who's obsessed here. You've even admitted that over 90% of your posts are about Charedim. Perhaps the reason why he's fascinated by your blog is because you are constantly posting nasty, bigoted, and condescending posts about him and his lifestyle.
That's definitely the biggest draw for me.
I don't have a cause. No one even knows who I am for that matter. Just countering what I see as rejection of Judaism under the guise of "questions on belief".
I do not reject Judaism or God. I do not need to. Neither 1 has made a plausible case for themselves. God had 1000's of opportunities to "prove" to me his existence. He never made the slightest effort.
I agree Howard, you definitely should not practice Judaism and you certainly should not be looking for plausible reasons to believe in God. This website provides ample refutation of God and Torah. Certainly since Jews and Judaism have been around for over 3,000 years, probable cause says it's all a mistake. Oh, and the world just happened it wasn't created, it was a mistake....Yup, galaxies universe the oceans they just created themselves some atoms exploded and somehow the universe just happened....... and anyone who believes this is not foolish....
but it's a non-sequitor to go from the mysteries of the universe (again, a forever conversation among mankind) to the specific answers posed by religion - answers that are "not to be questioned," because, why again?
Religion, more so Judaism, answers none of the fundamental questions of who we r and why we exist. It merely distracts us with 1000's of books of rules for shabbos and kashrus, as if that is the key to the secrets of the universe. Even "2001: a Space Odyssey" had better answers than that.
Read up on what evolution really says. If God created the whole thing, who created God, as every 7 year old asks.
Despite the 3000 years, there were many more advanced civilizations before the Jews. Hinduism is older by 1000 years and still survives. The pyramids were built and erected (without Jews) before Abe was born.
Argument from Jewish Survival,;Argument from Design. Has been addressed. Non of the arguments I have heard or read about are convincing to informed skeptics.
Don't waste your time on these silly Jewish blogs go get all the enjoyment out of life that you can!
Life has no purpose it's just to live suffer and die. Yup.
And how do you think your countering has been going for readers here?
Think your countering has swayed people?
Seems to me that the type of people who'd find positive value in the videos you've linked to would not be reading this blog, other than to police it and pester.
What do YOU think you're accomplishing with your comments here?
Anything positive?
Anything constructive?
Yes. Lesson learned from chabad, the more someone tells you he's not interested in teffilin, Judaism etc....the more counter pressure - those people usually become the most involved in Judaism.
Hence, the more pushback I'm getting - chances are that these "fighters" are slowly acknowledging that what they call "questions" on Judaism are really just rationalizations.....
Hmmm, that's an interesting idea. So I guess the more pushback I get on this website from HGL, Mecharker, and you, the chances are that you are slowly acknowledging that my approach is actually correct...
Maybe there's a difference between people who do things politely and with love and a smile (Chabad) vs those who do so with anger, arrogance, obnoxiousness, and sarcasm?
I agree with you.
Learn from Chabad!
Chabad is full of white-collar criminal ganovim. They admit they lie to be mekarev people. They promote teen-age consumption of liquor. I read a story by a C-nik who managed to over-ride his grandmother's clear and explicit wish to be cremated. She had even named a non-relative, not her own son, as her post-mortem guardian in the hope of avoiding a Jewish burial.
I cant speak for all, but you are wrong at least for me. Maybe RW is the one rationalizing his faith ?
"Natan left the Yeshiva world...because he rationalized his way out of the yeshiva lifestyle"
That's not true. He left the Yeshiva world because they banned his books.
That's not exactly precise either. I left the yeshiva world personally because of my books, but I turned against it becomes I realized that it was a fundamentally societally problematic hashkafa.
i think this is an example of an "appeal to guilt." Natan is wrong and should feel bad because he does not "understand" as you do.
There is a flip side - the appeal to flattery. "you are special, maybe even chosen, and I need you to know it."
you are the type that believes his own bad arguments, as long as they work on the subject, are valid?
I would say that the bottom line depends on a few things:
Relaying the positive value of commitment to Judaism, while so many “frum Jews” wander the community, the stores, and the shuls looking downtrodden and unhappy.
At the same time seeing, and teaching others to see, around, through, and beyond those “religious Jews” who behave in ways inconsistent with the Torah’s ethical values, including realizing that their neighbors are created b’tzelem Elokim. Showing the historical flexibility of Halacha, in the ongoing path it has taken, in which there were varieties of opinions and minhagim, and the beauty of acknowledging and accepting that. And, of course, the idea of “hanoch l’na’ar al pi darko,” but applying it to adult seekers, acknowledging that not everyone wants to learn Gemara, or mysticism, or whatever is presented as “the only path.” As my late Rav once said, “There are 600,000 paths to the Torah.” Meanwhile making it relevant and legitimate in this generation.
It’s a challenge.
There are 600,000 paths in Torah, not 600,001.
@HappyGo,
And devotees of Rationalist Judaism say that your Halachic and spiritual hashkafa is the 600,001th. Who is to say they’re wrong and you’re right. After all calling Rav Slifkin, who is as Shomrei Mitzvos as you are, an atheist ( or as close to one) puts you out of the bounds of a true Yiras Shamayim. Sinas Chinam is your middle names.
Wow, that’s a tiyuvta if ever I’ve heard one.
Calling him a "hater of Hashem" certainly doesn't.
Right, you’re going to lecture us about who’s considered a yorei shamayim.
I thought there were 70
That was back in the time of Chazal. Now with all the different chassiduses and rebbes, that number has increased.
There are *פנים* and there are *דעות*.
דעות are apparently personal but you could see how that would be easily obfuscated (either innocently or by a ne'er do well) into there being 600,000 פנים. But even the 600,000 are limited that any more, it seems to my reading of מהרש"א, not only aren't sanctioned but aren't even possible.
מדרש רבה - חומש במדבר-סדר נשא-פרשה יג
(במדבר ז, יט):
שִׁבְעִים שֶׁקֶל בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ, לָמָּה, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁיַּיִן חֶשְׁבּוֹנוֹ שִׁבְעִים, כָּךְ יֵשׁ שִׁבְעִים פָּנִים בַּתּוֹרָה.
ח"א מהרש"א ברכות נח.
חכם הרזים כו'. למאי דמסיק דאין אוכליסא פחות מס' רבוא יש בהן ג״כ ששים רבוא דעות מחולקין והוא כלל כל הדעות שע״כ נתנה התורה לס' רבוא במדבר להיות התורה כלולה מכל דעה וחכמה ואין להוסיף עליה ומה שאחז״ל כל מה שמחדש כל חכם בדורו מסיני הוא לפי שזה הדבר כבר היה בדעת אחת מאותן ששים רבוא שהיו בסיני כי אי אפשר שיהיה עוד דעת אתרת על ששים רבוא וק״ל:
Very well said.
Charedim are looking better and better.