I heard there’s a lot of hullabaloo around here about why people “go off the derech”, and anger, and backgrounds, and all kinds of naarishkeit.
Fine. Do what you’ve got to do.
Now, normally, I’d stay out of this kind of thing- but I was talking to Heshy the other day, trying to convince him that he needs me to cooperate with him on a certain project, and he asked me if I wanted to write a piece about why I went off the derech. So of course I said yes.
I’m not dumb.
It’s just that it sounds so juvenile- “off the derech”. I’m not sure I’ve heard that term used on anybody over the age of twenty. Nobody says it about me except for Heshy, and he only does it because he needs to slap a label on everybody. Kids go off the derech, not adults. Adults are free to make their own choices without some condescending putz leaning over their shoulder, reminding them that there is a derech in the first place. Right?
So it’s understandable why mature people who have worked hard to arrive at their philosophical conclusions take offense at being compared to rebellious teenagers who want to try Burger King. Of course, I’d have distanced myself from the “off the derech” terminology long ago, but that’s just me.
Having said that, let me get to my main point: I don’t know why anyone wouldn’t go off the derech. The perks are fucking incredible, if you do it right. The thing is, you can’t go too far. If you go too far, you’ll just be a regular sheigetz, and that’s no fun either. You have to go just far enough, and if you’re not full of angst and spite and all those other turbulent teen-agey emotions, you might land somewhere near me. I grew up yeshivish, and so I culturally identify as a frum Jew. Who cares if I don’t believe? My drivers license has the Jewiest name around, and I wouldn’t change it for anything. I live smack in the middle of one of the biggest frum communities in the country. Gevaltig!
Alright, I’m an apikorus, big deal. Ninety percent of the frum people I know are sensible enough not to hold that against me. “Why are you doing this,” they’ll ask me, “it’s because you want to go eat bacon and shrimps?” Frum people always call them “shrimps”. And they always act surprised when I tell them that I don’t eat bacon or shrimps. I’ll eat a shtikele milchig treif, maybe, but nothing hardcore. Odds are, some of the families at the local Young Israel do the same thing.
Of course, you and I both know that eating milchig treif is probably just as bad as eating bacon and shrimps- if not because the cheese contains rennet, then because the keilim are treif, and the same pan that’s used for the bacon is used for your pasta. I guess it could be argued that the bacon is batul b’shishim, but really, you don’t have to be in the restaurant in the first place, so that might be a stretch.
Oh, here’s another one they ask me: “What, so you want to go out to the club on Friday night? Is that what this is about?” I don’t go to the club on Friday night. I don’t go anywhere. I love Shabbos. Most of the time my friends and I have nice, big, leisurely meals, get drunk, and play some sort of board or card games. The only difference is that I can write down my scrabble score instead of using the pages of a book like a schmuck. I can also find out playoff scores on Shabbos, surf the internet, or watch a movie on those never-ending summer afternoons. But go to the club? Never. It’s not Shabbosdik.
So the frummies think I have some sort of pintele Yid.
Maybe they’re right. Who knows?
The main thing is that I can do whatever I want to, and they still love me. They’re convinced I have potential. And you know what? They’re the greatest people I know. I get free Shabbos meals, and people fawn over me, and listen to what I have to say- they even listen to my kefirah if I do it respectfully enough- and when I make a good point, they nod, and then continue to try and make a kiddush Hashem, hoping that their hashpa’ah will cause me to eventually be chozer b’teshuva.
Keep up the good work, guys- I can’t say it’s not working!
And here’s the kicker- I’m sending my kids to yeshiva. And not just any yeshivos, but good ones. They don’t have to go to Philly- but Scranton would be fabulous. Such menschen come out of that place.
Anyway.
I’m sending them to school to get the Jewish education that they deserve. They deserve to know who they are and where they come from. They deserve to be able to rightfully identify as Jews, unlike the poor souls who sat there scratching their heads and wondering why Hitler was sending them to die in the camps. My kids deserve to speak just enough Yiddish to seem authentic, like me.
Look- if you haven’t figured it out by now, I’m not angry. Never was. If you’re going off the derech because you’re angry, you’re making a mistake, because you probably still believe.
Now, I’m not gonna expound on the dozens of scientific and sociological facts that nudged me towards my apikorsus. I’m just going to tell you that I find it all a little hard to believe- you know, the miracles, and wonders, and prophecies and all. And if you want to go ahead and believe that, gezunter heit.
I’m the kind of guy who’s probably gonna make peace with the Palestinians in the end (sorry to stir up that pot), and I’ll keep on having my cake and eating it too over here on the periphery of the frum community, and I’ll probably find the perfect Beis Yaakov girl who’s just going off the derech, and we’ll raise a bayis ne’eman b’Yisrael, and we’ll send our kids to yeshiva, and she won’t refuse me blowjobs because she won’t be afraid of spilling seed. And for now, I’ll just keep on taking you guys up on those generous Shabbos invitations.
So, to sum up: going off the derech = free food.
You know, I kind of like the term “going off the derech”. I think I might start using it more often.
-->
{ 230 comments… read them below or add one }
This guy sounds exactly like me ,holy shi*t ,its freaky.
Wow, 200 comments. And almost none of them from ladies. Whatever, it’s a milestone. I’ll take it. Though none of you lunatics have actually given a thought to me or my article, you have inadvertently given me the honor of writing one of the most commented-on posts in the history of Frum Satire.
For some reason, your off-point, tedious argument has made me look good. So there is, in fact, some value to it. You never know, right?
#1 comment: “Schwartzie is a closet Litvak. And homosexual.” Yeah, I read it. At least someone around here has a sense of humor.
Hehe this post is pretty well written…good job Mr Off the derech….I’m happy to see more people that think the way I do…Tno hate, or anger)…just one thing ticks me off is when Frum pple see someone that’s OTD and are like “Oy vey what happened to HIM? He was soooo normal!”….I feel like punching them and saying, look @ the perks of my life style, does it LOOK like anything bad happened?
This is why they say that it’s shver to be a yid…
The worst are the ones that don’t care. The kalta fish are next to impossible to change. The angry ones that go to one extreme will make their way back eventually as well. Where to place this guy is another question.
Holy….. I can swear you just described my life!! Glad to know we arent alone! Except for the peace with the palestinians part. Aint gonna happen. Kill em all, but without anger. Only determined justice.
Wow, an adult who is content living with mature choices that balance religion and his conscience. Something that reasonable is radical these days.
I just wish all these off the derech peoples and fake frum people who treif up their kitchens would have the balls to reveal their identities so i can eat at other peoples homes again without worrying why the chicken tastes saltless and whatnot . After reading about all this “Orthoprax” crap, iv’e become alot more paranoid. Thanx alot, Jerks!!!
Don’t worry. You wouldn’t be welcome in their homes anyway.
Yeah, your right. apikorsim aren’t really renown for their Hachnasas Orchim. My mistake.
It’s heartwarming to see what a positive influence religious devotion has on people. Across the board they’re the warmest, friendliest, most humble types infused with the Love of G-d.
BS, Barry and A. Nuran. I have enough respect for observant people’s observance not to invite them to eat in my house because I know I won’t be able to offer them kosher food unless I bring it in from outside (and I can’t afford to do that, right now). The door is open, and feel free to stay (a 24-hour heads-up to tidy up is always appreciated, but life doesn’t always happen like that; I’ve handed people keys to the messy version of my place, before); I just choose not to disrespect your adherence to kashrus by offering you food that doesn’t meet your standards of it. If you would like a piece of whole, uncut fruit, or anything with a hashgacha from my fridge, please help yourself. (Actually, I need to go food shopping. If you find anything that isn’t a condiment in my fridge, please let me know.)
A. Nuran wrote: It’s heartwarming to see what a positive influence religious devotion has on people. Across the board they’re the warmest, friendliest, most humble types infused with the Love of G-d.
I won’t argue with this until someone tries to bring home a non-Jewish significant other or spouse (it hasn’t happened to me, but it has happened). And hachnasas orchim is one of the most wonderful middos and privileges in the world. It can be offered without being affiliated with any particular spiritual belief system, though. I learned it from growing up MO. That doesn’t explain the people I know who aren’t Jewish who know how to display/offer it, though (people who weren’t raised any particular religion). No one has a monopoly on hospitality.
Barry, most of the people who are open about how they left Orthodoxy are originally from secular backgrounds, and find the idea that their return to their secular and/or Liberal roots is “off the derech” or “dropping out” quite risible, since we are actually returning to the paradigm we grew up in.
The hidden “Orthoprax” people are all FFBs pretty much.
Maybe all this Judaism and Torah stuff is true, maybe not. But lets look at it in the long term. What will be the final outcome?
At the end of “120″ – if there Olam Haba, with a G-d who dishes out reward and punishment, I (who try to keep the mitzvot) will get everlasting benefit (maybe after some punishment for the things I could not manage to get right).
After “120″ – according to those who do not believe in the Torah and keeping all the mitzvot, you and I will not feel anything. You are happy that you enjoyed your life to “the max” and I was happy with my life. Ok, so I did not get to try all the extreme gashmios (or get a real blow job). nu nu. I am happy living this way anyway.
If on the other hand you are wrong and there will be din vecheshbon on all we do in this life… maybe you wont be so happy living in eternal punishment.
Of course we are all free to make our own choices, but please make an informed choice.
What happens if you find out, after your “120,” that god is a giant talking gefilte fish and every piece that you ate in this world was buying you 100 years of hell? Thinking of theoretical outcomes is , frankly, a horribly stupid way of making decisions.
What you’re putting forward is a simple-minded version of Pascal’s Wager. It was demolished centuries ago.
Nothing makes me happier than a Jew using a butchered Pascal’s Wager.
An Imam can reason the same way – Denis Diderot
LotF, the problem with your argument is that with so many religions to choose from, probability dictates that you have very little chance of believing in the ‘right’ one.
Naturally, this means that your statement “If on the other hand you are wrong…” is overly simplistic. What if YOU are wrong, and the divinity of Jesus Christ was the ‘correct’ faith? Then you’ve cast yourself to eternal damnation without receiving the benefits of “real blowjobs”, as you put it, in oilam hazeh
Are you sure that lose-lose proposition is one that you want to cast the bedrock of your emunah on?
That is a lame way of living. pretty half assed
If your only reason to keep G-d’s commandments is because you’re scared of being punished or because you want some reward, what makes you different from a christian or Muslim?
If all the secular Jews were more like this guy, it’d be great. Better to be off the derech than to fudge the halacha to reflect your own choices.
People should be relaxed about their life choices. The last thing I want to deal with is a crazy raving lunatic, chassidish or apikorsus. Some people want to be chumra freaks, and some don’t really care about keeping everything. I’ll tolerate whatever as long as it’s not preechy or hypocritical.
This post reflects my life almost exactly, notwithstanding the Palestinian situation.
The one issue you need to consider is that when you send your kids to a yeshiva, they are going to come home and want to learn chumash with you for homework, and eventually because it’s the thing that they are taught to do.
Being able to separate the internal belief that the stories are fairy-tales from the outward emotion of encouragement at your son’s hasmodah can get tricky to navigate, and kids pick up on things.
But all in all, it’s a great lifestyle, and I wouldn’t trade it for anything.
I was getting ready to write words similar to these.
Also, in the event you and your future wife get divorced, the courts will want the children to continue their “current” education. If your then ex-wife makes the case that she will raise them more in keeping with their education…
Schwartzie, you wouldn’t believe how many yeshiva guys live the chulent/bacon dichotomy.
We had a kid over on shabbos for lunch, one of my 9 year old’s friends. This kid’s family went on a cruise over the mid-winter vacation and he was talking about a magician they saw, but kept interjecting how “there’s no such thing as real magic”.
You could almost see the inner turmoil when I asked him how he reconciles “no such thing as real magic” with Moshe and the Egyptian chartumim turning their staff into a snake; but he gave me the stock ridiculous answer that “Hashem made the world different back then than it is now” that his rebbe or father must have told him.
I almost got into all the other ‘magical miracles’ like the burning bush, the Yocheved’s super-long arm that saved baby Moshe, etc etc but my wife gave me the “you’re not getting any blowjobs from this Bais Yaacov girl if you continue down this path at the shabbos table” look.
Well for me it started over 50 years ago when I inadvertantly downed a Carvel Sundae after a salami sandwich and nothing happened. I was still the same Chaim Berlin 10th grader who spent his time in Reb Motel’s class dreaming of girls. Now at the age of 63 I have maintained the ortho-lifestyle on the outside but inside I am like the guy who wrote this thing. I do what I want to do . I still love a kiddish where I wash down a spicey chulent with a half cup of Glenlivet 18. The rituals have long melted away like snow in August and indifference to reilgion is my mantra. My dear friends ….FYI we are living in OILAM HABAH right now. This is the reward that we workd for when we were living.
Ah, yes. But that sundae was directly responsible for the 1982 recession, disco and sixteen jetliner crashes. The Frumdamentalist rebbes will be glad to tell you so.
I am always amused (and somewhat disgusted at the stupidity) when FFB people speak about how they expected something to “happen” when they ate milk with meat or tried a treife food for the first time. And then when they “realized” that nothing happens to them, they decided to be secular.
Nothing “Happens” -it’s a sin like any other sin. Did you ever get hit by lightning when you spoke lashon hara or when you cranked one out? So why do you think that when you imbibe a shrimp you’re going to be struck down? Such morons.
Wow! This describes me fairly well. Nicely done, Schwartzie!
But you really should try shrimp(s) and cheeseburgers if you don’t believe in the TaNaCh – they’re delicious!
“Nyaa nyaa I’m more OTD than you”
whatever dude, this person is basically like “you should do things a little bit differently but don’t go TOO crazy with it, you know, like, actually stop keeping anything entirely. The best way to go is to just basically stay jewish but make fun of it from the inside and secretly not keep everything”
Right…
By the way, I liked Xvi’s ‘god is a giant gefilte fish’ statement so much that I put it in my Facebook status.
If you’re really doubting the veracity of the miracles that happened to our nation, I would recommend for you to read David Johnson’s work “Hume, Holism and Miracles.” It is a brilliant philosophical treatise on the weight of testimony about miracles vs. science. If you have sufficient background in mathematics/probability it shouldn’t be too hard of a read for you.
You lost me at “Kids go off the derech, not adults.”
*Anybody* can go off the derech, and have the title aptly applied to them. I’ve seen people hit midlife crisis, and do a total 180 on their family, leaving their traditions and values behind. You know what they say- you’re never too old to be foolish.
Well said. People sometimes convince themselves that what they are doing is rational, but in fact they are just engaging in wishful thinking or some other form of self-deception. I’ve went through many struggles of belief and have come to the conclusion after a lot of research that orthodoxy is the most rational, philosophically and scientifically sound way to go. I’ve studied the arguments for and against and this is the conclusion I have come to. People sometimes act prematurely before having thought about the issue from all of its angles, and its unfortunate.
Ha. I knew it wouldn’t be long before the frummies start with the judgmentalism.
Anyway, thanks for posting this, Heshy. Not many frum blogs would. The possibility that we might be human and normal scares the **** out of them. It’s not exactly easy having a discussion with people who think you have two horns and a tail.
Judgmentalism? Please. Don’t you realize that by ascribing ‘judgmentalism’ to ‘frummies’ you yourself are being judgmental? You should consider what other people have to say instead of just casting it off as judgementalistic nonsense. It is easy to do that. What is harder is to take what others have to say as actually having value and think about it. Perhaps you are complacent in your way of life and don’t want to think about the fact that you may be acting irrationally, so as a coping mechanism you discard anything people say that is directed towards you as being judgmental. I don’t think you have horns and a tail, but by attributing such beliefs to the majority of the frum world you yourself exhibit what you are accusing others of being guilty of.
Without trying to sound too judgemental, you’re one confused dude.
Why you’s want to confuse the heck our of your kids by sending them to yeshiva while not practicing at home is beyond me, it’s also unfair to them. They are going to grow up thinking the either you, their teachers or Judaism is full of sh*t.
As for our crazy palestinian cousins, not negotiating with them has nothing to do with being frum, it’s common sense. Jump in pit full of vipers and start negotiating, you’ll probably get as far as the Israeli quacks in the government have got until now.
Agreed. Clearly the author is under the impression that having said cake and eating it, too, has no further consequences.
Hey Schwartzie, allow me to introduce you to my friends: Pick and Choose.
Sadly, when they get together, they bring along their older retarded cousin, Hypocrite.
Incidentally, I’ve been saying that if I ever did go back to keeping kosher, the 2 things I’d miss the most would be bacon and shrimp.
The most enjoyable treif food is fishing bait?
If cooked properly, absolutely.
Shwartzie is a closet litvak. And homosexual.
The thing is, there really is no derech. There are so many different types of jews from so many different backgrounds each with beliefs that are extremely different than the next. Everyone believes their way is the right way to be a good jew. If that is so, we should respect each jew for what he does or doesnt do and figure out a derech of our own, which is what Schwartie here did. I’m not saying I agree with the way he has chosen to live his life, but its not mine or anyones business to say that he has gone off the derech, So I’m just gonna continue respecting him and every other jew out there despite what the rest of the world says.
I can’t relate to this post at all. There are lots of things I want to do but don’t because I believe in Hashem. If I ever came to doubt my religion I would definitely go for the cheeseburgers and bacon and there is no way I would send my kids to yeshiva. If you’re going to talk about the perks of being OTD, why not go for all the perks?
Any Jew that doesn’t follow Jewish Law can be deemed OTD. Like off the “Derech HaYashar” or off the “Derech HaTorah.” All it really is, is slang for disregarding what the greates sages from over 200o years of Jewish history have outlined as the path by which Jews should follow. Hey, if you think you’re smarter than all those great people, you’re either an egomaniac or just plain ignorant.
You think you know all about Judaism by reading a couple of Hebrew books, or going to some yeshiva classes, or talking with some washed out Rabbi. You then conclude that your religion is a bunch of BS – all based on what your puny mind believes. To Hell with 200o years and Rabbis who studied and contemplated all the Jewish books for their entire lives. You know better, right?
You’re just trying to justify doing what you wanna do.
At least have the guts to say it like it is.
When I don’t follow the Torah, its because I don’t give a crap.
Grow some balls man.
No one is doubting the intelligence of Chazal. Well I don’t at least. But they were working with a very poor understanding of how the world works. In fact, not until a few hundred years ago was it even really possible to be a rational nonbeliever.
Chazal and you can mention every big rav up until Galileo which includes probably the smartest Jew in this period, the Rambam, believed in a geocentric universe. They also did not know about germ theory or the theory of natural selection.
We are now at a point of human existence where we can essentially explain to some degree how the world works, which people could not do 2000 years ago without talking of the supernatural.
You are making a mistake in thinking that the mesora is somehow linked to the science of those who carried it. Also, contemporary science cannot explain certain phenomenon, especially quantum phenomenon and certain features of the mind. Additionally, the Ramban in certain places seems to suggest something very much like natural selection. Science does not equal theology, and a faulty science does not imply a faulty theology.
Off the derech types make a big mistake, they think that they are more rational or intellectually honest than frum people, and that they came to the logical conclusion that there is no god. God is a belief that can not be proven or dissproven. If somebody believes in god all the argument in the world wont change his belief, how could it? for every “question” that is asked he can always “answer” we cant understand god’s ways. Ditto for the athiest, any honest scientist will tell you that there is plenty science doesnt have the answer for, and perhaps never will. Does that lead them to believe in god? again, of course not, they assume there is a way it works, and are not bothered that they done understand exactly how yet.
If you dont believe, and want to go around enjoying olam hazeh, have a blast. Just dont delude yourself into thinking that your “questions” led you to abandon belief in god
Again the ego at work.
You really think the understanding we have of the universe comes anywhere near explaining anything?
How naive.
I have devoted my life to science and medicine. If only I can remember the thousands of times my professors and colleagues have mentioned “whoever figures this out will win a nobel.” As much as we think we know, there is so much more that we don’t.
Yes, science doesn’t everything.
However, that doesn’t mean any and every religion is by default true. Again, you’re the one positing that one religion (out of an infinite amount of possibilities (aka Judaism) has the best answers, and is the best truth out there. I think that’s a extraordinary claim, and if you’re willing to reasonably provide evidence and prove beyond any doubt that you are correct, you might have a leg to stand on. Until then? You’re pissing in the wind.
OTD, stop looking for proof, there is as much for god as there is against, ie zero. Its all a matter of belief, and you obviously dont, if god himself came to you and told you hes real youd dissmiss it as a hallucination, and thats fine. Please dont pretend its because you have too many questions that religion cant answer, as there are many questions that science cant answer either. And please dont get upset when this is pointed out to you.
Meet Andy. According to him, “You clearly are very ignorant of the ~1000 of years of philosophy aimed at establishing proof for the existence of G-d.
Immanuel Kant, John Locke, Baruch Spinoza, Melebranche, Liebniz (inventor of calculus), Kurt Godel, Einstein, William of Ockham, Alvin Plantinga, Descartes, and hundreds of other mathematicians/philosophers/scientists until this day have all found sufficient reason and/or developed proofs for the existence of G-d.
Also, you can’t claim to understand many of these proofs and reject them until you study modal logic.”
I tell you what. Why don’t you two duke it out and come back to me when you’ve come to a consensus. Is there tons of proofs for God’s existence? Or zero?
I’m waiting.
>if god himself came to you and told you hes real youd dissmiss it as a hallucination, and thats fine.
Not true.
>dont pretend its because you have too many questions that religion cant answer, as there are many questions that science cant answer either.
The difference is science DOES answer millions of questions, though not ALL. Religion, as far as I know, answers none and confuses many.
> stop looking for proof, there is as much for god as there is against, ie zero.
But why doesn’t that bother you? There are many things for which there is no proof one way or the other, like UFO aliens or fairies. Why does religion get a free pass?
The default position is disbelief until proven otherwise. Faith is a lousy predictor of reality. If it’s not, on what grounds do you reject the divinity of Jesus or Krishna?
>If it’s not, on what grounds do you reject the divinity of Jesus or Krishna?
What?! Jesus is the Messiah, don’t you know? KOIFER!!!
OTD, im not quite sure why i have to agree with everything other frum people write on this blog. My point wasnt that religion answers questions, but rather that it is not your “questions” that led you astray but rather your not believing and your leaving the derech that led you to your “questions.” If you believed in god any “question” can be “answered” with we cant understand god or some other cop-out “answer”
G*3, I reject the divinity of Jesus, Krishna and the flying spageti monster because i dont believ in them its that simple (theres more than that, but this should suffice for now)
Bob, given the reference to “cop-out answers” in your reply to OTD, it seems I misunderstood you.
You seem to be saying that belief is self-sustaining, and “questions” have no effect if you truly believe; therefore claiming not to believe because of questions is a non-starter. I see your point, but I would suggest that questions can erode belief, making it shakier and shakier until it finally collapses when the “we can’t understand God” patch crumbles under their weight.
Bob: your answer is ludicrous. You say “if you believe in God any question can be answered with we can’t understand God or some other cop-out answer.” You do realize (I hope) that if you take out the word God and insert Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn, or Celestial Teapot, you’ll have the same result? What is this, a bad sci-fi flick, or something?
I try not to put the cart before the horse and prefer when my premises lead to my conclusions, not vice versa. It’s just common sense.
Sure, if you want to believe something hard enough, there’s a good chance you’ll believe it. It’s called “bias.” the Torah itself warns against it “ki hashoichad y’aver einei chachamim…”
OTD, i wonder if you relize that youve just conceded my point. Believing in god isnt a conclusion its a premise. We (I and you) were raised by our parents and rebeim to believe in god. Unfortunatly in your case they were not succesful. Dont pretend you were raised in a bubble and pondered your existence (hello abie rotenberg) and came to the conclusion that there was no god. You were raised to believe in god, never fully accepted those beliefs and seized upon “questions” raised centuries if not millenia earlier to ease your guilty conscience.
>We (I and you) were raised by our parents and rebeim to believe in god.
Right. But if they raised us to believe in Jesus, we’d be having this same conversation with you whining that it’s my taivos and other horrendous character flaws that are leading me away from the oh-so-brilliant truth.
>Unfortunatly in your case they were not succesful.
Not true! They were very successful. I was a devout believer for many years of my life. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on which side of this political conflict you align yourself with), I discovered many flaws in my thinking and powerful INTELLECTUAL reasons to CHANGE MY MIND. Okay?
>never fully accepted those beliefs
Neither have you. The difference is I was both brave enough to face the questions and fortunate enough to *find* THE INTELLECTUAL QUESTIONS THAT LED ME OFF THE D, while the jury is still out on you…
>and seized upon “questions” raised centuries if not millenia earlier
Some of them are, indeed, common-sensical questions about the existence of deities that probably occur to most three year-olds, and probably keep believers up at night for entire lifetimes (think Mother Theresa). Doubts are common and should not be discouraged. False certainty should be discouraged, but unfortunately…
However, in the last few centuries the questions against the truth claims of religions have grown exponentially, with unfathomable leaps in our understanding of evolution, history, cosmology, archeology, geology, physiology, psychology, physics, etc etc etc. Even linguistics. So a lot of them are more recent, but I happen to agree that any child at any point in histroy should probably contain enough intelligence to be highly skeptical of most religious claims. Whether said child maintains her/his skepticism 0ver life or they have it beaten out of them by religious authorities and social pressure is a different story.
We seem to be going in circles. My premise is that if someone believes in god the “questions” raised are all non-questions. Why does carbon dating place the universe’s age at 14 billion years? Thats the way god designed it period. Im not denying for a second that that is the greatest cop-out answer in all time., and that its nice when their is a better, more intellectually satisfying answer. all im saying is if believe in god you assume theres an explanation and these “questions” dont bother. Depends what your premise is. To use an example from lecture today: Scientists (or at least the lecturer) have no idea how genomic imprinting works, at that point he donned a cross and pledged allegiance to jesus.!! of course not, he assumes as you do that there is some explanation that science hasnt discovered yet.
I read your top 10 reasons for going off the derech, which one would you describe as an INTELLECTUAL QUESTION?
>My premise is that if someone believes in god the “questions” raised are all non-questions.
Again, very weak. Can be used to justify any religion. If I assume 2 and 2 equal 27, all questions raised can be non-questions if I try hard enough. Are you really sure you want to devote your entire life to something so lame?
What you need to do is ask the right questions and see if the answers are worth two shits. No, not the pathetic straw men arguments set up by kiruv books like the pathetically titled “Permission to Believe” but by solid scientifically-based stuff. Hard to find, especially in a Jewish context, but it’s possible. Hint: it definitely won’t be published by Artscroll or Feldheim. If you’re lucky you can find something from a secular publisher. And the Internet is generally anopther great place to start. Try websites like these. This letter is classic.
>I read your top 10 reasons for going off the derech, which one would you describe as an INTELLECTUAL QUESTION?
#8. But I delve into it a bit more here.
Im not justifying any religion over another, or the existance of god for that matter. All im saying is dont delude yourself into thinking your questions led you to abandon your belief when in actuality, abandoning your belief led you to question.
All I’m saying is don’t judge the questions (and the questioner) until you’ve allowed yourself to be exposed to the questions. Oh wait, that would make you a heretic according to the Rambam. Must stay trapped!
Oh, and for those who don’t appreciate comments they don’t agree with, it’s not difficult to unsubscribe from a post.
Im familiar with your “questions” ive actuallly gotten quite a kick out of one of your links several months ago (i found it on your blog, which btw is way funnier than frum satire. kudos)
However now im beggining to suspect that there may be something wrong with you aside from your delusions of grandeur as a free-thinking open-minded philosopher. You dont seem to understand my simple comment. G*3 understood several comments back. Not sure if you guys meet at a atheist convention or something, but perhaps he’d be kind enough to explain, if youre interested because frankly im getting tired of writing the same thing over and over.
> “Oh, and for those who don’t appreciate comments they don’t agree with, it’s not difficult to unsubscribe from a post.” >
Isnt it great that we agree about something!!
Keep that head in the sand…
BTW i didnt mean guilty consciense as an insult. Its great that you feel guilt in abandoning 1000′s of years of beliefs and tradition that your ancestors risked and often gave their lives for. and all because it was too hard to resist taivehs (again im not mocking, it is hard i get it)
Just please dont delude yourself into thinking that your lack of belief has any intellectual component to it.
Bob, you say that you don’t mean to be insulting. But don’t you see that assuming that anyone who disagrees with your religious convictions is a weak-willed hedonist is inherently insulting? Much the same way some athiests’ characterization of beleivers as mindless sheep is inherently insulting. And neither is an accurate representation of the other group.
don’t you know that you will never convince someone (in this day and age anyway) with a guilt driven argument.
Shmul, werent you taught not to interupt when grown-ups are talking. Both your comments make no sense if youve been following the conversation. now go wait outside until the grownups are finished. (of course once youve read through the comments youre welcome to join)
sorry about that G*3. now G*3 i only meant that i didnt mean that post as an insult. I guess my views of atheists are a bit insulting, probably stemming from the fact that most of them (aside from you id say all, and for that i thank you) view us as mindless sheep. Maybe im too sensitive but i was troubled by OTD’s and AE’s blogs as well as commetns on them.
Bob, I don’t think you’re a mindless sheep. I think you’re tinokos she’nishbu, never exposed to a religion other than your own. Am I wrong?
G*3 Im sorry if i wasnt clear at first, that is exactly what im saying. I guess i just always thought of belief as very black and white. If a person is 50% or even 99% certain that god exists, does he believe in god, I assumed no. But then again i see your point, as he doesnt exactly “not believe” either, i guess belief can be eroded or shaky.
if it is a cop out answer – you can know that it is. you act like one can’t tell if his answer is a cop out answer.
Best comment on this whole board. Seriously.
When Moshe received the torah, he received a guide to how to live, not a science textbook. Though this guide is of course compatible with science, it does not dictate it. Chazal were masters of the mesora, but were only masters of science insofar as the science of their day allowed them to be. The halachic system retains its authenticity despite whatever the science of the day happens to be. The fact that chazal may have endorsed what we know today to be incorrect science does not mean that their statements and teachings about the torah and how to live are incorrect.
I would highly recommend this article to anyone who thinks there may be some conflict here
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486570
Why are formerly frum Jews ‘delusional’, ‘irrational’, ‘egomaniacs’ and ‘fools’?
See, this is the attitude that saddens me. And this is the attitude that makes so many formerly frum Jews wary of the Orthodox community.
I agree with the author’s premise: To say that adults are ‘off the derech’ seems infantilizing and immature. It also implies that Orthodox Judaism is a ‘one size fits all’ lifestyle, where anyone who doesn’t fit in just isn’t living ‘the’ way.
It’s amusing to hear frum Jews say that the formerly frum couldn’t possibly have left as a result of questions. This is both specious and disprovable, so to read it here is funny.
OTD is just like any other slang term describing a group of people. How do you describe yourself? Non-believer? Atheist? Whatever let’s you sleep at night.
“Why are formerly frum Jews ‘delusional’, ‘irrational’, ‘egomaniacs’ and ‘fools’”?
I only agree with egomaniac. You think that you know so much more that everyone else that due to your fantastic questions you have logically come to the conclusion that Judaism is BS. Yes girl, that’s some ego. Be a grown up and just admit that you’d rather do whatever the hell you want to. Oooooh you have questions. Everyone does, that’s the way of life. if every time someone had a question they would go OTD then there would be no Jews left. Yet somehow its the oldest religion.
> You think that you know so much more that everyone else
Argument from popularity
> if every time someone had a question they would go OTD then there would be no Jews left.
And this shows Judaism is correct because…?
> Yet somehow its the oldest religion.
Argument from tradition
Is it really so egotistical to follow logic to its conclusions? Why is acknowledging that there are problems but choosing to ignore them the more virtuous path?
lol.
You spit out canned answers as if you think they really make sense. And you read what I write yet you fail to comprehend. Again, your ego giving you a little nudge – saying that you can’t possibly be wrong.
“Argument from popularity”
What does that even mean?
“And this shows Judaism is correct because…?”
Whoever said anything about this proving that Judaism is correct? I was merely pointing out silliness of a few questions throwing out 2000 years of study and tradition. Especially questions for which one doesn’t even try to listen to the answer.
“Argument from tradition”
Ummmm no – rather argument from History. Correct me if I’m wrong but was it Judaism that came from Christianity and Islam or the other way around?
“Why is acknowledging that there are problems but choosing to ignore them the more virtuous path?”
There are many questions (i.e. “problems”) in Judaism. However, until you are fully versed in Judaism you cannot claim that because you do not know the answer you are going to follow your questions to your logical conclusion. If I have scientific questions in a certain field, I cannot follow those questions to my logical conclusion until I am fully knowledgeable in the topic – if I do make my own conclusion, I am ignorant. And yes, also egotistical for thinking that I know more than all of the scientists before me who devoted their lives to that particular topic.
> lol.
> You spit out canned answers as if you think they really make sense.
That works both ways, you know. The debate over religion is necessarily “canned” because it’s the same arguments over and over. Give me a new argument, and I’ll give you a novel rebuttal. Or I may concede that you made a good point. Give me canned arguments, and I’ll give you canned counter-arguments.
> “Argument from popularity”
> What does that even mean?
My mistake. I assumed you would know what it means. An argument from popularity is an argument that basically says, “A lot of people think X is true, and so many people can’t be wrong, therefore X must be true.” This is a fallacious argument because many people can believe X and X can still be incorrect. That a large number of people believe a premise to be true says nothing about whether it is actually true. For example, for millennia everyone believed the Sun orbited the Earth. Despite the large number of people who thought that was true, the Sun does not in fact orbit the Earth.
> Whoever said anything about this proving that Judaism is correct? I was merely pointing out silliness of a few questions throwing out 2000 years of study and tradition. Especially questions for which one doesn’t even try to listen to the answer.
I thought we were discussing whether or not Judaism is correct. Be that as it may, your characterization of “a few questions… for which one doesn’t even try to listen to the answer” is false and borders on malicious. Most people have many, many questions and make a real effort to find answers. It’s when they don’t find answers that they reject Judaism. Of course, if you’re of the, “There are no questions, only answers,” school of thought, there’s really no point to this discussion.
> “Argument from tradition”
> Ummmm no – rather argument from History. Correct me if I’m wrong but was it Judaism that came from Christianity and Islam or the other way around?
Okay… and so? What do Christianity and Islam have to do with anything?
Many people who reject Orthodox Judaism opt for other Jewish denominations, deism, or atheism. What do the other Abrahamic faiths have to do with anything.
Incidentally, what would you say then about someone who converted from Judaism to Zoroastrianism, given that your argument seems to be that the oldest religion is correct?
> There are many questions (i.e. “problems”) in Judaism. However, until you are fully versed in Judaism you cannot claim that because you do not know the answer you are going to follow your questions to your logical conclusion.
Very well. Why aren’t you Zoroastrian? It’s older than Judaism, and presumably you’re not fully versed in its teachings. On what grounds do you reject it?
Let me clarify (in the hope of shortening the comments):
I’m not in the business of trying to prove Judaism. Nor am I admonishing people for not believing. I’m merely pointing out the obvious that unless you are fully versed in a topic, any questions that you have will not disprove it.
Everyone can follow whatever religion they want to but unless you have read all (i’ll compromise for even half) of Judaism’s teachings, any questions that you have that you cannot answer will do nothing to disprove Judaism. Obviously this will not make a person believe in Judaism, but the questions should not be used to make someone disbelieve. I stand by my statement – if you are Jewish – having been born into thousands of years of tradition, and hundreds of thousands of commentaries on Judaism and its practices – if you now say “wtf, i’m not being Jewish because I have some questions” that is very egotistical.
As I said, when I don’t follow the Torah its not because of my myriad of questions, its because “I don’t give a crap.”
You say one has to be very well-versed in order to disprove it. How about to accept it? Do you really think the thousands of converts and BTs who are encouraged to embrace the faith who know much less about God’s law than I, someone who spent many years in yeshiva, do? Or the three year-old FFBs who are encouraged to “believe in God?” Frankly, I find your approach desparate and highly disrespectful. Besides, on what grounds do you reject thousands of other belief systems? Have you studied them in depth? Do you even know the first thing about Islam, a religion that claims a third of the world’s population? You may have missed the memo, but we live in a free country, where you’re entitled to choose any belief system you like without harassment. Theocracies are no longer the in thing, or so I hear. The Inquisition was 500 years ago.
You are pathetic (in the true sense of the word – not as an insult) . How many times do you want me to reiterate: I am not trying to convert or force anyone to believe in Judaism!!!
Sheesh. This is quite frustrating. You are a perfect case example to prove my point. You just keep on spitting out and regurgitating some pseudo-logical crap that you take as conclusive proof that no one should be Jewish. You don’t even read my few sentences before unleashing a barrage of ridiculousness. I’ll say this one more time:
“Everyone can follow whatever religion they want to but unless you have read all (i’ll compromise for even half) of Judaism’s teachings, any questions that you have that you cannot answer will do nothing to disprove Judaism. Obviously this will not make a person believe in Judaism, but the questions should not be used to make someone disbelieve. I stand by my statement – if you are Jewish – having been born into thousands of years of tradition, and hundreds of thousands of commentaries on Judaism and its practices – if you now say “wtf, i’m not being Jewish because I have some questions” that is very egotistical.”
So, Abraham should have stuck with the Idolatry thing, rather than turning his back on thousands of years of tradition.
Hilarious comment. What thousands of years of tradition are you talking about?
Oh right, everyone just bowing down to anything. Changing from day to day depending on their mood. There was no tradition. Or religion.
And of course all those great commentators and thinkers before Abraham. Oh wait, there weren’t any.
As an aside, you’re saying you do believe in the Bible?
> if you now say “wtf, i’m not being Jewish because I have some questions” that is very egotistical.
As I said, when I don’t follow the Torah its not because of my myriad of questions, its because “I don’t give a crap.”
Not everyone is like you. And that’s okay.
Your statement that you do things because “I don’t give a crap” implies that you still believe. What are you going to tell God when you stand before the beis din shel maalah? Becuase I don’t think “I don’t give a crap” is going to cut it.
At least if I’m wrong, I can claim I made an honest mistake.
“Your statement that you do things because “I don’t give a crap” implies that you still believe. What are you going to tell God when you stand before the beis din shel maalah? Becuase I don’t think “I don’t give a crap” is going to cut it.”
Of course I still believe. I believe in G-d and I believe Judaism to be the proper religion. And yes, in the back of my mind I realize I will probably burn for it (kind of sad). I guess I hope G-d will have mercy because of all the good I try to do (who knows). I still hope that one day I can change.
“At least if I’m wrong, I can claim I made an honest mistake.”
This is exactly my point. You wont be able to claim you made an “honest” mistake – because you were too egotistical – to think that YOUR questions overturn everything the sages have said that withstood the tests of time. A mistake stemming from ego is not an honest mistake.
Actually, I don’t know where you are getting (or why you are making up) your data, but Zoroastrianism is not the oldest religion. The false prophet Zoroaster was the founder of that religion. He lived during the 6th century B.C. Judaism existed almost a thousand years previous to this.
“See, this is the attitude that saddens me. And this is the attitude that makes so many formerly frum Jews wary of the Orthodox community.”
Now that’s what I call stereotyping. Because a couple of nameless comments hurt your feelings your gonna be wary of a whole nice community. Racist.
Maybe one a-hole who i ever met called me delusional or a fool to my face. OMG i probably should now never visit that guy’s negihborhood again. Sheesh. Talk about being sensitive.
‘Off the derech types make a big mistake, they think that they are more rational or intellectually honest than frum people…’
Speak for yourself.
These were the type of posts that originally made me read your blog. Welcome back my wayward son.
heimish! did you know, it’s all the same derech? shh!
Good times
That whole post has angsty teenager, caring so much about what other people think, trying to get some sort of attention and validation screaming out. Intellectualizing and compartmentalizing to find some sort of simplicity and inner peace .. seems to me like you got the opposite result. G-d created us with those desires and inclinations and you made the choice to allow them to drag you on a leash. You want a cookie?
dude if your gonna insult someone at least give some kind of argument.
I was raised ultra orthodox..Satmar, I’m 20 and currently attending NYU. I don’t hate, I saw orthodoxy as a cult so I left.. I don’t think I’m smarter than the rest of you… Cults work for some people and for some it just doesn’t…I don’t judge you guys for staying in the cult…why would you judge us?… Not that I care.. But some of the comments are just annoying. Stop judging and analyzing why people leave, unless this kind of thinking stimulates your brain….xoxox
I wasn’t gona comment, but then changed my mind just cause some of you are soo pathetic! First of all although I can’t really relate to this post..I think its written pretty well!
To all of you coomentors who are debating and judging the choices of people that are OTD make…..get a life!
I grew up Satmar, and now am attending NYU and will graduate next year….I “left” once I saw that the way I was raised is pretty close to a cult..I don’t think I’m smarter than the the practicing orthodox jews, I just don’t wana live in a cult so I CHOSE to leave…. I’m not judging you for choosing to live in this cult, so why are you judging US?……stop analyzing all these pple that are OTD, and as to why they did so, and wether they were right in doing soo..you are wasting your TIME…unless ofourse this talk stimulates your brain…in that case…go ahead….xoxox
its great that you dont judge those who retain our traditions, however sadly you are in the minority. Read Off the derech’s blog or abandoning eden or the blogs they have listed as blogs they follow. I assumed otd’ers werent angry but boy was i wrong. (BTW calling it a cult sounds a bit like judging, but maybe im reading to much into it)
Secondly as to why we judge you, thats easy its becasue of kol yisroel areivim we who believe want you to as well.
Plus hocking is a blast.
I don’t think calling it a cult is judgmental. They both use brain-washing and peer pressure to keep the sheep in place.
Maybe out of every 100 people who claim to be motivated out of “all jews being responsible for each other”, there is one who is. The rest are motivated by other things. Chief among them is jealous that they don’t have the guts to do what they know is right instead of what they are taught is right.
Theres no need to be jelous all it takes is a drive out to some random place and hello yummy cheesburgers. I think the number who really care about saving OTD’ers is closer to 1 in 1000, but either way my point was that at least in theory (even if not practice) there is reason for us to try to sway OTD’ers back, namely being resposible for them.
And just because you dont think calling us a cult and sheep isnt judgemental doesnt mean it is.
I dont think its judgemental to call you a lowlife chazer-fresser, yet it still is.
I demonstrated why the use of cult is fact and not a value judgment.
Your use of “lowlife” is an denigrating adjective.
Your use of “chazer-fresser” is inaccurate.
Im sorry about that comment i regreted writing it as soon as it went up.
As for the term cult not being judgemental i qoute from wikipedia “Cult pejoratively refers to a group whose beliefs or practices could be considered strange or sinister”
You know, I think it’s obvious that those who harass OTDers the most usually have the biggest doubts. It’s a classic case of Freudian repression and projection (Freud was an ex-frummie, you know). The gemara says “kol haposel b’mumo posel” which means people are hypocrites and tend to criticize in others that which they hate most about themselves. Shakespeare said “methinks thou doth protest too much” and methinks that those who harass heretics are the biggest fakers.
Oh, and I’m not angry, or judgmental. Again, QUIT PROJECTING!!!!
Formerly Frum had this to say about it here:
“I find most interesting, which I’ve experienced first hand, is that the biggest “tsnius police,” the ones who seemingly care most about displaying religiosity and perfection in frumkeit, are often the ones found at local not-so-nice establishments, and are also the ones indicted for massive fraud and corruption (just read the papers about the corruption that occurs in Shuls!). I always thought of it as this: when a person’s basic desires and intents are subdued and denied and rejected by their community, the tendencies “come out” the other way, leading to a secret life of debauchery and what not. Not that they are ALL like that, but the secret lives of frum people are often far more shocking than the secular world which they so vehemently condemn.”
Please dear god tell me you appreceate the irony of this post.
(in case you dont: You have a blog (several) devoted defending yourself and mocking religious, and your comments are full of angry language, if you need a few examples your comments on the post about heshy explaining why he changed his post as a result of all the hatemail he got for calling you angry, should help jar your memory)
incidentaly, what do atheists use in place of god in exclamations?
If you insult someone, you expect them to not be angry?
Try this at work tomorrow: walk into your boss’s office and say “YOU’RE A PIECE OF SHIT!” Surely he won’t get angry! Especially if he’s a yid..
OTD, the emotional roots of you OTDness is very clear from the way you communicate with anyone who questions you.
> Plus hocking is a blast.
That’s the appeal of blogs in general, no?
Hmm…It appears to me that Jacob Stein is using pseudonyms on Heshy’s blog. Apparently, harassing my mother on the phone and sending my father threatening emails did not satisfy the Jewish ‘Philosopher’.
Oh, well. Those who know me understand that these silly accusations are untrue, but if the writer feels better expressing them he has my sympathy.
OTD’s, Athiests, and other “types” are ‘delusional’, ‘irrational’, ‘egomaniacs’ and ‘fools’.. everyone i meet re and all the guys i read are. hitchens dawkins neitche read these guys man got enough ego to light up the world. they hate religion with fiery passion and hatred, and they are mad.
what is funny is no one can explain why there isn’t a G-d, no one can directly oppose the thermodynamic arguement, all we can do is say we all come from monkeys because our our makeup is very similar, please a jelly fish is 98% water but that does not mean there is not a difference.
what is funny is millions of species and yet we are the only ones even close to our level of intellect or being self aware, not one other species at all is using even primative tools, such as a wheel or incline plane…. not one other species is at all advanced, not one other species eveloved.. yet there are tons of other species that have contempararies, lions- tigers, baboons-gorillas, hippos-rhinos, etc, yet we stand alone and not one species comes even at all close???
no way, the logic is absurd. for heaven sakes we are the only ones using tools at all besides one species of primate that uses a stick to get bugs out of mushrooms. that is the scientist “big point to” for comperable life! “look,, see that poop flinging monkey using a friggin stick??!!” that means we came from monkeys.
excaping that the idea of transfering non life to even a single cell is like me jumping the grande canyon with a pogo stick, excaping that most high powered athiests now think life came here from aliens (which there is more proof G-d exists than there is of the existience of aliens)
that is how deperate athiests have gotten, aliens because they know non life cant just spring life, they used to think it was lightnening… do you hear me??… lightening smacked some mud and out came the single cell, after a while that was so absurd that they had to find something else, now its aliens, put us here because they know we didn’t spring up organically. oy.
bunch of- how do we put it? ‘delusional’, ‘irrational’, ‘egomaniacs’ and ‘fools’.. they would rather spew out a bunch of garbage than admit they could have been wrong, or that one mans stupid theory that was under developed because he did not have the resouces we do now. mind you darwin though black people were the missing link in evolutuion. he was a crazy man and in darwin’s time a jump from the mire to the single cell was not such a stretch, because the microscops they has showed single celss as very base life forms not complex at all.
but now with all we know now it is simply implausable, and against the laws of thermodynamics and the way energy and life exist today. but they hold on to one isolated ignorant mans bumbling theory like it was a holy script, like a religion.
There’s no more proof for God’s existence than there is for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Piss off.
You clearly are very ignorant of the ~1000 of years of philosophy aimed at establishing proof for the existence of G-d.
Immanuel Kant, John Locke, Baruch Spinoza, Melebranche, Liebniz (inventor of calculus), Kurt Godel, Einstein, William of Ockham, Alvin Plantinga, Descartes, and hundreds of other mathematicians/philosophers/scientists until this day have all found sufficient reason and/or developed proofs for the existence of G-d.
Also, you can’t claim to understand many of these proofs and reject them until you study modal logic.
Don’t drop names on me. Give me one proof.
> Baruch Spinoza
You really want to argue for Spinoza’s “everything is God” version of divinity?
> Einstein
Ditto
And of course, I could list philosophers who take the atheistic position. That such-and-such philosopher believed / didn’t believe in God is irrelevant. It’s the arguments that are important.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/8/6/986243ab779fa1d9b4d9ab8e0d8342da.png
If you are sincere about understanding this I am willing to explain it to you. You will need a crash course in symbolic logic.
No, but anyone who has studied Spinoza will attest to the fact that he puts forth compelling reason to believe in G-d. Whether he is truly a pantheist (or panentheist) is matter of ongoing scholarly debate. The point is that great minds have put forth great reason and have written entire treatises on topics which you seem to be dismissing. Selective evidence gathering is not intellectually honest. I simply do not understand how people can claim to be leaving orthodoxy on rational grounds when they have not studied the relevant philosophy. It is at least understandable (aka honest) if someone were to say that they are unsure about it and are too lazy to investigate and instead wish to roam around engaging in activities which they are instinctively drawn towards,albeit with knowledge that they may be acting irrationally. But to claim to leave on rational grounds without having investigated, nay, with carrying out overtly biased and selectively gathering evidence to suit the conclusion you want to find is puerile .
Even if you you have arguments (not to be mistaken with evidence) for God, that is an argument against strong atheism, not OTDers. besides, if the best you can come up with is some crap from goyishe medieval philosophers, what does that say about Chazal?
You’re right in thinking that these are chiefly arguments against atheists, however they might speak to certain OTD’ers too depending on their particular beliefs (OTD’ers are not some uniform group).
Also, this isn’t all “crap” from “goyishe medieval philosophers.” Here’s a brief history lesson: Spinoza was not from the medieval period and was a learned Jew, and he owed much of his philosophy to Hasdai Crescas, an earlier Jewish philosopher. Contemporary philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga have developed proofs for G-d’s existence as well. If you’re just going to cast everything which comes to conclusions you don’t agree with as “crap” I’m not sure how I can continue this discussion, as it is clear that you are unwilling to engage in rational discussion.
If you’ve studied Maimonides’ Moreh Nevuchim or Yehuda HaLevi’s Kuzari or the first chapter of Chovos Halevovos or one of many, many other Jewish works, you would have known that the topic of proving the authenticity of Judaism isn’t alien to us and in fact is very much part of our tradition. The fact that you are unaware of this highlights even more the rashness of your decision.
You write that “arguments are not to be mistaken with evidence” however I’m not quite sure what you mean by that. Do you believe that water is H2O? Probably, yet it is likely that you have never seen this with your own eyes or tested it in a laboratory. Yet this is not blind faith, as there is a history of science which you think is trustworthy. I’m going to take a jump and say that many of the things you believe you have never personally witnessed (for example, you probably believe that many counteries exist even though you haven’t been there, you probably believe in quarks, even though nobody can see them, you probably believe that all emeralds are green, even though you haven’t seen all emeralds. The point is, its very unclear what you are calling “evidence” If someone else tested water and found it was H2O, i’m confident that this would be evidence. Logic is even better evidence for the truth of statements, because you yourself can witness the fact that it works. Do you think witnessing something doesn’t count as evidence either?
Enough with science. Science is reliable. Religion isn’t. Why? Because science is relaity-based, empirical, and provable. Religion is bubb-maisa based.
When you get sick, do you go to a trained scientist? Or a voodoo healer?
Oh, I forgot. You go to your rabbi.
We’ll see where you go when you get sick. I recall an old adage about atheists and foxholes
I go to my mommy. You?
why the flying spaghetti monster of course
Granted: to deny that the existence of God is impossible to begin with requires quite an ego; to say that it’s impossible that God MUST exist, AND that God can only be OUR variation of God requires the same kind of ego.
Of course, many (Rambam, Luzzatto, et al) insist that God is the Metziut, and that it is inconceivable that he shouldn’t exist. Almost as bad is limiting his power, saying that there exists others who rule the world with him, that it is possible to have a mediator with God, and that the “3000 years of tradition from Moses to Sandy Koufax” (quoth The Big Lebowski) is not directly from the mouth of God.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but such an assertion, though it is the Metziut, requires quite the ego to sincerely believe!!!
Does that make it wrong?
In my eyes, both views are equally as wrong, and equally as unprovable. But of course, to Frum Jews and Frum Atheists (oxymoron intended), it is THE METZIUT!
On a similar note, people ask me what I think of Scientology. Yes, prima facie it is quite the ridiculous belief (Xenu the Evil Warlord from outer space, I ask you?), but then I ask if it’s any harder to accept than certain stories of the Bible. Talking Serpents, Talking Donkeys, Seas Splitting, the Moon Standing Still, 10 Plagues,: is it any more plausible?
Consider: if you weren’t raised religious, and you were introduced to the Bible at an older age, what would you think of it?
FTW
Um, are you saying that different objective realities obtain for the atheist and the theist? I’m not even sure what this would even mean.
You seem to be ignoring ~1000 of years of philosophy aimed at establishing proof for the existence of G-d.
Immanuel Kant, John Locke, Baruch Spinoza, Melebranche, Liebniz (inventor of calculus), Kurt Godel, Einstein, William of Ockham, Alvin Plantinga, Descartes, and hundreds of other mathematicians/philosophers/scientists until this day have all found sufficient reason and/or developed proofs for the existence of G-d.
Also, you can’t claim to understand many of these proofs and reject them until you study modal logic.
Yes Andy, I’ve studied both modal logic in my past and read up on these proofs. Though I’m not succinctly familiar with all of them enough to dissect them, I will say that even these proofs are not 100% incontrovertible. No proof is. That the logic is airtight, yes. But that doesn’t make the argument true–just valid.
Objective reality–sigh! This is too heavy a topic for me to discuss al regel achat over here. I’d have to jog my memory for a discussion on this (in one class, we went in depth on Descartes, Locke, Hume, and Kant on this subject). But where did I indicate that I was discussing any objective truths? I was referring merely to weltanschauungen. Whether objective realities must be the same or different for everyone is not the issue here. The issue here is whether or not it is impetuous to believe that God definitely exists or not.
Finally, please allow me to clarify that I’m not a hardcore atheist. I believe in a higher power (or series of powers, however unified or split), but I refuse to pigeonhole this power (or powers) into any sort of deity, or deities, or intermediary thereof. Science, like religion, is a human attempt to understand the Universe; however, science has more weight in my eyes because it at least attempts to use empirical–rather, provable–methods, and religion relies more on sophistry, rhetoric, and demagogy.
But of course, I don’t believe that scientists ever will have a final “theory of everything”. After all, the Universe is such a vast place, that we may never fully tap into all of its secrets. However, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t at least TRY to figure it out. Some questions simply have no answers. For example, last summer I was attending a panel discussion on “Time Since Einstein”. One of the final questions about about the “arrow of time”, that if time is infinite, then why does it appear to be linear to us. To this question, every one of these great scientists (some of the greatest minds in the world were in attendance) threw up their arms and answered “it just is”. It’s a good question, but no matter how much one delves into metaphysics, they find that some questions really have no p’shat at all.
ghottistyx:
you’re improper use of terminology highlights that you have not studied logic on the level that would enable you to understand these proofs.
an argument can’t be “true” or “false”
arguments themselves are not bearers of truth-value; only their premiss(es)/conclusion(s) are
you say that “no proof” is 100% incontrovertible. I’m not sure what you mean by this. What about this simple proof?
(i) if p then q
(ii) p
therefore,
(iii) q
do you think this proof is not “incontrovertible”?
it seems that you aren’t familiar enough with formal logic to go further into this now, but if you’re more interesting in learning about it I can suggest resources.
On you’re point about whether it is impetuous to believe whether G-d *definitely* exists or not, I’m not certain what you mean. Necessary existence seems to be built into the very concept of G-d , so if someone believes G-d exists at all, one perforce believes that G-d necessarily (i.e. *definitely*) exists. There are deeper and much more technical issues of modality here, which I would love to discuss more with you once you have familiarized yourself with the technical knowledge of logic entailed.
You write that “science has more weight in my eyes because it at least attempts to use empirical–rather, provable–methods, and religion relies more on sophistry, rhetoric, and demagogy.”
Judaism is based on just as much empirical evidence and methodology as is modern science. moreover, it would be foolish to believe that modern science is free of sophistry, rhetoric and demagogy (haven’t you been reading about the recent scandals in science?). I could say much more on this, but being that you have just stated a conclusion rather than offering an argument, I do not know exactly which I should elaborate upon.
You seem to think that certain metaphysical questions cannot be answered. Though you may be correct, as there indeed is a limit to human understanding, that doesn’t imply that we shouldn’t try to investigate as much as we can. To stop at a point when of complacency smacks of intellectual dishonesty of the highest degree.
>Judaism is based on just as much empirical evidence and methodology as is modern science.
How stupid can you be?
Pardon my incorrect usage of terminology, it’s been quite some time indeed.
I’m not talking about validity. I’m talking about truth. An argument can be valid all it wants, but if the premises are false, then the argument–though valid–is still untrue. Though I’m rusty on the exact parlance of logic, I still recall that little snippet about truth-tables.
Necessity of God’s existence: you say it’s built in to the very concept of God. Yes, I’m well aware that Rambam, Luzzatto, et al. insist that by its very definition, “God Must Exist”. But really, what is so inconceivable about a world where God doesn’t exist?
Scandals in modern science: to this, I admit I’m a total am ha’aretz. Of course, I can’t help but read “A Brief History of Time” by Stephen Hawking and wonder what proof there is to half the things he’s saying there. Of course, I’ve only read through it once (and the illustrated version, and even in that version plenty of it flew over my head). Of course, I understand that it’s only a brief history, and if he were to trouble to explain them be’iyyun, the book would probably be exponentially longer. So yes, I’m willing to accept that science also leans on demagoguery and rhetoric, but only out of conjecture.
Finally, for the record, we are not in disagreement about the need to search for the answers even if it seems impossible that we’ll ever know. Lo Aleinu HaMelacha LiGmor, so the saying goes. I’m all about scientists still trying to push the envelope forward, even if the results are infinitesimal. The Pythagorians were perfectly satisfied with their theory being a mere postulate, but Euclid–instead of just letting it stand as such–went ahead and proved it (Stephen Hawking has a nice piece about this as well). So yeah, I can’t argue either Science or Metaphysics as an expert (having only taken a few classes on each), but I’m still casually interested in both subjects.
I can’t believe you’re bringing Spinoza into this. You’re aware, I hope, that he was chucked out of the Jewish community for thoughtcrime, was pretty much considered an atheist at the time, and is a classic OTDer. Maybe you want to quote Dawkins instead?
I know that spinoza was put into cherem. As an aside, if you study the history it is clear that it was for political reasons (the catholic church started to threaten the Jewish community) rather than inherent motivation to do so stemming from the Jewish community. But this is not what we are discussing, so I’m not sure why you think this is relevant. Again you are resorting to ad-hominem attacks rather than discussing relevant information. If Dawkins said something relevant and thoughtful, I would quote him too.
Calling Spinoza a “learned Jew.” LOL!
>If you study the history it is clear that it was for political reasons
Where do you get your history books? Targum Press?
There was nothing ad hominem about my comment. Besides, you’re one to talk, going on about the “emotional roots” for my OTDness.
I have responded to this odd list down below, in addition to your lengthy and wholly inconclusive quote from Locke.
Ghottistyx, you are absolutely right. The proper approach is to suspend judgment until conclusive evidence is available.
That said, given that we have no reason to assume the existence of a God, we should regard Him as we do the infinite number of other things the existence of which we can neither prove nor disprove – we assume their non-existence until proven otherwise.
“That said, given that we have no reason to assume the existence of a God, we should regard Him as we do the infinite number of other things the existence of which we can neither prove nor disprove – we assume their non-existence until proven otherwise.”
This alone is quite lame. Your argument only bears weight for new ideas or thoughts. Regarding previous beliefs – even precious science holds onto everything until it is proven that they are wrong.
For over 2000 years practically everyone in the world believed in a g-d. No biggy though, YOU cant prove it so don’t believe. As I said, quite lame.
Do whatever you want, just don’t fool yourself into thinking you’re the logical one.
Do you believe in ghosts? Demons? Leprechauns? Fairies? Dryads? The Greek gods? The Egyptian gods? Sprites? Bogeymen?…
Why not? They have never been disproven.
And of course, Jesus, Mohammed’s revelation, Krishna, Xenu, Joseph Smith’s golden tablets…
Also never disproven.
They’ve also never been proven, whereas G-d has been (despite whether or not you like the proofs) in addition to having been part of an unbroken chain of national eye-witness testimony in support of the Jewish mesora. Most of us know Napoleon was at Waterloo, despite not having witnessed him ourselves, because we have reliable testimony. The other characters you mention were only “witnessed” by one to a few people, many of whom had good reason to falsely attest to something they didn’t see. Your ‘reasoning’ is beastly.
G*3, I see you recently joined the conversation.
But please don’t comment on my comments until you have read what I wrote (of course you still can but don’t start crying when I call you an a-hole for doing that).
“Do you believe in ghosts? Demons? Leprechauns? Fairies? Dryads? The Greek gods? The Egyptian gods? Sprites? Bogeymen?…”
To the likes of comments like this I have previously responded (and so now for the umpteenth time):
“You don’t even read my few sentences before unleashing a barrage of ridiculousness. I’ll say this one more time:
“Everyone can follow whatever religion they want to but unless you have read all (i’ll compromise for even half) of Judaism’s teachings, any questions that you have that you cannot answer will do nothing to disprove Judaism. Obviously this will not make a person believe in Judaism, but the questions should not be used to make someone disbelieve. I stand by my statement – if you are Jewish – having been born into thousands of years of tradition, and hundreds of thousands of commentaries on Judaism and its practices – if you now say “wtf, i’m not being Jewish because I have some questions” that is very egotistical.”’
I don’t understand why “off the derech” and “formerly frum” are both being equated here with atheism. There are many people who believe in God–indeed, God-worshipping, God-loving, and God-fearing individuals–who are not Orthodox Jews.
Amen to that.
Thanks Al!
I was raised Satmar, and am now not religious. I believe in G-D have my morals, and am a VERY proud jew. I don’t hate or judge other religious people… So why on earth do you guys feel the need to judge and analyze every ex relig person as to wether they are doing the right thing?!…. Live your life as you please!! I’m doing that, I left the cult, I don’t think you need a religion to live a Moral life, but then again you get to choose wether you need one for yourself. We don’t judge and neither should you…..xoxox
If there are any nice young girls whom, upon reading this article, felt any inclination to sleep with me, please be in touch with Frumsatire. Thank you.
There we go man – growing some balls.
Oh, is this allowed by the Torah or just something you really really want (and are obviously very desperate) to do?
Well played though. Kudos.
Go troll somewhere else- you’re cramping my style.
Send a picture first.
If I ever want to go OTD, I’ll let you know
from John Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding
Chapter X
Of our Knowledge of the Existence of a God
1. We are capable of knowing certainly that there is a God. Though God has given us no innate ideas of himself; though he has stamped no original characters on our minds, wherein we may read his being; yet having furnished us with those faculties our minds are endowed with, he hath not left himself without witness: since we have sense, perception, and reason, and cannot want a clear proof of him, as long as we carry ourselves about us. Nor can we justly complain of our ignorance in this great point; since he has so plentifully provided us with the means to discover and know him; so far as is necessary to the end of our being, and the great concernment of our happiness. But, though this be the most obvious truth that reason discovers, and though its evidence be (if I mistake not) equal to mathematical certainty: yet it requires thought and attention; and the mind must apply itself to a regular deduction of it from some part of our intuitive knowledge, or else we shall be as uncertain and ignorant of this as of other propositions, which are in themselves capable of clear demonstration. To show, therefore, that we are capable of knowing, i.e. being certain that there is a God, and how we may come by this certainty, I think we need go no further than ourselves, and that undoubted knowledge we have of our own existence.
2. For man knows that he himself exists. I think it is beyond question, that man has a clear idea of his own being; he knows certainly he exists, and that he is something. He that can doubt whether he be anything or no, I speak not to; no more than I would argue with pure nothing, or endeavour to convince nonentity that it were something. If any one pretends to be so sceptical as to deny his own existence, (for really to doubt of it is manifestly impossible,) let him for me enjoy his beloved happiness of being nothing, until hunger or some other pain convince him of the contrary. This, then, I think I may take for a truth, which every one’s certain knowledge assures him of, beyond the liberty of doubting, viz. that he is something that actually exists.
3 He knows also that nothing cannot produce a being; therefore something must have existed from eternity. In the next place, man knows, by an intuitive certainty, that bare nothing can no more produce any real being, than it can be equal to two right angles. If a man knows not that nonentity, or the absence of all being, cannot be equal to two right angles, it is impossible he should know any demonstration in Euclid. If, therefore, we know there is some real being, and that nonentity cannot produce any real being, it is an evident demonstration, that from eternity there has been something; since what was not from eternity had a beginning; and what had a beginning must be produced by something else.
4. And that eternal Being must be most powerful. Next, it is evident, that what had its being and beginning from another, must also have all that which is in and belongs to its being from another too. All the powers it has must be owing to and received from the same source. This eternal source, then, of all being must also be the source and original of all power; and so this eternal Being must be also the most powerful.
5. And most knowing. Again, a man finds in himself perception and knowledge. We have then got one step further; and we are certain now that there is not only some being, but some knowing, intelligent being in the world. There was a time, then, when there was no knowing being, and when knowledge began to be; or else there has been also a knowing being from eternity. If it be said, there was a time when no being had any knowledge, when that eternal being was void of all understanding; I reply, that then it was impossible there should ever have been any knowledge: it being as impossible that things wholly void of knowledge, and operating blindly, and without any perception, should produce a knowing being, as it is impossible that a triangle should make itself three angles bigger than two right ones. For it is as repugnant to the idea of senseless matter, that it should put into itself sense, perception, and knowledge, as it is repugnant to the idea of a triangle, that it should put into itself greater angles than two right ones.
6. And therefore God. Thus, from the consideration of ourselves, and what we infallibly find in our own constitutions, our reason leads us to the knowledge of this certain and evident truth,- That there is an eternal, most powerful, and most knowing Being; which whether any one will please to call God, it matters not. The thing is evident; and from this idea duly considered, will easily be deduced all those other attributes, which we ought to ascribe to this eternal Being. If, nevertheless, any one should be found so senselessly arrogant, as to suppose man alone knowing and wise, but yet the product of mere ignorance and chance; and that all the rest of the universe acted only by that blind haphazard; I shall leave with him that very rational and emphatical rebuke of Tully (I. ii. De Leg.), to be considered at his leisure: “What can be more sillily arrogant and misbecoming, than for a man to think that he has a mind and understanding in him, but yet in all the universe beside there is no such thing? Or that those things, which with the utmost stretch of his reason he can scarce comprehend, should be moved and managed without any reason at all?” Quid est enim verius, quam neminem esse oportere tam stulte arrogantem, ut in se mentem et rationem putet inesse, in caelo mundoque non putet? Aut ea quae vix summa ingenii ratione comprehendat, nulla ratione moveri putet?
From what has been said, it is plain to me we have a more certain knowledge of the existence of a God, than of anything our senses have not immediately discovered to us. Nay, I presume I may say, that we more certainly know that there is a God, than that there is anything else without us. When I say we know, I mean there is such a knowledge within our reach which we cannot miss, if we will but apply our minds to that, as we do to several other inquiries.
7. Our idea of a most perfect Being, not the sole proof of a God. How far the idea of a most perfect being, which a man may frame in his mind, does or does not prove the existence of a God, I will not here examine. For in the different make of men’s tempers and application of their thoughts, some arguments prevail more on one, and some on another, for the confirmation of the same truth. But yet, I think, this I may say, that it is an ill way of establishing this truth, and silencing atheists, to lay the whole stress of so important a point as this upon that sole foundation: and take some men’s having that idea of God in their minds, (for it is evident some men have none, and some worse than none, and the most very different,) for the only proof of a Deity; and out of an over fondness of that darling invention, cashier, or at least endeavour to invalidate all other arguments; and forbid us to hearken to those proofs, as being weak or fallacious, which our own existence, and the sensible parts of the universe offer so clearly and cogently to our thoughts, that I deem it impossible for a considering man to withstand them. For I judge it as certain and clear a truth as can anywhere be delivered, that “the invisible things of God are clearly seen from the creation of the world, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead.” Though our own being furnishes us, as I have shown, with an evident and incontestable proof of a Deity; and I believe nobody can avoid the cogency of it, who will but as carefully attend to it, as to any other demonstration of so many parts: yet this being so fundamental a truth, and of that consequence, that all religion and genuine morality depend thereon, I doubt not but I shall be forgiven by my reader if I go over some parts of this argument again, and enlarge a little more upon them.
8. Recapitulation- something from eternity. There is no truth more evident than that something must be from eternity. I never yet heard of any one so unreasonable, or that could suppose so manifest a contradiction, as a time wherein there was perfectly nothing. This being of all absurdities the greatest, to imagine that pure nothing, the perfect negation and absence of all beings, should ever produce any real existence.
It being, then, unavoidable for all rational creatures to conclude, that something has existed from eternity; let us next see what kind of thing that must be.
9. Two sorts of beings, cogitative and incogitative. There are but two sorts of beings in the world that man knows or conceives.
First, such as are purely material, without sense, perception, or thought, as the clippings of our beards, and parings of our nails.
Secondly, sensible, thinking, perceiving beings, such as we find ourselves to be. Which, if you please, we will hereafter call cogitative and incogitative beings; which to our present purpose, if for nothing else, are perhaps better terms than material and immaterial.
10. Incogitative being cannot produce a cogitative being. If, then, there must be something eternal, let us see what sort of being it must be. And to that it is very obvious to reason, that it must necessarily be a cogitative being. For it is as impossible to conceive that ever bare incogitative matter should produce a thinking intelligent being, as that nothing should of itself produce matter. Let us suppose any parcel of matter eternal, great or small, we shall find it, in itself, able to produce nothing. For example: let us suppose the matter of the next pebble we meet with eternal, closely united, and the parts firmly at rest together; if there were no other being in the world, must it not eternally remain so, a dead inactive lump? Is it possible to conceive it can add motion to itself, being purely matter, or produce anything? Matter, then, by its own strength, cannot produce in itself so much as motion: the motion it has must also be from eternity, or else be produced, and added to matter by some other being more powerful than matter; matter, as is evident, having not power to produce motion in itself. But let us suppose motion eternal too: yet matter, incogitative matter and motion, whatever changes it might produce of figure and bulk, could never produce thought: knowledge will still be as far beyond the power of motion and matter to produce, as matter is beyond the power of nothing or nonentity to produce. And I appeal to every one’s own thoughts, whether he cannot as easily conceive matter produced by nothing, as thought to be produced by pure matter, when, before, there was no such thing as thought or an intelligent being existing? Divide matter into as many parts as you will, (which we are apt to imagine a sort of spiritualizing, or making a thinking thing of it,) vary the figure and motion of it as much as you please- a globe, cube, cone, prism, cylinder, &c., whose diameters are but 100,000th part of a gry, will operate no otherwise upon other bodies of proportionable bulk, than those of an inch or foot diameter; and you may as rationally expect to produce sense, thought, and knowledge, by putting together, in a certain figure and motion, gross particles of matter, as by those that are the very minutest that do anywhere exist. They knock, impel, and resist one another, just as the greater do; and that is all they can do. So that, if we will suppose nothing first or eternal, matter can never begin to be: if we suppose bare matter without motion, eternal, motion can never begin to be: if we suppose only matter and motion first, or eternal, thought can never begin to be. For it is impossible to conceive that matter, either with or without motion, could have, originally, in and from itself, sense, perception, and knowledge; as is evident from hence, that then sense, perception, and knowledge, must be a property eternally inseparable from matter and every particle of it. Not to add, that, though our general or specific conception of matter makes us speak of it as one thing, yet really all matter is not one individual thing, neither is there any such thing existing as one material being, or one single body that we know or can conceive. And therefore, if matter were the eternal first cogitative being, there would not be one eternal, infinite, cogitative being, but an infinite number of eternal, finite, cogitative beings, independent one of another, of limited force, and distinct thoughts, which could never produce that order, harmony, and beauty which are to be found in nature. Since, therefore, whatsoever is the first eternal being must necessarily be cogitative; and whatsoever is first of all things must necessarily contain in it, and actually have, at least, all the perfections that can ever after exist; nor can it ever give to another any perfection that it hath not either actually in itself, or, at least, in a higher degree; it necessarily follows, that the first eternal being cannot be matter.
11. Therefore, there has been an eternal cogitative Being. If, therefore, it be evident, that something necessarily must exist from eternity, it is also as evident, that that something must necessarily be a cogitative being: for it is as impossible that incogitative matter should produce a cogitative being, as that nothing, or the negation of all being, should produce a positive being or matter.
12. The attributes of the eternal cogitative Being. Though this discovery of the necessary existence of an eternal Mind does sufficiently lead us into the knowledge of God; since it will hence follow, that all other knowing beings that have a beginning must depend on him, and have no other ways of knowledge or extent of power than what he gives them; and therefore, if he made those, he made also the less excellent pieces of this universe,- all inanimate beings, whereby his omniscience, power, and providence will be established, and all his other attributes necessarily follow: yet, to clear up this a little further, we will see what doubts can be raised against it.
13. Whether the eternal Mind may he also material or no. First, Perhaps it will be said, that, though it be as clear as demonstration can make it, that there must be an eternal Being, and that Being must also be knowing: yet it does not follow but that thinking Being may also be material. Let it be so, it equally still follows that there is a God. For if there be an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent Being, it is certain that there is a God, whether you imagine that Being to be material or no. But herein, I suppose, lies the danger and deceit of that supposition:- there being no way to avoid the demonstration, that there is an eternal knowing Being, men, devoted to matter, would willingly have it granted, that this knowing Being is material; and then, letting slide out of their minds, or the discourse, the demonstration whereby an eternal knowing Being was proved necessarily to exist, would argue all to be matter, and so deny a God, that is, an eternal cogitative Being: whereby they are so far from establishing, that they destroy their own hypothesis. For, if there can be, in their opinion, eternal matter, without any eternal cogitative Being, they manifestly separate matter and thinking, and suppose no necessary connexion of the one with the other, and so establish the necessity of an eternal Spirit, but not of matter; since it has been proved already, that an eternal cogitative Being is unavoidably to be granted. Now, if thinking and matter may be separated, the eternal existence of matter will not follow from the eternal existence of a cogitative Being, and they suppose it to no purpose.
14. Not material: first, because each particle of matter is not cogitative. But now let us see how they can satisfy themselves, or others, that this eternal thinking Being is material.
I. I would ask them, whether they imagine that all matter, every particle of matter, thinks? This, I suppose, they will scarce say; since then there would be as many eternal thinking beings as there are particles of matter, and so an infinity of gods. And yet, if they will not allow matter as matter, that is, every particle of matter, to be as well cogitative as extended, they will have as hard a task to make out to their own reasons a cogitative being out of incogitative particles, as an extended being out of unextended parts, if I may so speak.
15. II. Secondly, because one particle alone of matter cannot be cogitative. If all matter does not think, I next ask, Whether it be only one atom that does so? This has as many absurdities as the other; for then this atom of matter must be alone eternal or not. If this alone be eternal, then this alone, by its powerful thought or will, made all the rest of matter. And so we have the creation of matter by a powerful thought, which is that the materialists stick at; for if they suppose one single thinking atom to have produced all the rest of matter, they cannot ascribe that pre-eminency to it upon any other account than that of its thinking, the only supposed difference. But allow it to be by some other way which is above our conception, it must still be creation; and these men must give up their great maxim, Ex nihilo nil fit. If it be said, that all the rest of matter is equally eternal as that thinking atom, it will be to say anything at pleasure, though ever so absurd. For to suppose all matter eternal, and yet one small particle in knowledge and power infinitely above all the rest, is without any the least appearance of reason to frame an hypothesis. Every particle of matter, as matter, is capable of all the same figures and motions of any other; and I challenge any one, in his thoughts, to add anything else to one above another.
16. III. Thirdly, because a system of incogitative matter cannot be cogitative. If then neither one peculiar atom alone can be this eternal thinking being; nor all matter, as matter, i.e. every particle of matter, can be it; it only remains, that it is some certain system of matter, duly put together, that is this thinking eternal Being. This is that which, I imagine, is that notion which men are aptest to have of God; who would have him a material being, as most readily suggested to them by the ordinary conceit they have of themselves and other men, which they take to be material thinking beings. But this imagination, however more natural, is no less absurd than the other: for to suppose the eternal thinking Being to be nothing else but a composition of particles of matter, each whereof is incogitative, is to ascribe all the wisdom and knowledge of that eternal Being only to the juxta-position of parts; than which nothing can be more absurd. For unthinking particles of matter, however put together, can have nothing thereby added to them, but a new relation of position, which it is impossible should give thought and knowledge to them.
17. And that whether this corporeal system is in motion or at rest. But further: this corporeal system either has all its parts at rest, or it is a certain motion of the parts wherein its thinking consists. If it be perfectly at rest, it is but one lump, and so can have no privileges above one atom.
If it be the motion of its parts on which its thinking depends, all the thoughts there must be unavoidably accidental and limited; since all the particles that by motion cause thought, being each of them in itself without any thought, cannot regulate its own motions, much less be regulated by the thought of the whole; since that thought is not the cause of motion, (for then it must be antecedent to it, and so without it,) but the consequence of it; whereby freedom, power, choice, and all rational and wise thinking or acting, will be quite taken away: so that such a thinking being will be no better nor wiser than pure blind matter; since to resolve all into the accidental unguided motions of blind matter, or into thought depending on unguided motions of blind matter, is the same thing: not to mention the narrowness of such thoughts and knowledge that must depend on the motion of such parts. But there needs no enumeration of any more absurdities and impossibilities in this hypothesis (however full of them it be) than that before mentioned; since, let this thinking system be all or a part of the matter of the universe, it is impossible that any one particle should either know its own, or the motion of any other particle, or the whole know the motion of every particle; and so regulate its own thoughts or motions, or indeed have any thought resulting from such motion.
18. Matter not co-eternal with an eternal Mind. Secondly, Others would have Matter to be eternal, notwithstanding that they allow an eternal, cogitative, immaterial Being. This, though it take not away the being of a God, yet, since it denies one and the first great piece of his workmanship, the creation, let us consider it a little. Matter must be allowed eternal: Why? because you cannot conceive how it can be made out of nothing: why do you not also think yourself eternal? You will answer, perhaps, Because, about twenty or forty years since, you began to be. But if I ask you, what that you is, which began then to be, you can scarce tell me. The matter whereof you are made began not then to be: for if it did, then it is not eternal: but it began to be put together in such a fashion and frame as makes up your body; but yet that frame of particles is not you, it makes not that thinking thing you are; (for I have now to do with one who allows an eternal, immaterial, thinking Being, but would have unthinking Matter eternal too;) therefore, when did that thinking thing begin to be? If it did never begin to be, then have you always been a thinking thing from eternity; the absurdity whereof I need not confute, till I meet with one who is so void of understanding as to own it. If, therefore, you can allow a thinking thing to be made out of nothing, (as all things that are not eternal must be,) why also can you not allow it possible for a material being to be made out of nothing by an equal power, but that you have the experience of the one in view, and not of the other? Though, when well considered, creation of a spirit will be found to require no less power than the creation of matter. Nay, possibly, if we would emancipate ourselves from vulgar notions, and raise our thoughts, as far as they would reach, to a closer contemplation of things, we might be able to aim at some dim and seeming conception how matter might at first be made, and begin to exist, by the power of that eternal first Being: but to give beginning and being to a spirit would be found a more inconceivable effect of omnipotent power. But this being what would perhaps lead us too far from the notions on which the philosophy now in the world is built, it would not be pardonable to deviate so far from them; or to inquire, so far as grammar itself would authorize, if the common settled opinion opposes it: especially in this place, where the received doctrine serves well enough to our present purpose, and leaves this past doubt, that the creation or beginning of any one SUBSTANCE out of nothing being once admitted, the creation of all other but the CREATOR himself, may, with the same ease, be supposed.
19. Objection: “Creation out of nothing. ” But you will say, Is it not impossible to admit of the making anything out of nothing, since we cannot possibly conceive it? I answer, No. Because it is not reasonable to deny the power of an infinite being, because we cannot comprehend its operations. We do not deny other effects upon this ground, because we cannot possibly conceive the manner of their production. We cannot conceive how anything but impulse of body can move body; and yet that is not a reason sufficient to make us deny it possible, against the constant experience we have of it in ourselves, in all our voluntary motions; which are produced in us only by the free action or thought of our own minds, and are not, nor can be, the effects of the impulse or determination of the motion of blind matter in or upon our own bodies; for then it could not be in our power or choice to alter it. For example: my right hand writes, whilst my left hand is still: What causes rest in one, and motion in the other? Nothing but my will,- a thought of my mind; my thought only changing, the right hand rests, and the left hand moves. This is matter of fact, which cannot be denied: explain this and make it intelligible, and then the next step will be to understand creation. For the giving a new determination to the motion of the animal spirits (which some make use of to explain voluntary motion) clears not the difficulty one jot. To alter the determination of motion, being in this case no easier nor less, than to give motion itself: since the new determination given to the animal spirits must be either immediately by thought, or by some other body put in their way by thought which was not in their way before, and so must owe its motion to thought: either of which leaves voluntary motion as unintelligible as it was before. In the meantime, it is an overvaluing ourselves to reduce all to the narrow measure of our capacities, and to conclude all things impossible to be done, whose manner of doing exceeds our comprehension. This is to make our comprehension infinite, or God finite, when what He can do is limited to what we can conceive of it. If you do not understand the operations of your own finite mind, that thinking thing within you, do not deem it strange that you cannot comprehend the operations of that eternal infinite Mind, who made and governs all things, and whom the heaven of heavens cannot contain.
Brilliant. Cut and paste 10,000 words of BS.
If you cast off the writings of one of the greatest philosophers & physicians in history as “BS” without willing to communicate substantially, I’m really not sure of the point of continuing this discussion.
IT’S 10,000 FREAKING WORDS!
Sorry, OTD, but I must agree with Andy on this one. Yes, Locke is typically long-winded (and the version of “Essay Concerning Human Understanding” retains Locke’s original writing style, 17th century English, where the rules of spelling and punctuation were much different–and thus I really had to read a lot of it through before I got it). But seriously, agree or disagree with him, Locke is one of the most breakthrough early-enlightenment thinkers out there, and I would not shrug him off as “BS”. ‘
Thanks for the refresher on Locke here. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t you think that Locke seems awfully dogmatic here about how somethings can’t be created out of nothing? Perhaps I’m missing something and need to reexamine it, but back to what I was saying about assumptions: it makes perfect sense what he’s saying, but only if you accept as postulate that it’s IMPOSSIBLE for a something to come out of a nothing.
I can’t help but think of the story told about St. Augustine, when asked what God was doing before he created the Universe. According to legend, his answer was “creating Hell for people who ask such questions”. The person who related this to me said that this anecdote’s probably not true, but he still felt that it’s pointless to ask about “before” (i.e. ‘what was the Universe like before the Big Bang’).
Also,I do not think that what Bob has said about belief is completely at odds with what I have said about there being rational proof. These are simply two different approaches to arrive at the same conclusion.
I see… Saying there are zillions of proofs and there are zero proofs are perfectly compatible. Good grief!
while the statements “there are proofs” and “there are no proofs” are incompatible, the statements “there are proofs” and “you could believe without proofs” are not.
Well, you didn’t say you could believe without proofs. You said there are thousands of years of history of philosophy chock-full of proofs for your Santa Claus, I mean God. And you dropped all kinds of fancy names.
So I ask you: are there proofs? Or not?
If yes, are they solid? If not, are they necessary?
I get it: you get to have it both ways: if there’s proof, we have to believe BECAUSE IT’S LOGICAL! If there aren’t, WE HAVE TO HAVE FAITH!
We can’t win, can we?
There are proofs, and they are necessary for those who demand rational basis for their beliefs. For those who do not, they are not needed. Someone could believe that the Holocaust happened because their mother told them, and have faith in what their mother tells them, or someone can believe because one has examined the evidence or experienced it. Depending on the nature of the person inquiring, different modes of knowing are available. If someone needs proof, it is there and is quite solid. If someone does not need proof, then fine. Well, actually, according to some Rishonim, including the Rambam, one ought to know the proofs (see moreh nevuchim) as knowledge is a crucial part of yahadus. In any case, the point is that these are not contradictory strands of experience, they are just different.
You’ve Godwinned the discussion by bringing in the Holocaust.
And you haven’t established whether or not your “proofs” have any oomph to them, assuming of course they’re required for those of us so INSOLENT to demand evidence before believing a claim. I mean, teh chutzpa!
>If someone needs proof, it is there and is quite solid.
Are you referring to this Locke proof as “quite solid” now? Good grief. Yes, Locke is one of the philosophers you mentioned who actually does has a proof for God, and I explained below why it is not a proof. If you would like to still consider it an argument for God or something, you can try for that–but a “solid proof?”
In case you can’t read, here’s what Bob said: “stop looking for proof, there is as much for god as there is against, ie zero. It’s all a matter if belief”.
note that I wrote “not …completely at odds” rather than “not… at odds.”
I know, elephants and spiders aren’t completely at odds either. They both take up space!
If God were to make simple proofs that he existed, their wouldn’t be any challenge for one to believe in his existence, nor would their be any point of giving people the freedom of choice, etc.
For those so called OTDers that don’t believe anything unless they see it, how many of you believe that planets exist? Did you ever see them? And if you’re going to answer that you read about them in books or saw them on TV, I saw Santa claus in books and on TV as well.
Pure casuistry.
You also would have a “challenge” believing Jesus to be moshiach or Muhammed to be a navi. That it is somehow better that God is so inaccessible is ridiculous. The issue is not belief in God which has zero meaning, but rather that this God interacts with humans in a very real way and cares about what we do, that is incredibly hard to believe considering there is no evidence that any of this ever happened (while there is an enormous amount of evidence that the planets exist unless you want to be a total post-modernist bullshitter and claim that our power of perception is too flawed to take anything to be true).
Additionally, God is readily apparent to many people in the past. Apparently, we were much more holy (and not gullible or superstitious) 3000 years ago at a time when hardly anyone could read, and only at this time were we holy enough to bear witness to the only mass revelation of all time. This idea that God is inaccessible to us today because of how unholy and impure we are is not only casuistic (because it tries to explain something in an specious way, using unfalsifiable bullshit), but self loathing, that we are the scum of the earth compared to holy Chazal or the generation of Mt. Sinai.
Why does it matter if planets exist?
It matters if Santa Claus exists, because if he does, you’d better be nice! If not, why bother?
Who cares if god exists or not? The only reason anyone cares is because if god existed and if god wanted something from us, we might have to do what god wanted. Otherwise, the knowledge of god’s existence or lack thereof is almost entirely irrelevant.
Does anyone else think it’s unlikely that anyone is going to be convinced to change their belief in God based on a comment on a blog post?
Seriously some of these comments are ridiculous, using big words does not make you smart.
I’m afraid you may be right. It’s just sad that some of these people are acting so emotionally yet calling it rational.
The fact that a lot of these individuals resort to ad-hominem attacks instead of discussing the issues substantially highlights a pronounced irrationality and a deep-seated resistance to think about things honestly.
I really think everyone should read some A. J. Heschel – man who believed in tradition but rejected some aspects of the theology of orthodox judaism. It’s not all-or-nothing, my-derech-or-no-derech.
“It is customary to blame secular science and anti-religious philosophy for the eclipse of religion in modern society. It would be more honest to blame religion for its own defeats. Religion declined not because it was refuted, but because it became irrelevant, dull, oppressive, insipid. When faith is completely replaced by creed, worship by discipline, love by habit; when the crisis of today is ignored because of the splendor of the past; when faith becomes an heirloom rather than a living fountain; when religion speaks only in the name of authority rather than with the voice of compassion–its message becomes meaningless.”
Abraham Joshua Heschel (God in Search of Man: A Philosophy of Judaism)
thanks.
all of you are skipping the point, you cant prove G-d with doped up philosphy (allthough i personally love philosophy) it has no place in this discussion.
point in fact- science in itself is shaped and formed very much like religion. someone has an idea, that person expounds on that idea, then that idea becomes popular, then it is right no matter what. take sir isaac newtons ideas of gravity and how einstien signifigantly altered the traditional thoughts on it, and then proved it. science is 99 percent speculation, hope and will 1% actual fact,
i’d put those odds against the craziest religion out there. think of the sun, the scientists are sure and will speak of the sun as if they are sure, beyond a doubt, that the sun is made from the constant collision of hydogen atoms to form helium (think big H-bomb), though there is no way to test the sun, no one and no thing has been within a milion miles of it.
they don’t really have a f ing clue. so much of our world is decided on presumtion, assumption not on actual fact. no one really knows what happened 4 billion years ago, its bullshit, they speculate with conviction, but they have no real proof only the shadows of evidence that they turn toward their advantage.
dude they where sure pluto was a planet, until what like 3 years ago? please, and we trust them with how the universe was created? i would rather believe in the flying speggetti monster than to buy what nasa or anyother person has to say with regards to our universe.
Maybe you should start worshiping the sun then.
“point in fact- science in itself is shaped and formed very much like religion.
Science is nothing like religion. This is either born of ignorance, malice, or both.
“someone has an idea, that person expounds on that idea, then that idea becomes popular, then it is right no matter what.”
In religion, yes. In science, you subject the idea to intense scrutiny; you make predictions based on the idea, and then test the predictions; you continue to test more and more predictions of the theory until you have enough knowledge to defend it. Then you try your hardest to get it published in a critical peer-reviewed journal, and continue working to prove it unassailable.
You are correct in your assessment of real science.
However (as any scientist will tell you) what is “out there” that passes for science can often be BS.
Main case in point: Global warming ridiculousness.
In practically the first year of any program, phds are taught to: 1)never trust news articles and 2)to always see how research was performed and data was collected.
“someone has an idea, that person expounds on that idea, then that idea becomes popular, then it is right no matter what.”
Agreed though that this is kind of far-fetched.
Hesh. Help!
Time to invest in an unsubscribe button for any given topic. Once I get too many replies I’m no longer interested in reading about clogging my mailbox, it would be nice to be able to tune out of a particular discussion.
Thanks.
Finally someone says something I can agree with here! Really, all this fighting is quite useless, and while I’m sure it’s entertaining for some people, for the rest of us it’s just spam.
OK, I figured out that you can unsub from any discussion by clicking the appropriate link in the emails, something I never paid attention to before.
So, hesh… when are you putting up a Jews for Jesus post?
So Hesh… when are you putting up a Jews for Jesus post?
When he puts up a Lubavitch post.
This is enough over which to tear kriya…
My heart mourns for you, OTD.
I feel sadder for you than you do about me.
You’re only fooling yourself.
If there is one thing I’d like to tell the frum community, it’s this: THERE IS NOT A SHRED OF TRUTH TO ANY OF THE TRUTH CLAIMS IN YOUR RELIGION! GET OUT WHILE YOU STILL CAN!
And there you have the explanation for why people think OTDers are angry, typing in caps with exclamation points. Seriously though, why do you even bother with these arguments? Neither you nor those trying to convince you Judaism is good by telling you what a piece of crap you are have any leg to stand on. If you’re happy being OTD and you don’t like when people tell you they feel bad for you, why are you trying to do the same thing to them? Can’t we all just get along?
OTD, The caps will not help your cause. It only makes you look desperate. You can scream and whine all you want but as long as Jews follow the Torah you’ll never defeat us. Haha! You’ll just sink into oblivion like the millions of others who have tried.
>You clearly are very ignorant of the ~1000 of years of philosophy aimed at establishing proof for the existence of G-d.
Hmm, let’s see about that:
>Immanuel Kant,
Systematically tore apart Thomas Aquinas’ “proofs” for God (teleological, cosmological, ontological); decided that belief in God is an “antinomy”– something that cannot be proven one way or another; argued for God’s existence merely as a necessity for ethics.
>John Locke, Baruch Spinoza
Spinoza was unquestionably a pantheist, or an atheist, depending on whether or not you think there is a difference. That is the only debate about him. Period.
>Melebranche, Liebniz (inventor of calculus)
Proof of God? Leibniz struggled with God’s nature (e.g. goodness), but I am not familiar with any proofs for God of his. I could be mistaken, of course, but your track record does not make me hopeful.
>Kurt Godel,
From Wikipedia : “In August 1970, Gödel told Oskar Morgenstern that he was “satisfied” with the proof, but Morgenstern recorded in his diary entry for 29 August 1970 that Gödel would not publish because he was afraid that others might think “that he actually believes in God, whereas he is only engaged in a logical investigation (that is, in showing that such a proof with classical assumptions (completeness, etc.) correspondingly axiomatized, is possible).”
>Einstein,
Pantheist; believed in “philosopher’s God.”
>William of Ockham, Alvin Plantinga, Descartes
Descartes came up with one of the worst arguments for God’s existence ever created. It amounted to “I can conceive of God, so God must be real.”
> and hundreds of other mathematicians/philosophers/scientists until this day have all found sufficient reason and/or developed proofs for the existence of G-d.
And hundreds have come up for reasons not to believe in God. David Hume, Bertrand Russell, Rudolph Carnap, AJ Ayer, Daniel Dennett, and onwards…must I complete a list?
Oh yes, Leibniz contributes to the Ontological Proof, which Kant went on to dismiss. And otherwise, Leibniz sees God through the harmony of monads, the goofy mental elemental units of the universe he believed in. Yes, I’m sure Leibniz’ opinion on metaphysics is very credible, since he invented calculus after all.
Furthermore, the lengthy Locke quote you supply above rests first on the cosmological argument, which Hume and Kant both picked away.
Next, it relies on the argument that from objects without perception, perception could never arise; from an incogitative being, cognition could never arise; from inert matter, motion could never arise.
This seems to be primarily a failure of imagination, though, which was fixed by the idea of a man named Charles Darwin. We have pretty good ideas now how thinking things could arise from non-thinking things, etc. So, no more proof for Locke.
As G*3 noted, citing or quoting Locke doesn’t mean that much; it helps to evaluate how the argument has stood up.
Sorry, but it’s impossible to engage in honest debate someone who gets all of her/his information about philosophy from Wikipedia.
Kant developed his own proof for G-d’s existence (see the Ideal of Pure Reason)
It is clear to anyone who has ever read Spinoza’s Ethics that he knew of G-d’s existence.
Descartes has multiple arguments, none of which are as simplistic as what you have claimed he has argued
Einstein did believe in the philosopher’s G-d, and I’m not sure why you intimate that that doesn’t count as belief in G-d.
That’s cute, but unfortunately for you, I got only the one about Godel from Wikipedia; the rest are from reading the primary sources. Which if you had done, you would have no way to make some of your false claims.
-Kant clearly declares belief of God an antinomy.
-I don’t know what you mean by Spinoza “knew of God’s existence.” It’s clear to anyone who reads Ethics that Spinoza says that God=nature.
-Descartes’ primary argument, used to get himself out of his global doubt, is that there must be as much reality in the cause as in the effect. This is an awful argument. Just awful.
-The reason that the philosopher’s God is questionable is that it’s not clear what that actually means. Is it a deep-rooted respect or sense of sacredness for the universe? Great, but that’s not a metaphysical being.
Actually, I’d say it’s harder to engage with honest debate with someone who is dishonest about what different philosophers actually said.
If you don’t want to read the facts I cannot help you.
You clearly have never read (or have only read smatterings) of these philosophers, as you are butchering what they all have to say about important issues.
Yes, I clearly never read them, which is why I have refuted your false claims or else pointed out why the arguments you cite were severely flawed (a la Locke above). You are either lying, or ignorant–in which case you are lying about what you know. So either way, you are being dishonest, is the take-away. Pretending you don’t want to debate me is a poor cop-out. Anyone who wants to fact check can fact check.
Let’s let Kant speak for himself, though:
“In a word, for speculative reason these three propositions [free will, immortality of soul, existence of God] always remain transcendent…when regarded in themselves, they are endeavors of reason that are entirely futile and are even extremely difficult…Accordingly…their importance will properly have to concern only the practical.”
-Critique of Pure Reason, A792-799
Kant reduced the teleological argument to the cosmological, and the cosmological to the ontological, and then tore that apart. He went on to claim a practical need for belief in God for moral law. For you to claim that Kant proved God is, again, dishonest or ignorant, or both.
Descartes:
“I must consider whether there is anything in this idea [of God] that could not have originated from me. I understand by the name “God” a certain substance that is infinite, independent, supremely intelligent and supremely powerful…Indeed all these are such that, the more carefully I focus my attention on them, the less possible it seems they could have arisen from myself alone. Thus, from what has been said, I must conclude that God necessarily exists.”
-Third Meditation
Every college sophomore studying philosophy knows that this is how Descartes gets himself out of his doubt. You either do a great job faking it by dropping names, or else you’re just dishonest.
Not to forget Spinoza:
“However, I think I have shown quite clearly that from God’s supreme power or infinite nature an infinity of things in infinite ways–that is, everything–has necessarily flowed or is always following from that same necessity, just as from the nature of a triangle it follows from eternity to eternity that its three angles are equal to two right angles….”
“Things could not have been produced by God in any other way or in any other order than is the case.”
“Indeed, [men] hold it as certain that God himself directs everything to a fixed end…I shall demonstrate its falsity.”
If you want to claim that any of this is anything like an ordinary theistic concept of God, and list Spinoza among those who have “proven God” without differentiating (or mentioning the radical determinism that flows from this metaphysics), you are once more being unbelievably dishonest.
Who’s not reading the facts now, Andy?
That’s what I thought. I can’t imagine anything more chutzpadik than being wrong, and then just trying to undermine the credibility of the person who points that out.
Good job: you’re able to cut out snippets from vast texts of philosophers to suit whatever you think they *should* say.
in re kant: you are ignoring what he has to say in the ideal of pure reason (towards the end of the critique of pure reason) and in his writings on religion and rational theology (especially: religion within the limits of mere reason). pseudo-intellectuals love to quote parts of the critique of pure reason as “evidence” that Kant didn’t know of G-d’s existence while ignoring his positive account. While it is true that he objected to many of the arguments put forth, he advanced his own line of reasoning to ground his knowledge of G-d’s existence.
in re descartes: you can’t isolate a fraction of what he says in the third meditation from what he says in the fifth meditation and from the rest of what he says in the third meditation. as you have made evident, doing so makes Descartes look almost foolish. When the entire apparatus of the Cartesian framework is brought forth, the argument proves itself to be very resilient (at least on its own terms)
in re spinoza: though determinism might follow from his metaphysics, anyone familiar with spinoza’s work would know that he is a compatiblist, or (if you were familiar the philosophical literature) at least would know that determinism in general doesn’t entail lack of free will. In any cause, I’m not sure what you’re trying to show with that quote from spinoza. It is clear that he has justified belief in the existence of G-d, at least by virtue of the fact that he invokes the concept. I’m not claiming that Spinoza’s idea of G-d is “anything like an ordinary theistic concept of G-d” I’m not even sure what you mean by “the ordinary theistic concept.” If by that you mean the christian concept, than yes, you are right. But in the Jewish tradition I’m not sure how you would characterize the “concept of G-d” or if you would be able to do so at all. (as an aside, there are quite striking parallels between spinoza’s ontology and chasidic ontology).
A lot of this gets into the philosophy of language, and how exactly proper names (such as ‘G-d’) relate to the things they pick out in the world, and whether if person A has idea X in mind when he invokes the name while Person B has idea Z in mind when he invokes the name, whether they in fact are referring to the same thing. Most contemporary philosophers have assented to Hilary Putnam’s (who, by the way, just came out with an interesting book on Jewish philosophy) argument for the view that regardless of what internal ideas various subjects may have in mind when invoking a given name , they in fact refer to the very same thing; i.e. the meaning of the name remains the same. This ties into Kripke’s account of rigid designation. The example Putnam gives is ‘water’–now, the average educated person when thinking of ‘water’ intends ‘h2o’ and realizes this meaning. 1000 years ago, when people invoked ‘water’ they didn’t know that water=h2o and therefore had a different internal concept of water. yet, todays invoker of ‘water’ and the invoker of ‘water’ 500 years ago were both referencing the very same thing, despite having internalized the meaning differently. I would highly recommend reading Putnam’s original article, if you haven’t done so already, as he does a superb job explaining this. I would also recommend Kripke’s “Naming and Necessity” if you are familiar with modal logic.
By the way, the historical arguments for G-d’s existence which we have been discussing (a la Spinoza/Descartes/Kant etc.) are of course outdated in the sense that since their time philosophers have developed a more efficient and systematic formal logic to argue about things. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with formal logic, put if you’ve studied modal logic you would be aware that there are numerous proofs in modal logic for G-d’s existence which have been developed in recent years.
Even if God exists, you have all your work ahead of you to prove that this God interacted and continues to interact with humans in some way.
By the way, whatever Spinoza’s thoughts about God were, he was absolutely a heretic. He was stabbed and excommunicated because of it. He talked about things which don’t exist in Judaism like how revelation is based in bullshit, freedom of religion, and separation of church and state.
Have you read Moreh Nevuchim? The Rambam doesn’t prove that the Torah absolutely came from God. He just demonstrates through his creatio ex nihilo that it was possible. Oh yeah and a big part of his proof is based on geocentric, Ptolemaic astronomy.
I cannot wait until the origins of the universe become more clear and bullshit cosmological proofs will be discredited the same way Darwin’s theory destroyed the argument from design.
More? Countering your half-truths and irrelevancies is like trying to hold a door against a flash flood. You are an agenda-driven obfuscater of truth, sir, and a discredit to wherever you studied philosophy. I’m AWARE Kant believed in God, and had other arguments about religion and God. (When I studied Critique of Pure Reason, it was under a renown Kant scholar, so don’t try to pretend to me I don’t know what I’m talking about; it’s like pretending the other person passed gas when there are only two of you in the elevator.) The question isn’t whether he “knew of God” (whatever that means), but whether he had a proof of God, as you claimed. I quoted a succinct passage where he clearly claims that is impossible to do; anyone who wants can look up the reference in context. Oh, boy, what an exercise in quote-mining! If your point is simply that he believed in God anyway–which is not what you said–so what? I have read the Meditations many times, with commentaries, with scholars, etc, and I’m familiar with the other arguments for God. They do not make this one any more “resilient,” nor are they much better. To think Descartes proved God, you would have to close your eyes to all scholarship since him. It’s laughable. (First you claimed Descartes did not write what I claimed he did; now it’s, “the other arguments make this more resilient!” Please.) You once again show that you are a dishonest polemicist, not a philosopher, in claiming matter-of-factly that determinism does not entail a lack of free will, when that is one of the greatest debates ever to exist in philosophy. I happen to be a compatibilist of sorts, but you are covering up the truth to encourage your team. Moreover, Spinoza is known by all as by far the most radically deterministic of the rationalist philosophers, believing that things are free only in the sense that they flow from their own natures. This is not compatibilism in any ordinary sense; you couldn’t be more deterministic. Aside from that, he believed “God” is equivalent to the one substance of the universe which is equivalent to Nature, and which unfolds by necessity from its own nature. This is, again, black and white in Spinoza. Finally, I have ignored until now the fact that your list amounts to an argument from authority, not once discussing the actual merits of the “proofs” brought by those philosophers who did offer proofs for God. Leibniz was great, but I do not believe in the monadology; do you? Locke’s proof fails ever since Darwin, and one would have to have stuck their fingers in their ears and shouted for the last 150 years to think it’s still a “solid proof.” Descartes’ proofs fail because they were bad. Etc. You have, moreover, ignored all work in 20th century philosophy, including pragmatism, logical positivism, and ordinary language analysis, which dismissed the metaphysics of the previous several hundred years. When you quote Peirce, Ayer, Carnap, and Ryle, we can talk about Leibniz, Descartes, and Kant. In sum, you claim philosophers meant things directly counter to what they actually wrote, and call it quote-mining to show directly where you are wrong; you do not critically evaluate a single argument you cite; you ignore all relevant philosophical history since your claims, and opposition to them; and, as your only recourse, you insult me–someone who actually knows what he is talking about and can correct you, who has studied Kant with Kant scholars, modern philosophy with modern philosophy scholars, and so on. I urge anyone following this discussion to read up on these philosophers or take a class on them; it can only vindicate everything I have said. What does this make you, exactly?
More? Countering your half-truths and irrelevancies is like trying to hold a door against a flash flood. You are an agenda-driven obfuscater of truth, sir, and a discredit to wherever you studied philosophy.
I’m AWARE Kant believed in God, and had other arguments about religion and God. (When I studied Critique of Pure Reason, it was under a renown Kant scholar, so don’t try to pretend to me I don’t know what I’m talking about; it’s like pretending the other person passed gas when there are only two of you in the elevator.) The question isn’t whether he “knew of God” (whatever that means), but whether he had a proof of God, as you claimed. I quoted a succinct passage where he clearly claims that is impossible to do; anyone who wants can look up the reference in context. Oh, boy, what an exercise in quote-mining!
I have read the Meditations many times, with commentaries, with scholars, etc, and I’m familiar with the other arguments for God. They do not make this one any more “resilient,” nor are they much better. To think Descartes proved God, you would have to close your eyes to all scholarship since him. It’s laughable. (First you claimed Descartes did not write what I claimed he did; now it’s, “the other arguments make this more resilient!” Please.)
You once again show that you are a dishonest polemicist, not a philosopher, in claiming matter-of-factly that determinism does not entail a lack of free will, when that is one of the greatest debates ever to exist in philosophy. I happen to be a compatibilist of sorts, but you are covering up the truth to encourage your team. Moreover, Spinoza is known by all as by far the most radically deterministic of the rationalist philosophers, believing that things are free only in the sense that they flow from their own natures. This is not compatibilism in any ordinary sense; you couldn’t be more deterministic. Aside from that, he believed “God” is equivalent to the one substance of the universe which is equivalent to Nature, and which unfolds by necessity from its own nature. This is, again, black and white in Spinoza.
Finally, I have ignored until now the fact that your list amounts to an argument from authority, not once discussing the actual merits of the “proofs” brought by those philosophers who did offer proofs for God. Leibniz was great, but I do not believe in the monadology; do you? Locke’s proof fails ever since Darwin, and one would have to have stuck their fingers in their ears and shouted for the last 150 years to think it’s still a “solid proof.” Descartes’ proofs fail because they were bad. Etc.
I urge anyone following this discussion to read up on these philosophers or take a class on them; it can only vindicate everything I have said. There is nothing more I can do.
Your words are pure sophistry.
BOTH of you need to read these philosophers under the guidance of someone who knows what they’re talking about. Andy: Though you are correct that these philosophers endorsed the proposition “G-d Exists” their proofs were all very different, and you haven’t explicated them sufficiently. Off OG and JG: It seems like both of you are attempting to use quotes from these philosophers to prove your biased opinion. You should be ashamed.
BTW: As a Frum girl, philosophy has only strengthened my jewish beliefs
Sarah, I’m done on this thread, but the only thing I have tried to prove is the reality of what was said by which philosophers and their context in history, which is why I quoted them. I have propounded no opinions or beliefs whatsoever, actually, nor suggested what would be better or worse reasons to believe in anything. What I care about is simply the intellectual honesty of those who will mock others with self-assured misinformation. If it’s anywhere in the realm of intellectual honesty and/or respect, whatever anyone believes or suggests is fine with me.
I have taken 4 graduate level seminars on Kant and have read his major works multiple times in the original. If you want to question my honesty in presenting what he has to say, there is nothing I can do about it aside from urging you to read these philosophers with a more objective eye, rather than trying to fit bits and pieces of what they say into whatever you or your revered professors want them to say. For a particularly revealing look into Kant’s views on these matters, I would suggest you consult Kant’s “on the conflict of the faculties”
Same goes for Descartes. Although it is often overlooked, many of the best known criticisms of his argument were proposed by Descartes himself in the Meditations. He in turn responded to these objections — in length — though many contemporary readers do not read these sections of the meditations and cast off his argument as invalid or unsound without giving it more thought or at least reading the entirety of what he wrote. A major mistake many beginners in philosophy make is to read his proof without having first gotten a grip on his theory of perception, upon which parts of his proof are predicated. Divorcing his proof from the rest of his philosophy would be like cutting out small pieces of a large painting and then criticizing the painting for having holes in it. It’s a true embarrassment to wherever you “studied” philosophy to read these great minds with such an infantile eye.
Though you haven’t butchered Spinoza quite as badly, you’re insistence that his determinism entails lack of free will, again, is unfounded. While he did reject free will in the ordinary sense of the term, you are forgetting (or perhaps have overlooked) his entire positive account of freedom, just like you have overlooked Kant’s positive account of G-d’s existence. You are confusing the fact that his free will is not based on indeterminism with a wholesale rejection of freedom (another common mistake of novices in philosophy).
For Spinoza, man can attain freedom and self-determination by conforming his conscious desires to what he refers to as “true ideas”. Though this does not constitute freedom in the sense of choosing between alternatives, however it does constitute freedom in the sense that man has the capacity to redirect what happens out of necessity. Behaviors which follow from adequate ideas, for Spinoza, are free behaviors. Hence the famous quote “I place human freedom…in free necessity” Yes, for Spinoza all is “necessary” but it is a beginners error to mistake necessity for a lack of free will, as it is clear to anyone who thoroughly studies SPinoza, that there are in fact two sorts of necessity: free necessity and unfree necessity. In this sense, Spinoza was a true compatiblist (though unlike many contemporary compatiblists). There is much more to be said about this. This is a key feature of Spinoza’s account of freedom which you have thoroughly butchered.
I understand how you might think Darwin to pose a problem for Locke, but again this is based on a cursory reading of Locke’s proof…not unexpected based on your track record here.
Being that you seem incapable of understanding these historical arguments I suggest you perhaps look into the more contemporary modal proofs.
hi sara
i have read all your comments … you sound angry. want to share?
“All it really is, is slang for disregarding what the greates sages from over 200o years of Jewish history have outlined as the path by which Jews should follow. Hey, if you think you’re smarter than all those great people, you’re either an egomaniac or just plain ignorant.”
For well over a thousand years, people believed that the universe is made of four elements, and that people’s dispositions are controlled by humors–and that Aristotle’s work on this was definitive. Do we read Aristotle before deciding on this?
Descartes thought nerves are hollow tubes through which “animal spirits” flow. Do we dare to question him even though he is Descartes?! (Surely you have at least read what he wrote before questioning him!)
Oh man, here we go again. The last couple of people who I aimed my arguments at just seemed to suddenly decide to comment elsewhere.
Let me preface (again – it is actually quite tiring how I say the same thing over and over and every time one of you OTDers comment, you just prove my point by not even listening to what other people have to say): I am not trying to convert anyone to Judaism or admonish anyone for not following Judaism! Do whatever the hell you want to do – just MAN UP and admit its because you don’t give a crap and not because of pitiful questions.
If you grow up believing in something that has withstood the tests of time, has thousands of years of tradition to it, and has been studied (practically in its entirety) and commented upon by the greatest sages of each preceding generation – then yes – unless you yourself devote your life to understanding all of the intricacies and secrets, you would be an egomaniac to say that because of your few questions you no longer believe.
Your comparison to Descartes and his hollow nerves is quite lame. That has been disproved by actual specimens and every single scientists who ever devoted their lives to science. To compare to your wimpy example, basically you would have to tell me that every Jewish sage who devoted their lives to Judaism and its teachings decide that Judaism is a farce. As I said, quite a lame comparison.
It seems you are a philosopher, I am a scientist. Please don’t give me any of your philosophical BS – just a coherent argument.
I’m waiting Mr. Philosopher.
A simple apology would do.
Sigh. Seriously? Ok…
>I’m waiting Mr. Philosopher.
While I appreciate being called a philosopher, I am only secondarily a philosopher, and primarily a scientist.
>If you grow up believing in something that has withstood the tests of time
Undefinable and irrelevant to truth. What counts as having withstood the tests of time? You don’t like my Descartes example, but conveniently ignore the Aristotle one. Aristotle’s opinions withstood the test of time for over a milennium. So what? I’m not saying that the same applies to Judaism, per se, but that “withstood the tests of time” is a false flag here.
>and has been studied (practically in its entirety) and commented upon by the greatest sages of each preceding generation
Commented on within a certain set of premises. And there were books expounding how to do Aristotelian medicine, and Ptolemaic astronomy. So?
>unless you yourself devote your life to understanding all of the intricacies and secrets, you would be an egomaniac to say that because of your few questions you no longer believe.
No one said anything about “a few questions.” You made up that straw man construal.
Again, have you studied the ins and outs of Aristotelian physics, and read all the books on it? You claim you are a scientist; I assume, if you are employed, that you are not an Aristotelian scientist. How did you make that decision without reading all the scholarship from within a framework of Aristotelian argument?
>To compare to your wimpy example, basically you would have to tell me that every Jewish sage who devoted their lives to Judaism and its teachings decide that Judaism is a farce.
No, it would be the consensus of all people who think about it. The consensus of all Cartesians is irrelevant compared to the consensus of all scientists in general.
>Please don’t give me any of your philosophical BS – just a coherent argument.
An argument for what? Not to believe in OJ? Why on earth would I do that? I’m happy for anyone who happily believes in OJ and doesn’t bother people like me. Really. It makes me happy that you’re happy in your lifestyle and committed to your beliefs. Or do you mean an argument why I don’t need to believe in OJ because it was believed by Jewish sages for a couple thousand years?
Ok: – Christian sages have been expounding on the ins and outs of Christianity for two thousand years. Really. OJs always underestimate how vast Christian theology is until they read it. Have you read the New Testament, Augustine, Martin Luther, Calvin, etc? Of course not. That’s not how we make decisions. Same for Islam.
-Sages of any faith are writing within a certain set of premises. I don’t need to know all the details of the system to evaluate the premises.
-Your criterion for having the right to accept or reject a system of belief is practically impossible. By your criteria, we would have to have learned EVERYTHING about a system to discuss it intelligently. Aside from being unnecessary, it’s absolutely an impossible way to evaluate anything.
So you decided to come back and step up? Nice.
“Undefinable…. What counts as having withstood the tests of time”?
How about the fact that people have tried for thousands of years to eradicate Judaism and yet it still lives on?
“You don’t like my Descartes example, but conveniently ignore the Aristotle one.”
Firstly, I just didn’t feel it was necessary to address and disprove every one of your lame examples. Secondly, Aristotle based his scientific view of the humors on the technology available to him at that time. As technology progressed, it was clear that Aristotle was wrong. Science can and has changed – even what Chazal have said about physical attributes of the world can change (i.e. world being round). However, thoughts that have lasted for thousands of years do not change.
“Commented on within a certain set of premises.”
Yawn. You once again use another vague dismissal.
“And there were books expounding how to do Aristotelian medicine, and Ptolemaic astronomy. So”?
lol! Are you sure there are still books being written about the truth of Aristotelian medicine? I can only wonder where you got your degree from.
“No one said anything about “a few questions.” You made up that straw man construal.”
Oh, I’m sorry. 10 questions? 15? Please. Semantics.
“Again, have you studied the ins and outs of Aristotelian physics, and read all the books on it? You claim you are a scientist; I assume, if you are employed, that you are not an Aristotelian scientist. How did you make that decision without reading all the scholarship from within a framework of Aristotelian argument”?
Why in the world would I ever read Aristotle in order to be a scientist. I assume you realize that to get a science phd from an ivy league institution you do not have to study Aristotle.
“No, it would be the consensus of all people who think about it”.
Wrong again philosopher. I can think about something all I want, but unless I want to disprove it, I actually have to delve into it and read what has been written about it.
“The consensus of all Cartesians is irrelevant compared to the consensus of all scientists in general”.
Wtf does Cartesians have to do with anything?
I had wrote “Please don’t give me any of your philosophical BS – just a coherent argument”. To which you responded “An argument for what”?
Again you prove my point that OTDers in general do not listen to what other people have to say. Please kind sir why do you bother to reply to me if you do not even read what I had wrote. I’ll reiterate: My premise is that OTDers are mostly egotistical for thinking that their questions trumps every sage throughout two millennia. I have expounded on this in many comments. Please bring a valid (i.e. not one that I already disproved) argument (defined as a “process of reasoning”) to go against that.
“Ok: – Christian sages have been expounding on the ins and outs of Christianity for two thousand years. Really. OJs always underestimate how vast Christian theology is until they read it. Have you read the New Testament, Augustine, Martin Luther, Calvin, etc? Of course not. That’s not how we make decisions. Same for Islam.”
Its hilarious (but bordering on annoyance) how many times I have to say: I am not trying to prove Judaism or disprove Christianity! I am merely stating that OTDers are egotistical.
“-Your criterion for having the right to accept or reject a system of belief is practically impossible. By your criteria, we would have to have learned EVERYTHING about a system to. Aside from being unnecessary, it’s absolutely an impossible way to evaluate anything.”
Impossible? Why is it impossible? When Aristotle’s humor theory (which you love to quote) was disproven, the scientists did learn all the previous books that were written about science. They understood his theory and they disproved it. Any scientist today who wants to prove/disprove something about an atom, a formula, etc. knows EVERYTHING there is to know about the atom. Granted in science it is much easier as new research doesn’t add to the previous science but rather changes it. Hundreds of thousands of literary works regarding Judaism’s beliefs and the answers to many questions and how to understand and interact with G-d have been written, each one adding to the one before it. You write “discuss it intelligently.” If you want to discuss intelligently that’s fine, but not enough to disprove something. You also propose that “Aside from being unnecessary, it’s absolutely an impossible way to evaluate anything.” This just makes no sense.
And so to conclude in brief:
I maintain that anyone who goes OTD because of questions is egotistical. He/She must think they know everything there is to know about Judaism and that they know better than everyone before them. Go OTD all you want – just be straight man – have the balls to admit its because you’re just not interested in really trying to find answers – or even more plausible – you just don’t give a crap.
Oh – and also, unless you have something of substance to add, I will not be wasting anymore of my time responding to egotistical jerks who wont even read what I write before they respond.
The sages of the Talmud believed that lice spontaneously generate, that bad deeds cause disease and death, the sun revolves around the earth, and so forth.
Since we know all of these things to be false today and I assume you, as I would imagine, an intelligent person, probably do not believe these things, I say: how dare you sir have the audacity (or your word, egomania) to disagree with chazal.
I never said Chazal can never make mistakes. In fact that is what makes them human. However, you cannot claim that they were mistaken on Judaism when this is what they and all who came after them devoted their lives to.
So when can we disagree with Chazal? When Chazal state a fact that is physically proven to be wrong. But not regarding thoughts that our puny minds tell us they are wrong in.
I happen to agree with your concept though – Many Yeshivas teach that it is impossible for Chazal to have ever erred. When children/teenagers/adults find out that this is not true, it tends to elicit the question of “Hmmm. What else have my Rabbis lied to me about? What else are Chazal wrong in”? If only we would be taught from the beginning that Chazal were much wiser than us but still could have made mistakes I believe that many people would not go OTD (but then again, I once heard that this issue is addressed in Halachic literature and the concensus was against me – so what do I know)
This I believe is a major flaw in the “Yeshiva system.”
I’m glad you believe Chazal to be fallible in some regard.
I’m trying to figure out though, your point in general, because it eludes me. I doubt this is what you are getting at but it has something to do with you think that all or most OTDers become OTD because they are angry, that they do not know enough about Torah to make that kind of decision.
My claim is that you do not need to know that much Torah to be able to believe that it has no divine origin. You can go on and on about how meaningful a life Torah observance is and yada yada but at the end of the day, it is not a personal faith. It is a faith, a belief in an irrational doctrine (Matan Torah), that you MUST also believe other Jews must obey with severe theoretical punishments to those who choose to not follow the mitzvot. So don’t tell me that you do not care about whether or not Jews are religious. You MUST care. You must believe that I am bound by the mitzvot. Why do you think kiruv is all the rage nowadays?
My point is don’t assume OTD people are all angry at external, accidental factors that make them leave. By this, I mean factors that do not have to exist like corruption in the community, a bad relationship, and so forth. Rather, there are OTDers like myself who left due to the rational issues with Judaism. And by rational, I don’t just mean that Western philosophy doesn’t comport with Judaism but rather I mean that if you use your brain, which has a similar biological function to every other human brain, the harnessing of your intuition and thought will demonstrate that these beliefs are not based in 100% truth (and therefore completely and irrefutably binding) but are rather optional. And the fact that you have the option of believing this stuff (in the sense that it would be highly rational to not believe this stuff) counters one of the major, necessary, impossible-to-do-away-with tenets of Judaism, which is that the Torah is an everlasting, always binding document.
You call certain things irrational but it is wholly unclear why you do so. Certain historical events have occurred to the Jewish people which may be taken as evidence supporting the divine origins of the mesora. For the same reason you likely believe (and rationally so) that Napolean was at waterloo, Jews believe in Matan Torah. It is intellectual dishonest to cast this off as irrational, and question begging if you counter that this for some reason doesn’t count as evidence.
Not so fast. No modern day respectable historian would argue with established historical facts. Nor would ANY MODERN RESPECTABLE HISTORIAN CLAIM THAT MATAN TORAH HAPPENED AS A FACT. There is simply no extrabiblical evidence for it, and most of the evidence actually favors the view that there was no such thing (something they probably won’t teach you in yeshiva).
What you’re doing is basically the Kuzari Argument which has many flaws. One of them is that the Torah itself implies there was a time when all of Bnei Yisrael except one or two people FORGOT the Torah. So the claim that the tradition was passed on from father to son by the ENTIRE NATION since Sinai is a blatant falsehood. There was some significant breaks in the “chain.”
“And Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the scribe: ‘I have found the Book of the Torah in the Temple of the Lord. And he gave the book to Shaphan, who read it… Then Shaphan the scribe told the king: ‘Hilkiah the priest has given me a book.’ And Shaphan read it before the king. When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his garments… And the king gave this order to the whole people: ‘Celebrate the Passover to the Lord your G-d, as it is written in this Book of the Covenant.’ For such a Passover had never been observed since the days of the judges who judged Israel, nor throughout the days of the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah.” (II Kings 22:8-23:22)
See more here.
all of your objections are weak and have been discussed at length by torah scholars.
see http://ohr.edu/special/books/truth.pdf
Okay, give me a 50-page link. Brilliant.
Of course Torah scholars will have an answer. Every religion has an answer for every objection. That doesn’t mean that these are good objections. One of the main flaws of the Kuzari argument is that it assumes the Torah was given at one time and that the people at the time were inquisitive and skeptical.
I really love this God, really. He’s really funny and all the religions seem to attribute this trait to God. He gives people a book and then He goes away and leaves it up to us to pull stuff out of our tuchus. This God is so awesome that He leaves no evidence of His revelations and this is apparently a good thing and the way it should be.
You’re response is ridiculous. Selective evidence gathering, are we? “No modern day respectable historian” … respectable by who? by you? because they say what you want them to say?
Respectable by any standard. IOW, not Pinny Lipshits.
Find me one academic source that says Matan Torah is a fact.
OTd, i promised myself that i wouldnt waste any more time talking to you but this “question” is so stupid that i couldnt resist
1) the gemara explains the reason they were frightened was becasue it was open to the tochecha, which they took as an omen.
2) even if they literelly couldnt understand what was written, that wouldnt contradict saying that they knew about the torah’s existance. Could you imagine chilkiya saying guess what it syas: god revealed himself to our ancestors several hundred years ago, but i guess nobody told us so lets do whatever this book says.
would it work for you? something tells me it wouldnt
> i promised myself that i wouldnt waste any more time talking to you
Don’t do me any favors.
>Could you imagine chilkiya saying guess what it syas: god revealed himself to our ancestors several hundred years ago, but i guess nobody told us so lets do whatever this book says.
would it work for you? something tells me it wouldnt
You’re being deliberately obtuse here. This was thousands of years ago, before they had books, newspapers, electricity, etc etc. All they had was a little bit of farming and religion. So to make like they were such skeptical postmodernists who wouldn’t swallow lies wholesale is highly disingenuous.
Again, assuming the pesukim in Tanach are not lying, the Torah was taught to ALL of klal yisroel by a few priests at at least one point in history. It says they forgot how to keep Pesach and Sukkos etc until they were REMINDED! And this forgetting wasn’t for a day or two, it was over a period of many years. So AGAIN, the Kuzari argument fails miserably. And you’re left with faith in one or two scribes (like Ezra) instead of faith in the collective memory of an entire people, who again, FORGOT many protions of the Torah, if not all of it. Mass revelation my tuches.
Besides, if one or two people can be trusted on such important issues, why not believe in Mohammed? He claimed he spoke to God. Jesus even had a few witnesses, I believe. Judaism is superior again how?
I love doing favors!!
The pesukim dont say that they never heard of matan torah, nor that they forgot how to keep yomim tovim (it says “kepesach hazeh” or as you translated correctly “such a passover…”).
If you assume they werent bright, you dont even need the “question” from that incident. just say yohshua came and told the jews guess what when we were in the desert god revealed himself to our parents and gave us this book to keep, they not being skeptical postmodernists such as yourself , wouldve swallowed it whole. Im not the one being obtuse and assuming a whole generation was gullible.
anyway this all beside my point, as there are some decent ” questions” that can be asked, but all only once youve rejected god. and once youve rejected god who needs questions.
I dont have questions on jesus, mohamed nor the flying spageti monster because i just dont believe in them. Get off your high-horse and accept that your not believing in god has nothing to do with your so-called- questions.
>just say yohshua came and told the jews guess what when we were in the desert god revealed himself to our parents and gave us this book to keep
Why would I make up such a bubbamaisa? The Torah doesn’t say Yehoshua invented it. Yet there is plenty of room to believe, from the words of the Bible, that it was invented around 7th century B.C. And this is before you start with the Documentary Hypothesis, and 200 years of Biblical scholarship COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY IGNORED by every Orthodox Jew.
>anyway this all beside my point, as there are some decent ” questions” that can be asked, but all only once youve rejected god. and once youve rejected god who needs questions.
Also patronizing, condescending, and false. The Mishna says “lo habayshan lamed.” What’s wrong with questions? If they’re mechazek your emuna, gevaldig. If they make you go off the derech? Ma tov uma naim. What’s the problem? Also, many people have questions yet still identify as Orthodox, Orthoprax, conservadox, kvetchodox, conservative, reform, etc. I’ll go out on a limb here and say most are NOT atheists. Vus hakst du a kop?
>Get off your high-horse and accept that your not believing in god has nothing to do with your so-called- questions.
You’re right. It’s because there’s absolutely no reason to believe in that nonsense, and I prefer not to insult my intelligence, personally, by pretending to believe in self-evidently untrue hogwash.
Finally, thanks for agreeing that took a while but i figured after carefully explaining it to you you’d agree. All the best, enjoy olam hazeh
Life is the Derech.
You go off. You Die.
Bottom Line. End of story.
Everyday is something new and exciting.
Open your eyes. (physically, mentally, spiritually…etc.).
Someone once told me.
Take care of yourself physically, before you can take care of yourself spiritually.
It’s not all about “Fucking Up” or “Not Fucking Up”.
How could it be.
Lets face it we are all a bunch of “fuck up’s” no one person is doing it all right.
Treat everything, everyone, and every situation with Love, Respect, and Happiness.
LIVE AND LOVE LIFE.
G-D Does.
I Bless Everything and Everyone.
: )
Excellent piece. Very well written. Informative and entertaining.
But here’s where I disagree: if you could somehow plumb the depths of the hearts, souls, and minds of all those who have made the choice you (and I, for that matter) have made, you’d likely find that most of them DID choose to abandon frummkeit because they wanted to eat “shrimps”.
Or go to club on Friday. Or have a taste of that succulent, forbidden rennet…tempting as it is.
It’s not that the temptations of the outside world necessarily have such a strong pull, per se. It’s more that most of us don’t spend much time thinking about the fundamental bases of our faith. We are trained to be so bogged down worrying about minutiae, like how kosher the hechsher is and how pointy the lulav, that the spiritual core of the religion gets lost in the mix. When was the last time you heard a drasha about spirituality? When did you last go to shul and see the kehillah engaged in some pre-meditation prayer, or even a fervent discussion about the nature of God?
Truth be told, for me personally, I’m glad that stuff is not terribly central to contemporary Orthodox Judaism. I’m freaked out by it, and would have likely left the faith long before I did if yeshiva consisted of seances and wordless chanting. But the fact is, that stuff IS central to Judaism. Discussions of the nature of God, the oneness of God, incorporating spirituality into the every day…this stuff is a central component of traditional Judaism.
And really, even though I don’t believe in it myself, I truly think emphasis on spirituality is critical to the sustainment of religious practice. Because if all religion becomes is a series of “you must”, and “no you can’t”, without constant emphasis of the “why” behind it all, then, well, those glistening shrimps and bobbing bodies in the Friday night clubs start to look more and more appealing. Because the truth is, even though there are many glorious aspects of religious practice, whose benefit and joy is clearly palpable not just in an esoteric, olam-haba sense, but in the here and now (like Shabbos meals, the camraderie inherent in minyan, the comfort in ritual, etc.) let’s face it: being a religious Jew means you have to miss out on some of the things you may want to do very badly in life. No sex, no good food, lots of shuckling and mumbling…who needs it? What’s the point of devoting all that time and energy to a series of arcane rituals and restrictions when you don’t even know if there’s any point to what you’re doing? For religious practice to survive, there has to be an enormous emphasis on the theological and philosophical basis for all this ritual…’chizzuk’, as they might say in the yeshivishe velt. Without it – with emphasis solely on the ‘trees’, as it were, you definitely lose the forest.
This brings me, in a very long-winded way, to my point about your article. Which is disagreement with your basic point: while you (and I) may have come to the conclusion to abandon the minutiae of religious practice because of fundamental disagreements with existential tenets of faith, I don’t think that’s what drives most people who go “off the derech”, in adulthood or teenagehood. They/we/people are simply hit with an onslaught of temptations and things we’d love to do and consume from the outside world on a continual basis. We abide by this strict set of rules that puts an enormous onus on us and proscribes much of what we’d like to do, and initially one feels emboldened and invigorated and buoyed by the challenge. But ultimately, without continually reminding yourself of the “why” behind what you do, the abstention from what you want to do starts to become meaningless. When all you’re thinking about is what you can and cannot do on Shabbos, without contemplating the “why” behind it, it becomes a chore. And so, in that sense, I really think that’s why most people who leave the derech do so. It is because of the “temptations of shrimps”. They’re not thinking about the veracity of religion much one way or the other…they don’t when they practice, and they don’t when they leave the faith either. It’s just that eventually, the defenses wear down, the temptation to indulge becomes too great, and the relentless need to constantly think about doing this and not doing that becomes too wearying. Eventually, many of us who are not driven by spite, resentment or anger retain our cultural identity, incorporating those traditional aspects of practice that we enjoy (like having a festive meal with friends on Friday nights) and drop those that we find cumbersome and meaningless (like not opening the fridge door if you forgot to turn off the light before Shabbos.) Exactly the path that you and I have chosen for ourselves.
Give up the yeshiva for say…Dalton or St. Anne’s..and you are date-able k?
The Torah can be used for either positive or negative. You decide.
When the day comes that you will be fortunate enough to have children..you will have to make a mature decision as to how to have a consistent home for your children. Confusing messages are not good for your children ..so it is true that there will have to be a conscious, conscience decision made re consistency with their education , upbringing and the home. It will no longer be about you and your freedoms and pleasures.
Good luck to you..cool is not what it is all about.
keep an open mind and an open heart.
stay close