Good luck to you, Hyrax. Out of all the folks in this part of the Internet, I think your positions on things religious are most like my own.
Good luck with your search. Enjoy your break from blogging. We'll probably still be here when you get back.
You've been commenting for 3+ years, blogging for far less than that.
enjoy your break.
keep searching and you'll find what you're looking for, hope the time off makes things clearer... and if not, just have a good summer!
oh you're just copying XGH 
have a nice vacation!
>Anyways, my wife says I need to stop blogging. That if I stop blogging, I won't constantly think about about all this stuff. She might have a slight point. But nothing will change.
She's right. Take a break. Slowly you'll get back to more balanced life, where instead of check the blogs every 5 minutes, you'll check it once an hour.
Good luck.
"even if its not directly from God, the fact that we took it upon ourselves is still a reflection of his will."
This is not the "same ol'" Whoever told you that is clearly a person who has struggled with these issues and is a deep and thinking person. This is not an appologetic answer or a very common answer, it does put you into the context of jewish history and allows for a very open constant and continuing revelation of Gods will. After much searching, this approach works for me and could work for you too.
Like I said, it hasen't. But thanks.
If you believe that not all of the Torah's text was from Moses' time you are in the same company as some great rabbis of the past. There is even an oppinion brought up by Mark Shapiro that Moses wrote variant Torahs. What this reflects is that what we call the Torah and from the Torah works backwards. The Torah is not in heaven now.
Should have watched KOCE tonight, man that was interesting. (from a twisted, I can't believe they are trying to sucker us into giving money, kind of way)
> There is even an oppinion brought up by Mark Shapiro that Moses wrote variant Torahs.
What? DH?
No. DH is crap. I am talking of the variants that we know existed.
>There is even an oppinion brought up by Mark Shapiro that Moses wrote variant Torahs.
What does this have to do with anything? Im not talking about varient Torahs, Im talking about varients IN a single torah.
> DH is crap. I am talking of the variants that we know existed.
Variants that we know existed. Sounds like a variant of DH to me.
Baal DH hasn't been uncovered. I am referring to varaints in the Torahs through the ages.
">There is even an oppinion brought up by Mark Shapiro that Moses wrote variant Torahs.
What does this have to do with anything? Im not talking about varient Torahs, Im talking about varients IN a single torah.
Holy Hyrax"
It is the variants of the single Torah granting Mosaic authorship to them all.
We determine what is the Torah.
Now you will know the true power of The Dark Side...of blogging.
I know it seems bleak now but as a whole the enterprise is about to become alot more FUN for you.
HH,
Maybe keeping halacha shouldn't be all that complicated. Aside from the obvious things like killing and stealing, if you want to keep halacha then do it, if not, don't. Isn't that what everyone else does, except for the hareidim?
It's all about a trade off of interests. If your interest in keeping halacha outweighs other interests then you'll keep it. Otherwise you probably won't.
Wishing you lots of hotzloche!
Happy Break from Blogging! Come back soon!
Good luck with everything.
Good luck. Remember that as much as you are indendent minded you also are to an extent one of the sheep. Keep working on not on someone elses table.
It's a good idea. Remember, don't stop learning - and don't let other people decide what learning is for you!
You can check this out
http://jewishphilosopher.blogspo...of-
judaism.html
"If anyone has some advice for motivation to keeping halacha or some of it, I would love to hear it."
Halacha allows you to find the spiritual and the divine in everything you do. It beats meditation in terms of time spent and reward gained. Ontop of that, it has been found to be the best method towards self improvement (if you care about improving yourself at all) No other system has such a good track record for acheving change in the daily lives of the people who wish to change /improve.
how does shaving with a razor over electrical improve me?
Daganev,
oh you are soooo wrong!
it's probably buddhism or hinduism that's the best...i mean just look at the dalai lama and mahatma ghandi.
That's prejudiced nonesense and also how many Dalai Lamas or Ghandis do you get? They are from faiths that advocate withdrawel from the world as the great goal. Judaism produced Rav Moshe Feinstein and others who were saintly within the world.
How much did Feinstein and these "others" interacted with the world? (Other than answering shailot)
When they weren't out saving whales they interacted with people around them.
If you think all Rav Feinstein did was answer sheilot I suggest you actually do more reading and research. You are being satisfied qwith cliches.
Am I to surmise you only consider interaction the big things or do you consider them the small interactions that really determine your character? Rav Moshe Feinstein was from another time and place and he was more than a Posek. He was a real human being with relationships, stories and interactions. You say you read Onthemainline and yet you seem to fall for the Gadol isn't a human being trap.
"how does shaving with a razor over electrical improve me?"
This does imporve you because God is in the details. When you care about something you pay attention to detail. But clearly someone who would ask this question is not fully involved in daily halachic life, because you are loosing the forest for the trees. I suggest you spend some time immersing yourself in Jewish life, classes, the study of Halachah in particular and become part of the larger whole of Jewish life and then see if you still have these questions about the particulars.
>He was a real human being with relationships, stories and interactions.
I never said he wasn't. But this can also be said of the Dalai Lama and Gandhi.
>You say you read Onthemainline and yet you seem to fall for the Gadol isn't a human being trap.
Didn't say that either. You suggested that Feinstein was a saint because....
and therefore Gandhi and Lama are.....
Are you perhaps getting caught up in the minutia of halacha, thinking that since you dont accept that, you must not accept anything?
I had that problem for a while. I certainly do not accept or practice many of the kashrus rules in shulcan aruch. Nor do I worry about the details of muktzah, nidah harchakos, etc. These are clealy late rabinnic developments that I'm not intersted in keeping. You might feel the same.
But that doesnt mean I give up the big picture. I still keep shabbos and refrain from "malacha" as understood by the sages. I still keep yomtov. (Though the second day is obviously riddiculous; in life you must sometimes bow to convention, no matter how silly.)
Example: I still daven every day, I just dont worry about saying all the add ins, like the long tachnun, the extra pesuki dizimra, etc.
Example: One can pass things to a nidah wife, not move the beds apart, and basically do everythign normal, just dont engage in intercourse.
Point is, one can observe halacha without obsessing over it's details the way yeshivah bachurim do. There's no mitzvah to advertise that you do this. Again, life sometimes calls for prudence. But you can do it this way with no inner nagging of contradiction. I do.
Dont let mishna berurah orthodoxy take you away from leading a traditional Jewish lifestyle.
>Are you perhaps getting caught up in the minutia of halacha, thinking that since you dont accept that, you must not accept anything?
Forget about minutia. Why should I pray anything? Prayer is boring, repetative, meaningless (to me).
But you are right Moshe, I should not let minutia get in the way. The problem is, I feel I am fooling myself into keeping ANY halacha. Since I am not sure what is actually "sinatic" or just rabbinic (including tfillin), I have a hard time keeping or carrying for anything.
A good question is, if I would get a divorce, would I still keep kashrut and Shabbat?
You should! It's undeniable that this has been Jewish practice from the beginning of Judaisim. It would not be wise to abandon your heritage this way.
That said, you can lighten up on things that bother you. I know people who would throw away the whole thing because they dont want to wait 6 hours between meat and milk. Craziness! They should simply not wait, then. But it doesnt mean they should buy nonkosher meat. Same with davening. If youre not in the mood to daven maariv, then dont! Dont daven it begrudginly and angrily, only to think the whole time that this religioun is getting you down.
I undestand the point you make, that if you are not sure there ever was a Sinai to begin with, then the distinction between siniatic and rabbinic falls away, and if you dont keep the one, then there's no need to keep the latter. But I disagree with that. Even if you are not sure, it is still worthwhile keeping what we call the siniatic laws. These are really the identities of the Jew. Whether or not you eat bread without a hechsher isnt a big deal. But whether you go to work on Saturdays is.
I would make this point too: the world can be a strange place. So much of it is unexplained and mysterious. And the influence Jews have had on history is undeniable. So yeah, the DH and biblical criticism seems convincing. But maybe the Jewish memory has it right. Maybe, through some fantastic event, maybe they were divinely given a book that would change history forever (including through its progeny religions.) It is only in this century that the very idea of godly revelation sounds preposterous. For all of human history, it wasnt such a strange idea. It's possible that modern thinking is warped.
Given these possibilities, living in the way of our heritage is not so bad, and (if you can absorb my point about not worrying about shulchan aruch judaism) not so burdensome after all.
>Maybe, through some fantastic event, maybe they were divinely given a book that would change history forever.
If you go back to the post, you will see that I do believe in a revelation. That does not mean I believe that the torah we have today is what was given. Maybe 10% maybe 2%. I just don't know. But I do believe something was given. Therefore, I rack my brains trying to figure whether to keep halacha or not. What was given and what was not?
Also, I agree regarding your shulchan aruch statement. I guess my problem is also that my kids will be learning the minutia. What if they ask me why I don't do this or that? AND, the fact of the matter is, I DO want to take some more stuff on myself, like tfillin. BUT, I start thinking what the point is since I am not sure if this is very ancient, or simply something Ezra created.
"Didn't say that either. You suggested that Feinstein was a saint because....
and therefore Gandhi and Lama are.....
Holy Hyrax"
I don't know if they measure up to what I feel a saint is. I know that Rav Moshe Feinstein was a saint. He was sensitive and manifested it in the small things and they built up to the whole picture.
I'm certain he was. And he probably gave to his community what they needed. But I believe this can be said to the others as well.
Can you prove what was given or not by G-d? It is a matter of faith but if there was a revelation then it means G-d established Judaism and the rabbis in their day were the ones who represented Judaism. You can't give a law of any kind without their being the official interpreters. They have the authority. G-d gave the Torah to men not angels.
"I'm certain he was. And he probably gave to his community what they needed. But I believe this can be said to the others as well.
Holy Hyrax"
Perhaps but that doesn't mean every faith's idea of saintliness is the same.
Do you know Jewish sceptic's email address as I have responses to him but now only team members can post. He's the only team member. Please email me his email address if you have it. Thanks.
I really don't understand the relation of the issue with the authenticity of the Torah as we have it to the minutae of halacha.
Let's say that tommorow we find a complete sefer Torah from 1300 bce. It pretty much matches up to the masoretic text. Everyone is happy. celebrations erupt all over the orthodox Jewish world.
How would this change anything? Would it make it easier to "prove" that tephilin is deOrayta? would it make the laws of shchita obvious? Would it make davening less boring for you? 95% of all orthodox living is dependent on halacha which is NOT obvious in the text. The only solution for those who want a passionate Judaism is to take a theological approach that explains the divinity of a developing and addapting halacha. As long as you keep obsesing over the date of the
Torah and anachronisms, you will avoid dealing with the real underlying issues of modern life.
The DH is so loved by the skeptics since they believe that it is a cornerstone that - if they succeed in knocking it out - will cause the whole structure of Judaism to crumble. That betrays in them both a naivete regarding the foundations of traditional Judaism as well a misunderstanding of the true challenges of modern life.
HH,
as to why keep up halachic practice.
basically this related to how strong you believe in the value of judaism, the desirability of maintaining it and how upset you would be if your grandchildren are not jewish.
you know very well that there is no guarantee for anything in life but the probabilities that your grand or great-grand children will be jewish goes up expenontially if you maintain a reasonably full and consistent halachic lifestyle.
from one who doesn't believe in a divinely authored torah but holds judaism as very precious.
>I really don't understand the relation of the issue with the authenticity of the Torah as we have it to the minutae of halacha.
Good question. It's simple. I'm personally drained. All I do is think of the authenticity aspect that I just can't put myself into anything without thinking twice.
Chardal,
>The DH is so loved by the skeptics since they believe that it is a cornerstone that - if they succeed in knocking it out - will cause the whole structure of Judaism to crumble. That betrays in them both a naivete regarding the foundations of traditional Judaism as well a misunderstanding of the true challenges of modern life.
I think that you misunderstand skeptics. The DH is just the most probable theory of the Torah's compilation. The beliefs and practices of "Traditional Judaism" exist outside of the context of reality. It doesn't matter to most religionists if there claims are true or even probably true or even ridiculously insane. They believe it because they want to, out of loyalty, because they feel that faith is a virtue, that it gives context to their seemingly meaningless lives, and a million other reasons.
Skeptics are concerned about lining up their beliefs about the world with reality as best as humanly possible.
how does shaving with a razor over electrical improve me?
Holy Hyrax | Homepage | 07.02.08 - 7:50 pm | #
Daganev,
oh you are soooo wrong!
it's probably buddhism or hinduism that's the best...i mean just look at the dalai lama and mahatma ghandi.
someone | 07.02.08 - 10:21 pm | #
@holyHyrax: Only you can know and see the difference which is made between shaving eletric or with a straight blade. Its all going to depend on how you think and what you learn etc. However to not leave you with too pomo an answer, I can tell you how it improves me. Personally, it reminds me that I clip away at chesed instead of slicing it clear away for the sake of making a living and improving my relationship with people close to me. There are sacrifices we make towards what we could be doing for others to maintain the lives we live, and not cutting it clean away reminds me that such sacrifices can be made in a healthy way. Some feel that removing any chesed from this world is no good, and they don't shave at all.
@someone: Nietzche said that Judaism is the most affective moral code. A Buddhist monk said to a Jew from Israel, why search for silver when you allready have gold. The Dali lama asked the Lubuvetcher rebbe for advice . Many Jews enjoy the eastern religions because it makes them feel good without actually requiring any change in the person or in actions. The philosophy you hold of is great, but unless you can see concrete ways in which that philosophy is expressed, it really doesn't matter.
Skeptics are concerned about lining up their beliefs about the world with reality as best as humanly possible.
Freethinking Upstart | Homepage | 07.06.08 - 3:14 am | #
Then why don't they apply that same skepticism to art or culture? Why is it only religion that they are skeptical about?
I call b.s, true skeptics are people who as skeptical of scientists and media reports as they are of preachers and politicians. People who are as skeptical about their choice of music or aesthetics as they are of myths and legends of old.
"I think that you misunderstand skeptics. The DH is just the most probable theory of the Torah's compilation."
Oh come on. It's not even wrong. Which in physics is the same as saying it is less than not true. More than one name for a god existed amongst other peoples too. Elohim doesn't even mean specifically the Israelite one but just means the concept of G-d and it means gods. Like when it says Elohim Acheirim, other gods. It also is used for rulers and judges. Also repetitions are also in existence in other cultures literature. Apparent contradictions when not made out of pure cloth often was the failure to understand ancient ways of expressing oneself. At one time they used DH for all ancient writtings so that it was said about Homer that either he wrote or someone named Homer wrote it. It was abandoned for the other writings but kept for the Bible because of the accident that the West is so shaped by the Bible.
>I think that you misunderstand skeptics. The DH is just the most probable theory of the Torah's compilation.
I would like to see the mathamatical analysis that leads to this conclusion. Look, honest skeptics admit that the DH, like any other theory about something so far back with so little data is just full of so many subjective assumptions as to make any solid probability impossible. I don't buy that skeptics are just unbiassed objectively minded creatures that are just out for the truth. we are ALL full of agendas, biases, and subjective cognitive processes. The DH is used by skeptics to bang away at the certainty of believers. At times this can be good, since unexamined faith is not always a virtue. However, when DH becomes a missionary tool at the hands of skeptics, then excuse me if I doubt the sincerity of their motives.
>Skeptics are concerned about lining up their beliefs about the world with reality as best as humanly possible.
I don't buy this either. skeptics are people too. Not some objective machine. In fact, when it comes to the implications of their implicit philosophical assumptions, they are often more naive than simple believers. Just look at the various attempts at secular humanism as an ethical framework! All this in the bloodiest century of the planet (and we are of course expected to believe in the nobility of man).
No, correspondence to reality is just one layer of a deeply fascinating psychological structure which is the modern skeptic.
A believer is able to be objective. He can see what is faith and what is sheer reason. Skeptics like most if not all the skeptic bloggers we post comments on accept one received wisdom over another and unlike beleivers cannot admit that they are doing anything but using sheer reason.
That is skeptics who are like bloggers we usually encounter. I'd like to believe there are more reasonable ones out there as well.
To everything there is a season.
Chardal,
You misunderstood me if you think that I was arguing that skeptics are objective decision making machines.
But skepticism is about a solid commitment to those ideals. Much as faith in a tradition is about a commitment to that ideal. Believers don't follow shulchan aruch 100% and believe bemunah shelayma in the shelosh esreh ikkarim at all times but they make a solid commitment to try their dog goned best.
Humans are biased, but they can try to conquer that yetzer hara and be as critical and open minded about reality as their efforts allow.
The Torah as we have it today, as we have had for at least 2,500 years is NOT all from the time of Moses.
Welcome to the skeptic blogosphere, HH!
Most skeptics knowledge of DH is but a "copy & paste" trick.
I disagree. While some people like LNM become atheists without learning Torah, there are plenty (like me) who get there by learning.
I can't work, I can't live, I can't focus on anything. Anything, but religion that is
Try golf. It may help you relax.
Oh yeah, I forgot:
Good post!
Freethinking Upstart,
I am not claiming that skeptics do not have an overarching value of "lining up their beliefs about the world with reality as best as humanly possible."
What I am saying is that such an approach is not a initial axiom which can not be explained by other factors. I have noticed a psychological similarity among skeptics that suggests an undelying psyche which is simultaniously philosophically shallow and existentially insecure. There is a thrist for clarity even when the data will not allow it and a need to "win" empirical arguments.
many skeptics don't even realize that by defining truth as correspondence to reality, they are staking out a philosophical postion that is by no means established (this is what evanston Jew has tried to pound into their brains).
There are exceptions. one of my favorite skeptics was Big-S Skeptic but he is rarely active anymore. The reason I appreciated him was that he was able to remove himself philosophically from the normal skeptics drivle and discuss the true underlying issues. Unfortunatly, most of the skeptic drivle out there is simply a rehash of old polemics or and argument from the authority of academia. Frankly - its boring and stupid. It does not clarify a thing and is unlikely to do anything other than act as a support group for skeptics. Which I guess they need.
But in the end, I still believe that 99% of skeptics just have a psychological predisposition to be skeptical (and often times cynical) and that many of their life positions derive from this and not just their value of "lining up their beliefs about the world with reality as best as humanly possible." If fact, "lining up their beliefs" is a response to deeper psychological needs.
(by the way, you can see the lack of self awareness of the skeptics in that they will often write of the underlying bias and psychological needs of believers while being completely ignorant of their own biases and needs - I will not deny that many believers are philisophically shallow as well - however, can a skeptic ever admit that a believer has arived at their place through a sophisticated and solid philisophical approach that is simply different than their own? I doubt it - most of their own dogma is based on the axiom that religious people are either biased, not honest, or stupid)
>I disagree. While some people like LNM become atheists without learning Torah, there are plenty (like me) who get there by learning.
Of course you learn. Everyone learns. But I believe most people come into it by means of first agreeing with the academic consensus (we won't name any names)and then learning that which is already agreed upon. Then they merely just "copy & paste" that info back into their posts. No original thought, no original study. I just feel like its a self preserving system.
Maybe I need a new job as a caddie
Chardal,
Call me biased. Post modernism is lame!
Epistemic angst is bad for you.
evanstonjew is a very nice, intelligent person.
There are objective truths. We can figure them out. The scientific method and skepticism are the best ways to do that. Those are my "tenets of faith."
So please excuse me while I try to learn about reality.
Don't give up on knowledge just because it stands on an uncertain epistemological ground. Have someone pinch the underside of your arm, look at the stars, or go to a science museum. Notice the house you live in, the computer you are typing on, and the education that you've been afforded.
"Chardal,
You misunderstood me if you think that I was arguing that skeptics are objective decision making machines.
But skepticism is about a solid commitment to those ideals. Much as faith in a tradition is about a commitment to that ideal. Believers don't follow shulchan aruch 100% and believe bemunah shelayma in the shelosh esreh ikkarim at all times but they make a solid commitment to try their dog goned best.
Humans are biased, but they can try to conquer that yetzer hara and be as critical and open minded about reality as their efforts allow.
Freethinking Upstart"
Oh how openminded are you? You have traditionally tried to shut down your intellectual opposition. Further a commitment to a particular side does not mean a lack of objectivity. You can be fully aware of why you are endorsing one side over the other. You do seem though to have lifted banning on your site unless my IP changed without me realizing it.
"There are objective truths. We can figure them out. The scientific method and skepticism are the best ways to do that. Those are my "tenets of faith."
So please excuse me while I try to learn about reality.
Don't give up on knowledge just because it stands on an uncertain epistemological ground. Have someone pinch the underside of your arm, look at the stars, or go to a science museum. Notice the house you live in, the computer you are typing on, and the education that you've been afforded.
Freethinking Upstart | Homepage | 07.07.08 - 11:59 am | # "
I'm just curious. Have you ever gone to an art musuem and enjoyed the art? Ever enjoyed music? Admired a piece of craftsmanship? Have you ever partaken of "high culture"?
Are these thing which you have been able to better understand by applying the scientific method and skepticism?
This is not a rhetorical question, this is real curisosity. (I know some people who would answer no to the questions of the first paragraph and yes to the second)
>Are these thing which you have been able to better understand by applying the scientific method and skepticism?
Does he need to? Does a piece of art mandate a belief in XYZ or that ABC in history happened? Although if you found a portrait of Washington holding a slurpee and the museum says it was painted in the 19th century, then yes, I would hope they would use some skepticism.
"Does he need to?"
If he is trying to decipher truth, then yes.
A portrait is not a likeness. The moment an emotion or fact is transformed into a photograph it is no longer a fact but an opinion. There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph. All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth.
Richard Avedon Quotes - Photographers
True art takes note not merely of form but also of what lies behind.
Mahatma Gandhi Quotes - Motivational
Truth and reality in art do not arise until you no longer understand what you are doing and are capable of but nevertheless sense a power that grows in proportion to your resistance.
Henri Matisse Quotes - Artists
"Art is the lie that tells the truth."
-- Pablo Picasso
I think you get the point.
When you watch a movie, do you apply skepticism and the scientific method to become moved by it and learn a life lesson? Or to have a life lesson affirmed?
No, i don't get your point. Why do you need to apply skepticism toward emotions or a good feeling one gets when interpreting music? Are these the same as historical truths? I mean, i go back to the example. If an artist testified that the portrait of Washington was historically accurate i WOULD say one needs to be skeptical. But if the artist simply wanted to convey a message, then there is no need of skepticism since the message is open to subjective opinion.
" No, i don't get your point. Why do you need to apply skepticism toward emotions or a good feeling one gets when interpreting music? "
Those quotes I brought were NOT talking about "good feelings" and subjective emotions. Those quotes I brought were talking about Truth with a capital T, and about Reality, the world we live in. Those quotes are about : " about lining up their beliefs about the world with reality as best as humanly possible."
The Mona Lisa is a painting that taught us the Truth, that beauty is not about symatry or plastic faces. Its about the smirk, the personality, the eyes, and the imperfections.
The portrait of Henry VIII taught us the Truth that Kings are not infallible and that they are just as human as the rest of us.
The Modona and Child taught us the Truth about the connection between innocence and naivete and reminds us that even in the throes of war and chaos we are all just innocent babes.
DeChamp's toilet and Andy Warhol's cans of Cambell soup taught us the Truth that we are all artists and its not who makes the thing but rather who thinks up the thing that is important.
These are Truths that have perculated into Western Culture and society, because of these works of art. (Historians claims, not mine) Do the skeptics apply the scientific method and skepticism to make sure that these ideas come from legitimate sources? That these are the correct impacts of which the art has on us? That these impacts are correct?
And thats just the fine arts. Many people's sense of good and evil comes from Western Movies, or Star wars. (Or rather we can learn what our society believes is good or evil from these movies)
What do you think it is that Universities spend time studying when they have majors in the arts? Do you think any of these art courses use the scientific method to reach conclusions?
>The Mona Lisa is a painting that taught us the Truth, that beauty is not about symatry or plastic faces. Its about the smirk, the personality, the eyes, and the imperfections.
Irrelevant to any discussion we ever have cause in the end, that statement is all subjective. We discuss historical truth. Did X happen or did Y happen? Thats it.
":Irrelevant to any discussion we ever have cause in the end, that statement is all subjective. We discuss historical truth. Did X happen or did Y happen? Thats it.
Holy Hyrax | Homepage | 07.07.08 - 5:56 pm | # "
That might be your position, but others are saying that skeptics are out for truth, so that thier beliefs allign with reality. Who the Bleep cares about historical truth or not?
Do you care that July 4th isn't the day that America became independant of England? How at all does that affect your life? Are you going to stop watching fireworks now or have a bbq because we are all living a great big lie?
>That might be your position, but others are saying that skeptics are out for truth, so that thier beliefs allign with reality. Who the Bleep cares about historical truth or not?
Oh please. The skeptics here are after historical truth and yes MANY people actually care about that (shock).
>Do you care that July 4th isn't the day that America became independant of England? How at all does that affect your life? Are you going to stop watching fireworks now or have a bbq because we are all living a great big lie?
Ridiculous analagoy. Its the day WE declared our independence and, B'H it worked. So we celebrate that day as opposed to the day the british surrendered. But so what. We have a document that states XYZ happened and BECAUSE XYZ happen you have to do certain things. So, skeptics here would like to know if those things happened or not.
Incase you don't know what I'm talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ind...(United_States)
"Ridiculous analagoy. Its the day WE declared our independence and, B'H it worked. "
No, its not. That would be July 2nd.
"Oh please. The skeptics here are after historical truth and yes MANY people actually care about that (shock).
"
The existance of god has nothing to do with Historical truth or not.
Im not talking about God. Like I said in the comment, we talk about a certain document called a Torah.
I'm curious, if now that you know that we actually declared independance from England on July 2nd if that is going to affect the way you enjoy July 4th. Or the fact that the document wasn't signed untill July 19th, and August 2nd.
Or the fact that all these things were up for grabs until the bill of rights were actually accepted in 1791.
Does any of those contradictions and discrepancies affect the fact that we celebrate July 4th 1776 as our nations birthday? Shouldn't we really be celebrating the end of the Civil war as our nation's birthday?
So by your questioning and analogy, I should understand you as follows:
I'm curious, if now that you know that we actually received the Torah from a redactor if that is going to affect the way you enjoy Pesach, Shavuot, Tfillin, Kashrut etc?
I'm not even sure what the whole point of any of this is. So because a skeptic is skeptical about torah that means he now has to go through the entire Encyclopedia and look up EVERY documented incident and question it's authenticity?
And if doesn't, then he is wrong to question the Torah's?
So its all or nothing?
"I'm curious, if now that you know that we actually received the Torah from a redactor if that is going to affect the way you enjoy Pesach, Shavuot, Tfillin, Kashrut etc?
Holy Hyrax | Homepage | 07.07.08 - 6:43 pm | # "
Sure.
"I'm not even sure what the whole point of any of this is. So because a skeptic is skeptical about torah that means he now has to go through the entire Encyclopedia and look up EVERY documented incident and question it's authenticity?
And if doesn't, then he is wrong to question the Torah's?
"
Whats so special about the Torah that it deserves a skepticism that nothing else does?
Growing up, I took the position that nothing we say happened ever happened the way we say it happened, if it even happened at all. I took this position based on my own memory which rarely matched up with photographs of events. If you are going to take the approach that you can only ever know reality based on the scientific method and skepticism, then I don't see how you can say that there is any other way of doing it. How can you NOT do it for everything? Are you trying to suggest that there is some way of knowing things that doesn't rely on the scientific process and skepticism?
" "I'm curious, if now that you know that we actually received the Torah from a redactor if that is going to affect the way you enjoy Pesach, Shavuot, Tfillin, Kashrut etc?
Holy Hyrax | Homepage | 07.07.08 - 6:43 pm | # "
Sure.
"
That might be missunderstood.
What I mean was:
Sure, thats a valid way to understand my question.
">That might be your position, but others are saying that skeptics are out for truth, so that thier beliefs allign with reality. Who the Bleep cares about historical truth or not?
Oh please. The skeptics here are after historical truth and yes MANY people actually care about that (shock)."
You obviously don't mean the sheep.
>Sure, thats a valid way to understand my question.
Good, so then I am sure you know the answer to it then.
>Whats so special about the Torah that it deserves a skepticism that nothing else does?
I'm not going to be pulled into this silly argument. I think you can figure this out on your own. This is how you get into tangent issues.
>You obviously don't mean the sheep.
Everyone
How do the sheep that you spoke of really care about historical truth as opposed history their way.
i think you misunderstood what I mean't be sheep. Go back and read the post
"Good, so then I am sure you know the answer to it then."
If you are making an analogy and comparing the two questions then no I don't know you answer it.
Normally when one makes such analogies they answer the question the same way. Either yes or no.
In this case however, I suspect that people will celebrate the 4th of July the same way, whether they know that its actually July 2nd we should be celebrating (as John Adams wrote to his wife), however when they feel there is a redactor they won't celebrate pesach the same way.
So are you making the analogy or not?
And this isn't as much of a tangent as you think it is.
>So are you making the analogy or not?
I was asking if YOU were making an analogy. Or else what the hell is the point of all these historical questions you are asking, if not to compare?
And yes, you are breaking into tangents. Asking whats so special about Torah???????????????????????????????????????????
Come on. Do we really need to get into that topic for you to simply understand skeptics?
"Come on. Do we really need to get into that topic for you to simply understand skeptics?
Holy Hyrax | Homepage | 07.07.08 - 7:34 pm | # "
Its really an issue of skeptics understanding themselves.
LOL
This reminds me of an argument I was having with my wife the other day. Eventually, she said to me that I need to recognize that other people can't just "adjust their thinking" and take on a new attitude about something. She also mentioned to me that I shouldn't assume that other people know why they think what they think.
>Who the Bleep cares about historical truth or not?
I the bleep do.
>Do you care that July 4th isn't the day that America became independant of England?
That's the most ridiculous thing you've ever said and you've said a lot of ridiculous things.
July 4th doesn't ask that I fast all day. July 4th doesn't demand that I don't eat bread for seven days. July 4th doesn't demand that I walk to shul in the pouring rain because it's Shabbos. July 4th doesn't ask me to go to shul three times a day. July 4th doesn't even insist you BBQ.
">Who the Bleep cares about historical truth or not?
I the bleep do."
No you don't, not at the expense of believing everything you think your side says. You have no right to talk about ridiculous statements.
RG,
Did you ever read Don Quixote?
No, why? What does this have to do with Baal?
One silver lining, HH. If you're looking for motivation for staying somewhat halakhic, I think you've already found it. If you're bothering to write a blog about Torah, dream about it, etc., then it's already infected you. It's inside you. And it will always be that way.
As for the job, yeah, caddying might be better than what it sounds like you are doing right now!
>Call me biased. Post modernism is lame!<
You do realize that this is a somewhat pathetic response to a pretty sofisticated intelectual movement, right? skeptics, at one point or another, have to wake up and realize that while they have been fighting against the "darkness of religious thought," that the most mainstream and inteligent members of the secular world have been undermining the very philosophical underpinnings of their arguments.
>Epistemic angst is bad for you.
and for those who trully face reality - it is unavoidable.
>evanstonjew is a very nice, intelligent person.
I agree
>There are objective truths.
I agree
>We can figure them out.
Um no. We can fit their phenomena into our categories. which is of course very important - I agree.
>The scientific method and skepticism are the best ways to do that.
In some areas you are correct. In others, I believe this leads to at best a cold empty existance and at worst societal and psychological disaster.
>Those are my "tenets of faith."
At least you admit to what it is. Now if you would justify them philosophically. 
>So please excuse me while I try to learn about reality.
You are hereby excused. I like learning about reality as well.
>Don't give up on knowledge just because it stands on an uncertain epistemological ground.
Do you have a better reason to give up on knowledge? There are parts of man which see beauty in mystery, subtlety, ambiguity. Should we give up on that part of ourselves? I say not! (think the two Adams of Lonely man of Faith)
>Have someone pinch the underside of your arm, look at the stars, or go to a science museum. Notice the house you live in, the computer you are typing on, and the education that you've been afforded.<
Please don't be condescending. It's not that I am unaware of the arguments. heck, I would even agree that if I was a robot (or interested in being one), they would be attractive! However, I am a more complicated being than that. I have values that often compete. I have no delusions of omniscience and recognize that somethings I will never know - nor even get any clarity on. I understand the power structures that affect my life as well as my own internal symbolic system which I use to interface with that life. And within all that there is a part of me that is interested in science, history and all. However, that part is not "King of the castle." Sometimes it has to take a back seat to more pressing concerns. (and no, I am not speaking of some sort of utilitarianism but rather that in order to be free/aware/enlightened/sanctified or what ever other word you wish to use - a person must have a more complex approach to philosophy and existance than "science can build airplanes - I guess it can run the rest of my life")
>July 4th doesn't ask that I fast all day. July 4th doesn't demand that I don't eat bread for seven days. July 4th doesn't demand that I walk to shul in the pouring rain because it's Shabbos. July 4th doesn't ask me to go to shul three times a day. July 4th doesn't even insist you BBQ.<
Are you TRYING to prove R' Elchanan Wasserman correct?
Hyrax, I hope it doesn't sound too bold if I mention that my blog includes some pretty cool ideas. Just by the way.
>You do realize that this is a somewhat pathetic response to a pretty sofisticated intelectual movement, right?
I'm sure that Modern Day Christianity is a pretty sophisticated intellectual movement. Christianity is lame. There I go again, writing off sophistication like it's nonsense.
You might think that I have a digital childish mind (a la Daganev)but I don't have time to go through every sophisticated intellectual movement to find out that it's bunk. I'm a skeptic which means that I'll tentatively believe things based on the evidence I've seen. The evidence I've seen for Post Modernism is really bad. It reminds me of the greeks trying to figure out life from the shape of their toes to the stars in the sky using philosophy. I don't believe that life, that reality needs a philosophical underpinning. It keeps on going with or without it.
>the most mainstream and inteligent members of the secular world have been undermining the very philosophical underpinnings of their arguments.
Suddenly seculars have credence? But the scholars of the DH... NO WAY!
Anyhow, Francis Collins was really smart and he's still delusional in regards to religion. Smart and mainstream people don't define reality.
>and for those who trully face reality - it is unavoidable.
No true reality-facer fallacy.
>In others, I believe this leads to at best a cold empty existance and at worst societal and psychological disaster.
Daganev was asking earlier about skepticism and art. Are you saying the same thing? Come on! Are you people serious?
There's reality and then there's subjective experiences... for example in art, music, literature, etc. I don't analyze Led Zeppelin when I'm rockin hard down the road. Same for when I gaze at a Van Gogh or read Lord of the Rings. These are all illusions that tickle my fancy. I love it... It's part of being human.
>I say not!
I agree. Science and skepticism are all about those things. The more you know, the more you know you don't know everything. When a child looks up at the stars he thinks "Wow, that's cool." But when an astro physicist looks up he can have such a deeper sense of amazement, of mysterious rapture, of curiosity to try to understand more and more about the starry heavens above.
>I guess it can run the rest of my life
Ick! When did Science because a megalomaniacal tyrannical God? I don't know of this science.
I think you have bad impressions of science. Science and Skepticism are the best ways to learn about objective reality, about the universe. But they are just tools. Happiness, love, joy, wonder, the good life... that's what makes life worth living.
">You do realize that this is a somewhat pathetic response to a pretty sofisticated intelectual movement, right?
I'm sure that Modern Day Christianity is a pretty sophisticated intellectual movement. Christianity is lame. There I go again, writing off sophistication like it's nonsense."
There is something arrogant about dealing with complex issues by using dismissive one liners.
"I don't believe that life, that reality needs a philosophical underpinning. It keeps on going with or without it."
And life is?
"Suddenly seculars have credence? But the scholars of the DH... NO WAY!"
Yep because DH is crap. It was tried on everything else and was finally dismissed. Because the West is Christian they kept DH for the Bible but not Homer. It's just random historical nonsense. Further you haven't addressed the challenge given that "the most mainstream and inteligent members of the secular world" have "been undermining the very philosophical underpinnings of their arguments." He wasn't arguing against the seculars. He was arguing against the thought of some of them.
"Anyhow, Francis Collins was really smart and he's still delusional in regards to religion. Smart and mainstream people don't define reality."
Well that puts you out of the XGH team.
"Science and Skepticism are the best ways to learn about objective reality,"
Science doesn't say that reality really exists the way we perceive it. That question is for philosophy. I choose to believe in the objectivity of reality.
"I don't believe that life, that reality needs a philosophical underpinning. It keeps on going with or without it."
And life is? And reality is?
>I'm sure that Modern Day Christianity is a pretty sophisticated intellectual movement.
Some forms are.
>Christianity is lame.
you know throwing insults in every direction that does not accept your questionable assertions is not debate (nor is it mature)
>You might think that I have a digital childish mind (a la Daganev)but I don't have time to go through every sophisticated intellectual movement to find out that it's bunk. <
You could start by going through the intellectual underpinnings of your own assumptions and biases.
>The evidence I've seen for Post Modernism is really bad. <
You are bascially saying "post modernism is not validated by my own empirical axioms (which I have no need to justify) so I will dismiss it based on the fact that it is not empiricism." talk about circular!
>I don't believe that life, that reality needs a philosophical underpinning.<
Life and reality are not the same thing. Maybe reality does not need philosophical underpinnings, but human life sure does. And they exist even if you are not concious of them or you take them for granted. This is true for believers and skeptics.
>Anyhow, Francis Collins was really smart and he's still delusional in regards to religion.<
You are being circular again. You believe anyone who believes in religion is delusional. Again, you have to try and break out of your bubble.
>No true reality-facer fallacy.
its really not. maybe I used the wrong language. However, things are never as simple as the skeptics would like. Life is complicated and so is reality and our existance. Its not something you can dismiss (well, you can, but then you come out sounding every bit as childish as most of the religious people you can't stand)
>Daganev was asking earlier about skepticism and art. Are you saying the same thing? Come on! Are you people serious?
There's reality and then there's subjective experiences... for example in art, music, literature, etc. I don't analyze Led Zeppelin when I'm rockin hard down the road. Same for when I gaze at a Van Gogh or read Lord of the Rings. These are all illusions that tickle my fancy. I love it... It's part of being human. <
I have no idea where this came from. I was not talking about art but rather about approaches to life/politics/ethics that I believe can come out of the skeptical mindset. I just don't buy the skeptical line that "communist russia was just another religion - they were not true skeptics" I think that Marx and modern skeptics share the same underlying materialism and shallowness in their philosophies and the next great social experiment can be just as disasterous as that one.
>Ick! When did Science because a megalomaniacal tyrannical God? I don't know of this science. <
It's not science but rather the materialistic implicit philosophies that skeptics who utilize science try to force on society and individuals. There are of course very religious scientists (e
last bit got cut off
don't have time to reproduce it.
>"Suddenly seculars have credence? But the scholars of the DH... NO WAY!"
I think you have me confused with someone else. I am not a fan of DH, but I am not dismissive of its scholars either.
Good arguments have credence. Post modern though, if it is to be rejected, deserves better treatment than what you give it.
You can say "why? I don't care! live and let live" but then of course, you have to be as tollerant of relgious people's right to ignore your arguments.
Either you give a philosophical argument as to why postModernism is unecessary and plain vanilla modernism (in whatever form you choose) was ok and needed no review.
OR
You can make an appeal to the "experts." Unfortunatly, most experts in philosophy have a high level of post-modernist tendencies!
>you know throwing insults in every direction that does not accept your questionable assertions is not debate (nor is it mature)
Sure it's immature and it certainly isn't debate. I don't have the time or the interest to seriously debunk every sophisticated delusional theory. Do you seriously consider every theory out there? You don't and you couldn't. People think up crack pot ideas ALL THE TIME. Some things are just simply delusional. Other things are simply lame. Read this.
>You could start by going through the intellectual underpinnings of your own assumptions and biases.
I did and I do. But to every thing there is a season and well enough is enough.
>You are bascially saying...
Huh?
>However, things are never as simple as the skeptics would like...
Who are these skeptics you are talking about? They sound like a bunch of looney bins.
>Life is complicated and so is reality and our existance. Its not something you can dismiss...
Agreed.
>Maybe reality does not need philosophical underpinnings, but human life sure does. And they exist even if you are not concious of them or you take them for granted. This is true for believers and skeptics.
Sorry but human life (in the scientific sense) doesn't need philosophical underpinnings. It's part of reality. Philosophy needs reality... not vice versa. If you mean the good life, subjective experience etc. I still disagree. It doesn't need philosophy. It's just another tool.
>I think that Marx and modern skeptics share the same underlying materialism and shallowness in their philosophies and the next great social experiment can be just as disasterous as that one.
Yeah and peace loving orthodox Jews and Radical Islam and the Crusaders were all supernatural monotheists that believe that the Bible was a great book. Hitler and the Dalai Lama believe the earth is round and orbits the sun. Are you seriously trying to make this kind of comparison?
Read a book about skepticism. Try "How we know what isn't so" by Thomas Gilovich, "The Demon Haunted World; Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan. In short skepticism is about critical thought and open mindedness, about beliefs based on evidence. It's about matching your beliefs to reality not reality to your beliefs.
Materialism and shallowness should not be lumped together like that unless you consider the universe and all it's mysteries shallow which would be a horrible abuse of the word.
>It's not science but rather the materialistic implicit philosophies that skeptics who utilize science try to force on society and individuals. There are of course very religious scientists
Force on society and individuals? Ugh! Where do you meet these freaks?
>Post modern though, if it is to be rejected, deserves better treatment than what you give it.
You're gonna have to prove that to me. I don't buy it.
>but then of course, you ha
>but then of course, you have to be as tollerant of relgious people's right to ignore your arguments.
I'm starting to think of you as a conspiracy theorist. You paint such a miserable picture of skeptics.
I'm tolerant of everyone that's tolerant. But there is a HUGE difference between being tolerant of people and being tolerant of delusions, nonsense and other bunk ideas.
>Either you give a philosophical argument as to why postModernism is unecessary and plain vanilla modernism (in whatever form you choose) was ok and needed no review.
OR
You can make an appeal to the "experts." Unfortunatly, most experts in philosophy have a high level of post-modernist tendencies!<
False dichotomy!
I can say that PoMo is nonsense until someone proves me wrong and read philosophers that actually make sense... like Daniel Dennet.
Anyhow, now that it's come out that you are a post modernist, don't take this badly but I'm 100% uninterested in post modernism, new age science and religious claims. I'm sure that nonetheless we can discuss a great many things in which we share a common frame of reference.
I'm getting lost here, guys. I can see how post-modernism can be used to attack skepticism as a philosophy, but I fail to see how it can be used as a defense of Orthodox Judaism.
Freethinking Upstart,
I think we are talking past each other. Your reasoninst is somewhat circular as I understand it. You seem to want me to prove to you that post-modernism is "true" when post-modernism is a discussion about truth to begin with. Listen, if you are uninterested in philosophy, then fine, but then don't attack those who take it seriously as "bunk." It is childish, immature, and gets you about as much respect when talking to a more sophisticated crowd as a a creationist in a lecture about evolution.
>I'm getting lost here, guys. I can see how post-modernism can be used to attack skepticism as a philosophy, but I fail to see how it can be used as a defense of Orthodox Judaism.<
certain mystical trends in Judaism as well as the thought of Rav Tzaddok and Rav Kook have great overlap with post-modern thought.
Also haRav Shagar z"l approached orthodoxy from a post-modern angle.
I would even go as far as saying that some of rav Soloveitchic's neo-Kantian ideas flirted with post-modernism (but I would not go further than the word flirt).
Chardal,
Can we do a trade off?
You read this and I'll read an article of similar length on PoMo...
Waddya think?
Chardal,
I forgot to mention that you provide the article on PoMo that I will read provided that you agree to read the one I provided. We can talk about it afterwards if you like.
>post-modernism is a discussion about truth to begin with.
And you can just say what ever you want about truth? You don't have to prove it?
chardal, can you elaborate how postmodern philosophy can be used to justify Orthodox Judaism. I realize that the term "postmodern" is very vague and so I would like to understand in terms of more concrete examples. Don't mean to put you on the spot, but if you can elaborate on some of the references you mentioned...
I can see how someone could explain their personal instantiation of Judaism in post modern terms, but