I liked this article and its thesis, that everything in life has costs, but choosing to do nothing also has costs.
I do have a problem with the second half of the article, the implication that religion is a good thing because it's prosocial. In my mind, this view conflicts with the divinity of the Torah. I am not religious in order to "[...] secure the existence of our people and a future for [Jewish] children". I am religious because I believe that Abraham moved from Iraq to Israel, and Hashem gave the Torah to Moshe on Mt. Sinai, where he described in painstaking detail how He wants me to live, and I want to fulfill his will always, whether prosocial, or genociding the Amalekites.
If it's dumb but it works, it's not dumb. If it's smart but it doesn't work, it's not smart. Long term survival in humans directly correlates with the accuracy of their mental model of reality, which is always necessarily woefully incomplete. The Torah helps us to survive because it is a good mental model, in other words, true.
I think Baruch is aware that there is are מצוות that are יהרג ואל יעבור.
From an evolutionary standpoint I guess one can say that these מצוות strengthen the resolve and commitment of the community and culture to never give up and give in.
However, I think the main point is that 'historical Truths' are hard to ascertain with complete certainty. One thing we do know, and that is that when the Torah states למען תחיה אתה וזרעך and the כי לא תשכח מפי זרעו and similar pronouncements, these are both evidently true and of supreme value.
How would the historical facts be not true? Did G-d not write them? Then there is no reason to listen to the moral pronouncements either. They may be "wise" or "time-tested", but that's just Reconstructionism.
You are aware that some meforshim explain the seven days of creation as entirely a metaphor, and that there are plenty of cases where meforshim explain the meaning as OPPOSITE to the plain text, right?
I wrote "However, I think the main point is that 'historical Truths' are hard to ascertain with complete certainty."
You wrote "How would the historical facts be not true? Did G-d not write them?"
I wrote "One thing we do know, and that is that when the Torah states למען תחיה אתה וזרעך and the כי לא תשכח מפי זרעו and similar pronouncements, these are both evidently true and of supreme value."
Thank you again for a well articulated piece and, as always, spot on. Just a question. Isn’t it paradoxical to remain Jewish outside but not inside one’s home? If anything that’s exactly the opposite of what many of our ancestors had to do.
Exactly! You can call them Crypto-Jews, Marranos, or Conversos. They appeared to live a Christian life outside their homes, but inside they longed to celebrate their Jewish tradition. This is generalized, of course. Some did not.
I looked up the definition of this word so we could all gain more clarity in the question and also in the answers. Some common definitions are as follows:
- a logically self-contradictory statement
- a statement that runs contrary to one's expectation
- a statement that leads to a seemingly self-contradictory or a logically unacceptable conclusion
So a list of all lists that does not include itself would set up a paradox because at first, we wouldn't include it (so that it's not on itself) but then it wouldn't include itself (and so it would need to be on it) and then we'd need to remove it, and round and round it would go. That's Russel's paradox, and there are of course many others. Something as simple as the liar's paradox that says "this statement is false" is also interesting.
Orthodox Jews who have come to realize that their faith is unjustified and that there's no good reason to suppose god exists, follow through with the reasonable subsequent recognition that the Torah is merely a book written by men and that all the rules and regulations are merely man-made.
But since Orthodoxy practices what we may refer to as deep indoctrination, where children are generally trained from infants under cultural isolation and in special schools where they are only exposed to other indoctrinated peers and trained by other indoctrinated mentors, by the time many in the Orthodox world come to the recognition that their faith is unjustified, they are already married, have children and live in an insular community where almost everyone they know is also Orthodox, other than perhaps some co-workers (assuming they have a career in the secular world) or some clients or maybe those one or two people on the block or in the building who are irreligious or gentile...but there's hardly any interaction with non-Orthodox neighbors.
So what is an Orthodox Jew supposed to do when he (or she) recognizes that there's no good reason to believe, and so they are compelled to no longer do so? They can give up their life as they know it, or they can continue to outwardly appear as though they are still believers but secretly (or not so secretly) admit to themselves that their beliefs were both untrue and unjustified.
Your post seems ignorant about the history of Zionism, and the role and importance of religiosity in the zionistic enterprise.
But I want to ask more fundamental issue - let us say that you are correct, that without practicing Judaism in the manner prescribed by the ultra-orthodox camp, that Judaism itself won't be able to survive. Ok, I asked you, imagine that we OTDnicks are correct, and that Judaism is false and man-made, if so, would the extinction of Judaism be such a bad thing? Is there something inherently important in the enterprise of Judaism that it deserves endless continuity?
From our perspective, the Jewish people are a people who are united based on a long-standing relationship with a set of false beliefs. You might be right, that if all Jewish people wake up one day and recognize that there is no rebono shel olam, no gan eden, no din vichashbon, that it is all a story, that that the Jewish people won't last long after coming to that realization - but why is that a bad thing?
The Aztecs had a mighty religion that lasted for a very long time, but eventually if faded into the annals of time. Sure, there's something nostalgic and poignant about people's passing on and history continuing its relentless course, but are you particularly disturbed and troubled and this raw over the extinction of the Aztec ideas?
Conversely, do you see something particularly useful and worth preserving in the many religions that are currently alive that predate Abraham avinu - The fact that there are Indians, or for that matter, Bedouins living probably not that far from you who have been practicing quite literally the same religion that their ancestors have been practicing since long before the Jews arrived on the scene - with far more fealty than Ashkenazi Jews are having our practicing the religion of their forefathers - is that particularly meaningful or resonant to you? Or does it only matter if the religion that they're preserving is True with a capital T. If it is the latter, then your argument doesn't carry much weight with people who don't believe in the truth of Judaism.
If you're correct and we live in a purely material universe driven by evolution, then there is no inherent value to any particular set of ideas, practices or worldview except insofar as it's adaptive to survival. If you're so far assimilated into Current Thing that survival and life itself are valueless in your eyes, then I have nothing to say to you and all conversation is pointless, since we're just stardust.
>>>If you're so far assimilated into Current Thing that survival and life itself are valueless in your eyes, then I have nothing to say to you and all conversation is pointless, since we're just stardust.
Why is your statement above different in truth value from the following statement?
"If you're so deluded into religious thinking that god exists and has mandated that certain things are valuable, even though there's no good reason to think that a god exists, then I have nothing to say to you and all conversation is pointless because you determine your conclusions prior to having good arguments or evidence."
It seems like you're complaining that if you can't choose what you want, or others won't permit you to do so, you don't want to talk to them. It appears that you're a pre-suppositionalist and until you let go of your indoctrination, you unfortunately won't be able to hear what's being said.
If Judaism was true, it should be able to fend off all attacks to its truth system.
>>> survival and life itself are valueless
How does making stuff up (like Judaism) give life value in a way that making stuff up (like secular humanism) does not?
I don’t think I understand that concept at all. To me, I use the word value in relation to goals. I’m not sure what a value would mean without an external goal.
Yeah I don’t know what that means if it doesn’t mean they think everyone should try and achieve truth or love. But I’be heard people say this kind of thing I just don’t get it.
Whoa, man, what if, like, booga booga Caribbean witch doctors' worldviews had, like, equal value to mine? Why SHOULDN'T we eat people? After all, in some worldviews this reduces our carbon footprint while in others it gives us juju powers.
If Judaism were false and man made (halila), I would act for its speedy extinction. It is insulting to human intellect to invent a God in order to behave well or in order to survive. The Torah is either True or worthless, because Truth has intrinsic value.
We lack the ability to perceive absolute truth, but can only see its flawed reflections in our imperfect world, using our imperfect minds and senses. I can refer you to Plato's metaphor of the cave, or if you'd prefer a Jewish source, the midrash of God throwing the Truth on the ground, where it shattered into 70 pieces. The Torah itself doesn't hold the Truth to be the ultimate absolute value. But if you like, my epistemological view is that the truth of any worldview can ultimately be judged by how adaptive it is to long term survival.
What if it was non literal? It would still hold great moral value. We were the first to consider humans in the image of G-d. This has tremendous value for upholding human rights. We were the first to limit a kings power and possibly the first to give slaves rights. There is much value in the Torah wether or not you believe it's Divine.
We brought the concept of one single moral system to the world. Abramic faith contributed much more than the Aztecs. Even Martin Luther King quoted the Torah. Same with America's founding fathers.
I would like to point you toward the continued existence of Aztec ideas and traditions, as well as other Mexican native groups, as syncretism occurred over the 500 years since arrival.
All sorts of native religions exist in pure form as well, even today, in the US,Canada, and elsewhere.
There is no "disappearance", you just have little need to personally encounter and know. Short of a trip to some destination's slums and a deep dive in a library on what existed, you'll pass it blindly without having any idea.
With regard to traditions, I refer you to a comment I made on Twitter to a Lubavitcher named Shvestrus. He was talking about Nietsche's "God is dead, we killed him" statement. TLDR: the strawmen we humans create about Him as we try to avoid His will are what die (in Nietsche's case, 1800s-1900 German/European social illusions about the divine and it's role in monarchy and such). Humanity has always built for itself a way to separate and avoid hearing what it doesn't like or want. Not just from God but even from ourselves. Look at how many Tel Avivim cry for the same Gazans that cause them to run to bomb shelters and give 3 years of their lives in military service despite all the evidence put in front of them that their worldview is flawed.
Aztecs are gone, though some of their unpleasant traits can be found in modern day Mexican idolatry. Since their religion was based on idiotic state-imposed brutality, once that state was eaten by a more efficient one, the religion collapsed.
No native religions exist in pure form, none survived the encounter with modernity unscathed, as exemplified by the Ghost Dance, for instance.
The Aztecs are not gone. They intermarried with the new dalit class (per your other post you'll get the jati ref) while the other tribes stayed largely the same or intermarried if they were smart enough to try.
My point to your challenger Ben Torah is that it is very much not extinct. Even you here acknowledge the traits continued. Watered down != in nihilo.
I'm not going to argue the idea of purity too far(your ghost dance ref) because unfortunately it supposes a permanent, unyielding-to-change, state. Even our own "unchanged Torah" has experienced new forms (i.e. Mishna, Gemara, Gaonim, Rishonim, Aharonim, and all of it is the stuff that came *after* Bavel). People keeping kitniyot in 2024 because of a minhag in 1000 despite pre-1000 sources saying otherwise or circumstances rendering it moot is very much not "how Judaism has always been" unless we're talking meta and the idea of shifts to adapt old ideas to new situations.
Same would apply under questions like "Which period Aztec? Which period Inca? Which period Maya? What about the villages that stuck to older traditions? What about those who had newer ones that never hit mainstream because they were dragged away a la Mel Gibson's Apocalypto?
While you diagnose the problem well the solution is not to grin and bear Judaism as a necessary straight jacket. Judaism is much more than rules and a culture. Judaism is the reason for creation, a way to connect to the divine and the way to bring G-dliness in to this physical world. Judaism is a blessing as is every single one for the strict rules.
G-d is found in the details. Each halacha is another opportunity to connect and experience the divine will.
The revelation of the teachings of chassidus was to add light to the practice of Judaism. Both light, as in candlelight and to make the experience "light" as in not burdensome.
In case you would like to comment (though it seems you mostly agree with Gavriel on this).
Gavriel wrote "As I like to say, Charedim are right about everything except Torah."
I responded "Ha, ha, you're not that far from me on this.
But seriously, I think even on the Torah issue you are moving closer to the Charedi position. You endorse daas Torah which is a charedi term.
And the more you adopt the Charedi position on social issues the more you must appreciate the wisdom of Charedi gedolim who came to these positions not through years of hocking with rightoids but through spending their life in Beis Medrash.
Additionally, the points where they are wrong on Torah are essentially the same points in which they are right on social issues. The Mesora and Daas Torah is not infallible and Hishtadlus does have a real effect. However, these hashkafos enable them to prioritize building communities and large families in a world which only values individuality and productivity.
However, I do believe Charedim have become somewhat a victim of their own success in that they attribute their phenomenal demographic success too much to irrationality. Reality will teach them. I just hope they don't take the wrong lessons (as you wrote in your other comment)."
As Sam Harris posits, a new religion that has the following two tenets will likely be exceedingly successful:
1) Teach your children math and science intensely
2) Pray once a day to Bob the God, who resides in the NE corner of the living room.
You seem to be arguing for the truth of religion based on its utility, but that doesn't substantiate its truth, only its usefulness. The BobGod religion would be very, very, very useful...although not true.
Despite the pogroms and the holocausts and the inquisitions, Judaism is very useful, but it also pretends to be true.
It's mockery of the Sam Harris brand of atheism. It was smug, dumb and annoying even at the height of its fashionability, which is some time behind us.
Half a second of thought would tell you that it's a dumb counterfactual to posit, since in our observed reality, we have these people who take math and science very seriously. They are called mathematicians and scientists, and fail to demonstrate any remarkable reproductive success. Further, we had an actual mystery religion based on math. They were called the Pythagoreans. Despite figuring in some really high quality conspiracy theories by people like Carroll Quigley, they don't seem to have enjoyed much success in the long term-I am not aware of any functioning Pythagorean Temples today.
Instead of thinking about these things in a little more depth, you spam my comments with tons of low grade stuff like this. "Imagine if religion with Muh Science but ALSO Flying Spaghetti Monster-WAAAOW!" Imagine if we fed every soy Redditor to fire ants and streamed it live?
>>>It's mockery of the Sam Harris brand of atheism.
That might have been what you were attempting, but I don't think it worked.
>>>It was smug, dumb and annoying even at the height of its fashionability, which is some time behind us.
I don't really see how it's dumb, although since I respond point-by-point, maybe you'll explain it later. In case you don't, please accept a similarly flippant "you're dumb," which can serve to neutralize your insult. Both insults made without good evidence and so easy to deflect. But if you get deeper into that, as perhaps this was just your thesis statement, then I'll retract my sarcastic response above and we can be serious adults instead of like children who merely alternate in accusing the other of being stupid and presuming that their claims have any merit at all just because they said it repeatedly or in a raised voice.
As for smug and annoying, I'm going to have to take issue with those two accusations as well. If Judaism says that Judaism is true and Sam Harris says that it's false and the only thing you, as a representative of Judaism can say in response to him is that he's smug, then it seems he's won. Maybe he comes out a jerk, but Judaism comes out as a loser. However, I don't think Sam is smug and I don't find him at all annoying. I actually find him quite educational and entertaining, as well as well informed and very balanced. These seem to be somewhat subjective perceptions of the man, and I'll say that of course someone who's sacred and beloved religion is torn apart by Sam's deep thoughts will be upset (and annoyed) by him and by his maneuvers, and will often attack him of being mean-spirited and smug. As Dan Dennett is so succinctly quoted, "there's just no polite way to tell someone that they've dedicated their life to an illusion." Let's suppose Dennett "or Sam" were in discussion with someone and either or both of repeated this phrase. What can we assume is the comment just made by the other party to which Sam or Dan would have replied with this statement? I imagine it would be sort of an angry attitude, where the person was lashing out, and instead of attacking back, Sam or Dan would speak not to the person but to the audience, explaining why they understand that the other person is so upset. One can hardly be upset at them for being upset, Sam and Dan might have said, because when you demolish someone's worldview, before they come to accept the argument based on its merit, they will first try to attack the idea, followed by attacking the bearer of the news, as though that changes the message.
I'm not saying that that's what you're doing here, because I don't know you and I've hardly interacted with you. But I will say that if the first thing out of your proverbial mouth is to say that Sam is smug and annoying, well, what wort of an argument is that? No argument at all. I don't find him to be either, but even if he were both, that wouldn't alter his position or the message. And as the injured party (as the representative here for Orthodox Judaism), it seems quite coherent that you'd be upset at Sam for being so damn accurate.
>>>even at the height of its fashionability
Here's a comment similar to one you've made before. You speak to orthopraxy as something someone chooses to do, and you speak of atheism as being fashionable. Of course, orthopraxy is a choice...one can simply be an open atheist...but I don't think that's what you meant. I could be wrong, which was why I asked for greater clarity, but it seemed to me that you were suggesting that the orthoprax choose orthopraxy in that they opt for being orthoprax rather that just being Orthodox.
Let me agree with you that people can do different things and there's no grand rabbi or high court of atheism mandating practice, so everyone's essentially on their own here, and so sure...some orthoprax can be idiots because the orthoprax people are people and some people are idiots. Some of them are very likely not thinking clearly and some of them do things for the wrong reasons. But that's not a spot on orthopraxy.
If one is locked into a life with a spouse and children and family and community, and feels that leaving is something they don't want to do, then when they recognize the fatal flaws in the religion they were indoctrinated in, there are no other options. It's a choice to remain orthoprax, but it's not a choice to enter orthopraxy from Orthodoxy, but merely a result of no longer believing false things on bad evidence. As Harris has said and written, "Beliefs are not like clothing: comfort, utility, and attractiveness cannot be one’s conscious criteria for acquiring them." Now while the person who still believes might see this as smug (because who does Sam think he is to tell me about MY beliefs!) or annoying (man! it's so annoying that Sam has such deep insights into belief and now I need to admit to no longer believing), that doesn't change the truth value of his comments or his position.
>>>Half a second of thought would tell you that it's a dumb counterfactual to posit, since in our observed reality, we have these people who take math and science very seriously. They are called mathematicians and scientists, and fail to demonstrate any remarkable reproductive success.
I'm pretty sure that you think you're not only making a point here, but a good one. But you're not. Sam wasn't at all suggesting that his made-up religion of BobGod would produce lots of new members over time, or that there would be a disproportionately high number of economic, industrial and government leaders emanating from his new BobGod religion. Rather, he was pointing out that success due to good ideas of a fake religion can eclipse the negative effects of false aspects of that religion. So Jews can make it in Hollywood and Washington and Silicon Valley even though they get circumcised or don't text on Saturdays, and that their success not being impeded by these difficult or time consuming or expensive appendages of the religion is not an indication of the truth value of these religious mandates. Any success of the BobGod religion could be entirely because of their prowess in math and science and their prayers to Bob the God could be as inconsequential as having worn a yellow shirt on Tuesday instead of a blue one or having decided to order a Corona instead of a Heineken. Some things we do matter and some things we do no not, and Sam's assertion is that, since religion is fictitious, none of the cosmic results tallied as outcomes of one's prayer, devotion or piety in ritual matters are real. They are silly and they are a waste of resources and they contaminate one's mind with logical fallacies like confirmation bias.
>>>Further, we had an actual mystery religion based on math. They were called the Pythagoreans.
Again, you're clearly missing the point.
>>>Instead of thinking about these things in a little more depth
And like Shulman, you have responded with virtually zero content, although you're a lot rowdier he he is. Can you make even one good argument for the truth of Judaism, or are you now going to add me to your list of smug and annoying people who rebut your claims in ways you can't seem to unsettle or dislodge?
People practicing Orthodox Judaism despite not believing it says more about the system itself which punishes those in the community who cease practicing more than the specific orthoprax people.
I think that it speaks to the immense benefits of living in Orthodox Jewish communities, which the Orthoprax value so much that they're willing to live a shameful lie in order to continue enjoying them.
Me personally, I like the Haredim but you couldn't drag me into Lakewood with a tow truck, but objectively speaking it is a very nice place, and the reason is solely that it's populated by Orthodox Jews.
If people choose Judaism because dafka it’s a jail that keeps them in, there is no guarantee that they will stay in. Or their kids will stay in. Ultimately there is always a dance between the Law and freedom, the lines may shift. This is dynamic.
I really don’t like your categorization of Orthoprax Charedi Jews. I consider myself an Orthoprax Chardi Jew and don’t feel like Judaism is a straight jacket. I fulfill most halachos even privately.
I get that your talking about a specific type of person and I may not fall under that category, but I think to limit the term Orthoprax Charedi to mean your type is normally campturing the concept of a nonbeliever who still practices. I’m open to another term if you think this is the appropriate one though.
Amazing article as always. I do take a slight issue with the diaspora argument, but I do understand your sentiment. The general goal as you state is the continuation of our people, and therefore it is generally a bad idea for all of us to habitate in a singular spot.
Genetics has advanced tremendously and it seems that every Jew alive today descends from the a diaspora that predicates the second exile. The Jews who stayed in the land of Israel are our beautiful brotherly nation of the edomites currently labeled as “palestine.” The 10 million ashkenazim pre-Holocaust descend from around 150 people in Germany who survived the Black Death.
When the last chabad rebbe advocated for Jews to go on missions in communities around the world it gave me an eerie feeling. In the manner that he sensed some incoming global catastrophe that requires a hyper dispersed population for our nation to survive. Of course the goal of our nation is to be a free people in our own land, but I generally view myself as an insurance policy. The con being that I am at the mercy of others and there will inevitably be bad times within the land that is currently New York and America writ large. We all have our parts to play in this grand narrative.
Keep Fighting.
Happy New Year.
Tevet 1, 5785 (if correctly informed)
Cheers
I liked this article and its thesis, that everything in life has costs, but choosing to do nothing also has costs.
I do have a problem with the second half of the article, the implication that religion is a good thing because it's prosocial. In my mind, this view conflicts with the divinity of the Torah. I am not religious in order to "[...] secure the existence of our people and a future for [Jewish] children". I am religious because I believe that Abraham moved from Iraq to Israel, and Hashem gave the Torah to Moshe on Mt. Sinai, where he described in painstaking detail how He wants me to live, and I want to fulfill his will always, whether prosocial, or genociding the Amalekites.
If it's dumb but it works, it's not dumb. If it's smart but it doesn't work, it's not smart. Long term survival in humans directly correlates with the accuracy of their mental model of reality, which is always necessarily woefully incomplete. The Torah helps us to survive because it is a good mental model, in other words, true.
So if the Torah would tell us all to jump off the cliff, it would not be true?
I think Baruch is aware that there is are מצוות that are יהרג ואל יעבור.
From an evolutionary standpoint I guess one can say that these מצוות strengthen the resolve and commitment of the community and culture to never give up and give in.
However, I think the main point is that 'historical Truths' are hard to ascertain with complete certainty. One thing we do know, and that is that when the Torah states למען תחיה אתה וזרעך and the כי לא תשכח מפי זרעו and similar pronouncements, these are both evidently true and of supreme value.
How would the historical facts be not true? Did G-d not write them? Then there is no reason to listen to the moral pronouncements either. They may be "wise" or "time-tested", but that's just Reconstructionism.
You are aware that some meforshim explain the seven days of creation as entirely a metaphor, and that there are plenty of cases where meforshim explain the meaning as OPPOSITE to the plain text, right?
No, I am not aware of anyone explaining seven days of creation as metaphor, to exclude its pshat.
I wrote "However, I think the main point is that 'historical Truths' are hard to ascertain with complete certainty."
You wrote "How would the historical facts be not true? Did G-d not write them?"
I wrote "One thing we do know, and that is that when the Torah states למען תחיה אתה וזרעך and the כי לא תשכח מפי זרעו and similar pronouncements, these are both evidently true and of supreme value."
You wrote "Did G-d not write them?"
I don't see where are arguing.
Yes, obviously.
וְאַתֶּם, הַדְּבֵקִים, בַּיהוָה, אֱלֹהֵיכֶם--חַיִּים כֻּלְּכֶם, הַיּוֹם. ה רְאֵה לִמַּדְתִּי אֶתְכֶם, חֻקִּים וּמִשְׁפָּטִים, כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוַּנִי, יְהוָה אֱלֹהָי: לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן--בְּקֶרֶב הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם בָּאִים שָׁמָּה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ. ו וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם, וַעֲשִׂיתֶם--כִּי הִוא חָכְמַתְכֶם וּבִינַתְכֶם, לְעֵינֵי הָעַמִּים: אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁמְעוּן, אֵת כָּל-הַחֻקִּים הָאֵלֶּה, וְאָמְרוּ רַק עַם-חָכָם וְנָבוֹן, הַגּוֹי הַגָּדוֹל הַזֶּה.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אִי הֲוַאי הָתָם, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא דִּידִי עֲדִיפָא מִדִּידְהוּ: ״וְחַי בָּהֶם״ — וְלֹא שֶׁיָּמוּת בָּהֶם.
מַר רָבָא: לְכוּלְּהוּ אִית לְהוּ פִּירְכָא, בַּר מִדִּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּלֵית לֵיהּ פִּירְכָא. דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל — דִּילְמָא כִּדְרָבָא.
This is a novel interpretation of "וחי בהם".
I'm sorry, I will let Chazal know.
Hey, you have direct access?
Thank you again for a well articulated piece and, as always, spot on. Just a question. Isn’t it paradoxical to remain Jewish outside but not inside one’s home? If anything that’s exactly the opposite of what many of our ancestors had to do.
In what sense do you mean?
I think he means crypto-Jews
Ah, the Orthoprax as inverse crypto-Jews. Interesting.
Exactly! You can call them Crypto-Jews, Marranos, or Conversos. They appeared to live a Christian life outside their homes, but inside they longed to celebrate their Jewish tradition. This is generalized, of course. Some did not.
>>>Isn’t it paradoxical...
I looked up the definition of this word so we could all gain more clarity in the question and also in the answers. Some common definitions are as follows:
- a logically self-contradictory statement
- a statement that runs contrary to one's expectation
- a statement that leads to a seemingly self-contradictory or a logically unacceptable conclusion
So a list of all lists that does not include itself would set up a paradox because at first, we wouldn't include it (so that it's not on itself) but then it wouldn't include itself (and so it would need to be on it) and then we'd need to remove it, and round and round it would go. That's Russel's paradox, and there are of course many others. Something as simple as the liar's paradox that says "this statement is false" is also interesting.
Orthodox Jews who have come to realize that their faith is unjustified and that there's no good reason to suppose god exists, follow through with the reasonable subsequent recognition that the Torah is merely a book written by men and that all the rules and regulations are merely man-made.
But since Orthodoxy practices what we may refer to as deep indoctrination, where children are generally trained from infants under cultural isolation and in special schools where they are only exposed to other indoctrinated peers and trained by other indoctrinated mentors, by the time many in the Orthodox world come to the recognition that their faith is unjustified, they are already married, have children and live in an insular community where almost everyone they know is also Orthodox, other than perhaps some co-workers (assuming they have a career in the secular world) or some clients or maybe those one or two people on the block or in the building who are irreligious or gentile...but there's hardly any interaction with non-Orthodox neighbors.
So what is an Orthodox Jew supposed to do when he (or she) recognizes that there's no good reason to believe, and so they are compelled to no longer do so? They can give up their life as they know it, or they can continue to outwardly appear as though they are still believers but secretly (or not so secretly) admit to themselves that their beliefs were both untrue and unjustified.
Where is the paradox there?
שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים. כָּךְ הָיָה דַּרְכָּן שֶׁל דּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל אַחַת לִפְרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה וְאַחַת לְתַשְׁמִישׁ, זוֹ שֶׁהִיא לְתַשְׁמִישׁ מַשְׁקָהּ כּוֹס שֶׁל עִקָּרִין כְּדֵי שֶׁתֵּעָקֵר וּמְקֻשֶּׁטֶת כְּכַלָּה וּמַאֲכִילָהּ מַעֲדַנִּים, וַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ נְזוּפָה וַאֲבֵלָה כְּאַלְמָנָה, וְזֶהוּ שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ אִיּוֹב רֹעֶה עֲקָרָה לֹא תֵלֵד וְאַלְמָנָה לֹא יְיֵטִיב (איוב כ"ד), כְּמוֹ שֶׁמְּפֹרָשׁ בְּאַגָּדַת חֵלֶק (וּבּבְּרֵאשִׁית רַבָּה):
Your post seems ignorant about the history of Zionism, and the role and importance of religiosity in the zionistic enterprise.
But I want to ask more fundamental issue - let us say that you are correct, that without practicing Judaism in the manner prescribed by the ultra-orthodox camp, that Judaism itself won't be able to survive. Ok, I asked you, imagine that we OTDnicks are correct, and that Judaism is false and man-made, if so, would the extinction of Judaism be such a bad thing? Is there something inherently important in the enterprise of Judaism that it deserves endless continuity?
From our perspective, the Jewish people are a people who are united based on a long-standing relationship with a set of false beliefs. You might be right, that if all Jewish people wake up one day and recognize that there is no rebono shel olam, no gan eden, no din vichashbon, that it is all a story, that that the Jewish people won't last long after coming to that realization - but why is that a bad thing?
The Aztecs had a mighty religion that lasted for a very long time, but eventually if faded into the annals of time. Sure, there's something nostalgic and poignant about people's passing on and history continuing its relentless course, but are you particularly disturbed and troubled and this raw over the extinction of the Aztec ideas?
Conversely, do you see something particularly useful and worth preserving in the many religions that are currently alive that predate Abraham avinu - The fact that there are Indians, or for that matter, Bedouins living probably not that far from you who have been practicing quite literally the same religion that their ancestors have been practicing since long before the Jews arrived on the scene - with far more fealty than Ashkenazi Jews are having our practicing the religion of their forefathers - is that particularly meaningful or resonant to you? Or does it only matter if the religion that they're preserving is True with a capital T. If it is the latter, then your argument doesn't carry much weight with people who don't believe in the truth of Judaism.
If you're correct and we live in a purely material universe driven by evolution, then there is no inherent value to any particular set of ideas, practices or worldview except insofar as it's adaptive to survival. If you're so far assimilated into Current Thing that survival and life itself are valueless in your eyes, then I have nothing to say to you and all conversation is pointless, since we're just stardust.
>>>If you're so far assimilated into Current Thing that survival and life itself are valueless in your eyes, then I have nothing to say to you and all conversation is pointless, since we're just stardust.
Why is your statement above different in truth value from the following statement?
"If you're so deluded into religious thinking that god exists and has mandated that certain things are valuable, even though there's no good reason to think that a god exists, then I have nothing to say to you and all conversation is pointless because you determine your conclusions prior to having good arguments or evidence."
It seems like you're complaining that if you can't choose what you want, or others won't permit you to do so, you don't want to talk to them. It appears that you're a pre-suppositionalist and until you let go of your indoctrination, you unfortunately won't be able to hear what's being said.
If Judaism was true, it should be able to fend off all attacks to its truth system.
>>> survival and life itself are valueless
How does making stuff up (like Judaism) give life value in a way that making stuff up (like secular humanism) does not?
What do you mean by “inherent value”?
Value which is not dependent on any external context
I don’t think I understand that concept at all. To me, I use the word value in relation to goals. I’m not sure what a value would mean without an external goal.
For instance, some people think that the truth is an ultimate value, or that love is.
Yeah I don’t know what that means if it doesn’t mean they think everyone should try and achieve truth or love. But I’be heard people say this kind of thing I just don’t get it.
Whoa, man, what if, like, booga booga Caribbean witch doctors' worldviews had, like, equal value to mine? Why SHOULDN'T we eat people? After all, in some worldviews this reduces our carbon footprint while in others it gives us juju powers.
If Judaism were false and man made (halila), I would act for its speedy extinction. It is insulting to human intellect to invent a God in order to behave well or in order to survive. The Torah is either True or worthless, because Truth has intrinsic value.
We lack the ability to perceive absolute truth, but can only see its flawed reflections in our imperfect world, using our imperfect minds and senses. I can refer you to Plato's metaphor of the cave, or if you'd prefer a Jewish source, the midrash of God throwing the Truth on the ground, where it shattered into 70 pieces. The Torah itself doesn't hold the Truth to be the ultimate absolute value. But if you like, my epistemological view is that the truth of any worldview can ultimately be judged by how adaptive it is to long term survival.
We really are on the same page here. I have been itching to quote that midrash for a while.
I came close enough here https://daastorah.substack.com/p/why-cant-torah-protect-from-the-draft/comment/71887653
What if it was non literal? It would still hold great moral value. We were the first to consider humans in the image of G-d. This has tremendous value for upholding human rights. We were the first to limit a kings power and possibly the first to give slaves rights. There is much value in the Torah wether or not you believe it's Divine.
Why do you think the Torah is true?
We brought the concept of one single moral system to the world. Abramic faith contributed much more than the Aztecs. Even Martin Luther King quoted the Torah. Same with America's founding fathers.
I would like to point you toward the continued existence of Aztec ideas and traditions, as well as other Mexican native groups, as syncretism occurred over the 500 years since arrival.
All sorts of native religions exist in pure form as well, even today, in the US,Canada, and elsewhere.
There is no "disappearance", you just have little need to personally encounter and know. Short of a trip to some destination's slums and a deep dive in a library on what existed, you'll pass it blindly without having any idea.
With regard to traditions, I refer you to a comment I made on Twitter to a Lubavitcher named Shvestrus. He was talking about Nietsche's "God is dead, we killed him" statement. TLDR: the strawmen we humans create about Him as we try to avoid His will are what die (in Nietsche's case, 1800s-1900 German/European social illusions about the divine and it's role in monarchy and such). Humanity has always built for itself a way to separate and avoid hearing what it doesn't like or want. Not just from God but even from ourselves. Look at how many Tel Avivim cry for the same Gazans that cause them to run to bomb shelters and give 3 years of their lives in military service despite all the evidence put in front of them that their worldview is flawed.
Food for thought from a 3rd party.
Aztecs are gone, though some of their unpleasant traits can be found in modern day Mexican idolatry. Since their religion was based on idiotic state-imposed brutality, once that state was eaten by a more efficient one, the religion collapsed.
No native religions exist in pure form, none survived the encounter with modernity unscathed, as exemplified by the Ghost Dance, for instance.
The Aztecs are not gone. They intermarried with the new dalit class (per your other post you'll get the jati ref) while the other tribes stayed largely the same or intermarried if they were smart enough to try.
My point to your challenger Ben Torah is that it is very much not extinct. Even you here acknowledge the traits continued. Watered down != in nihilo.
I'm not going to argue the idea of purity too far(your ghost dance ref) because unfortunately it supposes a permanent, unyielding-to-change, state. Even our own "unchanged Torah" has experienced new forms (i.e. Mishna, Gemara, Gaonim, Rishonim, Aharonim, and all of it is the stuff that came *after* Bavel). People keeping kitniyot in 2024 because of a minhag in 1000 despite pre-1000 sources saying otherwise or circumstances rendering it moot is very much not "how Judaism has always been" unless we're talking meta and the idea of shifts to adapt old ideas to new situations.
Same would apply under questions like "Which period Aztec? Which period Inca? Which period Maya? What about the villages that stuck to older traditions? What about those who had newer ones that never hit mainstream because they were dragged away a la Mel Gibson's Apocalypto?
My beef is with the word extinct.
While you diagnose the problem well the solution is not to grin and bear Judaism as a necessary straight jacket. Judaism is much more than rules and a culture. Judaism is the reason for creation, a way to connect to the divine and the way to bring G-dliness in to this physical world. Judaism is a blessing as is every single one for the strict rules.
G-d is found in the details. Each halacha is another opportunity to connect and experience the divine will.
The revelation of the teachings of chassidus was to add light to the practice of Judaism. Both light, as in candlelight and to make the experience "light" as in not burdensome.
Whatever it takes to keep you going, as it says, "if it's dumb but it works, it's not dumb."
https://nonzionism.com/p/right-wing-zionism-is-retarded-and/comment/80180116
The author of Nonzionism banned me before publishing that article, in his typical spirit of bravery and integrity.
In case you would like to comment (though it seems you mostly agree with Gavriel on this).
Gavriel wrote "As I like to say, Charedim are right about everything except Torah."
I responded "Ha, ha, you're not that far from me on this.
But seriously, I think even on the Torah issue you are moving closer to the Charedi position. You endorse daas Torah which is a charedi term.
And the more you adopt the Charedi position on social issues the more you must appreciate the wisdom of Charedi gedolim who came to these positions not through years of hocking with rightoids but through spending their life in Beis Medrash.
Additionally, the points where they are wrong on Torah are essentially the same points in which they are right on social issues. The Mesora and Daas Torah is not infallible and Hishtadlus does have a real effect. However, these hashkafos enable them to prioritize building communities and large families in a world which only values individuality and productivity.
However, I do believe Charedim have become somewhat a victim of their own success in that they attribute their phenomenal demographic success too much to irrationality. Reality will teach them. I just hope they don't take the wrong lessons (as you wrote in your other comment)."
As Sam Harris posits, a new religion that has the following two tenets will likely be exceedingly successful:
1) Teach your children math and science intensely
2) Pray once a day to Bob the God, who resides in the NE corner of the living room.
You seem to be arguing for the truth of religion based on its utility, but that doesn't substantiate its truth, only its usefulness. The BobGod religion would be very, very, very useful...although not true.
Despite the pogroms and the holocausts and the inquisitions, Judaism is very useful, but it also pretends to be true.
"What if there was a religion that made all its adherents spend hours on Reddit every day? Imagine how successful it would be-check and mate, Chuds!"
I don't get it. Is this your attempt at da mah shetashiv?
It's mockery of the Sam Harris brand of atheism. It was smug, dumb and annoying even at the height of its fashionability, which is some time behind us.
Half a second of thought would tell you that it's a dumb counterfactual to posit, since in our observed reality, we have these people who take math and science very seriously. They are called mathematicians and scientists, and fail to demonstrate any remarkable reproductive success. Further, we had an actual mystery religion based on math. They were called the Pythagoreans. Despite figuring in some really high quality conspiracy theories by people like Carroll Quigley, they don't seem to have enjoyed much success in the long term-I am not aware of any functioning Pythagorean Temples today.
Instead of thinking about these things in a little more depth, you spam my comments with tons of low grade stuff like this. "Imagine if religion with Muh Science but ALSO Flying Spaghetti Monster-WAAAOW!" Imagine if we fed every soy Redditor to fire ants and streamed it live?
>>>It's mockery of the Sam Harris brand of atheism.
That might have been what you were attempting, but I don't think it worked.
>>>It was smug, dumb and annoying even at the height of its fashionability, which is some time behind us.
I don't really see how it's dumb, although since I respond point-by-point, maybe you'll explain it later. In case you don't, please accept a similarly flippant "you're dumb," which can serve to neutralize your insult. Both insults made without good evidence and so easy to deflect. But if you get deeper into that, as perhaps this was just your thesis statement, then I'll retract my sarcastic response above and we can be serious adults instead of like children who merely alternate in accusing the other of being stupid and presuming that their claims have any merit at all just because they said it repeatedly or in a raised voice.
As for smug and annoying, I'm going to have to take issue with those two accusations as well. If Judaism says that Judaism is true and Sam Harris says that it's false and the only thing you, as a representative of Judaism can say in response to him is that he's smug, then it seems he's won. Maybe he comes out a jerk, but Judaism comes out as a loser. However, I don't think Sam is smug and I don't find him at all annoying. I actually find him quite educational and entertaining, as well as well informed and very balanced. These seem to be somewhat subjective perceptions of the man, and I'll say that of course someone who's sacred and beloved religion is torn apart by Sam's deep thoughts will be upset (and annoyed) by him and by his maneuvers, and will often attack him of being mean-spirited and smug. As Dan Dennett is so succinctly quoted, "there's just no polite way to tell someone that they've dedicated their life to an illusion." Let's suppose Dennett "or Sam" were in discussion with someone and either or both of repeated this phrase. What can we assume is the comment just made by the other party to which Sam or Dan would have replied with this statement? I imagine it would be sort of an angry attitude, where the person was lashing out, and instead of attacking back, Sam or Dan would speak not to the person but to the audience, explaining why they understand that the other person is so upset. One can hardly be upset at them for being upset, Sam and Dan might have said, because when you demolish someone's worldview, before they come to accept the argument based on its merit, they will first try to attack the idea, followed by attacking the bearer of the news, as though that changes the message.
I'm not saying that that's what you're doing here, because I don't know you and I've hardly interacted with you. But I will say that if the first thing out of your proverbial mouth is to say that Sam is smug and annoying, well, what wort of an argument is that? No argument at all. I don't find him to be either, but even if he were both, that wouldn't alter his position or the message. And as the injured party (as the representative here for Orthodox Judaism), it seems quite coherent that you'd be upset at Sam for being so damn accurate.
>>>even at the height of its fashionability
Here's a comment similar to one you've made before. You speak to orthopraxy as something someone chooses to do, and you speak of atheism as being fashionable. Of course, orthopraxy is a choice...one can simply be an open atheist...but I don't think that's what you meant. I could be wrong, which was why I asked for greater clarity, but it seemed to me that you were suggesting that the orthoprax choose orthopraxy in that they opt for being orthoprax rather that just being Orthodox.
Let me agree with you that people can do different things and there's no grand rabbi or high court of atheism mandating practice, so everyone's essentially on their own here, and so sure...some orthoprax can be idiots because the orthoprax people are people and some people are idiots. Some of them are very likely not thinking clearly and some of them do things for the wrong reasons. But that's not a spot on orthopraxy.
If one is locked into a life with a spouse and children and family and community, and feels that leaving is something they don't want to do, then when they recognize the fatal flaws in the religion they were indoctrinated in, there are no other options. It's a choice to remain orthoprax, but it's not a choice to enter orthopraxy from Orthodoxy, but merely a result of no longer believing false things on bad evidence. As Harris has said and written, "Beliefs are not like clothing: comfort, utility, and attractiveness cannot be one’s conscious criteria for acquiring them." Now while the person who still believes might see this as smug (because who does Sam think he is to tell me about MY beliefs!) or annoying (man! it's so annoying that Sam has such deep insights into belief and now I need to admit to no longer believing), that doesn't change the truth value of his comments or his position.
>>>Half a second of thought would tell you that it's a dumb counterfactual to posit, since in our observed reality, we have these people who take math and science very seriously. They are called mathematicians and scientists, and fail to demonstrate any remarkable reproductive success.
I'm pretty sure that you think you're not only making a point here, but a good one. But you're not. Sam wasn't at all suggesting that his made-up religion of BobGod would produce lots of new members over time, or that there would be a disproportionately high number of economic, industrial and government leaders emanating from his new BobGod religion. Rather, he was pointing out that success due to good ideas of a fake religion can eclipse the negative effects of false aspects of that religion. So Jews can make it in Hollywood and Washington and Silicon Valley even though they get circumcised or don't text on Saturdays, and that their success not being impeded by these difficult or time consuming or expensive appendages of the religion is not an indication of the truth value of these religious mandates. Any success of the BobGod religion could be entirely because of their prowess in math and science and their prayers to Bob the God could be as inconsequential as having worn a yellow shirt on Tuesday instead of a blue one or having decided to order a Corona instead of a Heineken. Some things we do matter and some things we do no not, and Sam's assertion is that, since religion is fictitious, none of the cosmic results tallied as outcomes of one's prayer, devotion or piety in ritual matters are real. They are silly and they are a waste of resources and they contaminate one's mind with logical fallacies like confirmation bias.
>>>Further, we had an actual mystery religion based on math. They were called the Pythagoreans.
Again, you're clearly missing the point.
>>>Instead of thinking about these things in a little more depth
And like Shulman, you have responded with virtually zero content, although you're a lot rowdier he he is. Can you make even one good argument for the truth of Judaism, or are you now going to add me to your list of smug and annoying people who rebut your claims in ways you can't seem to unsettle or dislodge?
People practicing Orthodox Judaism despite not believing it says more about the system itself which punishes those in the community who cease practicing more than the specific orthoprax people.
I think that it speaks to the immense benefits of living in Orthodox Jewish communities, which the Orthoprax value so much that they're willing to live a shameful lie in order to continue enjoying them.
Me personally, I like the Haredim but you couldn't drag me into Lakewood with a tow truck, but objectively speaking it is a very nice place, and the reason is solely that it's populated by Orthodox Jews.
If people choose Judaism because dafka it’s a jail that keeps them in, there is no guarantee that they will stay in. Or their kids will stay in. Ultimately there is always a dance between the Law and freedom, the lines may shift. This is dynamic.
Regardless of one's motivation, there's no guarantee he or his kids will stay in. We had a High Priest go renegade in his old age.
>>>If people choose Judaism...
What do you mean by "choosing" Judaism? Do you speak of converts here?
I really don’t like your categorization of Orthoprax Charedi Jews. I consider myself an Orthoprax Chardi Jew and don’t feel like Judaism is a straight jacket. I fulfill most halachos even privately.
I get that your talking about a specific type of person and I may not fall under that category, but I think to limit the term Orthoprax Charedi to mean your type is normally campturing the concept of a nonbeliever who still practices. I’m open to another term if you think this is the appropriate one though.
Happy New Year.
‘They now see ____ as a straightjacket.’
Every code secular or religious is a straitjacket, because all humans are murderous savage talking primates. Want real humanity?
Want to see our ancestors?
See Santo Sebastien of the Subway . He got drunk and high and lit a woman on fire.
I could say; No one acted because of Daniel Penny and the police* for the matter cannot safely touch the sacred migrant person. True. Ask Chauvin.
I also say; nothing is our default policy. She didn’t ride with anyone who cared about her.
So good advice and good example on standing for your own.
*as for the police not using coat and waiting for fire extinguisher, the coat just more fuel unless wool or fire retardant.
Amazing article as always. I do take a slight issue with the diaspora argument, but I do understand your sentiment. The general goal as you state is the continuation of our people, and therefore it is generally a bad idea for all of us to habitate in a singular spot.
Genetics has advanced tremendously and it seems that every Jew alive today descends from the a diaspora that predicates the second exile. The Jews who stayed in the land of Israel are our beautiful brotherly nation of the edomites currently labeled as “palestine.” The 10 million ashkenazim pre-Holocaust descend from around 150 people in Germany who survived the Black Death.
When the last chabad rebbe advocated for Jews to go on missions in communities around the world it gave me an eerie feeling. In the manner that he sensed some incoming global catastrophe that requires a hyper dispersed population for our nation to survive. Of course the goal of our nation is to be a free people in our own land, but I generally view myself as an insurance policy. The con being that I am at the mercy of others and there will inevitably be bad times within the land that is currently New York and America writ large. We all have our parts to play in this grand narrative.
"In summary, the choice is not Judaism or a beautiful secular future. It's Judaism or no future."
A crucial idea. To move to a side point, "More will fall yet", is in line with the Hava Amina in Kesubos 8b. But according to the Maskana,
אמר אביי רבים שתו לימא רבים ישתו לא לימא משתה ראשונים לימא משתה אחרונים לא לימא דאר"ש בן לקיש וכן תנא משמיה דר' יוסי לעולם אל יפתח אדם פיו לשטן:
>>>It’s shameful to choose extinction in order to enjoy your pepperoni pizza in peace.
What, precisely is this choice you speak of?
In our days, this is what it comes down to for a tremendous amount of people
Perhaps you misunderstood my question. What did you mean when you wrote that "it is shameful to CHOOSE extinction in order to..."
It's shameful to refer to posts without linking to them, depriving them if traffic.
He deleted the post
Shameful, really bad word for something that insignificant. Unless you want to do away with the impact of the word completely
I was just appropriating the blogmeister's word. I don't really think that ;)
You can't gatekeep evolution.
Link to Orthoprax articles?
Is the original post still up or now deleted?
The wayback machine has them:
Here is the pepperoni pizza one
https://web.archive.org/web/20241217000607/https://exit98.substack.com/p/one-summer-night
Here are the rest
https://web.archive.org/web/20241215020154/https://exit98.substack.com/archive