i would like to like at the other side why did only we (otd, undercovered) came to this conclusion that its not true are we more educated or smarter then everyone who stays jewish?
In other words why were we not smart enough to defend Judaism to ourselves? Why can James Kugel believe in the DH buy still remain Orthodox while we can't? Are we smarter than him? Do we know something he doesn't know?
I can't speak for other people but I can speak for myself. It is my belief that the reason this stuff got to me was not because of the content of it but rather because of the way I found out.
In other words a bunch of coincidental factors contributed to it:
1. No one ever told me that there was a DH. I'd heard of this vague thing called Bible Criticism but I didn't realize how developed it was. Similarly I found out that Karaites exist nowadays and reject the Talmud! Something else I had not been aware of. I began realizing that a lot of very normal people simply rejected things I had always taken for granted.
In contrast, learning about evolution never phased me because I'd grown up with the proper defenses. I had been openly taught about evolution and it had been explained to me that God guided evolution, that 6 days of creation were not literal etc. In other words I'd incorporated the problem into my personal theology and didn't think of it as a problem because, in my mind, תשובתו בצדו - the answer was always there. I could only think of the problem of evolution and the answer to that problem as one thing, and to me the problem never stood by itself.
If I'd been raised fully knowing what the DH said but at the same time been raised with the solution, even a lame solution, I doubt that it would have gotten to me at all.
2. I was very scared of the consequences of learning these things and therefore instead of facing them head on I tried to ignore them (like good Jews should!) and let them simmer for about 6 years in my head until they effectively eroded my faith. Had I been mature enough at the time to face these problems I might have built up some sort of intellectual defense before my faith was gone.
3. Once your faith is gone its gone. And therefore when I was older and learned new and ingenious defenses of Judaism it did not matter because the faith was gone. I could intellectually defend Judaism but I could not rebuild a childhood feeling which had slowly disappeared.
This is my own theory about myself and I wrote about this a bit on the interview on Coin Laundry's blog:
So if I had to sum it up I'd say a series of coincidences led me down the path I did, and if a few things had been different I might be learning in Kollel in Bnei Brak today.
Posts
10 comments:
> I'd heard of this vague thing called Bible Criticism
Me too. And Bible Critics were portrayed either as fools who would understand Tanach properly if only they’d learn the meforshim, or as evil people who were out to undermine Yiddishkeit. I certainly never heard that there were rabbonim who had aderessed Bible Criticism. I suppose that would have been giving the critics too much legitimacy, and raise unfortunate questions in impressionable yeshiva bochurim.
For me it started with the problem of evil, and grew from there as I learned more. But there were also a lot of contributing factors, like family background, a distaste for learning gemara all day and so on.
> So if I had to sum it up I'd say a series of coincidences led me down the path I did
Same here.
In general, people overestimate how much a person is responsible for his situation. Most of us are where we are – in everything, not just religion – because of a complex interaction of environmental factors that happened to land us here.
"In contrast, learning about evolution never phased [sic] me because I'd grown up with the proper defenses. I had been openly taught about evolution and it had been explained to me that God guided evolution, that 6 days of creation were not literal etc." [...] "If I'd been raised fully knowing what the DH said but at the same time been raised with the solution, even a lame solution, I doubt that it would have gotten to me at all."
Maybe, but I doubt it. The reason why the Orthodox community has terutzim for evolution but near-universally pretends the DH doesn't exist and works hard to make sure people aren't aware of it is that there aren't answers, even bad ones. It's not like it wasn't tried: the Hertz Chumash used to be the #1 chumash in shuls. But the anti-DH apologetics did more damage then good, because the answers were dreadful and the introduction too dangerous.
Are you so certain that you would have been ok with the DH if you'd known about it with answers? And if so, why do you think the DH was buried so deeply? I think the answer is you're mistaken and the DH is a) far more corrosive to Orthodox belief than you credit and b) far more lacking in available terutzim. As proof of the latter, try to name an Orthodox book written post-1950 that directly address the DH and offers a coherent response. Most Orthodox books that even touch on it go to nigh-comical pains to not hint at what they're responding to, lest it clue the reader in about its existence!
Nice post.
"3. Once your faith is gone its gone. And therefore when I was older and learned new and ingenious defenses of Judaism it did not matter because the faith was gone. I could intellectually defend Judaism but I could not rebuild a childhood feeling which had slowly disappeared. "
As someone whose faith is still somewhat still intact, I can't fully understand how you feel. But I'm commenting anyway: it would be a sad thing if anyone's faith were still the same as it was when he was a child. We develop, we mature. It's not such a bad thing. The Rambam didn't see the world or Judaism the same way at the age of 15, 30 or 60. His thought clearly develops.
Also, I'd be interested to read posts about these ingenious defences of Judaism you learned about after your faith had gone. If you could go back in time (and wanted to save your faith) what would you teach yourself? What would you say to the person on the path between Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy? (I don't like the term Orthopraxy either, but I hope you get my question)
It depends which answers: I agree the head on attacks are rather lame, but perhaps an epistemological "God writes weird books", "you can't understand God" sort of thing would have done it. But you make some good points and I'll have to think about it.
You could say "it's hard to keep them down on the farm once they've seen the DH", but the prohibitions on kefira seem designed to keep them from seeing Paree in the first place.
(I'm not so knowledgeable in this area, but I'd guess the prohibitions on kefira were actually designed to prevent "shmadting up", since the DH, evolution etc. were not hot topic items back when they were promulagated).
>
But I'm commenting anyway: it would be a sad thing if anyone's faith were still the same as it was when he was a child.
It's called Emuna Peshuta, its revered in many circles. But either ways when I talk about faith, in this context, I mean that feeling of God existing or Judaism being true, not how one explains it or how one understands it, but rather just the very basic feeling.
>Also, I'd be interested to read posts about these ingenious defences of Judaism you learned about after your faith had gone. If you could go back in time (and wanted to save your faith) what would you teach yourself?
I've criticized some of these approaches in my blog before. Let me first make it clear, I don't think these approaches are valid NOW.
In general the best way to defend religion is by appealing to faith as a wholly a-rational thing. And explaining that the feeling itself (that all this stuff is real) is enough reason to continue believing it. Because ultimately the human experience is about one feels and not about logic. etc.
I tried using these approaches on myself at a certain period in my life (as can be seen by a post of mine from sometime around May 2011).
> And explaining that the feeling itself (that all this stuff is real) is enough reason to continue believing it.
And to make that into a virtue, and anyone who would question it an evil kofer.
But no Bible critics can understand why the Samaritans have the Torah and not just the E document.
Excellent and important post. I used to refer to these same and other elements. Having picked up the ANE information in a non-chalant manner (Mesiach Lfi Toomo) and not when my Kefira defences were up, greatly contributed to my apostacy. And likewise, I often said that the sequence of my obtaining about genetics and other matters such as physics, without being pre-inocculated also led to my loss of faith. Had I grown up on a Slifkin type diet where Breishis is not necessary literal, I might still have my faith.
So interesting....i often feel the same. While i enjoy currently enjoy slifkin, to me its more apoligetics, and even more extreme Than the regular yeshivish crowd i grew up with.
Twisting and turning and arguing what some particular rabbi's held hundereds if not thousands of years ago....rationalist? Makes me chuckle.....
Post a Comment