Judaism Believes...

It really bothers me a lot when people say "Judaism says: ...." or "Judaism believes..." As soon as one has let those two words slip s/he has already said a lie. Judaism is not a monolithic philosophical system. Saying "Judaism believes" is roughly equivalent to saying "philosophers say" or "Americans believe"

When it comes to what "Judaism" thinks about life the universe and everything - pretty much anything which could be thought has been thought. So at least philosophically speaking you cannot say the following things:


Judaism believes in free will and denies determinism


Judaism believes in Heaven and Hell


Judaism believes God is incorporeal


Judaism believes in a Messiah


Judaism believes in creation ex nihilo


All these statements which I've heard way too many times are false. Although one can say that historically Jewish thinkers tend to believe in free will, creation ex nihilo and the Messiah, one cannot state categorically that Judaism believes in these things - unless of course you don't want to include Chasdai Crescas, the Ralbag and some forms of Chassidut in the category of "Judaism".


People don't like uncertainty. They don't want a choice between thinkers. They don't want someone to tell them "Some people think this, and some people think that." No! People want their religion served on a plate. They want sturdy foundations and unquestionable tenets. They cannot accept heterogeneity.

Texts Meaning What They Say

As far as I can tell until the advent of Modern Literary Scholarship, people made a very interesting assumption about any text that they were presented to interpret.

They assumed that the text did not mean what it says.

When it says God raised his hand he didn't really raise his hand.

When the Mishna says one thing it actually means another.

When Reuven slept with Bilha he did not actually sleep with her.

When the Gemara mentions a giant bird it doesn't actually refer to a giant bird. 

The concept of taking a text at face value, of actually taking the words in a text seriously, and assuming that people write what they mean is a very modern concept. It is I believe THE fundamental difference between approaching a text in a modern way and approaching a text in a traditional way.

It's interesting that this does not seem to be intuitive at all. I cannot say at any point in my life before I was introduced to the modern approach, that it ever occurred to me to read a text as it was. I think this has to do with cultivating a sense of objectivity. Our natural inclination is to interpret any text by our standards and sensibilities. Due to almost unbridgeable cultural gap between me and a person living a thousand years ago it is almost inevitable that I will interpret a text differently than the original intent if I try to impose my own sensibilities on it.

Setting objectivity as a goal actually one of the most counter-intuitive things a person can we tend to interpret a text in light of ourselves and put ourselves into the text....

The Heart's Eye

The foundation of all knowledge is "empiricism". I see a swan so I assume swans exist. I jump in a lake so I assume that this lake exists. Many observations can lead to indirect form of knowledge like scientific theories.

But the huge corpus of human knowledge is all based on something so frail and fallible. Everything we humans claim to know comes from our senses. We attribute "Reality" to the observations of our senses but the truth is that these senses are far from infallible and we humans live in a world dominated by a persistent Cartesian doubt

There is another sense. Perhaps we can call it emotion. Feelings. Faith. Scientists generally reject such things as sources of truth. Just because you FEEL that you are Napoleon doesn't make you into a conquering dictator. Just because you FEEL that an invisible man gave you a holy book doesn't make a revelation at Sinai happen.

Or at least that's what the scientist will say.

But why are the impressions made on our senses any better than impressions made on our hearts. Why is the former a more valid source of truth in many people's eyes. Maybe I actually am Napoleon if I feel like it. Maybe God does exist if I feel it in my heart. If my eyes fail to confirm God perhaps my heart can.

Perhaps the feelings of the heart are just as much a window to this thing called "Reality" as the observations of the eyes. 

One obvious advantage of empirical observations vs. "emotional observations" is that empirical observations have proven themselves useful. The advance of technology, improvement of human living conditions, medicine, science all the foundations of modern society all come from accepting "empiricism".

Have the feelings of the heart proven as useful? That is a matter which needs further study.

But we have to keep in mind that it is the heart that originally validated empiricism. The human heart is certain that it is surrounded not by an illusion - but by something real - something with an independent existence. Philosophers can prattle all day about whether or not this world we live in is not some sort of solipsistic delusion. But even the most skeptical philosopher will go home to eat supper - unafraid that his home is but a delusion. But all of  this is merely a feeling an "observation of the heart". Before we had invented tools or dabbled in technology we did not know that empiricism would prove useful. But we felt that it was true. We felt that what we saw is what there is. Without questioning....

This is perhaps a variation of the lame blogger argument that can be summed up as "I don't know other people exist but I assume they do and same goes for God." Most people, myself included, have laughed at this argument. But perhaps there is more to it than meets the eye.

If you feel God exists. If your "heart's eye" literally screams that he is there watching you. Then is it any worse than believing that the car parked outside your house is actually there....

Avoiding the Nitty Gritty

Is it not somewhat interesting that no Orthodox (that I know of - except maybe Cassuto) - TMS supporting - scholar has ever sat down and methodically discussed and given alternative explanations for the textual variations in the Pentateuch - the likes of which are used to establish the veracity of the Documentary Hypothesis. Sure, I think everyone has taken a crack at explaining the differences between YHWH and Elohim, or the differences between Yaakov and Yisrael - but I'm yet to see an Orthodox scholar sit down and explain the convergence of evidence surrounding these variations.

I've discussed the evidence of the DH in detail in the past. By convergence of evidence I mean the fact that not only does God's name change but also different sets of vocabulary and terminology accompany each name change AND name changes often correspond to parallel accounts.

So even if Umberto Cassuto, or M.Z. Segel give alternative explanations as to why God is sometimes called YHWH and sometimes called Elohim - AFAIK they have never explained WHY these changes are accompanied by other textual variations. When you find three or more types of variations all occurring in tandem - you have to wonder if there isn't some sort of pattern....

Orthodox "rebuttals" of Biblical criticism always deal with generalities. They will try to knock down general principles of the DH without even referring to the "boring", pedantic word lists which the theory is based on....

Part of the fault here is that of modern, popular supporters of the DH who fail to make their case. Richard Elliot Friedman's - Who Wrote the Bible - presents the conclusion of Biblical criticism - clearly explaining who is J who is E etc. But he barely makes any sort of convincing case for these divisions, he just assumes they are true. It is sad that I was only convinced of the (basic idea) of the DH by referring to books from the 20's. Maybe modern Biblical scholarship (or at least the type of Biblical scholarship available to us laypeople, perhaps in the academic world there is more discussion about the nitty gritty) suffers from misplaced confidence that it's theories are well established facts and no longer feels a need to try proving it...


 Either ways I laugh every time I hear a response from Orthodoxy to Bible Criticism . Sometimes friends of mine confront me and ask me if I realize that it's all rubbish made up by Protestant antisemites. I invariably ask them if they sat with a Chumash and a word list and highlighted word and name variations in the different chapters of Genesis.

Most of them grudgingly have to admit they haven't. 

 For some reason these confident critics of Biblical scholarship never found the time to actually do the dirty work and check how many times it says והקימותי את בריתי or ויעצב  אל לבו in Genesis.

Leave the Bible scholarship to those who are willing to sit and read word lists.

And don't trust the Kiruv Klowns because they are too busy looking for Torah codes to open up S.R. Driver.... 

Thinking About The Watchmaker Analogy

To quote William Paley:

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. (...) There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. (...) Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.

I think this is the gist of it : 
1. When I see a watch I know intuitively that it was made by a human being.
2. Why do I have this intuition? The complexity of the watch is that which intuitively suggest an intelligent designer.
3. Similarly the complexity of nature should intuitively suggest to us such a designer.
4. Since this designer is clearly NOT a human therefore it must be someone else i.e. God. 

Ok now the problems:
The first proposition is sound.

The second proposition: The complexity of the watch is that which intuitively suggests an intelligent designer. Who says that it is the complexity of the watch which suggest to me that it is made by an intelligent designer. Perhaps it is my prior experience with watches and things crafted by man? Would a cave man instantly recognize the watch as intelligently and purposefully designed? Would an alien? I'm not sure...

The third proposition:  Similarly the complexity of nature should intuitively suggest to us such a designer. A few problems: Firstly if it's so intuitive why the need for the watch analogy in the first place? I should just KNOW in a flash of intuition! Maybe it's my תאוות for sex and drugs which are blinding me and the watch will knock some sense into me....

Wikipedia suggests that the watch is merely a rhetorical device in which case the argument boils down to: "You know nature is designed because it's complex. THE END" which is a blatant non-sequitir. One has to explain WHY complexity automatically suggests design...

But another question! If everything is designed either by God or Man then how is it that it is so easy for Paley, in the quote above, to distinguish between rock and watch. According to his own logic I should NOT be able to distinguish between the two because they are BOTH products of design. Either God's or man's. Have you my dear theist, ever seen an un-designed thing? You have? Then you've seen something not designed by God? A little kefira-dick don't you think?

I suppose you could say maybe that only organisms are designed. (Even though that would be kefira-dick) You have to admit they are more complex than rocks.... 

In which case the argument is I can intuitively discern watches from rocks the same way as I can discern  kangaroos from rocks....  I guess that could be sound if there weren't all the other objections...
 
The Fourth Proposition: Since this designer is clearly NOT a human therefore it must be someone else i.e. God. Or martians.

"Silly, atheist! Where did the martians come from!?" "hmmmm maybe from the same place God came from...."

Also -  how do we know the designer is not a human? What in our intuition allows us to discern between man-made design and God-made design? In fact if we take the analogy seriously it is actually suggesting that nature shows signs of being man-made not God made. We simply have no rock stamped MADE BY GOD to compare nature to...

I guess you could say because we know from elsewhere that man doesn't know how to manufacture orangutans... 

AND FINALLY:

Intuition is sometimes rubbish. Humans see designs in french toast, clouds and ink splotches.... Wouldn't put too much faith in it...

 The watchmaker argument is an appeal to emotions, an elegant statement about the complexity of nature which some cannot but attribute to God. But it is not logic nor should it be presented as such. To stand in awe of the universe and see a maker behind it is fine. However to call that science or logic is just incorrect. 


Read the Wikipedia article for a fuller discussion....

Why So Few Female Skeptics?

I can't say this is a fact because I have never really looked into it but the feeling I get from my personal day to day experience is that Orthopraxic girls are very rare. Maybe I'm just hanging around the wrong circles but while I know lots of Orthoprax (or virtually Orthoprax) guys I barely know any Orthoprax gals...(though I know some who I feel could be tipped over the edge with a bit of subtle encouragement - if I was so inclined - which I'm not)

So either I'm just completely wrong about this or we're dealing with a real thing in which case we have to wonder WHY?

Some purely speculative pet theories (Again: assuming I'm describing a real phenomenon which I'm not sure about) :

In the Orthodox world girls are taught much less of the fundamental texts of Orthodoxy i.e. the Talmud and Rabbinic literature... Therefore they do perhaps do not know enough about Orthodoxy to effectively criticize it.

A variant of the first theory: When immersed in "Talmudism" one begins to think of religion as a very logical methodological thing. When religion fails, under scrutiny, to stand up to this expectation one ends up being skeptical. However, women who generally do not study Talmud, or even if they do - not as much as men, perhaps (and excuse me if this sounds a little stereotypical or sexist) think of religion less logically and more emotionally. Just to clarify, I'm not saying women are inherently "emotional". All I'm saying is that study Talmud might diminish the emotional element in religion and make one perceive religion in a much more technical or logical way. Since religion is not logical the Talmudic man will find himself at a bit of a loss. Since religion IS emotional the non-Talmudic woman will not.

Orthodoxy's sexism is too much for a self-respecting female to put up with and so cruising along Orthopraxly is just too distasteful if you think it's all rubbish. According to this Orthodox women are not less skeptical than men but merely pick up and leave.

Of course all of this is meaningless speculation without proper studies, but it's fun to muse about....

Please everyone, share your theories or tell me that I'm wrong about female skeptics... 

(Oh just a clarification 'cuz I get the feeling in the comments that some people don't get this. I'm not running around rocking payos and a black hat and being Orthoprax. I associate with LWMO. So everything I describe is from my LWMO perspective. Back when I was in the Chareidi world  I did not meet one male or female Orthopraxer and literally thought I might be the only one. Only very recently did I meet a black-hat Orthopraxer)

Orthoprax Pros and Cons

Pros:

• You don't have to break ties with your fundamentalist family and friends
• You can continue a lifestyle you're familiar with and continue living comfortably in a community you like
• You can continue enjoying the bits and pieces of Judaism you like

Cons:

• You have to speak with a bit of a filter in order to keep people appeased - AKA lie about your true beliefs
• You have to feign horror when hearing that someone has angered God by eating a cheeseburger
• You have to keep a lot of annoying and also useless things which mean nothing to you
• You have to take part in some morally offensive things like listening attentively to a chapter of the Torah commanding genocide... 

 Is it worth it? Or should we get out while we still can?

I'm at the point where I just wanna believe so that I can stop worrying about it. The clock is ticking and I'm not gonna have the opportunity to leave forever...

Inertia is strong through.

God, I wish I knew what to do....