tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post115887476070889010..comments2024-01-07T05:17:58.943-05:00Comments on Orthoprax: Dawkins and a Hasidic RabbiOrthopraxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1163086087185204982006-11-09T10:28:00.000-05:002006-11-09T10:28:00.000-05:00Observance is only a part of their heritage. It wi...Observance is only a part of their heritage. It will have the same track record for most people as what your parents had with you if you only give them a part of that. It’s really too early to say what you will be like twenty years from now. Your thought processes really have just been starting. If your anything like me you will have evolved plenty in about twenty years. If you give people only a part of their heritage they will feel free to discard as they wish. If someone observes and believes then they have nothing to say to their children to get them to continue their heritage if they have instilled in them as much love for it as it seems your parents instilled in you when it came to practice. I see a me in you about twenty years ago only I saw the package as a whole. Perhaps in the end all that really matters is that we get our children to feel so much love for their heritage that they can’t change even if they can’t explain why. Maybe what our children need is lots of love. An example is best when that is shown. Ultimately how long is life? It seems the love we feel for those who have shown us so much love is what really counts. I’ll tell you something. People complain about the Chareidim but the feelings expressed amongst them are profound ones whether it all matches up with rational thought or not. They provide a lesson. Ultimately how good is religion if all we have is trying to reconcile it with other things? Of course we have to try to do that. But we mustn’t lose site of the fact that religion in and of itself serves a purpose. Dawkins cold bravado isn’t impressive to me. One heartfelt prayer is. If religion is used to bring out the noblest impulses in man then that is true religion. Traditionally that really is the core of Judaism. I may be getting emotional here. There are personal reasons for that. I don’t have existential issues and am thank G-d very well but time for those you love can swing hard forward. G-d willing twenty years from now you will have an easier life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1163055013441476392006-11-09T01:50:00.000-05:002006-11-09T01:50:00.000-05:00Yisrael,"And how do you tell your future children ...Yisrael,<BR/><BR/>"And how do you tell your future children that they should pass down only practice"<BR/><BR/>Hum? You don't tell children that, you show them by being a role model. If you invest in children a love for Judaism, an appreciation for their heritage and the enjoyment of an observant life then they will be observant.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1163051166889482602006-11-09T00:46:00.000-05:002006-11-09T00:46:00.000-05:00And how do you tell your future children that they...And how do you tell your future children that they should pass down only practice unless by now you believe in more. I'm not sure what exactly you believe since we last wrote like I don't know a year ago.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1163048936372752582006-11-09T00:08:00.001-05:002006-11-09T00:08:00.001-05:00Its Jewishness.Its Jewishness.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1163043347148648612006-11-08T22:35:00.000-05:002006-11-08T22:35:00.000-05:00Now we are getting somewhere. What do you find of ...Now we are getting somewhere. What do you find of value in it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1163033615685108362006-11-08T19:53:00.000-05:002006-11-08T19:53:00.000-05:00Yisrael,It's my culture. I find value in it and wi...Yisrael,<BR/><BR/>It's my culture. I find value in it and wish to see it continued.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1163032857815219552006-11-08T19:40:00.000-05:002006-11-08T19:40:00.000-05:00>Yisrael,>"What is so special about Judaism >for y...>Yisrael,<BR/><BR/>>"What is so special about Judaism >for you?"<BR/><BR/>>I'm Jewish<BR/><BR/>I know but what is the reason you feel Judaism's practices should be preserved?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1163029266576281472006-11-08T18:41:00.000-05:002006-11-08T18:41:00.000-05:00If you don't know the information then you can't r...If you don't know the information then you can't really know the issues. Maybe you "know of" the issues, but that's hardly the same thing.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1163028261419860242006-11-08T18:24:00.000-05:002006-11-08T18:24:00.000-05:00orthoprax, I admitted to being an ignorant person,...orthoprax, <BR/>I admitted to being an ignorant person, and I am. but mostly it's ignorance of the information, not the issues. the issues mostly come up in all sorts of places. to explain; it's not that I was unaware that there are counterarguments to the Kuzari, I simply have never been involved in such an argument bc I don't know the book well enough. I didn't catch the JEPD reference, but when I looked it up, found that I was familiar with the basic concepts and even a few of the details of it's particular brand of bible criticisms. I never found Gilgamesh, nor the Code of Hammurabi to be particularly convincing of anything. I could go on, but I think it's sort of useless. at this point in the argument, there is clearly nothing else left but to agree to disagree, since we were never really arguing based on the same premises anyway. <BR/>by the way, you might find this post interesting. http://tobiesrandomrants.blogspot.comMirihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00971075346520291515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1163025577101649812006-11-08T17:39:00.000-05:002006-11-08T17:39:00.000-05:00Yisrael,"What is so special about Judaism for you?...Yisrael,<BR/><BR/>"What is so special about Judaism for you?"<BR/><BR/>I'm Jewish...Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1162995434762528562006-11-08T09:17:00.000-05:002006-11-08T09:17:00.000-05:00"Really, you think? Whenever I am in a potentially..."Really, you think? Whenever I am in a potentially serious relationship I have told the girl where I stand."<BR/><BR/>Good for you.<BR/><BR/>"I honestly could care less. Why is that relevant? I'm not Catholic."<BR/><BR/>You are last I read of the opinion Judaism's practices should be preserved. If you feel Catholicism's practices could drop for all you care then the question is why. What is so special about Judaism for you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1162962473069416802006-11-08T00:07:00.000-05:002006-11-08T00:07:00.000-05:00Miri,"as to people acting on reason and logic; you...Miri,<BR/><BR/>"as to people acting on reason and logic; you forget the intellectual baalei teshuva who were driven to Yiddeshkeit on the strenght of their intellectual honesty"<BR/><BR/>I'll be honest with you. I don't believe such people exist except insofar as they were convinced without all the available data.<BR/><BR/>But, again, it is you who said that people don't form their beliefs based on reason or logic - so how can you say that some BTs base their beliefs on logic and reason?<BR/><BR/>"as to the firestorms regarding basic Orthodoxy- I do not deny that I'm generally a tremendously ignorant person."<BR/><BR/>Well, that's all I was saying.<BR/><BR/>"Here is a point that bothers me. why is is that you assume that since these people have come to conclusions other than your own they must be deluding themselves?"<BR/><BR/>I don't. I think that there are a variety of reasonable conclusions one can come to based on the data, but I also know there are some unreasonable conclusions. And, basically, the thesis of Orthodoxy is unreasonable.<BR/><BR/>"therefore, the fact that I believe in what a lot of other people happen to believe in means I haven't thought the thing through at all, or am deluding myself?"<BR/><BR/>No, I just think you're ignorant of the issues - and that as much you've already admitted to.<BR/><BR/>"what makes you think that Hindus, Muslims, and Mormons are all necessarily emotionally-driven believers any more than you are? simply because you don't believe the same things?"<BR/><BR/>I was generalizing, but yes, generally they are not basing their beliefs on the evidence.<BR/><BR/>"what makes my beliefs qualitativley different from theirs is very simple: we don't believe in the same things."<BR/><BR/>You miss the point. Can you justify your religious beliefs any better than they can? <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Yisrael,<BR/><BR/>"It seems to me Orthoprax that you don't really have a good reason for being observant if you don't believe too. I wouldn't call you an observant Jew until you believe also."<BR/><BR/>Ok, that's your opinion. I disagree. And being that I think I know myself a little better than you do, I am going to defer to my own view.<BR/><BR/>"What is your attitude towards Catholicism do you want Catholics to be at least Orthoprax or how about a religion like the Moonies who as far as I know have not had their group becoming anyone's cultural heritage? Do you want them to preserve their practices?"<BR/><BR/>I honestly could care less. Why is that relevant? I'm not Catholic.<BR/><BR/>"Your young and a time will come when you would have to reveal to a potential bride the truth about your religious beliefs."<BR/><BR/>Really, you think? Whenever I am in a potentially serious relationship I have told the girl where I stand.<BR/><BR/>"I have a feeling you observe externally because you have some emotional commitment that you are not examining."<BR/><BR/>I do have emotional reasons for being observant. I agree completely. And I have examined them.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1162951552433871672006-11-07T21:05:00.000-05:002006-11-07T21:05:00.000-05:00It seems to me Orthoprax that you don't really hav...It seems to me Orthoprax that you don't really have a good reason for being observant if you don't believe too. I wouldn't call you an observant Jew until you believe also. What is your attitude towards Catholicism do you want Catholics to be at least Orthoprax or how about a religion like the Moonies who as far as I know have not had their group becoming anyone's cultural heritage? Do you want them to preserve their practices? Your young and a time will come when you would have to reveal to a potential bride the truth about your religious beliefs. This isn't like telling her you didn't eat the last cookie in the jar when you really did. I have a feeling you observe externally because you have some emotional commitment that you are not examining. If you are looking for more flexibility in Orthodoxy by now there are plenty of leftwing opinions to choose from. They may not have a big following but it is there. As for the Kuzari it has been noted that he in saying that religion is not like some axiomatic system but stems from community experience is making a very modern statement (and being a breath of fresh air in the Middle Ages on this point) even if naturally he stated many ideas from the past.<BR/>Yisrael Asper (Again)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1162945375917329502006-11-07T19:22:00.000-05:002006-11-07T19:22:00.000-05:00as to people acting on reason and logic; you forge...as to people acting on reason and logic; you forget the intellectual baalei teshuva who were driven to Yiddeshkeit on the strenght of their intellectual honesty. people who grew up with these arguments, even scientists, and yet felt that logically speaking, religion was the most factually correct way to go. I think you're black-and-whiting it a bit more than is strictly accurate. there are stories on every side.<BR/><BR/>as to the diffculty with arguing evolution; what I meant to say was that if G-d's presence in the world were scientifically proven, it would put a different spin on the general discussion. personally, I don't think the two ideas are at all mutually exclusive. my point was just that the scientific community would have to alter their views a little bit. it wasn't a particularly good or really relevant point.<BR/><BR/>as to the "days of simpler faith" thing; I apologize, I misread the original comment. I thought you were speaking of a historical time period. in light of the fact that you were referring to yourself, actually I think most or all of what I said regarding that point was also irrelevant. sorry for the confusion.<BR/><BR/>as to the firestorms regarding basic Orthodoxy- I do not deny that I'm generally a tremendously ignorant person. I don't know what JEPD is(well, I did just look it up, but I didn't know before two minutes ago;) I do know who Gilgamesh was (and actually I think that rather supports the claim of the Orthodox as to the flood, at least in terms of such a flood having occurred - similar evnts recoreded in multiple documents of various cuultures etc.); I do not know the counterarguments to the Kuzari. I read through the Kuzari on my own, very superficially, last year, and I certaintly don't know it well enough to argue about it. there were however, a lot of bits of it that bothered me, and that I don't quite agree with.<BR/><BR/>"No, I agree, there are Orthodox Jews who think. Most of them are just in denial or have come to their own conclusions that would be considered heresy by the larger populaton." Here is a point that bothers me. why is is that you assume that since these people have come to conclusions other than your own they must be deluding themselves? again, I will admit my vast ignorance. it could well be that you have somehow attained some "scientific and empirically proven evidence" against the claims of the orthodox. but so far in my travels, I haven't encountered anyone who was able to convincingly convince me that they're standpoint was more logically or scientifically valid than mine. therefore, the fact that I believe in what a lot of other people happen to believe in means I haven't thought the thing through at all, or am deluding myself? <BR/><BR/> I never said I was "denying logic and reason as my goalkeepers." I'm not, and they are. I'm just being realistic about how much logic and reason affect perception vs. other factors, which is something I think a lot of people don't take into account when they try to figure out why exactly they believe what they believe. I never meant to say that my beliefs are emotionally-driven. I meant to say that I think the nature of belief is such that logic and reason don't create it as much as justify it. logic alone isn't always enough.<BR/> <BR/>what makes you think that Hindus, Muslims, and Mormons are all necessarily emotionally-driven believers any more than you are? simply because you don't believe the same things? <BR/>what makes my beliefs qualitativley different from theirs is very simple: we don't believe in the same things.Mirihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00971075346520291515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1162937191501684942006-11-07T17:06:00.000-05:002006-11-07T17:06:00.000-05:00Miri,"not true. I personally know lots of people -...Miri,<BR/><BR/>"not true. I personally know lots of people - intellectuals too, mind you- who say they believe in G-d, and even that they believe Judaism is true, but refuse to practice Orthodoxy for a number of reasons; most of them emotional."<BR/><BR/>Then you know people that aren't following reason. I fully agree that such people exist. I, however, endeavor not to be one of them and I know of many other people who try to be as reasonable as possible and will change their minds when reason demands it of them.<BR/><BR/>"as to the Jews at Sinai - it's a good point. free will is a bit of a sticky issue...but I think you meant to say that we probably would have free will even if G-d's presence was a proven fact."<BR/><BR/>That was what I implied.<BR/><BR/>"it would, however, make it a bit difficult to argue about evolution now wouldn't it?"<BR/><BR/>I don't know what you mean.<BR/><BR/>"then why were you longing for the days of a simpler sort of faith? sounds like you had it down pretty well."<BR/><BR/>I don't understand what you're saying. I sometimes wish to go back to that childlike faith because it was so sure about things and fully confident and comfortable because I _knew_ I had the truth. Now things are harder and far less certain. But I see that faith as something I simply grew out of - that other people seem not to.<BR/><BR/>"I think I have reason to find this comment particularly offensive. it is also the crux of my issue with all the young Jewish intellectuals who like to think they're the first ones to come up with the concept of questioning G-d. you assume I have never been a skeptic bc I'm taking the opposing side of this argument."<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry if you were offended, but I really do believe you are largely ignorant of the firestorm that rages in intellectual circles regarding all the basic tenants of Orthodoxy. If I said "JEPD," would you know the reference? Do you know who Gilgamesh is? Are you familiar with the counterarguments given for the Kuzari?<BR/><BR/>Now I am sure you can look those up, but be honest with me please.<BR/><BR/>"just bc you haven't actually spoken to any religous Jews who think doesn't mean they don't exist"<BR/><BR/>No, I agree, there are Orthodox Jews who think. Most of them are just in denial or have come to their own conclusions that would be considered heresy by the larger populaton. Seriously, when Orthodox Jews try to justify belief in a global flood they might as well be trying to justify belief in a flat earth.<BR/><BR/>Maybe you didn't believe when I told you the first time. I have spoken to literally hundreds of Orthodox Jews on these topics - if not thousands. Really, I am no novice.<BR/><BR/>"you make things far too simplistic when you leave things only to reason and logic. bc to be perfectly honest my friend (we are trying to be honest, right?) people are not that easy"<BR/><BR/>By denying reason and logic as your primary goal keepers you are opening yourself up to believing all sorts of things that one has no reason to believe are true and are in likelihood false. What makes your emotionally-driven beliefs qualitatively different from the Hindu's or the Muslim's or the Mormon's?Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1162916924456250912006-11-07T11:28:00.000-05:002006-11-07T11:28:00.000-05:00Orthoprax-"People who follow reason will change th...Orthoprax-<BR/>"People who follow reason will change their views in accordance with it." not true. I personally know lots of people - intellectuals too, mind you- who say they believe in G-d, and even that they believe Judaism is true, but refuse to practice Orthodoxy for a number of reasons; most of them emotional. there are some people who do act strictly according to reason. most people act according to emotion. and if you believe one thing and do another, the belief doesn't mean very much anyway.<BR/><BR/>as to the Jews at Sinai - it's a good point. free will is a bit of a sticky issue...but I think you meant to say that we probably would have free will even if G-d's presence was a proven fact. I could see that actually. it would, however, make it a bit difficult to argue about evolution now wouldn't it?<BR/><BR/><BR/>"...when as a child I blissfully accepted the dogma without issue." then why were you longing for the days of a simpler sort of faith? sounds like you had it down pretty well. <BR/><BR/>"That's because you've never been a skeptic. You're still within the rubric of bliss that most skeptics call ignorance."<BR/><BR/>At this point in the conversation, I think I have reason to find this comment particularly offensive. it is also the crux of my issue with all the young Jewish intellectuals who like to think they're the first ones to come up with the concept of questioning G-d. you assume I have never been a skeptic bc I'm taking the opposing side of this argument. but you don't actually know anything of my belief or belief system. I will grant you that many religous people don't choose to think too deeply abt these issues. but as I've already stated on this blog, there are also many "atheists" who never really thought abt it either. the majority of human beings don't think. this includes the majority of any particular group, such as Orthodox Jews/Catholics/Muslims, etc.it also includes the majority of college students. it also includes the majority of middle-aged businessmen. my point was that just bc you haven't actually spoken<BR/>to any religous Jews who think doesn't mean they don't exist. it probably means that you talked to a few religous Jews, weren't impressed, and assumed you know what all religous Jews think bc you were cool enough to win an argument with someone who didn't know very much. my other point was that there are actually many Jews out there (I could name a few, but you probably don't know them)who have a lot of problems with the whole G-d thing but they stick with it bc intellectually honest people don't give up on a concept until they come to a conclusion - and if you're doing it right, there's never a very conclusive conclusion. <BR/><BR/>and finally; G-d crises are usually more PERCEPTUAL than anything else. ie, the way you see the world. this view of the world is affected party by logic, partly by emotion, partly by digestive processes. and a myriad of other things. you make things far too simplistic when you leave things only to reason and logic. bc to be perfectly honest my friend (we are trying to be honest, right?) people are not that easy.Mirihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00971075346520291515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1162870941677381972006-11-06T22:42:00.000-05:002006-11-06T22:42:00.000-05:00Well Orthoprax I saw that Dawkins clip you put up....Well Orthoprax I saw that Dawkins clip you put up. If the rest of the program is like what I saw then I don't have any use for it. I learned that Richard Dawkins has intolerant views and is a chutzpanick. If I were a movie critic I’d squirm in my seat. He mentions part of the theory of Evolution that I already know. He mentions at first six thousand years and then switches to five thousand years as a Jewish tradition. Oh well rounding off mistakes are always common in science and life. In short what new have I learned from that clip? That a scientist can allow a whole clip worth of a show to say absolutely nothing. Rabbi Gluck perhaps does not understand what the word theory means in science (but he knows how to be polite. Dawkins is notorious for lacking in that field) but so does Dawkins misunderstand why in science a law is still called a theory. In every other branch of science if someone comes up with an objection it is labeled a challenge. Mainstream scientists don't immediately think of dumping it if at all but they forever recheck. Galileo reportedly dropped things off the Leaning Tower of Pisa (no not water bombs although it would have also been useful). Centuries later an astronaut dropped a feather and a coin on the moon why? because you are always retesting in science to challenge theory. Not so with Evolution in testing its truth.<BR/>Here you have a theory which doesn't claim that one being was programmed to become another. So at least on the supermacro level we can't just say well all these scientists say it's so or this lifeform for sure at this level of Evolution came from this other one. No one says well now we will check again to see if the theory of Evolution is true. The strength of a theory is precisely that as Dawkins himself says in the clip, but in real life for Dawkins Evolution stands still. In the original theory of NeoDarwinism you have natural selection evolving constantly new life. To Gould if you have no isolation for a small group of individuals you can forget about Evolution. In the original theory of NeoDarwinism life stems from one lifeform. This is good for cladistics as an ideal assumption but now we have scientists seriously saying life may have come from various lifeforms and not necessarily from this planet. You even have horror of horrors those scientists who wonder if life did not arise several times on Earth. A further complication is that we see stars near on cosmological scales the beginning of time and who knows if we will discover planets with life around them. If life evolves through chance we had better adopt at least partially Darwin’s later view that chance in Natural Selection’s means chance from the standpoint of ignorance. Arguing that given enough time monkeys can produce the Encyclopedia Britannica by themselves randomly is easily proven false. Would you even if you did not learn how old the Earth is or when typewriters were made or when monkeys were made or anything else was made say the Encyclopedia Britannica was randomly produced by monkeys. Maybe our whole history then is falsely made up by those monkeys. This is a spooky issue. Its like why is it that each individual has total freedom as to whether to go to a store and yet enmasse if these disconnected people don't show up it is for a reason. The difference between randomness and order is mysterious. Another interesting thing is that it takes the brain longer to coordinate the whole command system of having an action done than the amount of time between deciding to do something and doing it. So before we decide to do something our brains already start the process of doing it. Yet we feel we have free will. If we don't have free will than how asks Stephen Hawking do we know if we have the correct theory of Everything? He answers that it would be an advantage of natural selection for us to know the correct theory. Well the theory of Evolution itself is a scientific theory so how would we be able to know we are not programmed to come up with it. Are we supposed to say if we live long enough that we already know that the Theory of Everything developed on star date 8954783423 has to be true because enough time has passed? No scientist including the great Stephen Hawking would stand for it. Also did you ever notice how some people are so good you know they wouldn't do something. Like picture Rav Moshe Feinstein as even an embezzler. Forget it. And yet we feel we have free will. What is Free Will. It is a nonscientific belief that we can transcend science and choose to do something. If we don't have free will as Rav Chasdai Crescas contended centuries ago how can we be blamed for anything? Maybe we no longer can say like Chasdai Crescas as we don't judge someone in halacha as being guilty if they did something because they are crazy. If we don't have free will why do we feel that we are initiating an action. As Isaac Bashevis Singer commented even those who say there's no free will make sure not to get themselves killed. What would it mean to not have free will? Would we feel anything or be possessed like a dybbuk possessing a character in one of Isaac Bashevis Singer's novels. I believe we have free will. I also believe that what it is far from simple and there are studies suggesting the Rambam felt the same.<BR/>Yisrael Asper (again)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1162851380156047532006-11-06T17:16:00.000-05:002006-11-06T17:16:00.000-05:00Miri,"I don't really think I believe in "rational ...Miri,<BR/><BR/>"I don't really think I believe in "rational beliefs.""<BR/><BR/>By saying that you are pretty much undermining any kind of argument you could ever make in favor of any position. People who follow reason will change their views in accordance with it.<BR/><BR/>"I also don't believe in "evidence to support the claim." by the way, people who claim simply that G-d's existence hasn't been proven are technically agnostics; atheist, by strict definition, means someone who knows without a doubt that G-d does not exist"<BR/><BR/>That is, in fact, a very strict definition and most atheists would disagree with you. To be without belief in God is enough to be an atheist. You don't need to have a positive belief that God does not exist.<BR/><BR/>"(although I'm sure you already know this) that if you were to prove G-d's existence, you would remove man's free will.)"<BR/><BR/>That, in itself, is a pretty silly argument. You probably believe that at Sinai the Israelites were presented with unambiguous proof that God exists, right? Yet they still managed to freely sin before God many times.<BR/><BR/>"I have never longed for the simpler times when all you needed was the simple belief."<BR/><BR/>That's because you've never been a skeptic. You are still within the rubric of bliss that so many skeptics simply consider ignorance.<BR/><BR/>"first of all, that's kind of bull"<BR/><BR/>I was referring to my own life experience, when as a child I blissfully accepted the dogma without issue.<BR/><BR/>"if you were G-d, would you really want the people you'd given the gifts of intelligence and intellectual integrity to to squash those powers in favor of some misguided concept of what one person said they thought faith was supposed to be?"<BR/><BR/>I'm not God. But it is fully apparent that that is exactly how most religions and religious people function. That's the very concept of dogma that cannot be questioned or else we kick you out of the community.<BR/><BR/>"but I think it's possible for intellectuals to have a much deeper, more complex, even a more grounded and strong relationship with G-d bc of the fact that they struggle for it constantly."<BR/><BR/>Perhaps. But woe be it to them if they consider opinions that the massed multitude believe to be heresy.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1162765738073219812006-11-05T17:28:00.000-05:002006-11-05T17:28:00.000-05:00I don't really think I believe in "rational belief...I don't really think I believe in "rational beliefs." I think people use logic and rationality to justify what they already believe, and what they believe is based on how they percieve the wold, which is affected by the myriads of tiny things that make up every aspect of our personalities, history and day to day existence.<BR/> <BR/>I also don't believe in "evidence to support the claim." by the way, people who claim simply that G-d's existence hasn't been proven are technically agnostics; atheist, by strict definition, means someone who knows without a doubt that G-d does not exist. since you can neither prove nor disprove G-d's existence, a lot of people claim to be atheists who actually aren't. (most religous people will tell you (although I'm sure you already know this) that if you were to prove G-d's existence, you would remove man's free will.)<BR/>"Atheists...just argue that the claim hasn't been proven in the first place." this is why I find this argument weak. it's kind of like the situation in the middle east. I'm sure you can find every little thing that's wrong with it; but if you don't have a working replacable solution/idea/theory, I'm not all that impressed. anyone can criticize. so what?<BR/><BR/>I have never longed for the simpler times when all you needed was the simple belief. first of all, that's kind of bull - to assume that there was a time when there were no Jews who actually thought about G-d? I'm assuming you know Jews, right? and maybe a tiny bit of Jewish history? the people who went on simple faith were called "amei haaretz"- the unlearned ones. what about the Rambam? or the Besht? the Ramchal? any Rabbi who was put into cherem in the last 2000 years or so? in case you haven't noticed, Jews don't cow that easily - not now, not ever. <BR/> and lets be honest with ourselves. if you were G-d, would you really want the people you'd given the gifts of intelligence and intellectual integrity to to squash those powers in favor of some misguided concept of what one person said they thought faith was supposed to be? maybe it was easier for those people who were never burdened with overactive thought proceses, but since when does G-d prize ease over all things? as far as I can recall, never. <BR/><BR/>look, Avraham Avinu wasn't known for his emunah bc it came easily to him. the man didn't discover G-d until the age of seventy. you think He would have appreciated it more if Avraham just woke up one morning and said "hey, maybe I'll believe in one G-d today. that'd be something new and different." Avraham struggled for his faith more than any other human being ever, and that's why it was the greatest faith ever. and you don't struggle with the things that come naturally.<BR/>what is my point here? that I don't think faith is simple. nor do I think it's simplistic. I mean I know that approach works for some people, and that's fine. but I think it's possible for intellectuals to have a much deeper, more complex, even a more grounded and strong relationship with G-d bc of the fact that they struggle for it constantly. <BR/><BR/>as to "all the minutiae of religous life..." yeah that's a million seperate stories all on their own. unfortunately, I know too little to attempt venturing into that area.<BR/>(sorry abt the ranting. it's something that's been on my mind a lot lately.)Mirihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00971075346520291515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1162758692149765002006-11-05T15:31:00.000-05:002006-11-05T15:31:00.000-05:00Miri,"I happen to think that no belief is really a...Miri,<BR/><BR/>"I happen to think that no belief is really abt the logic and the rationality....and at some point you always reach the jumping point that is the leap of faith; the leap of faith you take when you believe in G-d is the same leap of faith you take when you decide not to believe in G-d."<BR/><BR/>I think rational beliefs are based on rationality and facts. I'm not an atheist but I understand how they think. It is a very different approach to assume that x is true and another to assume that x is not true until one sees evidence to support the claim.<BR/><BR/>There is actually no leaps of faith for the atheist. It is an assumption based on not enough information. They would argue that just like there is no real evidence of faires, there is no evidence of gods and dismiss both claims as without standing.<BR/><BR/>Atheists don't need to disprove god, generally they just argue that the claim hasn't been proven in the first place.<BR/><BR/>"we all believe what we want to believe, and logic be damned"<BR/><BR/>I disagree. Maybe that's how it works for you, but I have seen - and experienced myself - a longing for the simpler times of belief in theism while the intellect cannot conscience it.<BR/><BR/>But anyway, atheism vs theism is just the tip of a very large iceberg. The true question is how you get from God to all the minutiae of religious life. You have to make a lot of leaps of faith, not just one.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1162752507523704352006-11-05T13:48:00.000-05:002006-11-05T13:48:00.000-05:00sorry abt the double comment, I accidentally click...sorry abt the double comment, I accidentally clicked twice when I shouldn't have.Mirihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00971075346520291515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1162751711198163292006-11-05T13:35:00.001-05:002006-11-05T13:35:00.001-05:00k, so I wrote a response to this last night, but a...k, so I wrote a response to this last night, but apparently it didn't go through. I will try to re-create what I already wrote.<BR/>I have looked around the skeptical blogosphere quite a bit; they are largely among those who contribute to my frustration in this area.<BR/>maybe I should spend a bit more time, but one can only be on the computer for so long.<BR/><BR/>I happen to think that no belief is really abt the logic and the rationality. belief in anything (including atheism) is mostly perceptual, and perception is mostly colored by emotion. logical argument only takes you so far, in both directions, and at some point you always reach the jumping point that is the leap of faith; the leap of faith you take when you believe in G-d is the same leap of faith you take when you decide not to believe in G-d. which is to say, you can no more disprove G-d's existence than you can prove it. basically, we all believe what we want to believe, and logic be damned - but that includes the atheists as well as the religous.<BR/>as to other religions; Christianity and Islam are based largely off of Judaism anyway, and I don't know enough abt any other religions to make further comments.Mirihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00971075346520291515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1162751705613733372006-11-05T13:35:00.000-05:002006-11-05T13:35:00.000-05:00k, so I wrote a response to this last night, but a...k, so I wrote a response to this last night, but apparently it didn't go through. I will try to re-create what I already wrote.<BR/>I have looked around the skeptical blogosphere quite a bit; they are largely among those who contribute to my frustration in this area.<BR/>maybe I should spend a bit more time, but one can only be on the computer for so long.<BR/><BR/>I happen to think that no belief is really abt the logic and the rationality. belief in anything (including atheism) is mostly perceptual, and perception is mostly colored by emotion. logical argument only takes you so far, in both directions, and at some point you always reach the jumping point that is the leap of faith; the leap of faith you take when you believe in G-d is the same leap of faith you take when you decide not to believe in G-d. which is to say, you can no more disprove G-d's existence than you can prove it. basically, we all believe what we want to believe, and logic be damned - but that includes the atheists as well as the religous.<BR/>as to other religions; Christianity and Islam are based largely off of Judaism anyway, and I don't know enough abt any other religions to make further comments.Mirihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00971075346520291515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1162520309152875612006-11-02T21:18:00.000-05:002006-11-02T21:18:00.000-05:00Miri,"I ought to find the whole thing and watch it...Miri,<BR/><BR/>"I ought to find the whole thing and watch it before I make absolute statements."<BR/><BR/>The whole this is online on youtube. You can watch it in several segments of about the length of the one I have here.<BR/><BR/>"to put it as plainly as I can manage at the moment; the man sounds extremely and blatantly dogmatic for one who claims to be crusading against the evils of dogma..."<BR/><BR/>A valid point. Even though I largely agree with him on scientific issues his approach to it often seems authoritative and bossy. But he hasn't done real scientific work in years.<BR/><BR/>""I would go so far as to say that evolution is a fact-" is not an argument. its a statement."<BR/><BR/>Correct, but like I said, he isn't trying to prove evolution. It's not his intent.<BR/><BR/>"most of them have not displayed logic, reasoning, or emprically proven facts beyond what I myself could provide; but that speaks of the debaters and not the theories debated."<BR/><BR/>Indeed. You might want to look around the skeptical blogosphere. Quite a few smart folks here.<BR/><BR/>"my problem is with the thinkers who claim they're so much more rational, logical, thoughtful, backed up with empirically proven scientific evidence than those poor ignorant religous ppl who were clearly caught before they had a chance to escape"<BR/><BR/>That's fair, but it is also plainly true that religion is generally not based on rationality or facts. I'm sure you'd agree with that statement about every other religion except your own, right? ;-)Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1162515540064523482006-11-02T19:59:00.000-05:002006-11-02T19:59:00.000-05:00I only brought up the goodness by contrast thing a...I only brought up the goodness by contrast thing as an example of a technique for proving that something is bad. and no, I only saw the clip you included here. really, I ought to find the whole thing and watch it before I make absolute statements.as to trying to prove evolution is good...it seemed to me that Dawkins himself set up that contrast; evolution=truth religion=evil. maybe I misinterpreted something. simply an important scientific principle that was being denied...eh. could be but I feel like maybe he exaggerated the point a little more than neccessary.<BR/><BR/>"He's trying to prove that indoctrination is not good..."<BR/>but see, that there's my point. why would he try to prove indoctrination evil via a piece of dogmatic propoganda- the very stuff of indoctrination itself?<BR/>if nothing else, it's simply a self-disproving and thereby thoroughly ineffective tool.starting a revolution against indoctrination via indoctrination...am I the only one who finds this ironic?<BR/> to put it as plainly as I can manage at the moment; the man sounds extremely and blatantly dogmatic for one who claims to be crusading against the evils of dogma...<BR/><BR/>"Clearly, if you don't believe evolution is true...then much of his argument loses its effectiveness." again, I didn't see the whole thing, but the statement "I would go so far as to say that evolution is a fact-" is not an argument. its a statement. maybe I'm just being nitpicky abt the semantics, but I keep trying to make the same point - he's NOT arguing, he's just saying stuff. from what I saw.<BR/><BR/><BR/>as to skeptics debated...quite a few. (I've also been the skeptic on numerous occasions- a couple times sincerely, usually as devil's advocate.) most of them have not displayed logic, reasoning, or emprically proven facts beyond what I myself could provide; but that speaks of the debaters and not the theories debated. I have found in none of those arguments a logic especially more founded than that of my own thought process. see my problem isn't with the theory itself; I neither know nor, truly, care enough about evolution to debate the theory itself. my problem is with the thinkers who claim they're so much more rational, logical, thoughtful, backed up with empirically proven scientific evidence than those poor ignorant religous ppl who were clearly caught before they had a chance to escape and had their brains sucked out by their religous leaders so that they were completely incapable of thinking on their own....I can tell you there are many religous people who don't think so much. I can also tell you there are many non-religous ppl who also don't think so much- many in the name of atheism (Dawkins forbid its name be taken in vain.)the thinking people will always be in the minority, bc that's what people are like. I take issue with the assumption that all religous people are cattle, spoonfed on the same ideas and theories and bedtime stories which we all accept unquestioningly. and I take issue with Dawkins making that assumption and not making any real efforts to try and disprove himself before accepting it as fact. it just isn't true. I've alread ranted on this on my own blog, I don't have the energy to do it again here....<BR/><BR/>well, I do have a commercial interest; G-d willing, I intend to be a teacher, so I'm doing my best to brush up on my brainwashing skills now.;)<BR/><BR/>(brief disclaimer; it's nearly three am here, and I'm not sure how coherently I responded to everything...anyway hope my point came across to some extent.)Mirihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00971075346520291515noreply@blogger.com