Jewish Philosopher wrote a post here, that he had emailed to me as well. I'm not sure why I responded to him since he has a poor history of fair discussion but I figured that it couldn't hurt much to give him a response.
I answered:
Your entire understanding of why people become intellectual atheists is way off base. It has to do with seeing the type of world we live in as opposed to one where we'd expect to live if there was a God watching who kept everything just and fair. It has to do with the fact that the afterlife was made up as a cosmic placeholder for God's justice while we have no real evidence to suggest its actual existence. It has to do with the magical and miracle world of the Bible as opposed to the rational and natural law bound world that we live in.
It has to do with the fact that many ancient people wrote their own fantastic tales and the fact that people all over the world - to this day! - are fooled so easily into believing falsehoods and the impossible. It has to do with the fact that one person's supernatural claim is just as valid (or invalid) as any other person's supernatural claim. Once you accept the irrational into your ontological system how can one rationally justify that belief and no other irrational belief?
It has to do with the fact that the god of the gaps is shrinking with every step of scientific progress. It has to do with the fact that religion tends to act as a salve for emotional needs and that few people critically study it. It has to do with the fact that your most likely "chosen" religion is determined by the one you were born into.
It has to do with the fact that while religious leaders and theologians can make all sorts of arguments and apologies to explain all of the apparent inconsistencies with their teachings and holy books in relation to the actual world and internal makeup - the rational mind will eventually hit on Occam's razor and simplify the entire equation by taking theism out of it.
It has to do with the fact that people recognize the power of science and the power of applying the scientific method to any and all questions of the nature of man and the universe. To believe without evidence is irrational. To believe without evidence is faith.
He replied:
All that is very well and good, however I believe it contradicts the history of modern academia.
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I mean this sincerely; please try to provide reliable sources I can check). The academic world was purely Christian for centuries. All the universities were primarily divinity schools. Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Linnaeus were all devoutly religious. Darwin was a theology student. I don't believe he ever earned a degree in biology. Until about 1840, geologists were busy working on "Flood geology".
Today of course that has completely changed. Why?
I think the dinosaurs did it. In 1842, the term "dinosaur" was coined and the realization dawned on the academic world that they had been fooled. Suddenly it became obvious that in earlier times life was entirely different than it is today. That meant, allegedly, that Genesis was fake. Suddenly, the entire culture of the academic world changed.
This could not be proclaimed openly. In many countries, including England, criticizing Christianity was a jailing offence. Darwin never dared admit publicly that he was an agnostic. However from 1842 onward, the academic world began quietly, gradually educating the public into the new doctrine of atheism [or secularism, agnosticism, naturalism, materialism, scientism or whatever you want to call it].
Of course, philosophers went to work creating all kinds of additional arguments to support the new faith, however I think the core was and remains the Argument from Fossils. Everything else is just fluff which no one was every bothered by before.
Some apologies had to formulated also.
Atheists are obviously going to be asked "OK, there is no god. So where did we come from?" The answer fabricated was "Evolution made us." And when asked "Oh, you don't believe in God. So you can do whatever you want if no one is watching?" the answer formulated was "Of course not! I am a humanist."
The way I see it, the essential debate between Judaism and atheism is:
"In your judgment, which argument is stronger: The Argument from Fossils or the Kuzari Principle?" Of course, you know my answer. ;-)
I answered:
You're confusing the historical trends of beliefs in intellectual western civilization and the makings of modern day atheists.
The beginning of the end of faith was something called the Renaissance. Following centuries of living under the stifling and thought controlling auspices of the church, humanity began to rebel and to think freely. Since those early humanists through the empiricists and the later logical positivists people were growing more and more skeptical of traditional dogma. It wasn't as if dinosaurs became understood and then "poof" the whole world changed. The world had been changing for centuries.
Newton, Galieo, Copernicus, etc were indeed religious - but they also weren't cowed by authority. They were empiricists as they looked towards the physical evidence and not what the clergymen told them. This was the same type of thinking geologists would take later on. This was science.
Science is institutionalized skepticism. As more of religion's claims came to be under the scientific view people took a skeptical view of those claims and appealed to what the physical evidence substantiated. It is not faith, in fact, it is actually the opposite of faith.
People being skeptical of religious claims was a natural part of the entire ways of thought that the Age of Reason dominated. Generally the idea was skepticism, to not appeal to authority and to use Reason. Your way of saying that people suddenly became adherents to a new faith and then surreptitiously began to evangelize is false. It was just skepticism. The same skepticism that drove Galileo to take out his telescope and check out the heavens for himself.
Evolution didn't develop as an apology for atheism. If you've ever read Darwin's works you'd see that his theory was based on many studies and observations. Darwin was a devout theist as he composed it in his mind. It was just his understanding of the evidence he collected that brought him to the conclusion that it did. Skepticism plus evidence is science.
Proper science is minimalistic. Understand that and you'll understand why there are intellectual atheists today.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Monday, April 24, 2006
Israel over Torah
I was having a discussion the other day with this Lubavitch guy regarding the benefits of Zionism towards the preservation of the Jewish people and Judaism. This guy refused to call himself a Zionist because of all the negative connotations that he believes the term implies. Whether is be Labor Zionism or Revisionist Zionism or Religious Zionism or whatever, he objects to them all in one way or the other.
I pointed out to him that he was picking on these individual movements without looking at the common denominator between them all - that is the support for the existence of a Jewish State on the historic Land of Israel. That is it really. And since he does support that idea then he would then be de facto a Zionist.
In any case, the conversation went to his Chabad travels where he did outreach efforts all over the world. And interestingly he would tell those attracted souls to stay in a local religious community rather than to settle in Israel. I found that surprising. Israel, I would think, would be the most supportive atmosphere to engender Jews to return to Judaism, but this was not so according to his understanding.
See, Israel is really a rather secular country with a significant religious minority, yet the Jewish secular majority is extremely antagonistic to that religious minority. And when a newly intrigued Jew comes to the country, they may feel that they are Jewish enough by being an Israeli and being invested in the Israeli popular culture. It could easily stall their religious progress. This kind of process is sometimes seen conversely when mostly secular Jews turn to Judaism in foreign lands to connect somehow to their heritage. One can passively be a Jew in Israel, but one must actively be a Jew in the Diaspora. Thus religious progress is counter-intuitively aided by being outside of Israel's borders. This also explains the dearth of liberal movements of Judaism within Israel, yet their relative strength in the US and in Europe.
But what about the high rates of intermarriage in the Diaspora? Isn't that a worse danger to the Jewish future than possible secularization in Israel? Then here he got a little silly pointing out the increasing numbers of gentiles in Israel, like the non-Jewish Russians and the increasing Arab populations as equally dangerous as sources of intermarriage. But the numbers are completely different. The American Jewish population has a current rate of intermarriage at over 50% and has shrunk about ten percent in just the past couple of decades. Israeli Jewish intermarriage does exist, but its rates are far lower.
Then I really came to understand his point of view. It comes down to the fact that he cares less about the Jewish people as much as he cares about the Jewish religion. Millions of secular Jews could disappear as far as he was concerned as long as a vigorous religious core continues to exist somewhere in the world. So then I asked him point blank which he held to be more important.
He said I was right and that he valued religion over peoplehood since Judaism is what defines a Jew and this "secular Jew" business is a tenuous sort of identity. He agreed that telling people to go to Israel would probably be better for Jewish peoplehood but he insistently claimed that Jewish peoplehood apart from Torah is nonsense and would not stand the test of time. Maybe. That remains for time to tell.
Anyway, I was reading a different book over Pesach about Jewish acculturation and assimilation in history and in modern America. And in one instance in quotes an interesting story from the midrash, Tanna deBei Eliyahu Rabba (chapter 14). In it a man comes to Elijah and questions him on a matter of the law.
He said to me: "O my master, I have two things in my heart, both of which I love dearly, Torah and Israel. But I do not know which of them takes precedence over the other."
I said to him: "It is the way of men to say that Torah comes before all else, as it is stated (Mishlei 8:22): 'The Lord created me at the beginning of His way.' But I say, the holy people of Israel come first, as it is stated (Yirmiyahu 2:3): 'Israel is holy to the Lord, the first fruits of His increase.'"
Apparently Jewish tradition lies in my favor on this one.
I pointed out to him that he was picking on these individual movements without looking at the common denominator between them all - that is the support for the existence of a Jewish State on the historic Land of Israel. That is it really. And since he does support that idea then he would then be de facto a Zionist.
In any case, the conversation went to his Chabad travels where he did outreach efforts all over the world. And interestingly he would tell those attracted souls to stay in a local religious community rather than to settle in Israel. I found that surprising. Israel, I would think, would be the most supportive atmosphere to engender Jews to return to Judaism, but this was not so according to his understanding.
See, Israel is really a rather secular country with a significant religious minority, yet the Jewish secular majority is extremely antagonistic to that religious minority. And when a newly intrigued Jew comes to the country, they may feel that they are Jewish enough by being an Israeli and being invested in the Israeli popular culture. It could easily stall their religious progress. This kind of process is sometimes seen conversely when mostly secular Jews turn to Judaism in foreign lands to connect somehow to their heritage. One can passively be a Jew in Israel, but one must actively be a Jew in the Diaspora. Thus religious progress is counter-intuitively aided by being outside of Israel's borders. This also explains the dearth of liberal movements of Judaism within Israel, yet their relative strength in the US and in Europe.
But what about the high rates of intermarriage in the Diaspora? Isn't that a worse danger to the Jewish future than possible secularization in Israel? Then here he got a little silly pointing out the increasing numbers of gentiles in Israel, like the non-Jewish Russians and the increasing Arab populations as equally dangerous as sources of intermarriage. But the numbers are completely different. The American Jewish population has a current rate of intermarriage at over 50% and has shrunk about ten percent in just the past couple of decades. Israeli Jewish intermarriage does exist, but its rates are far lower.
Then I really came to understand his point of view. It comes down to the fact that he cares less about the Jewish people as much as he cares about the Jewish religion. Millions of secular Jews could disappear as far as he was concerned as long as a vigorous religious core continues to exist somewhere in the world. So then I asked him point blank which he held to be more important.
He said I was right and that he valued religion over peoplehood since Judaism is what defines a Jew and this "secular Jew" business is a tenuous sort of identity. He agreed that telling people to go to Israel would probably be better for Jewish peoplehood but he insistently claimed that Jewish peoplehood apart from Torah is nonsense and would not stand the test of time. Maybe. That remains for time to tell.
Anyway, I was reading a different book over Pesach about Jewish acculturation and assimilation in history and in modern America. And in one instance in quotes an interesting story from the midrash, Tanna deBei Eliyahu Rabba (chapter 14). In it a man comes to Elijah and questions him on a matter of the law.
He said to me: "O my master, I have two things in my heart, both of which I love dearly, Torah and Israel. But I do not know which of them takes precedence over the other."
I said to him: "It is the way of men to say that Torah comes before all else, as it is stated (Mishlei 8:22): 'The Lord created me at the beginning of His way.' But I say, the holy people of Israel come first, as it is stated (Yirmiyahu 2:3): 'Israel is holy to the Lord, the first fruits of His increase.'"
Apparently Jewish tradition lies in my favor on this one.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Leibowitz, Kaplan, God and Halacha
Over Pesach I had the opportunity to read a few modern Jewish philosophy books and I'm still in the process of digesting them. A couple of them really stuck out though. One was by Isaiah Leibowitz and the other by Mordechai Kaplan. Suffice it to say they each had rather different takes on Judaism.
Leibowitz takes the stand as a metaphysical reductionist and what I'd consider to be a Jewish Kierkegaard. In his view God simply exists and the best way of doing Judaism is through following Halacha for the sake of serving God. Doing Halacha for any other purpose, be it for moral reasons, sociological reasons or political reasons is to turn God's Law into service for man and not for God. Thus doing Mitzvot for the sake of reward or fear of punishment is the basest type of religion since it is purely selfish as opposed to the purely selfless ideal of Leibowitz. Thus he criticizes people like Maimonides who seach for rational justifications for the Law. If Halacha is to serve God then its utility to man is irrelevant.
Leibowitz reminds me of Kierkegaard because he has the same idea that faith and service in God is the ultimate objective in life beyond that of any moral concern or ethical imperative. Thus he uses the Akeidah as an example of God's commands overruling any moral conscience. One's ultimate fidelity lies with God and not with anything else.
There are some issues though with Leibowitz. He in other places claims that Judaism is only meaningful in the sense as the "following of Halacha." He says that since Judaism has had many different theologies and religious philosophies over time the only consistent measure to identify Judaism is through those who live a Halachic life. He thuswise tries to make irrelevant all the metaphysical theories behind Judaism and even the imperative behind composing a metaphysical theory to justify it. The problem is that one must make certain assumptions about the relationship between God and Halacha to say that one is serving God by following Halacha. If Halacha is a creation by man and not truly a command from God then one is serving men, not God.
Leibowitz doesn't outrightly say this anywhere in his book, but I suspect that he basically makes the assumption that the Torah is min hashamayim and Halacha is divinely inspired. Though, I think, you don't need to make that assumption. Even if Halacha was and is devised solely by man, one can still serve God in a way that makes sense to man. God is unfathomable and the ultimate reality. For "Him" to command anything is likewise unfathomable and nonsensical. We must rely on human invention to try and relate to "Him." And the best way to serve Him is through doing that which has no utility to man. For if an act has utility to man then its value as a service to God is much reduced if not entirely so.
In this way we can justify all those apparently silly and meaningless rituals in Judaism. Every one of those Chukim are explained thus. One would be absolutely correct in saying that they serve no purpose to man. For if they served man then that would undermine the whole point. The intention is a service to God.
The problem I run in with Leibowitz is that he says that following Halacha supercedes ethical and moral imperatives. Indeed, how can he not? How can the utility to man's needs come before the will of God? But if Halacha is not the will of God, but rather the innovation of man then this solves the problem. For those laws which are ethically or morally neutral then why not do them? They are a service to God and nothing else. But when a law crosses ones conscience then we must hold one's conscience supreme.
Then this is where Kaplan comes into play. Since the God of Leibowitz is transcendent and unknowable, how are we to relate to Him? We cannot. What Kaplan does is to turn what is meaningful for man into that which is God. God is the power that makes for freedom. God is the power that makes for cooperation. God is the power that makes for social regeneration, for salvation and for Righteousness.
God is that which is virtuous and strived for in human nature. God is morality. For God to come before moral imperatives is impossible. God is the moral imperative. To honestly follow one's conscience is to walk in the ways of the Lord.
Leibowitz takes the stand as a metaphysical reductionist and what I'd consider to be a Jewish Kierkegaard. In his view God simply exists and the best way of doing Judaism is through following Halacha for the sake of serving God. Doing Halacha for any other purpose, be it for moral reasons, sociological reasons or political reasons is to turn God's Law into service for man and not for God. Thus doing Mitzvot for the sake of reward or fear of punishment is the basest type of religion since it is purely selfish as opposed to the purely selfless ideal of Leibowitz. Thus he criticizes people like Maimonides who seach for rational justifications for the Law. If Halacha is to serve God then its utility to man is irrelevant.
Leibowitz reminds me of Kierkegaard because he has the same idea that faith and service in God is the ultimate objective in life beyond that of any moral concern or ethical imperative. Thus he uses the Akeidah as an example of God's commands overruling any moral conscience. One's ultimate fidelity lies with God and not with anything else.
There are some issues though with Leibowitz. He in other places claims that Judaism is only meaningful in the sense as the "following of Halacha." He says that since Judaism has had many different theologies and religious philosophies over time the only consistent measure to identify Judaism is through those who live a Halachic life. He thuswise tries to make irrelevant all the metaphysical theories behind Judaism and even the imperative behind composing a metaphysical theory to justify it. The problem is that one must make certain assumptions about the relationship between God and Halacha to say that one is serving God by following Halacha. If Halacha is a creation by man and not truly a command from God then one is serving men, not God.
Leibowitz doesn't outrightly say this anywhere in his book, but I suspect that he basically makes the assumption that the Torah is min hashamayim and Halacha is divinely inspired. Though, I think, you don't need to make that assumption. Even if Halacha was and is devised solely by man, one can still serve God in a way that makes sense to man. God is unfathomable and the ultimate reality. For "Him" to command anything is likewise unfathomable and nonsensical. We must rely on human invention to try and relate to "Him." And the best way to serve Him is through doing that which has no utility to man. For if an act has utility to man then its value as a service to God is much reduced if not entirely so.
In this way we can justify all those apparently silly and meaningless rituals in Judaism. Every one of those Chukim are explained thus. One would be absolutely correct in saying that they serve no purpose to man. For if they served man then that would undermine the whole point. The intention is a service to God.
The problem I run in with Leibowitz is that he says that following Halacha supercedes ethical and moral imperatives. Indeed, how can he not? How can the utility to man's needs come before the will of God? But if Halacha is not the will of God, but rather the innovation of man then this solves the problem. For those laws which are ethically or morally neutral then why not do them? They are a service to God and nothing else. But when a law crosses ones conscience then we must hold one's conscience supreme.
Then this is where Kaplan comes into play. Since the God of Leibowitz is transcendent and unknowable, how are we to relate to Him? We cannot. What Kaplan does is to turn what is meaningful for man into that which is God. God is the power that makes for freedom. God is the power that makes for cooperation. God is the power that makes for social regeneration, for salvation and for Righteousness.
God is that which is virtuous and strived for in human nature. God is morality. For God to come before moral imperatives is impossible. God is the moral imperative. To honestly follow one's conscience is to walk in the ways of the Lord.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
My Evolving Beliefs - God
I find that I do now believe in God. Since being freed from the limiting reaches of Positivism I feel comfortable holding beliefs on metaphysical matters that transcend what we can possibly know at this time. That is if we shall ever know. When stuck between two different options, like belief in God vs disbelief in God, it is downright foolish to choose no sides when it is on such a matter of great import. If one wishes to be intellectually honest then one must make a decision and live _as if_ one option were true because it serves as the bedrock for nearly all further beliefs and actions in life.
The existence of God is no small matter and those who live under the title of "agnostics" are really choosing to live under the assumption that no God exists. Without a positive belief then a non-belief is essentially the same as a negative belief. This is a true utilitarian understanding of Pascal's wager. I don't believe in the afterlife, but I understand how this belief will directly affect my current life and so I must play.
Now, one does not need to pretend that one's beliefs are necessarily true or that they must be free from criticism or any other silly category that people put their special beliefs in. One just needs to recognize the nature of the beliefs as a matter of faith - different from the more reliable method of empirical study and rational thinking. We must find some belief to build on in order to move on and create a philosophy that we can live with. Some shaky belief system based on pragmatism and hedonism just doesn't lead to a fulfilling life or conceptual progress. We must move up in order to move on.
I find that I cannot conceive of a Universe that just sprang into existence by itself. I find that all the intricate and specific laws on which our Universe operates leads to an ordered existence that I cannot believe was a cosmic accident. I find that when I study the extremely intricate and complex biochemical pathways through which our cells produce energy or through which it stores genetic information or through anything that makes life as we know it possible I am struck with a sense of awe and I cannot make sense of it unless I suppose some kind of design.
Some people might say this is my failing. That I am performing a prime example of the fallacy of incredulity - that because I cannot imagine it possible so I am saying that it cannot be true. But this is not so. All I am saying is that since I personally cannot seriously imagine it possible then I personally cannot believe it to be so. I only further and further strain my credulity when I try to conceive of natural or accidental ways in which this all could have come to be. Claiming otherwise is just foolish and dishonest to myself. I may be wrong. The evidence may fall against me in future days. But right here and right now I cannot believe it all to be some amazing coincidence and I must posit some Creator and some Designer which made the whole of Existence.
I do not necessarily propose that this Creator is conscious or intelligent or omniscient or omnipotent. Much less omnibenevolent or emotionally loving or parental. All I propose is that this Creator would be called God. This God is the Rock of the Universe. The Sustainer of all that is. What is the nature of God? Why did it do this creating? These questions and the like I cannot answer. Nor do I claim to be able to answer.
I am also not proposing that this God operates in supernatural ways or interferes with reality as we know it with miracles and wonders. I believe that evolution occurred and I reject "ID" as a scientific theory. My belief is based on evidence and my reaction to it but it is not constructed positively and cannot be called scientific. It is a matter of faith.
More to follow...
The existence of God is no small matter and those who live under the title of "agnostics" are really choosing to live under the assumption that no God exists. Without a positive belief then a non-belief is essentially the same as a negative belief. This is a true utilitarian understanding of Pascal's wager. I don't believe in the afterlife, but I understand how this belief will directly affect my current life and so I must play.
Now, one does not need to pretend that one's beliefs are necessarily true or that they must be free from criticism or any other silly category that people put their special beliefs in. One just needs to recognize the nature of the beliefs as a matter of faith - different from the more reliable method of empirical study and rational thinking. We must find some belief to build on in order to move on and create a philosophy that we can live with. Some shaky belief system based on pragmatism and hedonism just doesn't lead to a fulfilling life or conceptual progress. We must move up in order to move on.
I find that I cannot conceive of a Universe that just sprang into existence by itself. I find that all the intricate and specific laws on which our Universe operates leads to an ordered existence that I cannot believe was a cosmic accident. I find that when I study the extremely intricate and complex biochemical pathways through which our cells produce energy or through which it stores genetic information or through anything that makes life as we know it possible I am struck with a sense of awe and I cannot make sense of it unless I suppose some kind of design.
Some people might say this is my failing. That I am performing a prime example of the fallacy of incredulity - that because I cannot imagine it possible so I am saying that it cannot be true. But this is not so. All I am saying is that since I personally cannot seriously imagine it possible then I personally cannot believe it to be so. I only further and further strain my credulity when I try to conceive of natural or accidental ways in which this all could have come to be. Claiming otherwise is just foolish and dishonest to myself. I may be wrong. The evidence may fall against me in future days. But right here and right now I cannot believe it all to be some amazing coincidence and I must posit some Creator and some Designer which made the whole of Existence.
I do not necessarily propose that this Creator is conscious or intelligent or omniscient or omnipotent. Much less omnibenevolent or emotionally loving or parental. All I propose is that this Creator would be called God. This God is the Rock of the Universe. The Sustainer of all that is. What is the nature of God? Why did it do this creating? These questions and the like I cannot answer. Nor do I claim to be able to answer.
I am also not proposing that this God operates in supernatural ways or interferes with reality as we know it with miracles and wonders. I believe that evolution occurred and I reject "ID" as a scientific theory. My belief is based on evidence and my reaction to it but it is not constructed positively and cannot be called scientific. It is a matter of faith.
More to follow...
Friday, March 31, 2006
Circumscribing Circumcision
"Re "Doctors Advocate Pain Relief for Circumcision"(Science Times, Dec 30):Circumcisions performed by mohel, Jews authorized to perform theprocedure called bris, take about one minute, thus minimizing pain. The standard surgical procudure last more than 10 minutes.
It is a biblical prohibition to cause anyone unnecessary pain. Although the study in question recommends a series of injections into the shaft of the penis, the pain from these injections may be equivalent to the pain of circumcision. A much safer and effective topical analgesic, applied one hour before the procedure, exists. Thirty percent lidocaine in an acid mantle base is effective and should be used even during ritual circumcision.
Signed Rabbi Moshe Tendler Dec 31, 1997.
Rabbi Tendler is refering to an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine a few months ago which compared an analgesic cream to placebo in terms of pain relief. The babies who received the analgesic cream cried less on average. So while the cream may not be 100 effective in all babies, it can provide relief for many .
One person inthe New York Times article is quoted as stating that the foreskin is generally anesthetic (pain free) and therefore there is no need for an anesthetic. I would respectfully disagree with this statement.
Ozzie Orbach"
See here.
I went to a bris yesterday morning and based on the baby's reactions it was pretty obvious that no anesthetic was used. And I know this is hardly a unique way of going about the bris. I also recognize that the cream is not the optimum solution for this kind of pain and especially for post-operative pain, but it is, at least, a step in the right direction.
How widely are such anesthetic procedures used in the Orthodox world, and why aren't they used more often? Is there any Halachic reasoning that would lead people to not want to use anesthetics?
It is a biblical prohibition to cause anyone unnecessary pain. Although the study in question recommends a series of injections into the shaft of the penis, the pain from these injections may be equivalent to the pain of circumcision. A much safer and effective topical analgesic, applied one hour before the procedure, exists. Thirty percent lidocaine in an acid mantle base is effective and should be used even during ritual circumcision.
Signed Rabbi Moshe Tendler Dec 31, 1997.
Rabbi Tendler is refering to an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine a few months ago which compared an analgesic cream to placebo in terms of pain relief. The babies who received the analgesic cream cried less on average. So while the cream may not be 100 effective in all babies, it can provide relief for many .
One person inthe New York Times article is quoted as stating that the foreskin is generally anesthetic (pain free) and therefore there is no need for an anesthetic. I would respectfully disagree with this statement.
Ozzie Orbach"
See here.
I went to a bris yesterday morning and based on the baby's reactions it was pretty obvious that no anesthetic was used. And I know this is hardly a unique way of going about the bris. I also recognize that the cream is not the optimum solution for this kind of pain and especially for post-operative pain, but it is, at least, a step in the right direction.
How widely are such anesthetic procedures used in the Orthodox world, and why aren't they used more often? Is there any Halachic reasoning that would lead people to not want to use anesthetics?
Monday, March 20, 2006
A Problem with Liberal Judaism
There's a problem with all liberal forms of Judaism. In fact, it's inherent in their very being liberal. This is true for Reform and to a lesser extent Conservative but it is very much an issue with the Reconstructionists. The problem is that all these movements are saying that traditional beliefs are not true and that they must then go on a kind of salvage operation to figure out what parts can be kept and which parts must be left behind in the light of modern knowledge.
But what this leads to is a sense of a loss of legitimacy or a loss of genuineness. People don't want their religion or philosophy or way of life to be salvaged leftovers to showcase in a living room. They want to be sitting and using certified and complete antique sets. This is part of the reason why Orthodoxy is so strong today. It holds that sense of genuineness and of being "real" Judaism and not some form of Judaism-lite. It holds it that way because an Orthodox Jew can pick up a Jewish text from millennia ago and find direct correspondence with how he lives today. Orthodox Rabbis have to understand Talmudic logic, not just for heritage appreciation, but really because they apply it all the time to Halachic issues that arise.
Other forms of Judaism have to accept these same vaulted texts as meaningful to Judaism but at the same time must reject as not true often large parts of them. Classic texts are seen as Judaism's past in liberal movements, but are Judaism's present in Orthodoxy.
How to get past this apparent discrepancy and to give liberal Judaism the sense of legitimacy while still using traditional sources is a pressing issue. Ideas like continuous revelation and an evolving religious civilization are useful, but they still don't jive well with rejection in a historic religion. I'm certainly open to suggestions.
But what this leads to is a sense of a loss of legitimacy or a loss of genuineness. People don't want their religion or philosophy or way of life to be salvaged leftovers to showcase in a living room. They want to be sitting and using certified and complete antique sets. This is part of the reason why Orthodoxy is so strong today. It holds that sense of genuineness and of being "real" Judaism and not some form of Judaism-lite. It holds it that way because an Orthodox Jew can pick up a Jewish text from millennia ago and find direct correspondence with how he lives today. Orthodox Rabbis have to understand Talmudic logic, not just for heritage appreciation, but really because they apply it all the time to Halachic issues that arise.
Other forms of Judaism have to accept these same vaulted texts as meaningful to Judaism but at the same time must reject as not true often large parts of them. Classic texts are seen as Judaism's past in liberal movements, but are Judaism's present in Orthodoxy.
How to get past this apparent discrepancy and to give liberal Judaism the sense of legitimacy while still using traditional sources is a pressing issue. Ideas like continuous revelation and an evolving religious civilization are useful, but they still don't jive well with rejection in a historic religion. I'm certainly open to suggestions.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Quotes that May Surprise You
"The Palestinians [Jews] living among us have, for the most part, earned a not unfounded reputation for being cheaters, because of their spirit of usury since their exile. Certainly, it seems strange to conceive of a nation of cheaters; but it is just as odd to think of a nation of merchants, the great majority of whom, bound by an ancient superstition that is recognized by the State they live in, seek no civil dignity and try to make up for this loss by the advantage of duping the people among whom they find refuge, and even one another. The situation could not be otherwise, given a whole nation of merchants, as non-productive members of society (for example, the Jews in Poland). So their constitution, which is sanctioned by ancient precepts and even by the people among whom they live (since we have certain sacred writings in common with them), cannot consistently be abolished — even though the supreme principle of their morality in trading with us is "Let the buyer beware." I shall not engage in the futile undertaking of lecturing to these people, in terms of morality, about cheating and honesty. Instead, I shall present my conjectures about the origin of this peculiar constitution (the constitution, namely, of a nation of merchants)." -Immanuel Kant, Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View
"The people who are abroad are all those that have no religion, neither one based on speculation nor one received by tradition. Such are the extreme Turks that wander around in the north, the Kushites who live in the south, and those in our country who are like these. I consider these irrational beings, and not as human beings; they are below mankind, but above monkeys, since they have the form and shape of man, and a mental faculty above that of the monkey." - Maimonides, Guide to the Perplexed, Part III, chapter 51.
"The people who are abroad are all those that have no religion, neither one based on speculation nor one received by tradition. Such are the extreme Turks that wander around in the north, the Kushites who live in the south, and those in our country who are like these. I consider these irrational beings, and not as human beings; they are below mankind, but above monkeys, since they have the form and shape of man, and a mental faculty above that of the monkey." - Maimonides, Guide to the Perplexed, Part III, chapter 51.
Agunot
I was thinking the other day about the absurdity that technical Halacha forces on women of whom their husbands refuse to give them a get. They are agunot, chained women, who cannot Halchically re-marry and are forced to remain in marriage limbo. This is an intolerable and unjust situation which cannot be tolerated. Of course, this situation is symptomatic of the larger issue of gender inequality in Orthodoxy but this one issue ought to be rather easy to solve.
The two parties (or, more accurately, the husband and the father of the bride) already sign what is essentially a pre-nup before the marriage ceremony. That is the Ketubah. Why haven't the Orthodox taken the message already initiated in Conservative circles by introducing a new clause in the document which gives over to a beit din the power to issue a get. Or if not that, then have the groom sign some other sort of conditional get that comes into effect if he does certain actions. I'm fairly certain that this is all acceptable under Halachic guidelines.
And if that is questionable, or if people don't trust a beis din, then have them sign a secular legal contract which obligates the man to hand over a get if certain conditions are met. This could be taken to actual secular court and the husband (or ex-husband) could be met with a court order to pay fines or punished because of breach of contract if he refuses to give his wife a get.
Am I so out of line here? Or are these solutions just obvious to me?
The two parties (or, more accurately, the husband and the father of the bride) already sign what is essentially a pre-nup before the marriage ceremony. That is the Ketubah. Why haven't the Orthodox taken the message already initiated in Conservative circles by introducing a new clause in the document which gives over to a beit din the power to issue a get. Or if not that, then have the groom sign some other sort of conditional get that comes into effect if he does certain actions. I'm fairly certain that this is all acceptable under Halachic guidelines.
And if that is questionable, or if people don't trust a beis din, then have them sign a secular legal contract which obligates the man to hand over a get if certain conditions are met. This could be taken to actual secular court and the husband (or ex-husband) could be met with a court order to pay fines or punished because of breach of contract if he refuses to give his wife a get.
Am I so out of line here? Or are these solutions just obvious to me?
Friday, March 17, 2006
Religious Excuses
I know I haven't posted much in past recent while but I've been rather busy in the real world (TM) and well, y'know, priorities. Though, to be honest I still am busy, but taking a break now and again is a good idea.
Now to the issue at hand. Let me begin with an anecdote. I went to class on Purim Tuesday and the professor when he was taking attendance actually stopped during the roll call, looked at me and asked "Why are you here?"
"Why am I here?" I asked surprised. "Am I not allowed to be here?"
"No," he said, "but last night a different Orthodox Jew said that he couldn't come into class because of a holiday. Was he lying to me?"
"No, he wasn't lying. Today is a holiday. It's just that while the day has certain things that need to be done, the times when you do them can be rather flexible."
I didn't want to get into the details of the difference between a holiday like Purim compared to Yom Tovim. I didn't think he would understand and he probably didn't care.
Anyway, this got me thinking about other times when I know Jews have lied or stretched the truth about Jewish observance to get out of other responsibilities. It doesn't apply to the above instance since the person really may have had other responsibilities, I don't know, but I do know of instances where, for example, people had a test pushed off or skipped class because of chol hamoed Succos. They'll tell the professor that they have to be excused because of religious reasons, but they're just dishonestly using their religion.
This has a series of negative effects. One, it gets goyim very confused about Jewish observance and if they find out the truth then they won't trust Jews the next time they really can't come in for some Yom Tov. Second, it puts other Jews who weren't "in" on the conspiracy in a sore position as they may want to come to class but they don't want to rat on these other guys. And thirdly, it makes those Jews who do come into work on those days look less committed and goyim might expect them to come to work on other holidays too.
I, for one, hate getting special treatment because of my Judaism. I hate using my Judaism as an excuse for things. There was one time I had a test scheduled during a holiday. I didn't push off the test; I took it a day early! Those who use their Judaism to get out of their responsibilities simply cannot be holding proper respect for their religion. You are lowering your whole way of life to be used as an excuse why you can't do something. Being Jewish is great, but when a conflict arises it should generally be the one with the special way of life paying the bill, not those who are sticking to the regular schedule.
Now to the issue at hand. Let me begin with an anecdote. I went to class on Purim Tuesday and the professor when he was taking attendance actually stopped during the roll call, looked at me and asked "Why are you here?"
"Why am I here?" I asked surprised. "Am I not allowed to be here?"
"No," he said, "but last night a different Orthodox Jew said that he couldn't come into class because of a holiday. Was he lying to me?"
"No, he wasn't lying. Today is a holiday. It's just that while the day has certain things that need to be done, the times when you do them can be rather flexible."
I didn't want to get into the details of the difference between a holiday like Purim compared to Yom Tovim. I didn't think he would understand and he probably didn't care.
Anyway, this got me thinking about other times when I know Jews have lied or stretched the truth about Jewish observance to get out of other responsibilities. It doesn't apply to the above instance since the person really may have had other responsibilities, I don't know, but I do know of instances where, for example, people had a test pushed off or skipped class because of chol hamoed Succos. They'll tell the professor that they have to be excused because of religious reasons, but they're just dishonestly using their religion.
This has a series of negative effects. One, it gets goyim very confused about Jewish observance and if they find out the truth then they won't trust Jews the next time they really can't come in for some Yom Tov. Second, it puts other Jews who weren't "in" on the conspiracy in a sore position as they may want to come to class but they don't want to rat on these other guys. And thirdly, it makes those Jews who do come into work on those days look less committed and goyim might expect them to come to work on other holidays too.
I, for one, hate getting special treatment because of my Judaism. I hate using my Judaism as an excuse for things. There was one time I had a test scheduled during a holiday. I didn't push off the test; I took it a day early! Those who use their Judaism to get out of their responsibilities simply cannot be holding proper respect for their religion. You are lowering your whole way of life to be used as an excuse why you can't do something. Being Jewish is great, but when a conflict arises it should generally be the one with the special way of life paying the bill, not those who are sticking to the regular schedule.
Monday, March 06, 2006
Does Judaism have a Catechism?
by Seth Ward
"What I propose to do here is to outline a few basic beliefs that are both part of Judaism and are apparently shared by a majority of Jews. I do not wish to reduce Judaism to a few simple beliefs: others have done this far better. Nor do I propose that this is a comprehensive statement, or even that such a statement is possible. And it should be clear that this is an attempt to delineate a list of shared beliefs of Jews, not a system of Judaism. I do wish to put this in the form of beliefs, to answer the claim that Jews really do not have any deeply-held beliefs.
...
Does Judaism in late-twentieth Century America have principles of more orless common belief? I offer the following eight, and have grouped theprinciples for convenience in traditional categories: God, Torah, Israel.
GOD
1. We believe it is right to act as believers.
...
2. We deny all polytheism, idolatry, and irrational beliefs. Or: Thou shalt not be a Christian.
...
TORAH
3. We believe in the shared Torah: Jews share a heritage of beliefs, practices, literature and history. The classic, Jewish name for this heritage is Torah.
...
4. We believe that Torah, which means "teaching," demands education.This perhaps should be put more strongly: study of Torah, widely defined, is part of our religion.
...
5. We believe that Mitzvot matter.
...
ISRAEL
6. We believe the Holocaust is an event of unique importance and meaning for us as Jews and for all people.
...
6. We believe in the Land and Language of Israel (I know, he wrote two sixes. Maybe he miscounted.)
...
7. Kol yisrael arevim ze lazeh: We are one: Judaism is a corporate, communal identity.
...
8. We believe in salvation through survival.
...
These eight beliefs do not create a fully articulated system, but underscore the degree to which Jews share attitudes towards God, Torah and Israel--to give traditional terms. Judaism, like other religious systems, has to do with believing, behaving and belonging, and the principles articulated here I hope will help contemporaries do just that.
We are the people who recite "Hear O Israel, the Lord is Our God, the Lord is One" and--even for those who do not entirely believe this, or do not believe it at all, act at least in part as if they do. We staunchly deny alternate systems, including and perhaps especially Christianity; while there is a bit of self-definition by negation of the other involved here, it also reflects an age-old antipathy to polytheism and idolatry, rightly or wrongly applied. We believe in our shared heritage, we believe in a mandate t o educate, and we believe that our actions matter, perhaps more than our beliefs. We believe in our people, its history, its languages, its land, and in the importance of the Holocaust and of the Land of Israel. And we believe in the necessaity of "Jewish continuity"--the corporate survival of Judaism, perhaps giving this concept some of the great power associated with the notion of "salvation" in other religious traditions.
Not all Jews subscribe to all these principles the same way. But many of us do, and multiple ways we relate to God, Torah and Israel help define the ways we differ from one another. But the universality of the elements of this discourse also define a commonality which exceeds the forces which divide us."
I'm not making any big statements on this essay. Read the full thing here. I just thought it was an interesting perspective and wanted to share.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
