Cutting into Sacred Territory

"Soon after I started my medical studies, I was standing before a long metal table with three other medical students one day when I faced my ultimate challenge.

On the table was a long black bag with a zipper running down the middle. In the air around us, assaulting our sinuses, was the sharp chemical smell of formaldehyde. Inside the bag was a dead person -- a cadaver.

It had been assigned to our group, and we were expected to dissect it, organ by organ, limb by limb, learning by touch, sight, and firsthand experience the contours, textures, colors, and inner realms of the human body.

I had known this was coming. We all did, and everyone felt some degree of discomfort about this part of our education. The cadaver stage of medical school has been chronicled profusely. Some students name their cadavers -- names like Louise, Jim or Butch. It is a tactic to relieve the discomfort of knowing that before us lies a person who lived life as we do, felt jealousy and fear, and perhaps made art, wrote poetry, raised children and sacrificed for them, decorated Christmas trees, wrapped birthday presents, had been in love and in lust, had had a broken heart.

But beyond all of this, I had to combat another level of discomfort; Navajos do not touch the dead. Ever.

It is one of the strongest rules in our culture. The dead hold ch'iindis, or evil spirits, that are simply not to be tampered with. When a person dies, the "good" part of the person leaves with the spirit, while the "evil" part stays with the physical body. That belief is so strong that before the advent of mortuaries, Navajos sought out Pueblo Indians, missionaries, white traders or other outsiders to bury their dead. When a person dies in a hogan, the hogan is destroyed. Sometimes Navajo people nowadays bring their dying relatives to the hospital simply to prevent them from dying in their home. In many other cases hospitals are avoided. Navajo people know that death lies inside hospital walls, and therefore hospitals are filled with ch'iindis."

- "The Scalpel and the Silver Bear: The First Navajo Woman Surgeon Combines Western Medicine and Traditional Healing" by Lori Arviso, M.D., and Elizabeth Cohen Van Pelt

Excerpt from an excerpt from here.


I haven't read this book at all and I'm not trying to promote it. I just saw this excerpt and I thought it was rather fascinating given that I was looking up the Halachic considerations regarding dissections of Jewish cadavers. Could make you think.

The Minds of Our Youth

It gets to you after awhile. You spend time discussing these skeptical issues with folks on the jblogosphere and frumskeptics group and you start to think that there really are a lot of thoughtful Jews out there who know there are significant issues with Orthodoxy. Many of them aren't as skeptical as you are, sure, but they at least know there are problems and can rationally appraise the situation.

You can actually have a conversation with people and you can be speaking the same language.

So I decided to spend some time on a different kind of discussion board online and I've been there for about a month or so. This discussion board is made up predominantly of young (college age mostly) straight-up Orthodox Jews. There are a couple with some interesting histories, but I was nearly alone in my skeptical views amongst a sea of unqualified full believers.

It's like talking to a wall. Not only do they not understand where you're coming from, they believe that your intent is sabotage and for the most part do not even attempt to defend their beliefs. And when they do try to defend themselves they don't even know how to think. You make an argument and they don't understand. You actually have to walk them through it one 'if-then' step at a time. They are so sure they are correct even though it is fully apparent that they are fully ignorant on so many key concepts. It's like they don't want to think - they don't care! They are dead-set in their ways at the ripe old age of 20 years old.

It's maddening.

They make piss-poor arguments that folks on the jblogosphere would tear apart in minutes, while there they all nod their dittoheads in solemn agreement. It is incredible seeing how these youth's minds are in such subservience to the thinking patterns forced onto them as yeshiva students. They don't think for themselves and they can't even conceive of thinking outside the box.

These people are the future of Orthodox Judaism. And these were the MO type no less!

As long as I could almost fool myself that Orthodoxy could be composed of all the thoughtful people we find on the jblogosphere I am comfortable with my place in life and the path I've chosen. Traditional is good when thought is free. But when I see the real company of the future and the type of thinking I am externally associating myself with I think to myself, "What am I doing here? These are people whom I want to be identified with?"

Oy.

Hope Springs Eternal

There's been a lot of existential issues going around the J-sphere lately, so I thought to introduce people to a most excellent poet: Alexander Pope, who like so many of us, struggled with these same issues.

Excert from "An Essay on Man: Epistle I"

"Hope humbly then; with trembling pinions soar;
Wait the great teacher death, and God adore.
What future bliss, he gives not thee to know,
But gives that hope to be thy blessing now.

Hope springs eternal in the human breast:
Man never is, but always to be blest:
The soul, uneasy and confin'd from home,
Rests and expatiates in a life to come

.....

All are but parts of one stupendous whole,
Whose body nature is, and God the soul;
That, chang'd thro' all, and yet in all the same,
Great in the earth, as in th' aethereal frame,
Warms in the sun, refreshes in the breeze,
Glows in the stars, and blossoms in the trees,
Lives thro' all life, extends thro' all extent,
Spreads undivided, operates unspent;
Breathes in our soul, informs our mortal part,
As full, as perfect, in a hair as heart;
As full, as perfect, in vile man that mourns,
As the rapt seraph that adores and burns:
To him no high, no low, no great, no small;
He fills, he bounds, connects, and equals all.

Cease then, nor order imperfection name:
Our proper bliss depends on what we blame.
Know thy own point: this kind, this due degree
Of blindness, weakness, Heav'n bestows on thee.
Submit. In this, or any other sphere,
Secure to be as blest as thou canst bear:
Safe in the hand of one disposing pow'r,
Or in the natal, or the mortal hour.
All nature is but art, unknown to thee;
All chance, direction, which thou canst not see;
All discord, harmony not understood;
All partial evil, universal good.
And, spite of pride, in erring reason's spite,
One truth is clear, 'Whatever is, is right.'

-Alexander Pope

I posted this little bit on ex-Godol Hador, who has lately been completely wracked by existential issues, but I guess it need no comment there.

Paradoxy

Looky what I found:


Paradoxy

1. The state of being paradoxical (Webster's)

2. In theological terms, it is the act of believing in something you know to be completely untrue. eg. people who follow the norms of a religion, believing that it will make them more worthy in the eyes of a god(s) that they do not believe actually exists. Examples are most Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and other less popular religions.

"My father was a believer of Jewish Orthodoxy. I, on the other hand, am a believer of Jewish Paradoxy. I don't believe in this stuff, I just wear the duds to get chicks."

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=paradoxy

Throwing Truth to the Ground

I know this isn't my usual style, but I heard a really nice d'var Torah today that I'd like to share.

It starts off with with the consideration in this week's parsha where that famous line where God says "Let us make man in our image." So the question is, who is "us"? If God is all alone up there doing his creative work, who is he talking to? The most common answer given, as it is expounded in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 38b) is that God is conferring with the angels, his heavenly court, regarding the decision whether to create man.

So there is a midrash which relates that conversation. In the midrash, there are four angels conversing with God. The first, Chesed, says that man should be created because he does good deeds. The second, Emet, says that man should not be created because all he does is lie. The third, Tzedek, says that man should be created for he does act of righteousness. And the fourth, Shalom, says man should not be created for all he does is fight.

So the score is two votes for and two votes against. Seems deadlocked. So what does God do? He throws Emet to the ground. (We might call it a divine veto.) Now with the score two to one, God creates man. But another angel comes up to God and says, how can you throw your seal of Emet to the ground? So God responds, "Let the truth grow up from the ground."

As is common in many midrashim, the meaning behind this one is far from clear. Rabbi M. who gave the d'var Torah just kind of left it there with just the appellation that it was something to think deeply about.

Now I thought this was a neat midrash. Obviously you can't take it literally but there does seem to be a deeper message. To me it seems to speak even more than others because the connection between Judaism and truth is an especially interesting relationship to me. That God would throw truth to the ground for the sake of creating mankind is a very symbolic. But symbolic of what?

On one level we could see it as God making the building of truth man's work. Truth is not in heaven, it is on earth waiting for us to build it up. This would be appealing for a scientist because it basically describes how he'd go about doing his work. And really for any of us who pursue truth, this would be a meaningful interpretation.

But on a different level we can also appreciate the degrees of importance in God's (or the midrash writer's who was speaking for God) perspective on reality. Out of those four key elements, it is truth which God throws down. Presumably God wanted to create man and his reasons seemed to flow around the ability of man to do acts of compassion and righteousness so these are clearly important. But he chooses peace over truth to keep in its ideal position. So while I wouldn't say the Midrash is promoting the idea that truth unimportant, but that in comparison to peace and righteousness it comes out on the bottom. We may never know truth fully, and it would be presumptuous of any man to say that he knows the Truth (TM), but what is key to life are acts of kindness and peace. In the order of values, truth has been humbled.

In Pirkei Avot 3:12, it is written, "[Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa] used to say, 'He whose works exceed his wisdom, his wisdom endures; but he whose wisdom exceeds his works, his wisdom will not endure.'" A testament to the idea that the key to life is doing good deeds and not just the goal of becoming 'wise.'

But on a third level we might be able to understand this midrash as a description of the ethic of Judaism entirely. Us skeptics realize that large swaths of the traditional faith cannot be reconciled with what we have learned through modern scholarship. And if one studies the works of some famous rabbis, there are hints that they suspected as much themselves. Not so much in terms of modern scholarship, naturally, but that the basic thesis had a some problems. Hamayvin yavin.

Yet even though there are issues with questions of fact, the basic values that Judaism progresses in terms of tzedek, chesed and shalom are unmistakable. Truth, in Judaism, according to this midrash, is not something received from above, but grown from below. Like God, we, as a community, may need to sacrifice truth as we think we know it and rely on our basic values to bring Judaism foward. We ought to embrace the truth, whatever it may be, within the basic values of Judaism. That will be the true test and the real challenge for Judaism as we engage these modern times.

Celebrate Succos the Old-Timey Way

From Nehemiah, Chapter 8:

13 On the second day of the month, the heads of all the families, along with the priests and the Levites, gathered around Ezra the scribe to give attention to the words of the Law. 14 They found written in the Law, which the LORD had commanded through Moses, that the Israelites were to live in booths during the feast of the seventh month 15 and that they should proclaim this word and spread it throughout their towns and in Jerusalem: "Go out into the hill country and bring back branches from olive and wild olive trees, and from myrtles, palms and shade trees, to make booths"-as it is written.
16 So the people went out and brought back branches and built themselves booths on their own roofs, in their courtyards, in the courts of the house of God and in the square by the Water Gate and the one by the Gate of Ephraim. 17 The whole company that had returned from exile built booths and lived in them. From the days of Joshua son of Nun until that day, the Israelites had not celebrated it like this. And their joy was very great.
18 Day after day, from the first day to the last, Ezra read from the Book of the Law of God. They celebrated the feast for seven days, and on the eighth day, in accordance with the regulation, there was an assembly.

A few comments.

One, check out passage 15, specificially the supposedly quoted portion, i.e. "'Go out into the hill country and bring back branches from olive and wild olive trees, and from myrtles, palms and shade trees, to make booths' - as it is written."

Here it is in Hebrew:

צְאוּ הָהָר וְהָבִיאוּ עֲלֵי-זַיִת וַעֲלֵי-עֵץ שֶׁמֶן, וַעֲלֵי הֲדַס וַעֲלֵי תְמָרִים וַעֲלֵי עֵץ עָבֹת לַעֲשֹׂת סֻכֹּת, כַּכָּתוּב

Now, note how curiously they left out the whole 'pri etz hadar' section from Vayikra. The etrog has a pretty prominent place in modern observance of Succos, rather strange that they left it out, hmm? It seems to have been replaced here with olive branches. Could 'pri etz hadar' have meant olives in Nehemia's time? Think about it.

Also note how the Israelites are using those four species, not to shake about in a bundle, but to construct their Succot. The whole shaking ritual of the lulav and etrog is actually absent from the entire Tanach. It is not mentioned in Vayikra or here in Nehemiah or anywhere else in the Bible. Curious, no?

In fact, using the four species as building materials is the traditional understanding of the Biblical instructions as far as the Karaites are concerned. To this day, observant Karaites will build their Succah roofs with olive branches, along with myrtle, willow, and palm fronds. Typically they also reject the 'four wall' ideal of Rabbinic Judaism and build them tent-like as well.

Lastly, I'd like to point out passage 17, about how they had never celebrated like this and in passage 14 how they apparently discovered this festival in Ezra's Torah. For a group with a supposedly perfect transmission of data from the moment at Sinai, they seem to be awfully forgetful. What does this say to the Kuzari argument?


Just a few things to think over. And, of course, have a happy Succos.

Dawkins and a Hasidic Rabbi

This is one section of a series of clips taken from Dawkin's documentary show titled "The Root of All Evil," where he goes around interviewing various religious believers about their beliefs. The primary thesis being that religious faith is irrational and oftentimes dangerous.

The segment with the Hasidic rabbi starts at around the six minute mark here. My only issue is that I think they cut it off before it really got interesting.

I don't agree with everything that Dawkins says, but him and I are more likeminded than I and Rabbi Gluck.

Secular Muslims, Say What?

Stereotyping Rankles Silent, Secular Majority of American Muslims

Khalid Pervaiz is an American Muslim, an investment banker in Los Angeles with two young daughters. On the door of his home is a Christmas wreath made by his 7- year-old, and in the living room is a Christmas tree with an angel on top. His daughters go to the mosque, or masjid, on Sundays for classes in the Koran, but Mr. Pervaiz himself goes once a year on the major Muslim holiday of Id al-Fitr.

"I had the privilege of being exposed to other religions from the very beginning, so I wasn't so fixed on the idea that Islam is the only way to live," Mr. Pervaiz said. "Every once in a blue moon I will go for my Friday prayers, but I still think I'm a good Muslim. If I don't go and pray five times a day, I don't think I'm less of a Muslim. I'm just not a practicing, going-to-the-masjid Muslim."

In behavior and belief, Mr. Pervaiz is among an overlooked silent majority of Muslims in America. They call themselves moderates, but another way to describe them is as cultural Muslims, akin to the assimilated cultural Jews who identify as Jewish, eat gefilte fish and celebrate Passover, but are for the most part not observant and not affiliated with a synagogue.

The cultural Muslims may attend prayers in mosques once a year on Id al-Fitr, not unlike Christians who make it to church only on Easter or Jews who attend services only on the High Holy Days. They may fast intermittently in the monthlong holiday of Ramadan, but they do not pray regularly. And yet they consider themselves good Muslims.

-----------------------

Generally, a Muslim is defined by faith in the religion of Islam; however, in the modern world there are religiously unobservant, agnostic or atheist individuals who still identify with the Muslim culture due to family background or personal experiences. This group is best described as cultural Muslims, since they are identified by association with a Muslim community rather than Islamic faith or rituals. Malise Ruthven discusses the term in Islam: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2000) as follows:

There is, however, a secondary meaning to 'Muslim' which may shade into the first. A Muslim is one born to a Muslim father who takes on his or her parents' confessional identity without necessarily subscribing to the beliefs and practices associated with the faith, just as a Jew may describe him- or herself as 'Jewish' without observing the Halacha. In non-Muslim societies, such Muslims may subscribe to, and be vested with, secular identities. The Muslims of Bosnia, descendants of Slavs who converted to Islam under Ottoman rule, are not always noted for attendance at prayer, abstention from alcohol, seclusion of women and other social practices associated with believing Muslims in other parts of the world. They were officially designated as Muslims to distinguish them from (Orthodox) Slavs and (Catholic) Croats under the former Yugoslavian communist regime. The label 'Muslim' indicates their ethnicity and group allegiance, but not necessarily their religious beliefs. In this limited context (which may apply to other Muslim minorities in Europe and Asia), there may be no contradiction between being Muslim and being atheist or agnostic, just as there are Jewish atheists and Jewish agnostics... It should be noted, however, that this secular definition of Muslim (sometimes the terms 'cultural Muslim' or 'nominal Muslim' are used) is very far from being uncontested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Muslim


Secular Muslims? Cultural Muslims? Skeptical Muslims? Atheist Muslims? Who knew?

Maybe we really are cousins.

I wonder, is there a Muslim Reconstructionist movement in the works?

Pantheism vs Atheism

At Spinoza's blog there was a discussion regarding the pantheist position and the centuries-old criticism that pantheism is nothing but atheism in ill-fitting religious clothing. If you are equating the universe with God, why can't you just drop the God term entirely? Do we really need another synonym, especially one that carries such heavy connotations?

But I think that the pantheist position is a far cry from atheism. Granted, to the theist who insists on anthropomorphizing God they are equally heretical, but they are actually only superficially similar.

The major difference lies in the appreciation for existence. What is existence really? Is it some random backdrop in which we find ourselves or is it an integral part of who and what we are?

Pantheists are generally philosophical Monists, everything is 'one thing' and all comes from the same source. All things within the universe are interconnected.

Pantheists may also believe that there is value external to human judgement for things like morals and aesthetics. That these are not human constructions but that they are human fulfillments and recognitions of aspects of reality. The typical atheist position which undermines such things as epiphenomenal are actually integral (as are all things) to the pantheist position.

The Pantheist may understand a certain way that things ought to be, as opposed to the atheist which sees such ideas to be a matter of mere personal preference or irrelevant.

Atheists don't tend to make metaphysical assertions, they just harp on the failures of theism. If they follow scientific skepticism then their metaphysical views may be nothing but basic materialism.

The ultimate difference lies in what each side considers the basic substance of the universe to be like. The atheist conceives of nothing but subatomic particles whizzing about or random quantum fluctuations while the pantheist imagines a fundamental well-structured ground of being.

Personally, I don't know if I'd call myself a pantheist. Perhaps I'm more of a panentheist wherein physical existence is a manifestation of a higher existence, albeit a still integral one. The question is then what we mean when we use the term 'universe.' If it means just physical reality, then I'm a panentheist. If it means all things then I'd have to a pantheist.


Pantheism is a positive belief that the universe holds properties worthy of reverence for its own sake and that are truly integral for a meaningful existence. To refer to such ideas as simply the physical universe loses a lot of the intended meaning. The term 'God' as ultimate existence is not just a semantic ruse, it is truly a more apt expression of pantheistic beliefs.

Word of the Day: Hypokeimenon

Hypokeimenon

"Hypokeimenon is a term in metaphysics which loosely means the "underlying thing" or the substratum. To search for the hypokeimenon is to search for that substance which persists in a thing going through change—its essential being. It is conceptually similar to Spinoza's "substance" and Kant's concept of the noumenon in The Critique of Pure Reason."

I believe few people would say such a thing does not exist. Yet, is this not God?

Is not God the hypokeimenon of the universe, however imprecisely it is defined?