"Rationalist" Judaism ("safe haven" style)

Pita

Sat, Dec 07 2013, 10:16 pm

OP, I don't know if this will help, but I actually find scientific theory BOLSTERS my belief in Torah.

Take netilat yadayim, e.g. HKBH told us to wash our hands before eating, after urinating, after being in a cemetery, etc. We did it because HKBH TOLD us to. Later germ theory was discovered. In fact, the first doctor to propose it died in an insane asylum; no one believed him! We did it because God told us to. We probably would have ignored it (and maybe all of Torah) had we been told there are tiny, invisible things that are not sentient but are alive, that will make us sick. Some Rabbanim came up with the idea of ... I forget what it is called, but I believe it is the same reason some women shave their heads. Sorry I do not have the background to give this information. But anyway, my conclusion is that God gives us the Mitzvot for US, and eventually, maybe, we will find some reasons for them. Not necessarily THE reasons, but some reasons.

Another example: the big bang. After thousands of years and billions of dollars in scientific research, we are now told that the world was Tohu Vavohu. Please tell me how this contradicts Torah.

And evolution, I do not believe contradicts, either. Got creates how he decides to create. Adam ve Chava may have been allegory or fact, but by studying the Torah we learn about human nature. I do not believe that God speaking to us in allegory makes His teaching any less important or true.

There are other parts of our tradition that I feel are so wise they could not have come about without God's influence. I always think about the requirement to make a barrier around a flat roof. Seriously, do you know how long it took for American building codes to catch up?

No, I do not believe in many of the things cited by some of the previous posters as nonsense. And many midrashim, especially those that contradict the Torah by making our forefathers seem more perfect than they are stated to be in the Torah, reflect (to me) actually a LACK of trust that we can see the wonder in the Torah as it is.

But by explaining to my children how science supports Torah, and how many wonderful lessons one can learn, their beliefs are strong. Of course, they are young yet. But still, I do not see being honest with them as being a negative. E.G. I have told them that when the Torah shows us flaws in our forefathers, it shows that everyone can make the world a better place and improve him/herself, and has an obligation to do so. Because they changed the world.

And thank you, btw, for starting this discussion. I have found it very interesting to read it.

mille

Sat, Dec 07 2013, 10:52 pm

poelmamosh wrote:

mille wrote:

poelmamosh wrote:

spring13 wrote:

Kitniyot is a decent example: I think it's shtuyot, and someday Hashem is going to say "I appreciate that you tried, but dudes that was totally not necessary." He'll appreciate that we tried - because kitniyot is an extension of avoiding chametz, and there is (non-rational but still meaningful) meaning in the process of keeping Pesach. I do what we have a tradition to do, but I keep a cool head about it.

I respectfully disagree. I have learned that minhag is actually a manifestation of Hashem's deepest ratzon (so to say), the one that is not expressed, but that is adopted by the (a) Jewish community as a result of our--well for this thread's sake--let's say, irrational connection to Him.

Seriously? So that seems to say something interesting about sefardi folk and those who don't keep kitniyot if keeping kitniyot is Hashem's "deepest ratzon". This sounds a lot more like something to justify the keeping of kitniyot when it is not longer relevant or necessary, or to justify the practice of a complete stringency, not Hashem's "deepest ratzon" regarding Pesach observance.

Also to the OP, as a rationalist who went to a Chabad seminary who had the "just learn some chasidus!" thrown at me a lot to help quell my evil logical religious foundations, go ahead and try, but don't expect it to be a cure. And expect your husband to disagree with everything and not really get it, because imo chasidus and rational judaism are quite big opposites. I feel like adding chasidus to the equation may only really hurt the shalom bayis aspect, not really help. Just my personal perspective, though. Obviously you know yourself and your relationship best.

Sephardim have their own minhagim. I am not G-d forbid, implying that only Ashkenazim figured it out! The example brought was kitniyos, so I used that example, but the application is universal. To me it is obvious that the diversity of Jewish practice is intentional on Hashem's part, are you disagreeing?

As to the rest, based on what I said above, I am not advocating that a Chassidic life is for everyone. The OP is not comfortable with her DH's version of Judaism, and is not finding answers in her own. I am simply suggesting some new horizons to explore. IME, there are many women who are drawn to Chassidus although their men, as a whole, are less enthusiastic (stereotyping much, I know) I think any marriage will benefit from a happier, less conflicted wife.

Yes, I am disagreeing. I don't think that kitniyot is intentional on Hashem's part, and I don't think it's necessary for Pesach observance. It is a chumrah, through and through. Plenty of ashkenazim DO eat kitniyot, and I don't think there's any issue with that.

Also, OP, feel free to tell me I'm wrong here because I'm obviously not you -- but I don't think she absolutely totally DISAGREES with her husband. She is just struggling with new information she is receiving. She hasn't said that she is absolutely not a rationalist and nothing her husband says makes any sense. She agrees with some of it and sees where he's coming with others. Like I said, learning chasidus is quite the opposite of approaching Judaism from the perspective of a rationalist imo. Going to the COMPLETE OPPOSITE side of the issue doesn't seem like it would do shalom bayis any favors, nor would it really help someone who does agree with some rationalist lines of thinking because it requires so much suspended disbelief (imo).

Dolly Welsh

Sun, Dec 08 2013, 12:33 am

It is all very well to point out what is reasonable in Torah, such as hand-washing, but we remember the Akeda every, which made no sense at all, while it was going on.

We can't lose our grip on the divine. You are going to bump up against Iove (Job). Or you can forget the whole thing and go out for pizza, pepperoini pizza. It's a free country. But a religion can't be fashioned, whittled, or forced into a ethics-enhanced version of science.

Religion and science are in completely different wings of the building. However.

A Jewish scientist must not go to the lab on Shabbos.

His shul does not need a poster of the Periodic Table of the Elements on the wall.

The lab might not need the Ten Commandments on the wall, either, but none of them should be broken there.

==================

I think a core issue here is fear.

I think some people deal with fear by trusting in G-d, and some people deal with fear by keeping the lights on and hugging Hobbes, their stuffed tiger.

I think some people use their own thought process in the same way.

For them, their own reasonings function as a stuffed tiger.

They find it comforting.

That is not meant to be mocking or disrespectful. I find this material scary too.

I think one has to face the fact that to be religious, you have to be religious.

(I am using the vernacular. I know the Torah does not contain the Latinate word "religious".)

I think one has to watch out for Reductionism, a fallacy that some Jewish thinkers may perhaps be prone to, sometimes.

===========================

My secular father remarked that "to explain is not to explain away".

I would say stop trying to find your ancestors and focus on your descendants. Our time only goes one way, and you may see a little of the future but you aren't going to see any of the past.

I said up there that one could choose to believe.

That was nonsense, and I take it back.

Belief is a gift of G-d. One can pray for it, however.

If one tries to reason instead of trust, you may find yourself executing anyone too old to work. That way madness lies.

Your minds just aren't good enough.

Listen to the judges who are in your day, although you get to decide which ones, and you aren't supposed to check your common sense at the door. Please remember that on Purim.

Remember, you know nothing.

amother

Sun, Dec 08 2013, 1:43 am

poelmamosh wrote:

amother wrote:

Whatever terms you use, you are implying that there is a simple meaning to the Torah outside all of the known commentaries on it: Tanaim, Amuraim, Rishonim... This is not the case, unless you call yourself a Karaite. There is a process to understanding Torah, and you are free to choose a "side" when more than one is presented, but to unilaterally decide that all published, mesoraic explanations are too esoteric for your sensiblities and you understand differently is, well, I'm not sure what it is, but it is not Rationalist Judaism as I have experienced it.

amother wrote:

2. This is a wonderful drush. I am glad that you created and experienced meaning and poetry in the words of the Torah. Similarly, I appreciate that Rav did when he said that the avos kept the Torah, and that the midrash Rashi cites did when it said that Yosef send "agalot" to Yakov to signify that he remained devout.

I did not create it. The original source is in Chassidus/Kabbalah. Yes, it speaks to me, but it would be ludicrous to limit Torah, G-d forbid, to any one particular interpretation.

amother wrote:

3. The argument that concludes "Lo bashamayim hee" is a reference to a voice descending from the heavens and has nothing to do with existence on a non-physical plane.

That's a very literal reading:) My point was simply that there are multiple "truths" when it comes to Torah and determining Halacha.

1. Calling me a Karaite because I said that chumash has a pashut pshat without meforshim is a deliberate misrepresentation. It is not arguable whether the chumash has a pashut pshat without commentators - that is the very pshat the commentators are trying to reach. Was the Ibn Ezra a Karaite?
On the other hand, it's likely that my views are as objectionable to you as Karaite views, so if that helps you sleep better at night, enjoy it. Torah Shebaal Peh was not a secret hidden text that accompanied Torah Shebiksav. It was a process, a method and tradition of applying the precepts of the Torah to day to day life and to yet-to-be conceived situations. The Karaites rejected it and they claimed that Rabbinic-tradition based Judaism was wrong. I claim that that Rabbinic-tradition based Judaism is right, not because Hashem told Moshe in a secret that zumba is assur, but because Judaism was meant to develop through Rabbinic tradition.

DrMom

Sun, Dec 08 2013, 1:53 am

yogabird wrote:

freidasima wrote:

I don't think that anyone has a problem with evolution until it comes to man. Nowhere does it say HOW Hashem created the animals, only that he created them. So why can't it be that they evolved from other previously existing organisms? No contradiction to even the literal Torah. When it comes to human beings that's a different story and as no one has ever found the "missing link" between animal and man, that part of an evolutionary theory is total conjecture and one can still believe that Hashem created man specifically, separately and in the way the Torah describes.

How rational is it to believe that apes can evolve from amoebae, but that humans can't evolve from apes?

On another note, creation implies "something from nothing". So if you admit that G-d *created* animals, how does that jive with evolution?

And AFAIK, no one ever found any missing links between one species and another, and certainly not between families and kingdoms. The only evidence found was for micro-evolution, or inter-species evolution, which can still be observed today.

yogabird, I don't think you have an accurate understanding of modern evolutionary theory.

(1) Nobody suggests that apes evolved directly from amoebas (as in: one day there was an amoeba swimming around peacefully in a drop of water, and then, BLAMMO! it turned into an ape!).
(2) Nobody seriously suggests that creatures evolve between families and kingdoms. (e.g., pigs morph into bats or pine trees morph into hedgehogs or ferns morph into fruitflies -- gosh, why aren't there any intermediary species??)
(3) What have been identified are fossils thought to be common ancestors for several other species before they differentiated and evolved. For example, the Archaeopteryx is thought by some to be a common ancestor of some reptiles and modern birds. The Tiktaalik is a mudskipper-like creature thought to be a bridge between fish and land vertebrates.

I don't see how HaShem's role in creation is compromised if these hypotheses are true or not.

DrMom

Sun, Dec 08 2013, 2:10 am

amother wrote:

PinkFridge wrote:

amother wrote:

1. The gemara states it unequivocally, but whether the gemara was factually correct and whether the gemara is pshat is not for the gemara to decide. Rationality and pshat are related but I'm not making a rationality argument here. I'm making a pshat argument - according to the simple meaning of the words of the Torah, it hadn't been given yet. Therefore, the avos could not have kept it. I do not know whether the avos existed empirically (I suspect not) but according to the pshat in the Torah they did. I accept the face value assertions of the Torah at face value in reading the Torah. I don't accept them as empirical fact.

2. This is a wonderful drush. I am glad that you created and experienced meaning and poetry in the words of the Torah. Similarly, I appreciate that Rav did when he said that the avos kept the Torah, and that the midrash Rashi cites did when it said that Yosef send "agalot" to Yakov to signify that he remained devout.

3. The argument that concludes "Lo bashamayim hee" is a reference to a voice descending from the heavens and has nothing to do with existence on a non-physical plane.

No shocked emoticons or anything. Just woooooow. So who are you comfortable averring existed before George Washington?

The wording of your question is a bit off, given that I didn't say he didn't exist. If you read my earlier posts, you will see my opinion that history and Torah don't occupy the same "factual" space. Thus, I don't really think much about whether Avraham actually existed outside the realm of the Torah. Other characters who appear in the realm of history qua history, I evaluate in historical terms.

I', with PinkFridge on this one. Wow.
I never knew anyone within the Orthodox Jewish community say that the Avot may not have really existed.

If you don't think that Avraham existed, do you not believe that HaShem made a brit with Avraham? Why do you circumcise your boys? Do you believe that HaShem gave Avraham and his descendents Eretz Yisrael? If Avraham didn't exist, I guess that's up in the air too.

What about Ya'akov? What about Ya'akov's children?

What about Moshe Rabbeinu?

Is there anybody you are sure existed? If so, whom?

PinkFridge

Sun, Dec 08 2013, 8:23 am

DrMom wrote:

amother wrote:

PinkFridge wrote:

amother wrote:

No shocked emoticons or anything. Just woooooow. So who are you comfortable averring existed before George Washington?

Evidently there is existence, and empirical existence. And NOMA. I'm hoping someone will guide me to some very reliable links on the subject, or might try to distill these concepts for the rest of us.

amother

Sun, Dec 08 2013, 9:48 am

DrMom wrote:

amother wrote:

PinkFridge wrote:

amother wrote:

No shocked emoticons or anything. Just woooooow. So who are you comfortable averring existed before George Washington?

amother

Sun, Dec 08 2013, 10:09 am

DrMom wrote:

amother wrote:

PinkFridge wrote:

amother wrote:

No shocked emoticons or anything. Just woooooow. So who are you comfortable averring existed before George Washington?

Sorry for the plain quote above. I pressed the wrong button by mistake.
1. Being shocked is not a logical argument. In a topic about rational Judaism, it should not be so shocking to encounter rationality.
2. It's like you're picking out the parts of my posts that you will find most objectionable and then you're objecting to them out of context. My point has consistently been that I don't evaluate Avraham by the logical rules of history or empiricism. Therefore, to the extent that I engage Avraham at all, his existence is real to me.
3. As a thought exercise, I can try to imagine the people I am fairly sure existed in both the historical and biblical worlds. Since Yehoyachin is reflected in contemporaneous archaeological materials - I.e. stuff that dates from the same time he did; I am pretty comfortable assuming he's a historical figure. I would even extend that backward a few generations, because if he was a historical figure, his predecessors probably were too.
4. As I reflect on this, the following crystallizes: You and I both suffer from "flaws" in our conceptions vis a vis the Judaic version of history. Think of knowledge as two separate parts, the process and conclusion. You are convinced that your viewpoint is better because it is easier to evaluate conclusions than processes. I say that Avraham's factual existence is ambiguous, and you can point to a Torah conclusion that contradicts that. It's easy to identify the shortcoming there.
Meanwhile, your process leading to the conclusion is flawed. Your entire argument is based on dogma, circular arguments, and appeals to authority. Your ideology depends on rabbanim knowing science better than scientists, history better than historians, and archaeology better than archaeologists, despite deliberately neglecting to study any of those topics. The Torah or your version of it must be true, as proven by the fact the Torah or your version of it says that.
But because it's harder to identify the concrete problem and easier to make the flaws into moving targets, you prefer conclusions resulting from flawed processes.

DrMom

Sun, Dec 08 2013, 10:56 am

amother wrote:

DrMom wrote:

amother wrote:

PinkFridge wrote:

amother wrote:

No shocked emoticons or anything. Just woooooow. So who are you comfortable averring existed before George Washington?

Perhaps I am too stupid (or too concrete) to be a "Rationalist" Jew, but your arguments make little sense to me.

1. What sort of evidence do you require to believe that Avraham existed? I can't produce his teudat zehut or dental records. If you don't believe that the Torah is factually true to such a degree that the people described in it and who are central to its plot and very essence are of questionable existence, why are you a Jew?

2. "My point has consistently been that I don't evaluate Avraham by the logical rules of history or empiricism. Therefore, to the extent that I engage Avraham at all, his existence is real to me. " Sorry, but what does this mean? It sounds like a bunch of post-modernist gobbledegook to me. People don't exist because one "engages them." Does Santa Claus exists because a Christian child "engages him" by leaving him cookies and milk on the mantle?

3. Yes, my arguments are based on dogma. My starting point is that the Torah is true. If this is not your starting point, or at least part of your philosophy, perhaps you should explore the Reconstructionist movement.

4. Do you believe that HaShem exists? If so, why? If not, see above.