"Rationalist" Judaism ("safe haven" style)

yogabird

Sun, Dec 08 2013, 8:13 am

DrMom wrote:

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.

(ftr, my comment about the (ir)rationality of believing that animals evolved but not humans was not related to the evolutionary theory per se. It sounded like FS was saying that she believes whatever the scientists have to say about non-human evolution, because she doesn't see any direct contradiction to that in the Torah, but she doesn't believe what they say about human evolution, because the Torah contradicts that. That kind of choice makes no rational or logical sense to me, and I assume it wouldn't make her appear any more rational in the eyes of scientists, if that is what she is trying to accomplish...)

I am perfectly aware that no one believes anything happened overnight. But if they don't believe it didn't all start with one cell, well, how else did it all begin?! With one plant, one animal, and one protozoa?! I'd be glad to hear that! That would mean they're making progress!

And also, afaik, current evolutionary theory does support the theory of saltation, or its more modern version, referred to as punctuated equilibrium, which posits that huge genetic leaps are possible. This is used to explain away how each tiny genetic mutation had evolutionary advantage to the species on its own.

Lastly, "what are thought to be common ancestors" is nothing more than a giant assumption. Wasn't it Darwin himself who stated that his entire theory would fall apart if those missing links were not found?

Last edited by yogabird on Sun, Dec 08 2013, 8:41 am; edited 2 times in total

yogabird

Sun, Dec 08 2013, 8:20 am

PinkFridge wrote:

DrMom wrote:

I agree with Pita. I think as science reveals more about the universe, we will see it converge with Torah.

As for Midrashim: I am surprised that these are taken literally by anyone. I am disturbed when people do not distinguish between pshat and midrash. When someone says, "The avot must have kept the whole Torah, otherwise, what did they study at the Yeshiva of Shem & Ever?" there is a serious problem.

That's not exactly what I said. I said that there existed the yeshiva of Shem and Ever. What was taught there was not the Torah. The Torah as we know it wasn't written then. But there was a body of lore, halacha and hashkafa that was taught and it was handed down through the ages. Or so I've been taught and believe. No, it's nowhere in pshat. Yes, there are medrashim that aren't meant to be taken literally. But just maybe some are?

btw, the gemara's statement that the avos kept the torah is not based on the fact that they learned in yeshivas shem v'ever. It is supported by several pesukim and incidents. It still may not be pashut pshat, but drush is valid too! And, rashi does base several pshat explanations on the assumption that they kept the torah, so that tells me that it is very much in keeping with the simple meaning of the torah.

For all those who take issue with this, can you tell me how a simple reading of the Torah directly contradicts this assumption? And the fact that the Torah hadn't yet been given is no contradiction, imo. Where in the literal reading of the torah does it state that its giving coincided with the beginning of its keeping?

poelmamosh

Sun, Dec 08 2013, 9:09 am

Amother, you are making it clear in your last posts that you consider "Rationalist" to mean "that which I can understand." Well, if you can't conceive of the Torah as being more than the human mind can grasp and there is a level of G-dly input in its transmission (I know there are degrees of this within the frum community, but none at all?)...over and out, as they say.

In addition, OP has stated that your ideas are way beyond the pale of what she is dealing with. I don't really feel comfortable continuing these circular arguments on her thread.

Mille, I'm in a rush, so I'll skip the quoting. I take note of your counterpoint to my posts, and I hope OP does, too. She is free to pick and choose the advice she wants.

BTW, have you ever learned Rashi sichos?

yogabird

Sun, Dec 08 2013, 3:36 pm

octopus wrote:

bamamama wrote:

black sheep wrote:

as I understand rationalist judasim, it does not question anything in the Torah Sebechtav (the five books of Moses.) even the talking snake, as someone mentioned in an earlier post, we accept as real, understanding that the world was different before the sin of Adam.

IME this isn't an accurate statement. If you were to ask, say, Rabbi Slifkin if there really was a Gan Eden and a snake, after reading many of his articles, I think he would tell you that it's not necessary to believe that. But I could be wrong.

really? got to ask my dad again, but we once had a discussion that gan eden can very well be in india in one of their mountainous regions, and it is hard to get to.

You are correct. It is generally accepted that the Gan Eden that Adam inhabited had a physical locale on Planet Earth. There is even a midrash about Nevuchadnezzar chancing upon it and seeking entry.

This place, however, is not the same Gan Eden we talk about when discussing where souls reside in the afterlife.

Tzippora

Sun, Dec 08 2013, 3:46 pm

poelmamosh wrote:

If I have no reason to believe something is true, why should I believe it? Even assuming that the Torah is more than the human mind can grasp (aside: what does that even mean, specifically? and, what's the point of that being the case, given that the goal of the Torah is that it functions as a guide for the Jews on how to live) why should I then believe one narrative over the other.

I feel no obligation to believe that the avos followed the torah. It's temporally illogical. In fact, simple reading of the texts indicates otherwise. There is no reference to 'yeshivas shem v'ever" so what would make me think I should read it into a text? And if I had some desire to believe in extra textual stories to the chumash, why those stories as opposed to any other ones?

I don't have to believe the avos literally existed (I would argue it's likely some form of some avos existed, at least as an oral tradition among proto-Jews, just because having heroes and forefathers is how you build a nation - the text doesn't necessarily demand that of itself) but even if I thought everything the chumash text says had to be taken literally, which I don't, I don't see why everyone is so insistent on believing all these things that the chumash never claims for itself.

ETA: Regarding drush being valid, sure, it's valid for its purposes. But its purposes are to elucidate ideas that rabbonim think are being pointed to in the text by constructing metaphorical extratextual stories, NOT to claim literal truth to what the midrashim saying. That's why midrashim are LOVELY - but totally irrelevant to historical fact. I love reading them, but I don't believe they are any indication for what physically, actually happened. They are interesting historically to determine what rabbonim of various times want to highlight to their population - but no more than that in terms of history.

princessleah

Sun, Dec 08 2013, 6:03 pm

What she said.

I'm not firmly in one camp or the other, but I don't understand what all the freaking out is about. The Torah does NOT REQUIRE that we believe in the Avot literally. I am not required to believe that in order to be considered frum. So anyone asking the question, 'why are you frum?' if you don't believe literally that the Avot existed, the answer could be-- "because I don't need to believe in their literal existence in order to be frum." It's perfectly ok to believe in the truth-- EMET of the Torah without literally believing every single thing that happened in the narrative.

On the flip side, it used to bother me when people tried to bring proof of things that happened in the Torah. I remember a teacher talking about some proof about a giant flood, and some scientific explanations for some of the 10 plagues, like some brick mortar int he nile causing it to look red... I don't like that. It made our Torah seem like just another book of myths to explain phenomena people of the time couldn't yet explain scientifically.

poelmamosh

Sun, Dec 08 2013, 6:50 pm

I can talk endlessly (haha) about the boundless nature of the Torah and its ramifications, but then you are going to tell me that you're not an esotericist. So we're back to square one. I do think, though that a significant aspect of being a frum Jew is admitting that there are limits to our comprehension of Torah (even just in the context of chukim, and as it applies to all praxis) and by extension, Hashem's interactions with us. So as princessleah says so succinctly (if I may paraphrase), if we do not believe in the basis of the miracles recounted in the Torah and that there was some supernatural selective process that puts us where we are today, some 3000 odd years after Sinai, what is holding us to a Torah way of life over any other form of practice?

Dolly Welsh

Sun, Dec 08 2013, 7:28 pm

It is a fact that it is raining and that I am a woman. Those are objective truths.

It is an Emes that my mommy, though deceased now, loved me. That is certainly not objectively measurable and wasn't even when she was alive. In the sense that she loved me more some times and less others, and sometimes was asleep and not thinking about me, and that "this much" with arms outspread isn't terribly scientific.

"Ki Tov" is the other objective truth. That things don't just exist objectively, they are also good. Now that's interesting. It didn't have to be that way. That could be called Emes.

There are lots of truths that are not tangible, such as mommy's love, the value in a dollar bill (it's just paper), and the boundary between the US and Canada (shows on no satellite photograph). Those are all social constructs, but they are also objectively factual things, truths, in a life. Emes has to contain them too.

Just my humble opinion.

Last edited by Dolly Welsh on Sun, Dec 08 2013, 7:37 pm; edited 2 times in total

amother

Sun, Dec 08 2013, 8:05 pm

DrMom wrote:

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.

Controversial amother here.
1. I am a Jew for the same reason you are: because I was born Jewish. I practice Judaism for the same reason you do: because Judaism does something for me. Just because I'm aware of that and you're ignorant of it does not mean my Judaism is less valid.

2. Not sure what the source is that things that sound to you like post-modern gobbledegook (sp?) are invalid as Jewish ideology. It certainly has advantages over, for example, that story about the woman putting boiling clothing on her daughter because she had dressed not tznious.

3. Again, your arguments consist of eye rolls. I honestly don't know what Reconstructionist is, but putting a mocking label on something does not add or detract from its validity.

4. I have an instinct that Hashem exists and I conduct myself accordingly (with certain unwitting limitations). You seem confident in your Emuna, why don't you tell me if/why you believe Hashem exists?

sara0b

Sun, Dec 08 2013, 8:33 pm

Dear OP,
I only read your original post, nothing (almost) of the responses that followed. So I don't know if I'm repeating what was said before or not, but I feel moved to write in order to offer you support.

Firstly, I'm impressed at your sincerity, honesty, and integrity in your approach of learning more and trying to reconcile the disagreement between you and your husband. May Hashem grant you the clarity that you seek, and shalom bayis within your family.

Regarding your concern of going against the grain...there's no truth in numbers. The Jewish nation is evidence of that. We are such a small percentage of total population, and yet we believe we have the ultimate truth and are appointed G-d's agents in spreading his message.

In fact, going against the grain, is "k'eelu" in your genes. Avraham Avinu was the first. He is called Ivri because "everyone is on one side of the river, and he stands alone on the other side." This description of him is not geographical, it describes an ideological weltanschung.

I respectfully disagree with many minhagim that are practiced today by the general Klal, which I have researched and know to be attributed to pagan and christian sources. How it came to be that ppl think they are Jewish customs, I don't think I can adequately and effectively type "al regel achas" in this post.

On the other hand, I believe there is a type of rationalist judaism today which claims to be the Rambam's shita (or whoever else), but is a very watered-down (and sometimes distorted) interpretation of his words. From the way you describe your husband's ideas, I think he's got a healthy approach, and onto something real.

Putting this aside, there is very much the ability to blend and reconcile "rationalist" judaism and spirituality as you know it. which seems to be what you're struggling with.

Let me know if you'd like to continue the conversation.

DrMom

Mon, Dec 09 2013, 2:01 am

amother wrote:

DrMom wrote:

Re: the bolded remark above: That’s a red herring argument if I ever heard one. I certainly never endorsed such teachings and see no need to defend them. You obviously have me mixed up with someone else.

I suggested that your beliefs are more consistent with Reconstructionism than Orthodox Judaism not to “mock,” but merely to question whether your beliefs are compatible with Orthodoxy (and with imamother). FYI: The Reconstructionst movement views Judaism as a "progressively evolving civilization. "Mitzvot and halacha are not binding, but are upheld to the extent that they are “valuable cultural remnants.” HaShem is “the sum of all natural processes that allow people to become self-fulfilled.” (I.e., “do it for you”). It’s all about *you* -- what you think, what you want, what you choose to engage, what “does it for you.” If I understand you correctly, this accurately fits the philosophy you described.

You never answered my question about Santa Claus. You claim that the avot exist ("for you") merely because you engage them. I want to know: Do you think that Santa Claus exists because many Christian children “engage him” by leaving him cookies and writing him letters? If you cease engaging someone, does s/he cease to exist? If we ignore you, would you cease to exist?

Does this work with mitzvot or only with people? If you cease to “engage” in the laws of kashrut (because they don’t “do it for you”) would they cease to apply?

I do not know if you have accurately portrayed “Rational Judaism”; The religious philosophy you have describes seems to be neither rational nor Judaism.

amother

Mon, Dec 09 2013, 6:55 am

DrMom wrote:

There is a lot in your post, let's see if I can understand all of it.
1. It's a red herring insofar as you (claim that you) don't believe or support it. But you choose to consider that normative Orthodox thought, at the same time that you choose not to think rationally and to define those who do out of Orthodoxy. The most vile viewpoints are expressed on imamother and nobody blinks, but let someone suggest that dinosaurs were real, interspersed with a lot of discussion reflecting understanding and consideration of Torah topics, and they start to get hints that they really don't belong here. What does it say about your priorities when people who think things through are worse than people who don't? And this just after my kiruv professional assured me that Judaism encourages questions and critical analysis!
2. There are a lot of similarities between what I "believe" (although believe is not the right word) and what you call Reconstructionist. The difference is that I keep the halachos. You seem to make much of the "binding" of halacha, but halacha doesn't bind anybody, unless they choose to be frum. I choose to be frum. That I can express a reason for my frumkeit and you can't (which is pretty much what is going on here) doesn't make me less frum. If anything, it ought to make me more frum.
3. Of course Santa Claus exists, to those for whom he exists. On the other hand, if you would ignore me, I wouldn't cease to exist. I'd still exist by virtue of your ignoring of me.
4. Again, what does "apply" mean? Orthodox Judaism abides. I don't get to decide what it is and isn't. Within Judaism, kashrus is binding, in the sense that most people would consider you not Orthodox if you don't keep kashrus. And I can turn your argument to any basis for Judaism. You believe that the world was created in six days, and Avraham existed as a historical figure. Presumably you see it like any other fact that you believe - I.e. if it were disproven, you would cease to believe it. So you go to a museum exhibit on the Middle East in the Iron Age and it turns out that (hypothetically) there are legends predating Avraham Avinu with very similar themes and plots. Would you still be frum? Would you stop at the cafe on the way out and eat a cheeseburger?

PinkFridge

Mon, Dec 09 2013, 7:50 am

amother wrote:

DrMom wrote:

Is there some sort of CAMERA or secret organization monitoring Imamother, and all the members to see who responds to what drivel? Someone keeping points? My deepest apologies for not reading and responding to every thread. But if you want to paint me with a broad brush, just bear in mind that I border on plus size so keep the stripes vertical, please.