"Rationalist" Judaism ("safe haven" style)

seeker

Mon, Dec 09 2013, 9:49 pm

PinkFridge wrote:

black sheep wrote:

Rabbi Fink explains what Rationalist Judaism means to him. I liked this article, because we have gone more "rationalist" over the years, but reading this thread made me think I don't understand rational judaism at all. but this article makes sense to me.

http://finkorswim.com/2013/12/.....aism/

(in addition to enjoying R. Fink's blog, I also am inclined to wonder what his imamother screenname is...)

Very interesting. No time to read this as thoroughly as it might deserve. I see Dr. Kellner's referenced.
What I find fascinating is that Rambam is being held as the guru; where do his 13 ikrim fit in?

His 13 principles do not include belief in angels, evil eye, folk (/Gemara) medicine, etc. They are pretty parve. Most rationalists wouldn't deny most of the 13 ikrim, but for those that do others should be aware that Rambam was not the only one to codify tenets of Jewish belief and other very respectable ones have a shorter list. O forget the details but one condenses the essential beliefs to 3. Which doesn't necessarily mean they don't consider the others important, just that you can count yourself as a believing Jew as long as you hold those basics.

DrMom

Tue, Dec 10 2013, 1:04 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.

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?

Unlike you, I am posting under my screenname.

Feel free to look up any of my posts and tell me where I have ever endorsed:

1. telling girls that if they do not dress tznua they will be punished by wearing boiling hot clothing;
2. denying the existence of dinosaurs;

Until then, don't project your frustrations with Judaism on me. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Quote:

"Of course Santa Claus exists, to those for whom he exists. "

^^^This pretty much sums up why I think the philosophy you espouse is post-modernist gobbledegook.

June

Tue, Dec 10 2013, 4:19 am

black sheep, thanks for posting this link. the article really resonates with me.

to the OP: if this is what your husband is getting at, there's nothing wrong with it! it is completely in line with Torah. it seems to me that it is similar to the litvish outlook on life, which rejects the mysticism of chassidus. that's not to say that chassidus is wrong either. it's just a different path in avodas Hashem.

Judaism is not a one-size-fits-all religion, and everyone has to find their own path.

to the anonymous poster debating with DrMom: your definition of rationalist Judaism is VERY different than Rabbi Fink's. he stated straight out in one of the first paragraphs that rationalism puts reason above all else, and that is DIFFERENT than rationalist Judaism because as Orthodox Jews there are certain supernatural things we believe really occurred. in my understanding of his words, Rationalist Judaism puts the Judaism first and the Rationalism second. he then argues that the mysticism and superstitions are not real Judaism.

amother

Tue, Dec 10 2013, 10:15 am

DrMom wrote:

Quote:

"Of course Santa Claus exists, to those for whom he exists. "

^^^This pretty much sums up why I think the philosophy you espouse is post-modernist gobbledegook.

Wow, you're posting an opinion that you know the majority of the board agrees with, and you're not even doing it anonymously? What heroism!

I'm not saying that you personally have vile opinions. I'm saying that you, as part of the community, make choices about what is "someone else's belief" and what is "simply unacceptable in Judaism and is by definition not Judaism". Those choices are evidence about the community.

PinkFridge

Tue, Dec 10 2013, 10:28 am

amother wrote:

DrMom wrote:

Quote:

"Of course Santa Claus exists, to those for whom he exists. "

^^^This pretty much sums up why I think the philosophy you espouse is post-modernist gobbledegook.

I find it very heartening that Dr. Mom and I are part of the same community. I always knew that, deep down. Tongue Out

Kulanu yehudim Music

amother

Tue, Dec 10 2013, 10:44 am

June wrote:

to the anonymous poster debating with DrMom: your definition of rationalist Judaism is VERY different than Rabbi Fink's. he stated straight out in one of the first paragraphs that rationalism puts reason above all else, and that is DIFFERENT than rationalist Judaism because as Orthodox Jews there are certain supernatural things we believe really occurred. in my understanding of his words, Rationalist Judaism puts the Judaism first and the Rationalism second. he then argues that the mysticism and superstitions are not real Judaism.

I don't think that there is any one definition of "rationalist Judaism" and I don't remember claiming to speak for anyone but myself. If I did imply that, I retract.

Rabbi Fink's rational Judaism is susceptible to the problem that many people raised in this thread. Why is it any more rational to believe in one miracle over another? If you believe in Makas Dam, why are you more rational than someone who believes that the story of Og Melech Habashan is also literal? You always reach a point where you have to stop the inquiry and say that something either did or didn't happen.

IMO, what I and Rabbi Fink and Rabbi Slifkin have in common is that we have found a way to address the things that preoccupy us in a rational way. Rabbi Slifkin can be an example (for purposes of illustration only; I don't know much about him) - he is a zoologist and he is interested in the science of the origins of the universe. He engages those fields very deeply, finding meaning in them in his work on Perek Shira and addressing rational Judaism-type issues in his other books. There are lots of fields he doesn't address, though. What would he say if someone were to ask him about the archaeology of Israel not fitting with Sefer Shoftim and Shmuel? He might say that he doesn't have an answer for everything and is not an expert on Iron Age history. Yes, but why does he wear a yarmulka if he can't answer that? At that point he can say "Of course Sefer Shoftim is literal, I just don't know enough about the historical discoveries to understand why!" or he can say "I have not looked into it, but if I would research the discrepancies and attempt to figure out what is at the root of them, I would be able to answer the questions by resolving discrepancies in some cases and reimagining what Sefer Shoftim is about in others." The second answer is closer to what would happen if he did write a book on Sefer Shoftim - that's exactly what he did with his creation story and Talmudical dragons, but if he said that preemptively he'd be crucified.

I did not come into this topic and say, "Hey you guise! I'm a rational Jew and we don't believe in Avraham Avinu!" In response to a question about where I draw the line between what I believe and what I don't, I said I'm not preoccupied with whether or not he existed because he has meaning to me within religion whether he existed in history or not. At that point, the question is how far would I go in addressing discrepancies between Torah and history, and yes, I concede that if there were historical evidence weighing against Avraham's literal empirical existence, I would be open to resolving it by finding other meaning in the Torah's depiction of Avraham. What those of you who are arguing with me about are focusing on is that I articulated a factual reality that is in fact true of Slifkin and Fink as well - when there are discrepancies, they adapt their understanding of the Torah to resolve the discrepancies.

PinkFridge

Tue, Dec 10 2013, 12:06 pm

amother wrote:

I did not come into this topic and say, "Hey you guise! I'm a rational Jew and we don't believe in Avraham Avinu!" In response to a question about where I draw the line between what I believe and what I don't, I said I'm not preoccupied with whether or not he existed because he has meaning to me within religion whether he existed in history or not. At that point, the question is how far would I go in addressing discrepancies between Torah and history, and yes, I concede that if there were historical evidence weighing against Avraham's literal empirical existence, I would be open to resolving it by finding other meaning in the Torah's depiction of Avraham. What those of you who are arguing with me about are focusing on is that I articulated a factual reality that is in fact true of Slifkin and Fink as well - when there are discrepancies, they adapt their understanding of the Torah to resolve the discrepancies.

I don't know if you have kids, but I can't imagine being comfortable with most schools, and am not sure how I would be able to be mechanech effectively with such beliefs. I assume this is something the community is discussing.

amother

Tue, Dec 10 2013, 1:47 pm

PinkFridge wrote:

amother wrote:

I am obviously failing at articulating what I believe. If you would see me, chat with me, come to my house for a shabbos meal, exchange kugel recipes, (anything except the empirical existence of Avraham Avina) etc. you would think I am a regular OOT yeshivish person. The main reason for that is because I am.

TBQH, I would be very uncomfortable with my children going to the schools that I went to as a kid (in town yeshivish). But they don't go to such a school; they go to the OOT yeshivish school where we live. The education is a little fairy-tale-ish, but it's elementary school so that's to be expected. Oddly, the fairy-tale-ish-ness of it makes it easier to deal with sometimes.