Evanstonjew pointed out that many linger with Orthodoxy, even after they have forsaken many of the beliefs, because they lack intellectual capital in other subjects. I could go on and on about how I was robbed by my upbringing but that would go against the title and my desire to move on with life.
But beginnings are tough and investing in new intellectual capital takes time. I have interests in Rorty, and other western thinkers, some Taoist and Buddhist thought, but it's all very new for me. I LOVE jazz and take advantage of listening to it at nearly any chance I get. I'm a big fan of forests, mountains, and bodies of water. But I don't know much about these things and worse I don't have any one to talk to or share experiences with.
Occasionally I'll get into conversations with old friends about some sugia in the Gemara, or other Torah subject, and I'll get a glimpse of remembrance of the geshmak of lernen. At times like this I wonder if I'd regret forgetting the Torah that I've learned. But I'm not sure if I'm willing to spend the time necessary. I have a lot of new things that I'd like to learn... new subjects that I feel will better suit my new views on things and offer suited intellectual stimulation. All my friends were Orthodox Jews, mostly pretty Hareidi in belief, and they aren't the first candidates for a discussion on Rorty or Zen. Finding people that like to have these conversations isn't easy.
Then there's Judaism in general. Do I want to make something of it? Is it something that I'll do for the holidays and forget about it the rest of the time? Sometimes I feel an obligation to make something of Judaism, to take being a Jew seriously, but then I wonder if it's worth the trouble. Seeing Judaism as defined by anything other than Hareidi-ism is difficult for me. I recently started reading a few progressive Orthodox blogs. They are interesting, but I keep thinking, "That's not right... Rishon X or se'if y from the Shulchan Arukh clearly says not like that!" I enjoy Rabbi Rami's blog but he is cynical about a meaningful worthwhile Judaism surviving into the next few generations. I can't help but agree. I'm not sure Judaism the religion is or will be seen as anything but out of touch and folky to the majority of Jews, which is making an already waning Jewish Culture fade into obscurity or antiquity all the more quickly. Additionally, it's hard enough for me to socialize... Do I need the added stigma of taking Judaism seriously? Not that I'm embarrassed of being a Jew... Chalila! But I feel that if I do, I'll be limiting my social circle, and finding a comfortable social circle is hard enough. Not sure why I feel this way about Judaism and not philosophy or Zen but I do. I feel that if I'm fortunate to marry a good Jewish maidele, I'll be more motivated to stimulate my mind with Judaism and make it a motivating part of my life. Until then, I don't see Judaism becoming significantly more attractive.
My views on life are constantly evolving and I'm comfortable and happy about that. But I wish I could download all the important literature that's been written over that past couple thousand years into my brain while I sleep, so I could start thinking about it and writing about it. Beginnings
By the way, this is my one hundred and first post. Mamesh Hashgacha ;-)
After putting up a test post from my phone, I got to thinking that maybe this will change the dynamics of this blog. Maybe I'll start doing some short blog posts with random thoughts and still go for some more thoughtful and longer posts a few times a month.
Do any of my fellow bloggers use this tool? Any tips, advice?
BTW, this post was also sent from my phone!
This post was inspired by Material Maidel's and OTD's recent posts.
People that grew up in cults and escape tend to be angry at their former lifestyle, especially if they are still stuck in it or still have to have constant contact with it, because of family, friends etc. Those outside of that cult usually find such anger to be justified.
However, there comes a point where even many of the those outside the cult start to lose sympathy. The justification starts to get past it's expiration date and turns sour, making such anger, or other painful emotions, sound more and more childish, more and more like whining and immaturity. Your fellow escapees may put a longer expiration date on your feelings, but even some of them start to get frustrated, especially if they have found the courage and strength to move on, forget and/or make progress with their lives.
The expiration date on the justification of your feelings varies from person to person and from situation to situation.
Till now I've only written about justification for your feelings. There are other aspects, such as whether criticism is justified, what kinds of criticism are effective and for whom.
I'm for free speech, even if it isn't intelligent, even if it's coming from an angry guy in his early 20s, even if it's incessant and obnoxious. Like OTD says, "If you don't like it, don't read it."
Are criticisms effective? Effective on whom and what kind of effect? These are all very interesting questions that are worthwhile looking into. I don't think that my earlier militaristic style along the lines of "Fundies are ignorant fools that piss in their pants or stick their heads in the sand in the face of modern Science," is very effective in opening the minds of fundamentalists to criticisms of their faith. It may be effective as a sort of anger therapy for the author of the blog and fellow angry escapees but I feel that it's best to move on with life. The therapy starts to turn into bitch sessions and instead of venting your anger, it digs you deeper and deeper into an emotional ditch that gets harder and harder to escape from. Of course there are those that may be comfortable there. I don't think that's a healthy place to be, but maybe that's just me.
I think that a more conversational style of criticism is effective in getting people from other points of view to consider your own. Aggression tends to build stronger, more sound proof walls in communication. It tends to drain your arguments of positive effects and they tend to turn into self rationalizations and self justifications using the accuracy of your own imagination as the only axiom.
Read or watch it here.
President Obama is at times described as an idealist and at other times as a pragmatist. Not that Obama's speeches are at times Kantian and other times Deweyian... Rather, at times the President inspires his listeners and paints a glorious canvas of our potential American landscape and at other times he's more realistic, focusing on dealing with the very real problems that our nation faces. Both aspects can be seen throughout his inaugural address.
Here is an example of a paragraph where he uses both idealism and pragmatism jointly.
"They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met. [pragmatism] On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. [idealism]"
Another subject that the President discusses is service.
"For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth. "
This is very encouraging as I fear that American pride in a job well done has severely diminished and in the words of Deuteronomy, we "have waxen fat." It would certainly be refreshing to see an era of service inspired by our new President.
Richard Rorty wrote about something he called "changing the conversation." When thought and languages evolve, often times the questions that bothered us melt away into history. Often confrontation changes to dialogue by simply changing the conversation. Facing off with skeptics, completely on their terms, will get you no place fast and so looking at things from another perspective, changing the way you talk about things can bring unforseen insights and answers to perrenial problems. That seems to be what President Obama is doing when he says the following: "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works..." He refuses to play the game of big vs. small government. By doing so, he avoids the stereotypes of a pervading Reagan philosophy and steers the conversation into new and promising territory.
He uses a similar tactic when he says, "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." By rejecting this dichotomy as false, he can go on to work out a balance between safety and ideals.
The President said,
"We will restore science to its rightful place..."
and later,
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers."
The atheists, agnostics, skeptics, scientists, and others should be happy. Our new president is a giant step in the opposite direction of George W. This president has a healthy respect for science and even acknowledged non-believers.
"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. "
As the Preacher said, "A threefold cord is not quickly broken." I've written a lot recently about my appreciation for variety. Pluralism and mutual acceptance are among our greatest virtues and the President duly noted them.
When President Obama said, "... know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy," do you think he was referring at all to Hamas? (Someone else pointed this out to me and I think I agree that he was, at least implicitly.)
"This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny. "
This is a fascinating theology, one I thought was foreign to Christianity. Especially in Calvanism, there is this notion of predetermination. I'm not a student of Christian Theology, but I thought that this and similar ideas were common. There are Jewish commentators that explain that when God said "Na'aseh"(Let us make) in Genesis, he was calling on his Creation to participate, and I've heard Jewish thought speak of the idea that we are partners with God, as it were. But I think that this statement takes it even further. The President is not saying that we are partners, but that God has handed over the job of shaping destiny, one that is uncertain at that. God is driving the world hands free and is either not knowledgeable, concerned, or responsible for it's outcome. (Look Mary, No Hands!) This smacks of deism. Perhaps the President has been reading a lot from our founding fathers. Whatever the case may be, the accusations of the anti-religious like "God made me do it [evil deeds]," and Steven Weinberg's quote, "But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion" in no way apply to President Obama's view on the matter.
Let's see what this guy can do. This speech has already influenced me. Since hearing it, I've been thinking about conserving energy and ways I can contribute to society. Hopefully, things will continue along these lines through his blog , tweets, and youtube addresses and people will be motivated to better things.
The United States of America has just inaugurated President Barak Hussein Obama. I'm pretty stoked.
A few weeks ago, I thought I'd found her. I was looking forward to closing down this blog and continuing to write, but waiting on publishing my thoughts in a new, non-anonymous blog sometime after I became a very fortunate, old married man. But now I'm not so sure.
Most of the blogs that I enjoyed so much not so long ago seam horrifically drab. I'm changing the blogs and books I read. Maybe it's the new year...?
Looking back on my first comments and posts, my face makes Red Lights green with envy. I'm not that much older, but surely some angsty teenager wrote that rubbish. My sincerest apologies, dear readers, for wasting your time. My deepest gratitude, for sticking it out with me.
What's in store for this new year? I'm not sure. Writing has been especially difficult of late, even though I want to write now more then ever. Thoughts are so crammed in my head that there's no flow. I need to get some of them out into cyberspace. Maybe I just need to break the ice, and maybe then my thoughts will be able to flow again.
The dialogue that's been going on here recently has been very interesting.
Believing in Myths (religious ones in our context) is not necessarily problematic, according to me. Unless these myths are causing significant harm, then who is to protest? I believe in freedom of thought and that includes believing that the earth is 5768 years old. Secondly, I don't believe there is a need to align everyone's beliefs with my own. As I've said, for the most part, I rather like the diversity. Thirdly, constantly mocking the beliefs of others certainly won't do any good, in fact it will probably do more harm. Those that are convinced by mocking, are rarely satisfied in their new lack of belief, and those it doesn't convince will find the mocker to be just some jerk who mocks the beliefs of others. Besides all that, the mocker generally ends more and more like the ones he is mocking only with different beliefs.
I've been using the term myth... that's generally what you call ancient or unpopular beliefs that are not considered as tenable. Pretty much everyone else's beliefs but your own are called myths. I used this term so as to assure the skeptics that I don't believe in the traditional OJ beliefs of TMS, etc. and that in a way, I'm on their side. On the same token, I wanted it to be known that I feel that many of their beliefs, in certain respects, are myths as well (e.g. that Science is, for all intents and purposes, God, and that with a little more Critical Thought, we can surely usher in the messianic age.)
Orthoprax preferred to use the term ignorance. This is a very difficult term to use nowadays in this context. In 21st Century America, it's hard to claim ignorance in regards to the claims of both science and religious fundamentalism. They are all readily available to all who wish to inquire. Surely my critics don't believe that, aside from the farthest extremes, those that believe in religious myths are the equivalent of a tinok sh'nishbah (a jewish child that was captured and never told of it's Jewish identity) with regards to the claims of science? Most people are not ignorant of the issues, they simply have a different view.
Jewish Sceptic and SOS mentioned that the beliefs of Orthodox Jews can indeed cause significant harm and in many cases I'm forced to agree with them. However, I don't want to make sweeping generalizations here or bring random not-so-nice quotes from the Rambam which few OJs are even aware of or subscribe to. I used to do that, and thank Goodness I saw the light. Even if there are those that profess to believe every word of the Torah b'miluehah, they generally find away to get out of uncomfortable halachot and VERY few actually act on these types of beliefs. Plus, there are hundreds of thousands of Jews that find inspiration for life and goodness in the belief that God wrote the Torah, etc. and would have a hard time finding life worthwhile without those beliefs. Just because there are a few that use these same beliefs to spread hate, will you blanketly rob the harmless to assure yourself that you're saving the few? And who is to say that you will be successful in convincing such a person with your powers of critical thought and that you won't in fact be fanning the flames of hatred? Some people are sociopaths and are better left alone or locked up.
SOS and others mentioned that most people wouldn't want to believe in their beliefs if they knew they were not true. This makes the assumption that everyone values or ought to value truth above all else. I highly doubt that most people value truth so highly, neither do I think they ought to. From the simple example of lying to your spouse about their good looks in the morning, to the more extreme example of not robbing the cancer-research-scientist of her inspiration in Elvis's return to rock and roll, I think we can see that at the very least, there are cases in which the truth should not be called upon.
Another point that Orthoprax brought up namely that Critical Thought should be popularized , I agree with in principle though I don't feel as strongly about it, nor do I feel that believing in myths and tolerating the myths of others is necessarrily at odds with it. I don't feel as strongly because I feel there are a large number of things that are more or equally important such as morality, politics, creative thought etc. It's not necessarily at odds because most people, including myself, believe ( or at least pretend to believe) in a fair number of myths. I pretend to believe in the Exodus when I celebrate Pesach with my family. Many others pretend to believe in Santa Claus when they track Santa on google maps or when they give their kids gifts signed "From Santa". There are countless other examples but I hope that I've proven this point.
I hope that my critics enjoyed this conversation as much as I have! Even if nobody agrees, at least I've given a different POV and shown that not all Jewish Skeptic Bloggers agree, and that's a good thing?
Continuing the conversation from the last couple of posts and the comment threads that followed thereafter, I want to address a point that the blogger "Orthoprax" mentioned.
OP (Orthoprax) and others were a little shocked and perhaps even disappointed that I was "in favor of obscurantism and ignorance." (A very important side point should be made about the choice of vocabulary that's been thrown around, even by yours truly, on this subject in particular... but more on that later.) But I feel that they are dramatizing or somehow mis-understanding the point I'm promoting.
I'm NOT a kiruv rabbi, trying to sell their version of Judaism. I'm NOT a Kannoi from Meah She'arim blackmailing residents into buying my brand of esrogim, the only kosher one, of course!
However, I don't feel that there is a reason to fight a war for Reason. I don't think Reason much cares. Reason is probably secure about it's identity and doesn't feel the need to be liked by all. 99.99% of the world makes on without it 99.99% of the time.
Please don't get me wrong... I believe in education, I believe in Science, I believe in freedom of inquiry and all that. But in regards to politics and policies on a personal and public level, ask yourself, "Do I have a moral obligation to align other's beliefs with my own?" (i.e. spread the value of scientific skepticism[or OJ or Christianity or Hinduism or Islam] using whatever practical methods available to me) Or maybe... just maybe... we can embrace diversity and democracy and allow others their guilty pleasures, so long as they aren't too terrible.
Surely not all myths are created equal and though Ignorance is Bliss, it's not always benign. But are we really in a constant struggle against ignorance? Or perhaps our wicked Western society has come to realize that totalitarianism is undesirable, even if it's got all the facts straight. Sure, we have our nutcases and extremists, and we disagree with 90% or more of the world, but I wouldn't have it any other way.
Another issue that I'd like to weave into the mix, is that of dealing with those with whom you disagree. There are lots of options... Ignoring, dialogueing, conversing, debating, mocking, fighting, warring etc. The option you choose will need to be appropriate. You don't start a war with a whole country for no good reason. Similarly, you don't ignore someone who makes constant atempts at puncturing your vital organs. Mockery, bashing, and constant criticism can be fun and useful at times but it has an awful habit of changing the subjects into objects. (The Mocker becomes more like the mocked...)
In regards to Ignorance, much of it can be ignored. Most of the vital problems with ignorance are dealt with by our Genes (wouldn't do much good for our survival if they were completely ignorant now would it?). Most of the remainder are reined in by education and culture. In today's day and age, in free countries, are we honestly in a struggle against ignorance on any meaningful level?
XGH is at it again.
After writing this post, a heated discussion ensued between two anonymous people, XGH and someone who went by "Anonymous." I found myself agreeing almost entirely with Anonymous.
XGH thinks the destruction is cool and Anonymous thinks that living beautiful lives enhanced by myths is cool.
But XGH values Truth above all else and with sadistic joy, runs to sacrifice the beliefs of his fellow man on it's altar. Does Truth care? That doesn't matter. Are there real live human beings that are currently holding their guts in their hands wondering what to do next, thanks to his zeal? Yep.
Remember back when the Godol made fun of the kannoim, because they ruined Noson's life?
I wonder how many whose lives are effectively ruined because of... oh well... Truth is a jealous God. Thou shalt have no other gods before it.
There is only one Truth and XGH is it's prophet.
No one can come to the truth, but by XGH.
Why do I care? Hmm... That's a good question. I guess I'm kind of a hypocrite. How do you protest protesters? How do you convince people of perspectivism, without being written off as just one guy with a perspective?
Oh well... Let the record reflect. Fundie bashing is naughty (though it can be so damn funny!) Believing in myths... everybody does it... Scientists, Philosophers, Skeptics, Fundamentalists, Moderates, Conservatives, Liberals... So myths are probably ok, so long as they aren't harmful.
Of course, Kiruv is bad too. But that goes without saying.
Is there anybody out there?
Wait a second... she heard me? How 'd that work? Huh?
Is that my imagination playing tricks on me? How in hell could I ever tell?
Excuse me, mam, could you pinch me? Thanks... yeah, I felt that. Just making sure.
But... maybe... maybe that's just me again. I mean, if I can imagine people listening to me, then surely I can imagine someone pinching me. That should be pie.
Damn it!
Errr... Professor, how can I prove to myself that I exist?
You're just consciousness. You can't.
How come I can't fly like in the Matrix?
It doesn't work like that...
Huh? Why not?
Wait... how am I able to ask questions? How can I hear think these thoughts?
Wah? OK... I'm sorry I just don't get it.
People need something to believe.
Skeptics and Atheists try to destroy what most of the world believes.
Skepticism and Atheism offer no beliefs.
Destroying peoples' beliefs is generally immoral especially when you don't replace that which you've destroyed.
Therefore Skepticism and Atheism is generally immoral.
I need something to believe. In some ways, I wish it could be some version of Observant Judaism, for the simple reason that I have friends and family that believe in it (and lots of shidduchim offers). But I have a nasty feeling that that's pretty much impossible. Orthodox Judaism is pretty awful in my book and it's hard for me to imagine Judaism outside of Orthodoxy. I'm reading "Cat's Cradle" by Kurt Vonnegut. It's about believing in useful lies. I'm starting to wish I could do that.
Of course religion isn't the only thing to believe. There are lots of other things, but the skeptic in me finds pretty much everything pure vanity. "Hevel Havalim, hakol havel!" as the Preacher said.
Most Religious claims have been debunked time and again. Philosophy has been destroyed by the likes of Nietsche and Rorty. Science offers nothing but cold observations (not that many aren't turned on by that sort of thing. )
I could be like most skeptics and atheists and just decry religion and superstition. That seems to give fulfilment to 90% of them. But that's just lame. I mean, honestly!? What kind of losers spend significant portions of their life, pointing out what they perceive to be nonsense?
It's hard to find something to believe.