It’s been a question on my mind for sometime, but I have refrained from writing about it because I am not a philosophically in tune guy, I don’t read philosophy much and when the comments section fills up with A. Nuran, Yankel and FrumGer going at it with this philosophical arguments I generally tune out, but I am a skeptic, have always been a skeptic, but only recently have I started to admit to myself or to anyone that I was a skeptic – though anyone who has read this blog for the last couple of years could see that.
Many skeptics I know took the approach of abandoning much of their practice while they searched for the answers, but I am very against this. I believe in much of what I do and much of what I do satisfies me in a cultural, structural and spiritual way. I enjoy being a part, albeit on the fringe of orthodox and I like the community and structure it gives me, but I still wonder about the whole thing.
My friends from yeshiva, many of whom did their times off the derech or are still marginally orthodox, are always amazed that I not only stayed on the derech the whole time, but by the simple fact that I always fairly religious – I have always davened three times a day, gone to shul at least on shabbos and kept kosher, despite the evil things I have seen and the things I write about – I am a firm believer in judging the religion by the people practicing it, because rarely are the fundamentalist the majority – although orthodoxy itself is quasi fundamentalist.
So I do my thing, learn some torah, get up for shul, give tzedaka have conversations with God about his awesomeness – all the while questioning his intentions, whether or not any religion is the right religion (I think I may just be a frum agnostic sort of) and wondering if I can take on the Dutch minhag of milk and meat and if he actually cares about it at all. And you know what? It’s making me stronger, it’s giving me more faith and forcing me to consult with the lord more often.
The Rabbi in Oakland happen to speak about how popular Atheism and skepticism is good for us Jews this past shabbos, it keeps us questioning and it keeps us on our feet he said, you people would have loved it – Rabbi Darduk has this way of defusing controversial topics and making them accessible. He gave us the different opinions of other Rabbis when it comes to reading and listening to Dawkins and Hitchens, how it doesn’t really tall about Judaism and seems to be more of a response to Christianity and how in the end – religion, evolution and the Bing Bang are all just theories that people like to pass off as fact.
I just like that he confirmed my thoughts and skepticism were leading me toward, not away from being a better and more fulfilled Jew. It’s not for everyone, some people can have blind faith or they just know, but I don’t just know, I just just take it in and gobble it up, I chew my cud and wonder and although it doesn’t drive me crazy, it drives some folks crazy and just abandon it because it’s too hard to deal with.
I really like this post.It’s funny you mentioned the dutch milk and meat thing. I was just thinking about it yesterday, and was wondering if G-d really cares about certain things we place so much emphasis on. Maybe it’s for our own good? I don’t know. I’m also pretty skeptical but as you said, I think it does keep us closer not further away. If we didn’t question, we woudln’t be Jews. Thanks for writing this, I really enjoyed it.
I think a healthy skepticism can be, and should be, part of a person’s journey of faith. And I feel you on much else of what you expressed here, even though I’m not Jewish.
To me, where observant religion ends & flat-out fundamentalism begins is in the inability of someone to evaluate what he presently believes with healthy skepticism and / or find any humor in his orthodoxy. Note that finding humor in something is certainly not the same as outright ridiculing something.
To me, the single most serious problem in Islam today is that it has been hijacked by incredibly well-funded fundamentalists who utterly lack either of these two qualities. I have gone on & on here before about Saudi Wahhabism, but honestly the Iranian religious right is the same; the famously dour Ayatollah Khomeini remarked “There is no fun in Islam.”
Anyone who can sit there and say that there is no fun in his or her religion is a fundamentalist to me, plain and simple. Another couple of points and I’ll shut up, LOL.
I myself get a crazy amount of flack from both sides of the fence for still garbing my agnostic self in hijab sometimes. Observant Muslims don’t really like it, atheists hate it and OTD Muslims get angriest of all …. It’s weird.
I think people get deeply uncomfortable when they don’t know where to pigeonhole a person, especially fundamentalists, since they by definition see things in black and white. And there are some fundamentalist atheists / fundamentalist OTDers out there, whatever the derech they’re off, who are as rabid as any religious nut you will meet.
(Here’s the cynic) You’re pretty darn smart and perceptive
(and the fundamentalist) for an agnostic reality-denier.
🙂
Seriously though, I really think you hit the nail on the head. Without healthy skepticism, one is bound to indiscriminately buy into his own as well as other’s mistakes in translating and understanding any way of thinking.
You have a very unusual knack for understanding the ways in which people often think. It will be a crime to all of humanity if you do not one day become a professor in world beliefs and culture.
LOL, I’m blushing. Thank you, Yankel. :^)
great post!
i think the difference is if you are a thinker or not. some people just don’t want to think at all, it bothers them, they’d rather follow, so in religion as well they either pick being frum and just follow everything the rabbi’s say without thinking, or they choose being not religious and they don’t think about that either. however, if you are a thinker, and you want to understand the meaning behind what you’re doing, its natural that you will question your religion. and i also feel it will bring you closer to true judaism if you question it. blind faith will never bring you to the truth. and the response of many that blind faith in the truth is the best faith of all, is the silliest answer ever. how can you blindly believe in “the truth”? unfortunately today, many of our leaders are blind followers, but thankfully not all. us thinkers have to continue on our quest for the truth, even while the blind followers believe they have already found it.
as far as practicing while seeking truth, that is not a contradiction, it is a token of good faith towards the direction you are hoping your quest will lead you. as for those that have gone OTD because they have too many unaswered questions, i don’t blame them, just as they shouldn’t blame me for being a practicing frum jewish skeptic. 🙂
Faith is strengthened not by avoiding challenges, but by overcoming them.
Religion is not a theory. A theory, is a tested hypothesis.
Evolution = theory; Religion = fantasy.
I think when the skepticism really is a result of cynicism it can be a negative thing. A lot of the orthoskeptic blogs, I think, make this error.
“…religion, evolution and the Bing Bang are all just theories that people like to pass off as fact.”
Couldn’t resist commenting on that little piece of typical apologetics. The big bang and evolution are not theories in the same way that religion is. The big bang and evolution are accepted by scientists because there is a tremendous amount of evidence supporting them; the same can’t be said of religion.
You have a good point
thanks
evidence to prove the big bang? what absoloute rubbish! the complete impossibility of this whole world and all thats in it “just happening” is a theory made up by people who dont want to believe in a creator. rabbi yishmael said just as house bears witness to a builder and clothing bears witness to a seamstress so to the world bears witness that there is a creator. if i told you that the shoes you’re wearing “happened” by themselves you would send me to an insane assylum, but that the whole world happened by itself your ready to believe, complete insanity.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evidence+for+the+big+bang
You’re making what’s called the “Watchmaker Argument.” There are two basic problems with it: 1) We have no experience with universes coming into existence, and so cannot compare them to things we do have experience with such as shoes (or watches), and 2) There is the problem of infinite regress, that is, if a complex universe requires a Creator because it’s complex, then the necessarily complex Creator itself requires a creator.
Here is my more detailed discussion of the Watchmaker Argument:
http://2nd-son.blogspot.com/2010/01/search-judaism-critique-chapter-four_21.html
If the Creator, with a capital C, was created, then it’s not THE Creator.
And your point is?
The whole point of attributing all of existance to a Creator, is to avoid the catch 22 which you speak of.
The Creator would necessarily have to be free of time, place, and all other physical phenomenon.
Time, place, etc. are byproducts of the current configuration of the universe. We can say more simply that the universe before the Big Bang was free of these attributes. Adding a Creator, particularly a Creator as described by the Torah, adds nothing.
Except that if you don’t add a Creator, then besides for the “Pre-universe state” to essentially be an impossibility, (physical phenominon can’t be free of physical laws), the transition from that state to the current one could never have happened.
The question of why our universe “is the way it is” is a genuine question which many cosmologists are working on (and have been for a long time), and there are a lot of good ideas out there which try to explain this. Ultimately, if cosmologists come to a consensus on what the right answer is, it will be because it compellingly explains how our present universe arose from a simpler initial state/principle (if the explanation posits a more complex initial state, than it’s not an explanation at all, since we’d then have even more complexity to explain), and more importantly, there will be observational evidence that it is correct (otherwise it’s just conjecture). Positing a Creator does not satisfy either of these (i.e. it’s both a useless conjecture and an unverified one). The big bang theory satisfies both, as far as explaining how our present complicated universe arose from simpler beginnings and there being a multitude of evidence for it. However cosmologists are still working on explaining why the early universe “was the way it was”. The answer to that question might involve: inflation, the string theory landscape, quantum gravity, etc., or we may never be able to find a satisfying answer. But just saying “God did it” is not an explanation at all.
Without even realizing it, you’re starting off with a premise which is based on nothing, zilch, nada, efes, goornisht.
You are approaching the inquiry with a predisposed notion that “if it exists, or if it caused our universe – we can see it and understand it”.
Now what if that just isn’t so?
So you’ll ask: Why should I even entertain such a possibility?
Well, common sense would be a good place to start, but being that it seems not to be an option – let’s try and observe the beings and things we CAN percieve.
There is a very common ‘road’ if you will, that researchers tend to go with when analyzing humans and what makes them tick, and what will effect them and how. And that is – by studying the other creatures which exist.
Now, is there any animal, computer, being etc. on earth which does not have it’s limitations, and which is not wholly imperceptive in the eyes of another being more intelligent than it?
No.
We see no such phenominon.
Furthermore, if this were to be true about us as well, we would have no way of knowing. Since we cannot think beyond our intelligence, the same way as hard as we try – we cannot ‘feel’ a concept with our hands. They simply lack the ability to detect anything above the level of ‘physical senses’.
So why shouldn’t we assume – at least as a likely possibility – that we are like all other beings? Why is it a given that we are capable of finding the answer, especially when all logical roads have been found empty?
Perhaps our ‘logic’ is nothing more than a design itself?
I clearly said in my previous comment that we may never be able to find a satisfying answer. But that does not mean we shouldn’t try. And it definitely does not mean that “God, in all his mysteriousness and incomprehensibility, did it” is anything close to a valid answer.
Josh, I have to agree with you on this issue. Yankel, please watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0.
Yankel, any rational being can only responsibly believe in that which logic demonstrates is the most reasonable conclusion. There is overwhelming evidence for evolution and the big bang. With regards to what came before the big bang, there are many theories. Science has demonstrated itself capable of answering profound questions, and any reasonable person would let science run its course. Either way, why can’t you say that the universe has always been around, just as you say that God has always existed? There’s no physical/philosophical evidence to the contrary. It is the height of arrogance for you to disagree blindly with educated scientists. You know so little about what you are talking about, you don’t have the right to an opinion.
Seems that we all agree that nobody in his right mind would say today that its possible for the worl to just happen out of a big bang,just since we have no experience in universes coming into existence maybe we could make up that then it was possible [how dumb that is], thats why i say only those looking to deny a creator would do so. whatwill u do when u die and come face to face with your creator and he asks u why you wrote a whole article denying his obvious existence, use your time and talents for something worthwhile
“Seems that we all agree…”
I don’t think we agree at all! There is ample evidence that our universe has been expanding and cooling for the last 14 billion years or so from an initial hot dense almost-uniform “soup” of elementary particles (that’s what big bang means). If you agree with this, then we can go on to discuss what the origins of this soup are.
“whatwill u do when u die and come face to face with your creator and he asks u why you wrote a whole article denying his obvious existence, use your time and talents for something worthwhile”
What will you do when you die and come face to face with the Flying Spaghetti Monster and He asks you why you wasted your time worshipping the wrong Creator instead of painting pictures of pirate ships like he wants?
As u well know the world was created 5772 years ago by god in 6 days and he rested on the 7th, u can say whatever theories u want as to how god put the world into place making it seem like it has been big bangin for 14 gazillion yrs, the point remains the same this awesome world where even the greatest among us cant fathom the infinite wisdom that there lies within DID NOT happen by itself. now i know this blog “aint always frum” but please spare me your blasphemy because yes one day you will come face to face with your creator and you had bettet be prepared for it.
As u well know the world was created 7548 years ago by Mr. T in 4 days and he rested on the 5th, u can say whatever theories u want as to how Mr. T put the world into place making it seem like it has been big bangin for 14 gazillion yrs… spare me your blasphemy because yes one day you will come face to face with your Mr.T and you had bettet be prepared for it.
See, I can make stuff up too.
Think for yourself. Examine the evidence. Search for the truth.
Perhaps Josh was too sarcastic for you to embrace his criticism, Mr. Big Bang, but there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that the universe was created in 6 days of creation other than there being a tradition of such based upon a literal interpretation of Genesis. Now I don’t state the above to belittle this tradition — I’m merely clarifying the source for your side of the argument, alright?
Now there’s lot’s of evidence that the world is much greater than 6,000 years old, and rather than attempt to delineate this evidence here in such a concise manner that it a) remains short enough to read yet b) appropriately establishes the truly vast and comprehensive sort of evidence that exists — because that’s unfortunately going to generate an awful paradox, I refer you to the chapter in Slifkin’s Challenge of Creation entitled “evidence for an aged universe.” He does nothing but list off a number of natural phenomena that are easily detectable (for the scientific observer, of course) and well documented, such as dendrochronology, ice varves and other magnificent examples, and although he includes mention of carbon dating, I tend to shy away from that argument myself only because I hardly know anyone who is swayed by it after many years of hearing about it from ill-informed people and, frankly, it’s not even in the realm of compelling for someone who’s not intimately familiar with science — so if you have some average-minded accountant or English professor, carbon dating just doesn’t “do it” for them, which is fine, because although that’s all that people used to talk about when I was a kid (90’s), Slifkin makes his point almost by not even bringing up the topic.
So we have all this evidence for a really old world against the Torah, which, as holy as it is, we all know that we can’t trust the Torah. There are lots of things in it that we all agree is not to be relied upon, and that may be because every Medieval commentator agrees upon such an interpretation (for example, that the offspring of the Levirate marriage is to be named after the deceased father (Deut. 25:6) — although that’s what the text says, everyone says it’s to be taken figuratively). So how do we know anything…apparently we are no longer going by the book (ha!) but following the interpreters; all we’ve got to do now is pick our interpreters wisely.
There are lots of perfectly acceptable rabbinic commentators, and when there’s controversy (i.e. debate over correct opinions), we generally go with the majority, but that doesn’t mean it’s right. So if there was inadequate information for the majority to use in coming up with their opinions, the majority rule will suffer, but those are the breaks.
Slifkin doesn’t really need R’ Gedalya Nadel to support his proposal, and frankly, I’m not too keen on quoting Nadel because he’s a katan next to greats like Maimonides. But Maimonides is explicit (quoted by Slifkin, and you can look it up yourself) that things are not to be taken literally. So if they were contemporaries with scientists who didn’t yet recognize the reality of magnetism, what are we to expect of their grasp of the universe? This is not to belittle them any more than it would be like mocking a 3rd grader for not understanding derivatives — I’m sort of using an analogy of ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, we all grow and develop and we will only understand greater and greater accomplishment and advances with age.
To conclude, God gave us the Torah and what you think you “know” about it is really just the most infinitesimal slice of the mesorah — lots of people have said lots of things that have for one reason or another been cast aside as too complex, too convoluted or too unpopular, but that says nothing of the accuracy of these paths. So please understand the reaction of many — some who will unfortunately feel the need to be so sarcastic toward you that it becomes a foregone conclusion that you won’t even think about accepting what they have to say — who see your argument for what it is: a narrow-minded pseudo-position, and I say pseudo-position because I don’t think you really investigated another perspective to actually give the position you espouse any credibility of virtue over another. It appears, at least superficially, that you say what you say because that’s the only thing you ever heard. I just glance over your comment and as soon as I see the word “gazillion,” it reveals to all that you are saying “I’m not listening to a word you’re saying.”
Before the skeptical era of Spinoza, Hume, Kant, and Darwin, nearly all Jews were frum.
After the era of skepticism, about 10% of Jews are frum.
Given the way that skeptical thought has decimated the frum population, exactly how is skepticism good for frum Judaism again?
Back up your claim with data. How many people were “frum” 250 years ago? 500 years ago? What are your sources? What was the rate of attrition? Were non-frum people identified as Jews in the frum culture? etc. etc.
In the times of the Neviim, many if not most Jews weren’t frum (How much of Navi is berating Jews for engaging in Avodah Zara or otherwise abandoning the Torah?), and this was well over a thousand years before the skeptical era.
Let’s say the statistics in this comment are true. It still ignores a lot. First, there weren’t options to have a non-“Orthodox” Jewish community 400 years ago. (“Orthodox” is in quotes because, of course, the term didn’t exist yet.) Back then, you were frum or you were out of the Jewish community (think Spinoza), so you couldn’t have things like secular Jewish communities.
There are still questions past that. First, there’s the question of how to handle life after the age of skepticism has arrived. Let’s say, as you think, it would have been better for Orthodox Judaism if skepticism had never become mainstream. Once it has, though, the question is, is the best strategy to try to insulate yourself from it or confront it.
Next, there’s the question of how to live the most honest life, or the most religiously fulfilling life, and it is possible one could conclude that is through skepticism, even if that causes a higher attrition rate.
I have my answers to these things, and they’re different from both Heshy’s and yours. But, the point of the above is to say, I’m not convinced your comments, if true, would refute the post.
“how in the end – religion, evolution and the Bing [sic] Bang are all just theories that people like to pass off as fact.”
EPIC FAIL. Evolution is a fact (and a theory).
So is the big bang (maybe not all the way back to the singularity – if there is one – but extremely early times are not usually considered part of the “conventional big bang model”. I think it’s pretty safe to say that the conventional big bang model [i.e. the expansion of the universe from a hot dense early state] is “a fact”, although biological evolution may be a bit more certain since the evidence is so much more easily accessible and direct.)
Yes, I know:
http://xkcd.com/54/
This is a bit redundant – I’m mostly just agreeing with Mordy and Josh. There are definitely disputes within the scientific community regarding issues surrounding/connected to evolution – but all scientists agree that evolution occurred. There’s a tremendous amount of evidence that’s quite difficult (impossible) to deny on factual grounds. Religion is definitely not in the same category.
Please understand that religion makes no claim as to the validity of evolutionary theory. How in the world can there be light on Day 1 when the sun is created on Day 4? The Meiri asserts that the sun was actually created on Day 1 but was only put into place on Day 4. The fact that that doesn’t mean anything to anyone — where was the sun, in God’s pocket? Did he have it one of those silver bags that come with your EZ-Pass? The point is that the Meiri is unafraid to challenge the verses when they clearly present serious issues. But maybe the Meiri wasn’t a freelance zoologist and didn’t notice that homologous vertebrate structures suggest that birds (Day 5) did not precede reptiles (Day 6) and wasn’t keen enough on photosynthesis to conclude that vegetation (Day 3) ought not to be able to come about prior to the creation of the sun (Day 4). The order is out of whack, which Slifkin so neatly points out as a major stumbling point of apologists like Schroder. I can’t see the logic of Slifkin’s ultimate conclusions, but I sense he made them under duress, but his arguments up until the conclusion deliver ferociously keen observation and evaluation.
And just to add, stating that “all scientists agree that evolution occurred” is not accurate. Macroevolution is the absolute best explanation we have — it’s parsimonious — and it’s magnificently on the mark for most things, but there are some holes that it can’t reconcile, and there are also other questions that still need answering in the realm of cosmology that have nothing to do with evolution. But that’s not the role of the theory of evolution. It’s an explanation of what we perceive, and as we perceive more, we explain things differently.
Light didn’t come from the sun. (duh)
Light essentially came before everything else. It formed quarks (this is possible because of the mass-energy connection Einstein identified), and these in turn formed the light elements (hydrogen and helium). *These* were what formed stars. Our sun came along much later than most stars, incidentally.
I’m not a scientist, and not sure it is a 100% perfect explanation of the concepts, but you really needed to be called out on your “how could there be light without the sun” thing.
PS none of this seems to me at odds with Genesis (if you read G imaginatively).
is there any video, recording or transcript of the speech from the rabbi in oakland?
Sorry Heshy, you really should learn some science before you embarrass yourself. If you use words like “fact”, “hypothesis”, “model” and “theory” you should know what they are.
You don’t.
It makes you look ignorant and undermines, mmmm, pretty much everything you say.
Hint: The facts of evolution are well-established. The theory is the subject of lively active research.
In Heshy’s defense, he never used the words “hypothesis” or “model”,
and he was only paraphrasing the Rabbi regarding “theory” and “fact”.
Hitchens, by the way, is a staunch critic of Judaism as he is of all religion.
Nuran,
Hesh is not “embarrassing himself”, nor does he “look ignorant”, nor does anything he says about science “undermine” anything. He never claimed to be a scientist. He’s expressing his feelings he got from the speech on Shabbos, which anyone with some common sense can relate to.
Now, onto why you got so ticked over such a seemingly innocent post…
Hesh referred to the big bang and evolution as “theories”, (which is precisely what they are. I am quite sure the Rabbi was referring specifically to the ‘evolution of humans from monkeys’ per se. Yes, the ‘concept’ of evolution has been established. How you can get from there to “humans come from monkeys” and still call yourself sensible is beyond me. Heck, it’s beyond star wars and scientology.)
Unknowingly, Hesh insulted your G-d, the mighty Nuran. (Who surprisingly is a unique G-d, in that he is a G-d who actually fools himself into thinking he believes in another G-d, and refuses to admit that he really thinks of himself as G-d.)
G-d Nuran has a “sister G-d”, kind of an extension of himself, called “His perception”. It acts as the litmus test to verify what is real and what isn’t, what is G-d and what isn’t.
Nuran is VERY protective over this companion of his. Anything which suggests that it is not perfect, let alone totally off and misguided, must be seen as a threat and as the ultimate evil.
If there was no big bang, and if humans came about because someone put them on the world, then Nuran is a dumb-ass. He is no more than an ignorant speck of carbon at the mercy of the grand director. All his ‘understanding’ and ‘wisdom’ is worthless fiction. Almost everything he knows, is within the beautiful and intriguing – exqisite design, made for no reason other than to cover the walls of reality.
This cannot happen.
“Hesh, you undermine yourself blah blah blah…”
“‘There is exactly one overriding question in contemporary philosophy . . . . How do we fit in? . . . How can we square this self-conception of ourselves as mindful, meaning-creating, free, rational, etc., agents with a universe that consists entirely of mindless, meaningless, unfree, nonrational, brute physical particles?’
For the scientific naturalist, the answer is, ‘Not very well.’”
-John Searle
First of all, that’s not a refutation of naturalism, that’s a possible outcome of it we’d have to grapple with. I’m not sure what the point of the quote here is.
Second, I think Searle far overstates the case.
I don’t see how that’s the case unless your investigation begins with the assumption that naturalism is the only game in town.
Because the answers may be things we don’t like–i.e., we would have to face the possibility that yes, we are automotons–but facing a possibility we don’t like does not dictate what is true or not.
Also, I should probably point out that despite saying that, Searle is himself considered a naturalist.
That’s why I used Searle as a source! Searle is honest enough to admit that reconciling our beliefs is not as simple as merely reducing everything to physical states.
And the point of the quote is that our beliefs that we are free, rational, meaningful agents stem from the same intuitions as our beliefs in the real existence of a world of brute physical particles. Belief in the latter isn’t more justified than belief in the former.
Yankel,
Believe it or not, they actually write books explaining evolution. You may want to try reading one.
Yours,
JG
P.S. That’s sometimes called an argument from personal incredulity. “The idea I just heard–without having learned anything about how it works or its details–makes me incredulous. Therefore, it’s not true.” Arguments from personal incredulity aren’t particularly strong. E.g., “you’re telling me little circuit gates opening and closing lead me to use Microsoft Word, Internet Explorer, and watch DVDs? Crazy!”
The basis of my objection to attributing the existence of humans to “evolution from a common ancestor with monkeys” is not based on my personal incredulity.
I’m sorry if you took that out of what I said. That is definitely not what I meant.
Although I am not well versed in all the details of the theory of evolution, I get the basic gist of it. Yes, the topic was ripped out of our science books in yeshiva, but on my own I have heard speeches and read essays on the topic.
My point is, It is not just a ‘possible’ theory. It is a wild theory. If you’re able to remove yourself from the details of the theory and take a step back, you will notice that it is based almost entirely on proving the ‘concept’ of many creatures and organisms evolving to some extent, which is true, and from there taken as a given that “Humans as well as all creatures actually came to be the way they are through evolving from a common ancestor.” From there, the study of ‘evolution’ is all about finding the exact links and what came from where, and when, how, and why it did.
Now, if you can, please explain how this is a rational approach. All that was shown was the concept, and suddenly it is seen as rational to assume this concept is what caused everything.
Ok, in all seriousness, I’m not sure I understand your objection. The idea states that evolution will occur when three conditions are fulfilled:
1) Variation among a population (fulfilled by genetic mutation, in this case)
2) Inheritance of that variation (fulfilled by genetic inheritance)
3) Differential replication–meaning, some organisms survive and reproduce better in particular environments than others, because of their variations.
Putting these three together gives you a formula that logically makes the process of evolution pretty much undeniable–just imagine the result of all three. As organisms have variations, some survive better because of those variations and pass them along to their kin, until it becomes normal for the entire population.
Add this up over an incredible amount of time, and one process builds on another to give you complexity. (Usually, when people don’t see how it could happen, they’re just not imagining the proper amounts of time.) In addition, when groups of animals get separated, they can start evolving in different directions, leading to different species. Again, add up progressions of differences of millions of years, and those two species will look very different.
I don’t understand what’s irrational about that. The consequences flow pretty directly from the premises, and the premises are to be found in nature.
Nice explanation of natural selection. When you really think about it this way, you’d see that it would be extremely surprising if natural selection didn’t work. That’s one of the hallmarks of a great explanation. Special relativity is another nice example.
Thanks. The phrasing of Darwinism as an algorithm is actually Dennett’s. In any case, I agree with you.
My comment was swallowed up.
Basically, it’s this: 1)How could evolution ever cause a new species (ie with a different amount of chromosomes)?
2) How do interdependant, vital systems exist (both at the cellular and more macro biological levels), how could they develop?
Are you really interested in the scientific answers to these questions? If so, I’d suggest reading one of the many good popular books on evolution; Jerry Coyne’s “Why Evolution is True” is especially good. (For a really in-depth answer to your first question, see “Speciation” by Orr & Coyne. If I understand you’re second question correctly it should be answered in WEiT and I’d suggest asking someone more knowledgeable than myself if you need a more in-depth text).
I’m interested in straight answers. I dont have a scientific background and I dont have the patience to read a bunch of books. I have 2 basic questions based on a high school plus wikipedia knowledge of biology. This shouldn’t be so difficult to answer.
“I dont have the patience to read a bunch of books.”
Then just read one, “Why Evolution is True” by Jerry Coyne. Read it while you’re in the bathroom; shouldn’t take more then a couple of weeks to finish (maybe a few weeks if you read slow or crap quick). [At the VERY least, read the wikipedia article on natural selection.]
The short answer to your first question (I really suggest reading the book if you genuinely want to understand the complete picture) is to consider JG’s argument above: provided (1) variation (2) inheritance and (3) differential reproduction, there is no reason why two populations can’t become as different as you’d like given a long enough period of time (subject to any external constraints, of course).
I’ve searched Wikipedia, and not found an answer. Josh’s iteration of the fundamental principles does not address my questions either. Do you know for sure this book addresses it, or are you merely throwing up a detour to get me off your back? Cause I’ll hunt you down mofo.
I just looked at the wikipedia article on speciation, and it does in fact appear to be a little technical. I do genuinely think Jerry Coyne’s book (Why Evolution is true) would be a worthwhile read. Chapter 7 is especially relevant to your questions (at least the first question) and presented very clearly in a non technical manner (but I’d still suggest reading the entire book).
Also, I think this link answers you’re question about chromosome numbers quite explicitly: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/basics_how_can_chromosome_numb.php
Thanks. It looks promising.
I think evolution is real, but I don’t see how it can explain the development of different species that use sexual reproduction.
It’s the reason we don’t see cat-dogs and why humans and chimpanzees cant mate. Once you add or subtract a chromosome, it’s evolutionary game over for you.
So mutation within a single species, yes. To create new ones? I can’t see how that’s possible.
Also I think the argument against evolution as a “theory of everything” of how there could ever develop vital interconnected systems (Nucleus and mitochondria, respiratory and pulmonary) is a strong one.
It’s easy to look back and say “why are there no cat-dogs” but did you notice that there are weird and wacky animals like manatees, labyrinth fish that can gulp air and crocodilians with 4 chambered hearts? You complain that there are no hybrid cat-dogs, but that only because you’re picking on something that didn’t occur — like arguing over stocks after some surged. Perhaps there was no market for a cat-dog? Do you realize that seals are more closely related to dogs than cats are to dogs? Seals are pretty weird animals when you think about it. They are mammals but they have flippers but they don’t stay in the water — how odd! Why don’t you say, “Man, look at that water-dog!”
And complex overlapping systems could be traced back to complex non-overlapping systems. Our blood carries oxygen, but not from our skin and not even from our mucous membranes, but from our pulmonary alveoli. Insects use trachea systems to basically bring air into contact with nearly all cells, and hemolymph serves to carry nutrients. An instance of slight deviation can produce an overlap that provides a thoroughly superior bi-system.
My argument isn’t based on any supposed lack of diversity. It’s on the fact that evolution breaks down at s@xual reproduction. Once a creature mutates another chromosome, no matter if it gives it an advantage like laser beams, it can’t mate.
Your second argument is a solid one. But only up to a point. There are overlapping systems at the most basic, cellular, level. How would that develop? And more important than theory, is there proof, (like what you quoted about the insect trachea system) actually a creature that has just a mitochondria with no nucleus, or something to that effect?
Although both both nuclei and other membrane-bound organelles, like mitochondria, provide compartmentalization for superior functionality, their proposed origin differ. Nuclei ultimately allow for greater control of protein synthesis because DNA is protected from harmful cytoplasmic entities and RNA synthesis and translation must follow a more rigorous sequence because of the limitations of nuclear pores, etc. Mitochondria (and cytoplasts), with their double membranes and DNA, fall under the endosymbiotic theory — so you’re saying that because we can’t show examples of mitochondria-bearing organisms that do not exhibit nuclei it does what to the existing theories? The beauty of science is that, in a philosophical manner, it can never be wrong; this is because science only presumes to give the best possible answer with the information we currently possess. So the “scientist” tells us that the earth is flat because we are not falling off, but then we get to see and observe the horizon and we move onto science telling us that the earth is at least roundish. Then we get to space and we see it’s almost a sphere. You can ask any unschooled farm hand to tell you which seems more related — chickens, turkeys or ducks, and they’ll tell you that chickens are more closely related to turkeys based on general morphology, behavior, etc. and that could have been 100 years ago, and now we can see that chickens and turkeys share identical cytochrome c protein sequences, while ducks are one amino acid off — that’s amazing! Microbiology confirms most of what we have already seemingly established with macrobiology, if you will. Sure, there are changes that have to be made, but that’s to be expected.
So you wonder how karyotypes are as varied as they are — I’m neither an evoltionary biologist nor a geneticist, but those who are have voiced their thoughtful opinions and insights, and they usually go with, “we don’t know yet but we hope to soon.” If one believes in a God because of the gaps, that’s called the god-of-the-gaps of Intelligent Design and that’s something very antithetical to Judaism. But any rational scientist can see that we think we know everything there is to know about something and then BAM…we see a curve ball and many things become overturned because of a simple finding.
In Hebrew seal is Kelev Yam and otter is Kelev Nahar.
OfftheD:
I think your questions are good ones. If there are cogent answers they should be offered. The “go buy a couple of books” homework assignment answer fails to advance the discourse. And since your questions are relatively concise, presumably the outline of an intelligent answer can be offered, if the theory is a solid as believed.
Intelligent skepticism is a good thing in civil society, even if it is irritating to the experts. They have a job to teach us, assuming they know what they are talking about. Not all questions that can be raised about evolution come from a place of religious fanaticism (although there is a good deal of that as well).
No. No one is obligated to respond to the smugness and laziness of someone saying, “I don’t know what the theory actually says, but I’m going to argue from details that the phenomenon seems impossible to me.” (See my comment below about atomic theory.) Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth has an entire chapter on speciation (accessible and entertaining, I might add), not to mention countless webpages and blogs. If you’re actually interested, you do the work; I’m under no obligation.
Besides which, I DID already imply answer the question above. You don’t have “cat-dogs” because they split from an ancestor a very long time ago. Presumably, the group of ancestor animals got split into two geographically separate groups–i.e. one group travelled too far from the other, or there was a natural disaster–such that a)they happened not to interbreed for a long time and b)faced different selection pressures. They evolved in different directions for a long time, until their genes were different enough that they couldn’t interbreed anymore. And that’s speciation. Done.
What’s more, I found many links explaining this clearly in a 30 second internet search.
JG: You are getting defensive when there is no fight going on here. I am asking a question. I’m not “obligating” you to comment or respond to anything. Furthermore, I never spoke with you the entire time. You sound like you feel obligated under a moral sense to defend the scientific community from us evil religionists. I have never said anything to give that impression, and I don’t feel that way. You bring up a chapter in Richard Dawkins like it’s required reading. If you don’t want to help, or you feel like I’m attacking you for some reason, don’t help. But don’t be a putz.
There is no smugness involved. I am basically self-educated on the subject and have questions I’ve asked educated people but no-one has been able to answer it.
Did you notice, perhaps, that I was responding to a comment that said:
>”The “go buy a couple of books” homework assignment answer fails to advance the discourse”
>”They have a job to teach us, assuming they know what they are talking about”
Second, I don’t know why you say no one’s answered your questions. I just did.
Third, Dawkins isn’t required reading…unless you have a basic question about evolutionary theory and he’s written an entire book explaining it in an accessible way. Then, yeah, not a bad idea.
Fourth, no, you don’t have “questions.” Questions about a theory are something that arise after you have learned how something works. You haven’t learned how speciation works–which is fine, most people haven’t–but are then asking the question, “how could speciation possibly work based on x, y, and z?” That’s not a “question;” that’s attempting to argue against evolution without understanding it.
And finally, yes, that’s frustrating–to see people make those kinds of silly demands when they could just spend a few minutes learning about it. To see scientific illiteracy masquerading as a form of noble skepticism is disheartening. It’s something our society would do well to move past.
Speciation seems to be the specific subsection of evolution that would address my first question. And while I’d prefer an impartial source, I nevertheless would read a chapter from a book with a propagandist title like “Why evolution is true”, because Josh 1) looked up the chapter thereby showing himself willing to teach and 2) speaks without an agenda, therefore making himself a trustworthy source.
I probably wouldn’t read a book you’d suggest on the subject, especially from a self-proclaimed propagandist like Dawkins because you’ve shown yourself to be partial. Just as I wouldn’t pick up a book by a kiruv Rabbi disproving evolution.
You’d go far by learning how to engage in a civil discussion devoid of rants and beratements.
that’s because they use taxonomy to generate names of things that never had named before.
Give me a break. You say you are asking for real answers, but then say you don’t have the patience to look it up in a book. Dawkins’ “The Greatest Show on Earth” has an entire chapter on speciation. I can only assume Coyne’s book does as well–not to mention that Coyne has an entire textbook on speciation. It’s called, Speciation. (I’d stick to the Dawkins chapter, which is accessible and interesting to the layperson.)
The short answer is as I hinted above. There are no “cat-dogs” because cats and dogs split from a common ancestor long ago. The group of ancestor animals likely got split into two groups somehow (e.g. some migrated too far from the others, a natural disaster occurred, etc), and they faced different selection pressures. They began to evolve in very different directions without interbreeding. These changes added up over eons to the point that the original species could no longer interbreed, because their genes were now too different. And you have speciation.
If you actually want more details, seriously–look it up. I suspect that you don’t, for all your protests; I found the following in a 30 second internet search:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1869729/why_there_are_no_halfcat_halfdogs.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VSpeciation.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
This is exactly what I’m talking about. Maybe you don’t even realize it.
Josh sent me 2 sources of specific information addressing my question, one in a book, the other online- in other words, an answer.
You, on the other hand, are defending your faith. You throw vast amounts of information information at me- obviously without reading it(gotten by “a 30 second internet search”) because it does not address either of my questions- to shut me up on an online forum because you see me as attacking your sacred doctrine.
I gave you another chance and read your links, but it turned out to be a typical ploy- telling me to read a bunch of books so I don’t have time to respond.
What I’m saying is, being that the occurance of evolution – although not impossible – is HIGHLY unlikely, the only way these conclusions can possibly have any hint of rationality, is if you assume as a given that there can be no other way the world came about.
If you’re in an enclosed glass room with no doors, and you start speculating about how you got there, and you come up with a theory that the ground has a trapdoor which you can’t see, then while it’s usually unlikely to assume that a given area of the ground has a secret entrance built in, here, being that you are absolutely forced to say there is an entrance, the floor remains your only option.
Do you get my drift?
No, I don’t. I outlined for you above why evolution is not only a “likely” possibility, but is more or less inevitable given three starting facts. All three starting facts are found in nature. Moreover, there have been BILLIONS of years for that process to play out. So no, I don’t understand what you find unlikely or irrational.
Again, your intuitive incredulity stems from only hearing the kernel of an idea without understanding it. Isn’t it crazy that atomic theory thinks all things are made of the same subatomic particles in different arrangements, when water and wood are clearly such different materials?? No, it’s not, when you learn the details. If you want to understand why evolution is eminently rational and overwhelmingly evidenced, read any of the massive popular literature on it.
The real question is how did things begin? Could the world or something similar have always been here? Could a G-d have always been here or don’t we really have any way of knowing? The fact is that most people stay in the same religion because of habit and fear.
Another othroprax,
I don’t understand the skepticism. Call me naieve, but I but it all, lock, stock & barrel. If I hear a new medrash told over that Adam & Chava had dinosaurs as pets, I’ll buy it sight unseen.
I have tremendous faith & trust in our Rabbanim that if they say it, it must be true. And if Rashi or some other known commentator says it then it’s also true. I don’t feel like a robot following blindly either. I think this is what we are supposed to do. If the Rav says we don’t know the answer, that’s the end of the question for me. On to the next one.
I don’t think everything needs explanation or investigation. If the Torah says Og was 50 feet tall or whatever, then he was. When Rashi says the Hebrews heard the lightning and saw the thunder, I think wow, now thats cool. It never even dawns on me to raise an eyebrow or think oh yeah sure.
“I don’t feel like a robot following blindly either. I think this is what we are supposed to do.”
wha? Robot’s programs are “what they are supposed to do”.
Ok Nate, so what do you do when there’s a 6 way dispute among the rishonim about a historical fact?
I was just thinking the same thing — Maimonides mocks magic, while Nachmonidies accepts it at face value. That’s very troublesome! We’ve all been overexposed to Rashi because of his moderate attitudes and early position in history — but does that make him the correct most of the time?
pardon my rudeness but you are a fool. You refuse to question anything that our rabbanim tell us, even things ???? Is this what frum Judaism is turning into? What a shame
Look RF, he’s wrong in his approach, perhaps ‘misguided’ would be a better term. But at the end of the day, it’s a harmless attitude. All it threatens to do is perhaps prevent one’s growth in undrstanding the bigger picture of how nature and hashgacha go together.
You on the other hand, are teetering on the border of kefirah. Yes, the majority of the time your views end up on the Torah side, but the border is not a good place to hang out. Those few misses are more expensive then you think.
The great R’ Nachman said ” I’d rather be a fool who believes everything, even many false things, then be a skeptic who verifies everything, and ends of not believing some things that actually are true.”
I might ask for a clearer explanation of something they say, but I’d never have the chutzpa to question its truth, no way. And if it sounds “ludicrous” then it’s because I lack the understanding. I think that is the best way. You don’t have to understand the workings of a traffic light to understand not to go when its red. Especially when you’re out in the middle of nowhere. If it’s 3am and you can see there are no cars around, not even a police car watching, most still stop for the red light. Why? It makes no sense at all, other than that it’s the law, so we do it, no questions asked.
One may question if he is truly looking for answers, the rabanan wanted us to try and understand their words, however when one questions chazal and deduces that they must be wrong, he is a fool. unfortunately to many peoples questions are realy answers to their own conscience, they try to “prove” chazal wrong because they dont want to have to believe in what they tell us. How sad
Now that I do agree with. I was told long ago by a Rav that I may not get the answers, but some day I will no longer have the questions. Emunas chachamim is beautiful. I think most of this investigation is based on ego. Some can’t fathom that with their enlightened human minds that there are things they will never understand. So they spend their entire lives beating their heads against the wall and all they end up with is a bigger headache. That’s also sad.
All right then. Given that you accept what you’re told purely on faith, would you accept the New Testament if a Christian told you it’s true? If not, why not?
No, because thats not how I was raised. If I was raised Christian I probably would be fundamentalist.
Oh my gosh, I can’t believe you just said that, Nate.
LOL. That’s exactly why it makes no sense for you to unquestionably accept what you were raised to believe.
Nate, if a Muslim educated at a radical madrassa in Yemen made the same statements, would you not think it was a little bit nuts?!
Let me reprint what you said above with just a few words changed:
“I don’t understand the skepticism. Call me naive, but I buy it all, lock, stock & barrel. If I hear a new fatwa told over that moderate Muslims must be exterminated down to the suckling infant, I’ll buy it sight unseen.
I have tremendous faith & trust in our mullahs that if they say it, it must be true. And if Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab or some other known commentator says it then it’s also true. I don’t feel like a robot following blindly either. I think this is what we are supposed to do. If the mullah says we don’t know the answer, that’s the end of the question for me. On to the next one.
I don’t think everything needs explanation or investigation. If the Koran says to kill the infidel or whatever, then we should …. It never even dawns on me to raise an eyebrow or think oh yeah sure.”
Thats a ridiculous comparison and you know it. Our faith is based on the betterment of the world, not the destruction of it. My argument still holds, unless you do, in fact, go thru the red light when nobody is around.
Your argument sounds like those that use the slippery slope argument as well. Like if we impose a law in the US that anyone weighiong over 300 lbs can’t get on an airplane, then watch out, one day they will say no Jews allowed too. It’s silly and asinine.
Actually, it’s an exact comparison.
It’s not an exact comparison at all. It’s not even a comparison. Because we’re talking about beliefs versus behavior. And behaviors that have huge consequences (killing people) and are condemned by the vast majority of people as immoral.
At the time of Jesus there were many many different religous thought systems going around (just like today) and the qustion was asked “how can I tell which is the “right” one.” And his answer was “by their fruits, you will know them.” In other words, don’t analyze their beliefs, but look at their behaviors. Do their followers bring good or evil into the world? And if you looked around and said “gee, the followers of my religion (not the aberrent ones but the ones that are actually following what the religion teaches) seem to be bringing a huge amount of evil into the world” then that would be a good basis for starting to think that perhaps you were on the wrong bus.
But as far as beliefs go, Nate’s view is completely logical if you’re a religious believer — it’s the “religious but skeptical” view that makes no sense. It’s like those liberal Christians who don’t believe in the Virgin Birth. You know — “God can create the whole universe from nothing. Jesus can die and rise from the dead again and ascend to heaven and be seated at the right hand of the Father. But don’t tell me his mother was a virgin when he was born because that’s just plain ridicuous! You know — I wasn’t born yesterday!”
Either you believe that there is an authoritative source that provides religious truth (the Bible, the Church, the rabbis, whatever it is you believe) or it’s every man for himself.
Also, there are some things that I actually do raise an eyebrow about, but I don’t think you’d take kindly to it. I dont question the hard-line Orthodox viewpoint. What I do question is the liberal opposite viewpoint. Like ordaining women and gays, allowing intermarriages, considering someone Jewish becasue they “feel” Jewish, whatever that means, and similar notions. If there were actual laws or edicts issued by our Gedolim that these miscreants should be locked away, then yes, I’d certainly go along. Heck, make me the officer in charge of it.
Not believing is one thing. Acting in direct opposition to Torah law is quite another. If there were such a thing as an ir hanidachat (subverted city) which requires total destruction, and the Sanhedrin ruled it must be destroyed, would I participate? Of course. It’s a no brainer for me.
When you say “a Christian”, do you mean some guy off the street or if my own parents were Christian? It makes a difference.
If it’s my parents, then yes, I take what they say as true based on trust, love, etc. And an established history of not lying to me as well.
If it’s a Gadol then yes also, because if mainstream Orthodoxy trusts him to tell the truth and not lead them wrongly, then I can as well. If it’s some obscure name with the word “Rabbi” in front of it, then no.
Like they said 60 years ago: “50 million Elvis fans can’t be wrong”.
The trouble is, Nate, that R’ Mordechai Becher says the same thing that you say: “If I were raised in Islam, I’d probably be an Imam.”
When I got him down to the bare details, he admitted that “Judaism is most likely true.” But that’s not what Judaism touts — we say “Moshe emes v’toraso emes.” We cannot reconcile belief of truth with truth, and that’s where we’re all stuck.
I think that skepticism is harmful to religion, but good for people. So, does skepticism help or hurt religious Jews? Depends on your point of view.
Having a religion argument with frum or ex-frum people (of whatever religion) is stupid. People who take either side won’t budge either way.
That’s because when you grow up with religion, it’s an emotional issue to you. And no amount of logic can tackle emotion in a fair fight.
+1, Those were wise words.
Why? I happen to agree with the quote below (God said it, I believe it, that settles it”). It works for me and mine. I believe that every word of Torah is true, from Genesis to Chronicles, and all 63 volumes of Talmud. I have not a single iota of doubt, skepticism, or question. I also believe that’s how God wants it. I think He’s truly sad that there are skeptics, rationalists, doubters and heretics.
Nate, the specific words I thought were wise were that people who take either position won’t budge — and so it is silly to argue. :^)
Originally designed to apply to Christians, but is still applicable:
http://atheismresource.com/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Flow-Chart.jpg
Thanks. I think you’ll like this piece I wrote. jewishdepression.blogspot.com/2010/11/13-thanksgiving.html
(Please don’t take offense to the fact that I didn’t mention Islam. I wrote Judaism/Christianity because I didn’t think I’d ever have Muslims reading my blog. )
OfftheDwannaB, I did enjoy that post, thank you for linking to your blog and I’m very sorry that I never knew you had one before! :^)
Mahla that post of mine was supposed to be further up, in response to you saying “Oh my gosh, I can’t believe you just said that, Nate.” So, why? If your parents tell you to never go beyond the line they draw in the yard, will you do it? If you do, you’re being a kid perhaps, but your butt will remember the pain, I’m sure.
What I found so surprising Nate was your willingness to acknowledge that, if you had been born a Christian, you would probably be a fundamentalist. That’s a very honest self-assessment, and not many people would admit to such a thing.
Nate, both good things and bad things have come of people stepping past the line their parents drew in the yard through the centuries of human history. Therefore, I must answer “it depends on the line” — and also “it depends on the spanking you get.” :^)
When I commit to something, I commit 100% or not at all. I’ve been told I would have made the perfect SS officer in Germany, and I would have to agree. Had I lived then and been of non-Jewish origin, I can definitely see myself goose stepping along with the rest. I’m not saying I agree with what they did in retrospect, but I am definitely the type to get caught up in the fervor and momentum of the masses, no doubt about that. But the masses arent necessarily wrong either. The Nazis were, the Haredim aren’t. Haredim don’t kill. Just my humble opinion.
Baruch Hashem (or Alhamdulillah!) this guy wasn’t raised Muslim. I wouldn’t want to be within eyeshot (or bomb-shot) of this guy.
Inshallah!
Okay, I’m calling Poe’s Law on this guy.
Apparently you have a problem with me. Why don’t you spell it out for me. Is it because I disagree or because I am adamant about my faith and obedience as opposed to your freethinking liberal I decide on my own what to do philosophy? Or perhaps you’re just anti-religion in general. Please enlighten me as to your preferred way of life.
Edgar Allen Poe? Whats his law? Nevermore?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Poe%27s+Law
Izzy, I am curious too. What is Poe’s Law?
Isn’t it that whenever anyone mentions the word “Nazi” that’s the end of the conversation?
Oops, that’s something else. Here, I looked it up:
“Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won’t mistake for the real thing.”
In other words, No matter how bizzare, outrageous, or just plain idiotic a parody of a Fundamentalist may seem, there will always be someone who cannot tell that it is a parody, having seen similar REAL ideas from real religious/political Fundamentalists.
Heshy – much of what you wrote in this post resonates with me as I feel quite similar.
However, I think what you may be really struggling with is Torah Shebal Peh (TSP) and its current evolution. You, like m,e sound like you believe in God and much of the spiritually related stuff (Tefillah, most mitvot, etc…) – but struggle with many of the details as laid out to us via “TSP).
Does God really care about what finger we wipe our asses with? Really? (Yup, that’s halacha as well).
Is masturbation really that horrible?
Is waiting 6 hours versus 1 hour really something God cares about.
Sheitels!?
Kashrut supervision craziness.
And on and on…
I’m not saying I am anti-TSP either – just that I think over-time we have truly bastardized it and what it means to be frum.
“They” say God (and by extension real frumness) is in the details. I’m not so sure.
Volume could be and have been written on this subject. In the end skepticism and free inquiry are corrosive and destructive to religion.
Religion ends up going one of a few ways. It can resort to crude threats, which is the default position. Surrender your mind or suffer now and in some hypothetical future existence. “God said it. We believe it. That settles it,” combines with “Do what we say, or we’ll kill you.”
It can play silly illogic games like Pascal’s Wager with liberal doses of special pleading, begging the question, “just shut up”, proof by assertion, appeals to authority and constantly shifting the ground so that it never has to withstand the same scrutiny as what it opposes.
It can demand its own special realm. Unfortunately, this inevitably shrinks or radically changes shape until it is completely unrecognizable.
The sort of faith which survives skepticism untouched and unaltered generally turns out the same when you examine it closely. It didn’t really ventured outside of the safe questions for which there are pat answers.
how is pascal’s wager silly? Its very rational and was ahead of its time
It doesn’t mesh with the Torah. Judaism does not suggest that Judaism is nice, warm, comforting, the best bet or good odds — it claims absolute reality. But we can’t know this, we can only believe we know it.
Heshy, I think you (and I) do cover-your-bases religion. There’s something inside that thinks it’s true, plus the consequences are monumental if you stop doing Mitzvos.
But there’s also a big resentment towards it (from a childhood age), which thinks it’s just another sham forced on us by our parents or teachers, who don’t believe it either.
In a sick sorta way, I agree. But I’m honest about it. How many other Jews, frum or not, do you imagine think the very same thing? How many use words like “shvartza”, or the dreaded N word, or want every Palestinian to die? Yeah, you don’t talk about it in public for PC reasons, but we all know that when a black family moves next door to you, you’re already imagining things going south. Your property values, your peace of mind, it’s all called in to play, but you’d never consider yourself racist, no way. NIMBY is your secret password.
The only difference between me and you is that I can say Im a racist and not feel ashamed of it. I’m gonna take a good guess that this will probably get deleted, but wth, I’ll say it anyway.
If I turned on the 11pm news, and saw a “shocking” news story with pictures & video of piles of dead Arabs/Palestinians, similar to the films of what happened to Jews in the Holocaust, I would look for someone to give a High-5 to. I’d be happier than a pig in warm mud. I pray for that day.
Now you have a clearer understanding about what a nut job I really am. But as I say, I’m brutally honest about it.
I’m assuming this was accidentally posted here instead of below.
You know, I think your attitude is destructive, but I don’t think you’re a nut job. Your coherency proves you aren’t.
I have mixed feelings about you. Your honesty in the face of adversity (the entire Western world) is admirable, but it’s very deviance from the norm paints you as an antisocial personality. While virtuous, and helpful to others (in gauging you immediately), your honesty isn’t very helpful to yourself because you say you give up your rational process and follow blindly. You can therefore never learn once you’ve made a decision.
That’s not the Torah way. We are always learning and improving. God gave us 1) Free choice and 2) Rational thought. Giving up both of these central human characteristics therefore, is obviously going against God’s Will. It may be easy for you to take the easy way out and have someone make all the decisions for you, but that’s a choice as well, and you will have to answer to God for it, and every word and action that comes out of it. This world is a confusing jungle by nature. We are navigators, using the Torah as a map. But we are part of the Torah, we make decisions- just read Gemara, or shaalos utshuvos and you’ll see the great chain of the living pulsing Torah, each side thinking and arguing for the interpretation he thinks is correct. You can’t just absolve yourself from learning Torah, and free choice. “Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor velo atah ben chorin lehibatel mimenah”. God didn’t create you to be a robot, he has a place for angels above, and a place for us down here.
“Giving up both of these central human characteristics therefore, is obviously going against God’s Will. ”
I agree with all you say actually, except the above. There are limits to abide by for every function we have that our bodies AND minds perform. Is it going against God’s will to use your mind to think about sleeping with your friend’s wife? YES. So there you have a limitation. Using your brain is no more a free for all than is using your penis.
“Is it going against God’s will to use your mind to think about sleeping with your friend’s wife? YES.”
I always thought that it made no difference where you got your apetite as long as you ate dinner at home……..!
So you can think about Yeshu all the way to shul, and then daven to H-shem?
Can your buddy think about how much me hates you and what a fag you are all the way to your wedding and then come in and give you a big mazal tov and a hug?
Can your wife get all horny thinking about your neighbor and then go to bed with you?
Think about what your saying a little.
“You can therefore never learn once you’ve made a decision.”
That’s not true either. I do learn, constantly, and am constantly reformulating my intolerance for anything but Torah hashkafa that is transmitted ONLY FROM GEDOLEI YISROEL. That’s an important point, you see, because I do not believe that everyone has an opinion that counts for something. So when I decide to accept or reject a point, a theory, an answer to a shayla, I first consider the source. Then I consider the logic of the answer. And the 2 CAN be mutually exclusive. If it makes perfect logical sense, but comes from someone whom the Gedolim have labeled an apikoris (Slifkin), then I reject it out of hand. If it makes no sense at all but comes from the Gedolim, I accept it unconditionally. AND I think that’s how everyone should be, not just me.
This is unfortunately a common mistake today. Emunas Chachamim does not mean giving up your reasoning. That’s the easy way out, again.
If you don’t know something and rely on a rav, that’s correct, because you simply don’t have the time/resources/knowledge to make an informed opinion. But that’s not optimal. Optimally, you should have the knowledge to be able to make responsible choices all by yourself. That’s what cheirus from mitzraim is: Not freedom, responsibility.
We were freed to be given a manual to learn from and direct our lives. A slave or robot (a forced follower) is not responsible. We are. And we are responsible to think about the best course in life for us to take.
So, for example, racism. There’s plenty of talmidei chachamim who hold racist views. I happen to think they are following an old, defensive mentality. There are many who don’t. You now have the choice to research your own opinions, ask Rabbanim their reasons (see ohr hachaim on Devarim 17:9 for a good derashah for this), and make an informed decision on how to live your life. Or you can follow your own ingrained habits of defensiveness, and defend it by saying something like “Many people hold like this, I have who to rely on.” Doing this is following your ta’avos, not your mind. I disagree with one of the commenters above. You’re not a chossid shoteh, you’re just a ba’al ta’avah.
This is just one example, but it in itself can have important consequences. Do you stir up hatred among God’s creations? Do you deny others things they might otherwise deserve? Would you actually harm another person?
We are not children or slaves. You are responsible for yourself. You are born alone, die alone, and give din ve’cheshbon alone. “I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse; choose life” (Devarim 30:19).
“Lo tosifu v’lo tigrau ” – Do not add to it (Torah) or subtract from it.
“Lo sasuru memenu yamin u’smol” – Do not turn from it (Torah)neither left or right.
I take both of those very seriously.
Jewish people state that nothing can be added or subtracted from the Torah, but what about the Oral Law? What was the cutoff point for what can be considered Oral Law that is equivalent to Torah and not “adding to or subtracting from it” I wonder? Or do different Jews have different opinions about this?
The Oral Law was given at the same time as the Written Law. The arguments and derivations from it dont stop at all, thats what we do in every generation. But none of it is adding or subtracting from the original. We don’t say you can’t work on Shabbos and Wednesday. Nor do we say we will only wear tefillin on the head but not the arm.
If you’re asking when did the recording of the Oral Law end, it was some years after the 2nd Temple was destroyed.
R’ Herschel Schachter is oft quoted as saying that “Lo Sasur” does not mean to listen to the Chachamim when they say left if right and right is left. Thus, when they make mistakes, we are bidden to defy.
Obviously
Obvious to you and me, but not to many others.
Josh: Can’t it be that God created the world USING the Big Bang events to do it? I don’t think it has to be either or. Physicist Andy Goldfinger, a frum Jew, and Harold Gans (also frum) posit this exact theory. Black holes, quarks, all that, are completely in sync with the Creationsit theory and with Torah.
The part I have trouble with is that all the wonders of the human body, as well as animals, insects, etc, could possibly have happened thru a gradual process or evolution. Maybe I oversimplify, but do evolutionsists believe that, say for example, we developed a stomach because the food we ate needed a p[lace to stop off and be absorbed, and the stomachless body knew that and then decided to grow one?
“Can’t it be that God created the world USING the Big Bang events to do it?”
Sure, I see no logical reason why the “god used the big bang” theory can’t be true, but the fact remains that there is no reason to think that it is true! There is no evidence for that theory, and that theory doesn’t even have any explanatory power, since one would still have to explain the origin of a being (god) that was complex enough to have the intelligence to create a universe. A much more satisfying explanation would be to show, for example, that our universe must be the way it is due to some logical consistency condition or some very simple law, or something like that.
Ultimately, without evidence or explanatory power the “god used the big bang to create the universe” has no more reason to be true than “the big bang is the result of the flying spaghetti monster sneezing” theory. Both of those theories might be true, but there is no reason to think so and they don’t explain anything.
“do evolutionsists believe that, say for example, we developed a stomach because the food we ate needed a p[lace to stop off and be absorbed, and the stomachless body knew that and then decided to grow one?”
No! That’s definitely not what evolutionists say. Our nearest ancestor that did not have a stomach (or something like it) looked very different than us. I’m not a biology expert, but I think even the worm-like creatures that we’re descended from had some type of digestive cavity, so it was probably a few-celled organism that (over many generations, of course) first developed a type of cavity. For a good introduction to evolution, I’d suggest (as I did to someone above) you read “Why Evolution is True” by Jerry Coyne; or http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html for something a little shorter.
“Can’t it be that God created the world USING the Big Bang events to do it?”
Sure, I see no logical reason why the “god used the big bang” theory can’t be true, but the fact remains that there is no reason to think that it is true! There is no evidence for that theory, and that theory doesn’t even have any explanatory power, since one would still have to explain the origin of a being (god) that was complex enough to have the intelligence to create a universe. A much more satisfying explanation would be to show, for example, that our universe must be the way it is due to some logical consistency condition or some very simple law, or something like that.
Ultimately, without evidence or explanatory power the “god used the big bang to create the universe” has no more reason to be true than “the big bang is the result of the flying spaghetti monster sneezing” theory. Both of those theories might be true, but there is no reason to think so and they don’t explain anything.
“do evolutionsists believe that, say for example, we developed a stomach because the food we ate needed a p[lace to stop off and be absorbed, and the stomachless body knew that and then decided to grow one?”
No! That’s definitely not what evolutionists say. Our nearest ancestor that did not have a stomach (or something like it) looked very different than us. I’m not a biology expert, but I think even the worm-like creatures that we’re descended from had some type of digestive cavity, so it was probably a few-celled organism that (over many generations, of course) first developed a type of cavity. For a good introduction to evolution, I’d suggest (as I did to someone above) you read “Why Evolution is True” by Jerry Coyne; or http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html for something a little shorter.
I find it really sad, even nasty, that some of you know Arabic, but then again, I suppose it is good to know the language of your enemies in order to annihilate them.
:^(
I agree with you. You’d have made an excellent Nazi. It’s a shame there had to be that whole Holocaust thing to turn the world off your ideas. What are you gonna do? Stupid sentimentalists, right?
In a sick sorta way, I agree. But I’m honest about it. How many other Jews, frum or not, do you imagine think the very same thing? How many use words like “shvartza”, or the dreaded N word, or want every Palestinian to die? Yeah, you don’t talk about it in public for PC reasons, but we all know that when a black family moves next door to you, you’re already imagining things going south. Your property values, your peace of mind, it’s all called in to play, but you’d never consider yourself racist, no way. NIMBY is your secret password.
The only difference between me and you is that I can say Im a racist and not feel ashamed of it. I’m gonna take a good guess that this will probably get deleted, but wth, I’ll say it anyway.
If I turned on the 11pm news, and saw a “shocking” news story with pictures & video of piles of dead Arabs/Palestinians, similar to the films of what happened to Jews in the Holocaust, I would look for someone to give a High-5 to. I’d be happier than a pig in warm mud. I pray for that day.
Now you have a clearer understanding about what a nut job I really am. But as I say, I’m brutally honest about it.
So Mahla likes to be spnaked?
Yes, but only by one guy, and he does not read Frum Satire. ;^)
Nate, that is probably the saddest comment I have ever read in a year on this blog. How dare you say that! I am a frum Jew who studied Arabic in Jordan for a year. It was fascinating to learn how much we have in common with Muslims. Your twisted brand of Judaism is devoid of meaning and joy. Go burn in hell/??????. If narrow minded, incompetent fools like you have any influence in Orthodox Judaism, there will never be peace in Eretz Yisrael. This kind of deep-seated hatred needs to end right now. As they say in arabic; Koss Umak. I’m sure mahla will be glad to translate that for you asshole.
!!!!!?? ???? ???? ????
!!!!!???? ????
Just by using that language already proves you are neither frum, nor rational. LOL.
BTW, it is not us that is keeoing peace away from the Middle East, it is the lack of frumkeit by the secular Jews, the criminal zionist govt, and the women at the wall making trouble. All these things anger God, who punishes us by sending Muslims, Arabs & Palestinians to murder our people. In a perfect world, the towel headed camel jockeys do not exist. They are merely God’s plague on us for tolerating reform Judaism and homosexuality to run rampant. And also btw, it was the same thing that caused that fire in Carmel, too.
Actually it’s rationalists and other apikorsim who prevent peace. God has to send Mussies and Arabs and other terrorists to punish us until you do teshuva for questiong His Torah.
You probably support renting to them in Israel too I bet. So far the only really rational frum person I ever had the priveledge to meet was HaRav HaGaon Meir Kahane, zt”l
by the way, I guess arabic can’t be written, that’s what all the question marks are.
cant be written in the comments i mean
You are neither frum nor rational, and by using that language you prove it.
I actually do support selling apartments to Arabs just like Benjamin Netanyahu and Yad Vashem do. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/09/yad-vashem-against-extremist-rabbis
You yourself said “I suppose it is good to know the language of your enemies in order to annihilate them.” How the f*ck is that promoting peace? I am being rational here, most of the world, Jewish and non-Jewish agree with me. Shame on you for giving Frumkeit a bad name.
Jiminy crickets, can you go 5 minutes without using the F word? I’m not interested in promoting peace at that price. When Hashem ordered the Jews to wipe out the 7 nations of Israel when they first arrived, were you one of the ones who went AWOL and left the job to the real Jews? Not everything in life, or Torah for that matter is about peace and love and happiness.
Your new frumkeit probably also says eh, live and let live when your son brings a shiksa home to meet you. And when your goyishe granchildren are sitting on your lap, you’ll sigh and say well, they love each other, nu what can I say? It’s precisely that outlook and attitude that was the root cause of the Holocaust and everything else we suffer.
You just can’t say no, that’s your problem. You would never throw your kid out for being gay or marrying a goy. I would. And that is daas Torah sonny.
This thread has gotten out of hand and I am bowing out.
Are you even Jewish?
That’d be a no.
Then what are you doing here? Bad enough you stole the Temple Mount from us, now you have to follow us into a blog? Is nothing sacred?
Oh dear. As I said — out of hand and bowing out.
Nate, you’re a sociopath. Get help, or become a hermit, but enough with the crap.
Sorry Mahla.
why are you bowing out?A radical extremist is making insulting comments toward you and your religion. Why aren’t you fighting back against these stereotypes and rudeness
If the new face of frumkeit is pandering and appeasing Muslims, you better check your yichus. Somewhere along the line some bad blood got in there.
Nate, this is an open blog. It’s not like there’s some secret Jewish password that you have to type in to comment.
Nate, it seems you don’t quite comprehend this, but there’s a big difference between “appeasing the Muslims” and “not being a thoughtless jerk”.
This is an online community of people from around the world, who enjoy discussing various subjects. There are almost no two people here who think alike, and we let each other know when we disagree and why, often very strongly. That’s really what a blog is all about.
Yes, the originator of this site is a frum Yid and the articles are primarily based on Frum related topics, but this site is not under the Agudah. If you are bothered by the fact that there are non-Jews here on the site, then you don’t have to click onto it ever again.
I don’t know why you feel the need to JDL the place up. Disagreements here are absolutely rampant. Hostility isn’t, nobody likes it, and it doesn’t accomplish anything at all. Quite the contrary in fact.
Conversing peacefully with a non-Jew, whether their black, white, Indian, Mexican, Christian or Islamic, does not mean you sympathize or are ok with whatever is going on in the world with their race or nationality. It just means “I’m talking to you. Not to the event I just saw on Fox News, and unless I have a clear reason to think so, I’ll assume it has nothing to do with you or what you believe.”
I am not a liberal. I am not MO. I am not OTD. I don’t believe in the “We know better than the Rabbonim” mentality, (although it can sometimes happen). I think Torah, Mitzvos, and in general dedicated frum Jews – are what keep the world going, and are ultimately the purpose of all existence. I am a firm believer in kollel – (in the proper setting at least). I have many relatives who live in Meah Shearim type places. I am from that kind of background, and I value that lifestyle just as much as you do, probably even more, being that it is close to home for me and I can actually understand it on a personal level.
There’s nothing about my hashkafa that you or any other frum person will be able to point to and say “See, you are farkaylt! That’s why you think this way.”
That being said, I find what you said to Mahla extremely offensive – personally, as a Jew, and especially as a frum Jew.
You don’t know a blasted thing about her or what she thinks or believes, and it’s not like she walked into Merkaz Harav.
I could go on about how out of line you are with your comments and attitude, but instead I’ll just let you know, you start living life when you stop concentrating on being opposed to those around you, and instead focus on noticing how to better yourself.
Yes, there’s a time and place for everything. If a Jew-hating Palestinian sympathizer starts taking garbage to you, then you can give him a psak. But going around with a romach all day and night just waiting for a place to stick it, is nothing other than midas edom enclothing itself in false tzidkus.
Your heart is in the right place, but you desperately need to rethink how G-d wants his will to be carried out.
Hey, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion. Personally I’d rather have a city/neighborhood/country with all corrupt Jews than 1 “righteous” Arab.
that’s called being a chossid shoiteh as I said above. If you want to be an ignoramus that is your choice but don’t waste your time writing things that are offensive and inconsiderate
That’s fine, but how do you justify walking over to a random Muslim in a public street (essentially what this blog is), and start berating her for what “some Muslims” are doing?
Nothing about you is sacred, Nate. Go to Meah Shearim with all the other crazy chareidim where you belong. I’m sure you’ll fit right in with the guys who burn stuff, fight policemen, and want money for not working. There is a word for someone like you. He is called a chossid shoiteh. Dont know what it means? Learn some more gemarah instead of embarrassing others on a public blog. In other words, f*ck your fundamentalist self because you are as they say in loshon kodesh “dafuk barosh”
LOL, man I really got under your skin huh? Using foul language doesn’t make your case stronger, it weakens it young man. Don’t knock Meah Shearim. Lots of tzidkus there. No modern enlightened people like yourself though, sorry. No Arabs either. She can take her burqa and her Taliban and go….far far away.
“Using foul language doesn’t make your case stronger, it weakens it young man …”
If this implies that you’re not actually all that young, and that you’ve actually spent some time on this earth, and can still spew such garbage, then you’re a lost cause. Move to the woods, build your shack, and never bother anyone ever again.
Au contraire. I am 52. And my “garbage” comes from my living experiences on this Earth. Not from pretending the world is a nice cozy gardenview apartment where we all love each other and whats good for Muslim filth is good for Yidden. Ok, sonny boy?
I’ve met folks like you. Bipolar, schizoaffective, perhaps? Or is it just a personality disorder?
Did you meet them during your own personal hospital stay?
If by that you mean my work as a physician, yes.
You declared yourself a loser from the beginning, so it actually doesn’t matter to me what you believe. I’m just having fun watching the circus monkey act like a human being.
Actually, the arab quarter is very near Meah Shearim but I guess you wouldn’t know that because you’re against the state of Israel and believe that the shoah happened because of our sins… As you apparently didn’t understand (as is the case in many things), mahla is actually more “modern and enlightened” as you describe yours truly. That means she doesn’t support the taliban and is probably more comparable to modern orthodox people like myself. Lehavdil, the taliban are closer to the frum extremists like yourself
LOL, a goy is a goy is a goy. Eisav soneh l’Yakov.
And yeah, it DID happen for that very reason. Even the “new frumkeit” won’t say things happen by accident. That would be krumkeit, not frumkeit. But do tell, please, why did it happen? I’m so eager to hear the MO view on that.
Isn’t it cool how well your avatar fits so well with your personality?
nate your being silly. Unlike you radicals, MOs actually think before answering long and complicated questions. And if a goy is a goy than why compare her to the Taliban instead of to a less radical group of Muslims? Whatever you think of me, you are meshuganekeit and stop saying “lol” there is nothing funny about you or your insane views.
Becuz when all is said & done, they want us dead. If you havent figured that out after 3000 years of it, you never will.
It’s not as complicated as you think. Everything that has happened to Jews is well predicted in the Torah itself, including the events of WW2. And the fire in Carmel was no accident either. Goodnight and dont forget to say Shema and HaMapil.
The bottom line on evolution is this: Regardless of how many of these have striking similaritues to those, regardless of how many fossils of incomplete organisms are found, regardless of apparent imperfections disappearing and perfections or adaptations appearing, and regardless of the mountains of “evidence” showing what used to be, there is still ZERO evidence that those are all not independent creations and separate life forms, from the smallest amoeba to the largest blue whale. God created every single one of them in the supposed “chain” of evolved living things. Maybe He did it to see how strong your belief is. Maybe He did it because each of them was supposed to be perfect, but He wasn’t happy with them, and rather than destroy them He let them die out on their own. Maybe the prehistoric men were in fact the beings without neshamos. The meforshim say that there were many generations of beings prior to the creation of man, but that in no way leads to any one of them coming from another type of being.
All these maybe’s outweigh the “solid” theory of evolution in totality. And BTW, there are very few, if any, intelligent Rabbanim who say that the world is only 5771 years old. They all agree that this count starts from the creation of man, or at the very least from the third day when the sun was created, at which point the term “yom” (day) means a 24 hour solar day. The first 3 days could very well have been a bazillion of our years. The lecturers on the Discovery and Aish circuits all support that, and they are well qualified frum scientists and physicists, not kollel shleppers.
Let’s not feed the troll. I stand by my comment about Poe’s Law. This guy is either a troll mocking frumkeit or someone so far off his rocker he can’t even see the huge chillul hashem he is making every time he opens his trap.
Lets not feed an anonymous poster either. Everything I have said to date is Daas Torah. We want dead Arabs, dead Muslims, dead Palestinians, and dead niggers. Then we can walk home from shul in peace.
Christianity also claims absolute reality, and I don’t think “nice, warm, comforting,” etc are truly necessary features of a religion for this type of analysis to proceed.
A modified Pascal’s wager may still work for Judaism. There are arguments that one can advance in favor of belief in God, as well as Judaism (argument from design, first cause/cosmological, Kuzari, Jewish survival amidst persecution/multiple exiles). None of these constitute mathematical proof, and as such doubts may exist, but many people find them compelling.
One may use a modified Pascal’s wager, however, to go the rest of the way, if there are still doubts: especially for a Noahide–you can choose to follow a relatively easy prescription of moral laws (the 7 laws), or actively disobey, assuming there is no God, in spite of some strong arguments in favor. If you act as if there is no God, there is potentially tremendous punishment in an afterlife. If you write books like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris, there is possibly tremendous punishment. If you conform to basic moral standards, applying a Pascal’s wager-type argument, you will be rewarded, even if you’re emunah wasn’t 100%. The same thought process can be applied to the 613, although one will justifiably feel a stronger desire to disobey the 613, and perhaps want to feel more convinced by the above arguments before “buying in.”
It’s not a perfect approach, but it is rational in the sense of being based on sound pragmatic thinking, which most intelligent people adopt in other facets of their life. It’s an insurance policy, every bit as rational as purchasing health or life insurance, or making an educational investment, based on a perception of reasonable rate of return. It is not rational in the sense of fulfilling a Cartesian standard of proof (which we rarely apply to our lives anyway) as a necessary prerequisite for making life decisions.
The only drawback is for those individuals who would honestly feel tremendous duress fulfilling the 7 laws (we call many of these people scumbags), 613 (some of them are scum), or who honestly believe that any and all arguments pointing towards Judaism are weak (atheists, particularly Jewish ones, claim that such creatures exist). In the last case, if they’re that certain, let them choose to live the life of an atheist. If they’re right, there’s no divine punishment to be concerned about. If they are wrong, providing they were completely honest in their thinking, God will presumably forgive them.
Refuting evolution is easy in another way, too. Jews have always been pretty refined upstanding people, except for criminals like Korach, Jesus, Zvi, Herzl, and BenGurion. Blacks however, havent evolved at all, physically, mentally or any other way. They still resemble gorillas now as much as a million years ago.
That’s despicable, Nate.
You’re the only monkey here, Nate. See my comment above.
ah, so you’re a doctor! nice work for a nice Jewish boy. but i am no circus monkey, i assure you doc. i’m white. 🙂
Guys. Seriously. No need to feed the troll.
This guy is joking. No one in their right mind would think or even write the things he does. Shame on you for keeping this game up for so long. If in truth you are serious, than you are no worse
I guess the last comment I will add to this post, Rationalist Frummie, is this …. A year or so ago when I found this blog, I knew next to nothing about observant Jews, only vaguely knew of various stereotypes my background had predisposed me to encounter …. But I found something very universal, very human and very engaging here. That’s why I believe Frum Satire is a force for good in the world. Still, it took me a few months to work up the courage to post because I was afraid my background would generate attacks ….
This blog is a huge kiddush Hashem and I am so glad I found it, BUT I am equally glad I did not first stumble upon a post with comments like Nate’s. Troll or not, I would have come away with a very dark and warped impression of what observant Jews actually believe. :^( Yikes.
Mahla you have no clue whatsoever about Hashem or Judaism. This blog is FUN as it was meant to be. It is the antithesis of a kiddush Hashem. If you think poking fun at Rabbis and our practices is a kiddush Hashem, you have that burqa on way too tight.
asalem alekem n shit. see u at dunkin donuts. wtf is this anyway, multicultural night at the ymca? i PRAY for the day when Israel is cleansed of every non-Jew that walks its Holy streets, and shoots every one that tries to come back.
Nate, in addition to having major character faults, also likely has a psychiatric problem. He’s also thriving on the negative attention he’s getting here, which is what he wants.
Mahla, I think I can safely say that the majority of us, orthodox or not, find this person despiccable. I, much like many of the rest of use here, very much appreciate your comments.
Oh you can trust that I am quite serious. And there many more like me who fall into 2 categories:
1) they post on blogs & proudly display “Kahane Chai” stickers wherever possible
2) they pretend to be enlightened liberal thinking tolerant Jews, but secretly feel the same way and wish they had a pair big enough to say it out loud
I’m asking you to think about what I’m saying now. You have a lot of anger that you are taking out on people you can justify hating.
But they are obviously just targets you’ve picked to vent your frustrations on- like the Jews were to the Nazis, and Israel to the Arab states- because they could only have done very little if anything against you, living safely in America. The anger wouldn’t diminish once these people are gone, because it was never caused by them in the first place.
You can go around finding targets for your anger, be it the Jewish conspiracy, the blacks, or the Muslims. But until you figure out what’s causing it and let it go, you’ll be unhappy forever.
And I’m asking you to think about this:
When we are 1 day, when Mashiach comes, finally separated for good from the rest of the nations of the world, as God demanded we do but we insisted on assimilating anyway, then I will be plenty happy.
It’s not really them that bothers me. It’s our own people who insist on befriending them, marrying them, pandering to them, and sucking up to them, thinking erroneously that that will somehow ingratiate us in their eyes. That is a cancer we have that needs to be cut out. We are warned over and over in the Torah itself, as well as by prophets thruout the ages, to stay away from non-Jews. And yet, it makes liberal thinking Jews nauseous to hear that they shouldnt let their kids play with the shvartza neighbors’ kids.
Here’s a bit of news for you: We are COMMANDED to be racists and separatists. It is because we have chosen to ignore that command that we have pogroms, Holocausts, and attacks from neighboring countries on Israel. We bring it all on ourselves because we think we know better. You wanna know what better is? Better was when we lived in shtetls and ghettos in Europe and Russia. A hard life? Absolutely, and a great test of our fortitude in faith and trust in God. Torah learning flourished. Money didn’t. Now you have money, so out the window with the tefillin and the Torah.
Get a clue. We need to build a solid wall around ourselves, keep them out, and do what God says. And “tikun olam” isn’t in the Torah. It’s a lousy excuse for being mechallelei Shabbos.
I have quoted you sources to back up my claims. You have not done so. Instead, you voice half-baked, wild theories and try to pass them of as Torah-based. It’s obvious you simply want to rant and to fight.
I have done all I can to talk to you. It would be wrong of me to give your rants public legitimacy that other listening, thinking people have by me responding to them any more.
I wish you all the best.
I dont need to quote chapter & verse. Start from Genesis 1:1, you’ll find it.
I wonder if it’s possible to start an organization called the “JKK”. It stands for “Jew Klux Klan”. LOLOLOLOL!