"Rationalist" Judaism ("safe haven" style)

↑ Ruchel ↓

Thu, Dec 05 2013, 10:15 am

Quote:

People - especially Americans - tend to underestimate the value of ethnic/cultural heritage as well, which contributes to why people may stick with frumkeit even when what you do doesn't mean quite the same thing to you as it does to others who do the same thing. Maintaining a connection to my roots, to people who struggled for centuries to do these things, is important to me. Having a sense of history and cultural identity helps build your sense of self, helps you place yourself in the world among a huge variety of people. America's "melting pot" history is good in a lot of ways, but it also means that being American is also being fairly shallow/superficial. I know I'm a history/anthropology nerd, but this stuff has an effect on you even when you don't think all that hard about it.

The black part is a reason many did teshuva or became ftb. If not THE reason (so their children would still be Jewish and part of this culture).

cookiecutter ↓

Thu, Dec 05 2013, 10:21 am

spring13 wrote:

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

I like a lot of what you wrote but the problem with this paragraph is that around 95% of what we consider Judaism today is like kitniyot. Consider:

Tzniut, insofar as it's expressed in terms of necklines and hemlines.
Davening, insofar as it's understood to be ideally in shul, in prewritten words, etc.
Kashrus, including the entire supervision industry as well as many separate dishes, waiting six hours, fish and meat together, etc.
Pesach cleaning
Cloistered communities
Taharas hamishpacha
--Twelve days
--Panties to the rav
--Bedikos
--White underwear
--Separate beds
--That little light on the air conditioner
The obsession with orthodoxy of thought

↑ freidasima ↓

Thu, Dec 05 2013, 1:18 pm

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

As for the other stuff mentioned. There are many Frum Jews who keep a very different tznius than fixating on necklines and hemlines, davening is a direct outgrowth of something that existed as normative part of Jewish praxis even during the existence of a temple, kashrus has evolved since the modern era because of the creation of the food industry, the cheapness and availability of dishes and the invention of the clock/watch that everyone has in their possession, it was certainly different to keep kosher in the year 1200....and a lot of people don't stress a lot of things connected to it today. Pesach cleaning for some is not much different than what their ancestors did, they do not live in cloistered communities, the 12 day business has been around for enough time that it has become normative and across the board in all Jewish communities, there are women who will not take panties to the rov and know the colors themselves, bedikos, at least the minimum exist since the time of the talmud, as does light colored (not white as there was rarely pure white, more like used flax) underwear, separate beds since the idea is not to touch and the moment that people shared a raised mattress or not straw on the floor there was the chance of touching and who in the world gives a flying f@rt about the light on the a/c.

Modern orthodoxy is not obseesed with thought.
And there are those MO/DL Jews of ashkenazi descent who no longer keep kitniyos...

↑ black sheep ↓

Thu, Dec 05 2013, 1:40 pm

okay, reading all these posts, I am now thinking that rationalist judaism is different than what I thought it was.

DH grew up very yeshivish. over the last ten years, he has taken a more "rationalist" style approach, for example not accepting every chumra or minhag but rather examining the sources and really learning why and how we do things and how we should do them. practically speaking, this applies to halachos that have changed over time, and now no longer seem to apply. however, he holds you should continue to practice the way we have been doing unless you can find a source halachically to change it. haskafically speaking, midrashim aside since most people agree that many midrashim are allegorical, he feels that the discussions in the gemarrah are for the purpose of us understanding how certain halachos came about. they are not there to take every word as Torah Fact. this applies to scientific "facts" mentioned in the gemarrah, and some historical events as well. these were based on the knowlege of the rabbis at the time, and they might not apply now.

when it comes to evolution, I never thought rationalist jews thought we evolved from monkeys!!! (actually, most evolutionists don't believe that either.) it seemed to me that everyone believes that Hashem created man and woman directly. and as far as the timeframe, well until the sun was created there was no concept of time, right? so how can there be Day 1 and Day 2 etc if the Sun, the natural way to mark time, was created on Day 4? obviously there is something about time and creation that we don't understand. there are many different ways to interpret this, and maybe one way would explain how evidence shows the world to be millions of years old. but man evolving from apes? did I read the wrong slifkin book?

the biggest practical difference between traditional judaism and rational judaism would be blind acceptance vs. rational thought. this would apply both hashkafically and halachically. but I was under the assumption that rationalists jews still accepted the leap of faith that Hashem created the world, and continues to control nature. That studying evidence of nature should not contradict with His existence or the narrative of the Torah. I thought R. Slifkin's book was to reconcile evolutionary science (such as the discovery of dinasour bones) with the Torah, not to disprove the Torah. am I wrong? did I completely misunderstand the book?

↑ Dolly Welsh ↓

Thu, Dec 05 2013, 4:33 pm

I will opine that a man who has doubts should take them to the difficult and dangerous place, to his chavrusa and to his Rav. To men.

Any wife who finds herself being confided in about a man's doubts should find a way to say, tactfully, er, that goes to your Rav. Not to me.

Here is why.

1) It is cowardly. He knows you won't give him much, if any, grief. And, he can handle it, if you do. You are supposed to follow along with him mentally, aren't you? He is your leader. And even if you beat the daylights out of him mentally, he has merely lost to a girl, in front of nobody. It isn't that bad a defeat.

2) It is bad manners. He may be putting a rift between you and him, and he swore not to do that.

3) It is FUTILE.

Why? Because no matter how advanced a woman's knowledge, she will be seeing through a woman's eyes and hearing through a woman's ears, and what she has to say back will not address what is bothering the man. She cannot hear the material the way he does. That is not a defect in her. It is just the way it is. This has nothing to do with not being smart. This is true no matter how smart she is. It is true if she is much smarter than he is, and more learned too.

4) It may even be feminizing. We don't want feminized husbands. When anybody has a chavrusa, he or she inevitably somewhat adapts his or her thinking to the chavrusa's. That is why you wouldn't want a bad, but very smart, person for a chavrusa.

A man who uses his wife as a chavrusa may feminize his thinking ("get cooties" is the vernacular).

The inevitable, really inevitable, result of THAT is that the man will feel this feminizing happening. What will he do? Why, he will defend himself, naturally, by getting mad at his defenseless wife who was only trying to help!

Or, she will subtly lose respect for him, for feminizing, and also for not being willing to face the men with his doubts and questions. This hurts their SB. That is NOT in her interest.

It is natural for people to have questions! Let women who have questions share that with other women, and men who have questions share that with other men.

It is soooo flattering when a woman finds herself being confided in, when a man has questions. Big questions. It will bring us closer together, she is told.

But she should not let herself be sucked into this role. It is not in her long-term interest.

He is trying to hide in her skirts.

This is not a legit move, and is, I repeat, not in her longterm interest. And, because she has a different set of eyes and ears, won't help anyway. Not one little bit. It can't.

No matter how clear it is to him, and to everybody, that she is much, much smarter, and more learned, than ANY of his male colleagues, or all of them put together.

She's female.

You can share with her when you are certain, that's called teaching. And she can share with you when she is certain, that's called love.

But when you have questions or doubts, no. Go away. Face the boys.

She should let him know:

1) I understand that even the greatest sages had plenty of doubts, and that's really, really OK. However,

2) I have to go finish dinner. Take it up with your male colleagues.

3) There is no 3)

↑ Dolly Welsh ↓

Thu, Dec 05 2013, 4:44 pm

My secular father said, "G-d told us he made the world, but he didn't say how."

If G-d made man by forming him out of early humanoids, who were dust, and that took a looooong time, we perhaps should not complain that that took too long.

(If G-d really told us every detail of how he made the world in the Vayekulu, we would never get to dinner. We also would never understand it.)

Of course "time" as we know it is only a localized singularity. Einstein showed that.

As for the sun showing up on Day Four, well, star formation was indeed a later event, well after the Big Bang.

Science is just a shoe size. It describes.

Whatever it illumines, explains, or reveals, is just more of G-d's handiwork, and should increase our pleasure, and our awe.

I think facing the weirdness of quantum physics is much easier if your are Chassidic.

But then I like Chabad Chassidus.

What I don't like is putting G-d Way Out There as a CEO of the universe who cannot tell you how many paperclips are in the receptionist's desk drawer.

A human CEO can see that the receptionist is doing her job, but has no reason to care exactly how many paperclips are in her desk drawer. He has staff to make sure she isn't stealing office supplies. He has staff to make sure that the order for paperclips isn't twenty times higher than it ought to be.

G-d knows exactly how many paper clips are in that drawer, and cares.

G-d knows how many bacteria are on your arm, and cares.

Right here, right now, here here here, now now now.

↑ amother ↓

Thu, Dec 05 2013, 4:48 pm

firstly, I cant believe theres someone out there that has the same identical problem. hooray! I thought I was alone all these yrs. and now its like heaven opended up and some person from who knows where just came to my house I really am stumped I cant believe it. now I wish I had all these answers, it pains me when dh has such good valid questions and theres no answer and all rabbonim will just tell you your an apikores. its probably just as painful as someone chv' being sick. and cant do anything. its like the medicine is reight there but cant reach it cause of a disabiulity is that how you feel? I didnt read all of it but reading half of it made me jum;p out of my skin how our dh is so similar. thanks its ar real breath of fresh air.

↑ Dolly Welsh ↓

Thu, Dec 05 2013, 4:53 pm

In my view a woman can be as brilliant as she wants, but in general, it is going to be more intimate and intense around other women. Or, if it's with men, she is going to be talking to a man who is certain.

I don't like a man pouring his doubts all over a woman.

If they were on a desert island, maybe. Maybe not even then. But when there ar men to talk to, let him do the dangerous and hard thing. Talk to them.

Then he can come home with what he has figured out and share his certainties with his wife.

The man looks over the table and sees such a willing and such a smart and above all adoring and forgiving ear for his doubts. It is so tempting to use her that way.

I don't think it's brave or appropriate.

Or even considerate.

↑ yogabird ↓

Thu, Dec 05 2013, 8:10 pm

freidasima wrote:

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

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

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

↑ amother ↓

Thu, Dec 05 2013, 8:52 pm

Op here. I want to thank everyone for the respectful, intelligent replies. There is much food for thought here, some of it very strengthening to me. I can't respond more specifically right now because there is a lot here and I don't have that kind of time until I sort out the Big Bang that seems to have happened in my living room, I was hoping order would evolve out of it naturally but it looks like instead it will require an act of G-d to make Shabbos here. Ok I couldn't help after reading some of the last few posts ;-)

Those who are worried about the dh dumping his problems on me are barking up the wrong tree: firstly, he is not the one having doubts and questions. He is very sure about this on his own and is certainly not asking me for help. Just sharing his interest and the things he's learning, which I've always liked him to do. If anything, his faith, davening, and observance overall is in a much better place than mine. This seems to be a great derech for him. Secondly, according to him he has a whole bunch of friends who share these views,they talk about this stuff all the time. I am not convinced any of them is of the caliber of his former spiritual mentor but there's not much I can do about that... I do wonder why if this derech is so rational, such an intelligent person as that former mentor is on the "other side." Things like that are probably what boers me most - can so many people of such great intelligence really be so wrong?

↑ mille ↓

Thu, Dec 05 2013, 10:08 pm

yogabird wrote:

freidasima wrote:

Certainly not. We create life, but we do not create life from nothing. We create life from a sperm and an egg combining and then cells split, and split, and split. That's creation, but it's not necessarily from nothing. We have seen evolutionary changes in humans since we became 'humans', however you see that -- through God creating us via an adult man and woman from nothing, or through evolution from another species. Specifically, we've seen evolution in diet and what humans are able to digest now vs. thousands of years ago. It's quite interesting, actually!

I'm having a hard time replying to everything else because I'm a fairly hardcore rationalist and I simply cannot fathom taking certain things literally, like the story of creation. I have a hard time with ideas like how someone wouldn't accept my kiddush because my beliefs aren't valid, even though we're both Orthodox Jews (then again, I am sure some wouldn't accept my kiddush as valid because I'm a woman, but that's a whole different topic Rolling Eyes

). That part is just crazy and way outside my world view. I don't think I'd ever say someone's kiddush is not valid unless they literally change the words...

OP, people are fallible and even intelligent people can be wrong. I'm not saying anyone specific is wrong, but why do we believe that some people are always right? Our knowledge base is only as big as the amount of knowledge we as humans have uncovered. No one would say Isaac Newton wasn't highly intelligent, but the amount of knowledge in astrophysics and physics in general that we understand today far exceeds that of his time. We have a very different model of physics today, and we would consider someone who only knows classic mechanics and physics up to a Newtonian level (and considers himself to be an expert) to be "not smart" -- but no one would say that of Isaac Newton when he was alive. Because that's all we knew.

That's how I reconcile some stuff in gemara that is "science based" as well -- that's all they knew. They simply did not know better and did not have greater knowledge available to them at that time. It's about context when it comes to a lot of things. I really don't buy (and neither do any of the rationalist folk that I hang around with) the whole "well it's in gemara so Chazal is never wrong and it must be true even though we know it's not actually true today" cognitive dissonance thing. I hope some of this helps!

↑ cookiecutter

Thu, Dec 05 2013, 10:29 pm

amother wrote:

I am not convinced any of them is of the caliber of his former spiritual mentor but there's not much I can do about that... I do wonder why if this derech is so rational, such an intelligent person as that former mentor is on the "other side." Things like that are probably what boers me most - can so many people of such great intelligence really be so wrong?

The thing with intelligence is, it only works if you engage it. You wouldn't expect a doctor to know the intricacies of computer science if they had never learned it. You can observe this spiritual mentor refusing to engage in the scientific inquiry; it should be no wonder that they don't reach the correct answers.

poelmamosh ↓

Thu, Dec 05 2013, 11:23 pm

OP, I would suggest you learn some Chassidus. It may seem counter-intuitive to bring in a mystical element to attempt to resolve purely intellectual issues, but there is something so humbling but at the same time so empowering to really grasp a subject in a way that multiple facets, sometimes contradictory, form such a beautiful, cohesive picture. I speak from personal and second-hand experience (I am in the field of adult education) that it has been the balm for many a rational soul, myself included (as anyone here who knows me IRL can attest to). It speaks to the neshama, and that is every Jew's language.

There are certainly aspects of Yiddishkeit that I accept on faith, but having experienced a real, supra-rational (not irrational) understanding in some areas, that faith comes from a place of strength, not confusion.