As someone who grew up in a yeshivish community and has since lost my faith, I find your complete lack of empathy and understanding to be incredibly hurtful.
The notion that those of us who have departed from religious Judaism have "no right" to do so is simply untenable. You act as if we are bound by some unbreakable covenant, when the reality is that I and many others have come to the sincere conclusion that the Torah is not divinely revealed truth. This was not some hasty decision made after "5 seconds on Wikipedia." It came after years of deep questioning, study, and grappling with the challenges to traditional beliefs. I engaged extensively with rabbis, both yeshivish and modern orthodox, and even spoke with Orhodox Bible scholars and philosophers, and ultimately found the arguments for Orthodox Judaism unconvincing.
Yet you dismiss our journeys as mere "fooling ourselves" and the product of being "sheltered children." What an insult to the intellectual honesty and integrity of those like myself who have struggled mightily with these issues. You really have the audacity to compare our sincere doubts to the delusions of the mentally ill? You missed your calling as a mesivta mashgiach ruchani where these fiery shmuessin would find an appropriate audience of naive bochurim.
The fact that you view any questioning or dissent as illegitimate rather than an opportunity for serious engagement is deeply problematic. If the yeshivish world wants to stem the tide of those departing the faith, it would do well to approach this issue with more humility, nuance and intellectual honesty.
I'm sorry if I hurt you. I promise I have nothing but sympathy for you. But I can't respect your opinions. And frankly, I don't see how you can demand respect from me or anyone else. Respect as a human being, yes. Of your opinions, no. The fact that you may have spent years getting entrenched in your error doesn't impress me. If your substack is representative, I don't see anything there deeper than what you can get from 5 seconds on Wikipedia. Yes, you have fooled yourself. I don't view questioning as illegitimate. I view your conclusions as illegitimate.
I’ve read your article. Honestly, I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry. It’s layered with certainty, dripping with authority, but it misses something fundamental: understanding. Not of the Torah, the Bris, or even the community, but of the people. The ones you dismiss as “dolt[s] with a laptop.” The ones you think have no right to walk away.
Let’s talk about the emperor’s new clothes. Everyone praises the invisible clothes because they’ve been told only fools can’t see them. Then one child dares to speak the truth: the emperor is naked.
That’s what it felt like for me. Growing up, I believed. I really did. I saw the emperor’s clothes, admired their beauty, praised their craftsmanship. Until one day, I didn’t. I looked closer, and what had seemed glorious unraveled in my hand. It wasn’t rebellion. It wasn’t laziness or naivety. It was honesty.
Now imagine being told, that despite seeing the truth, you are required to continue bowing to the emperor. To pretend. To say the words. Perform the rituals. Wear the mask. Why? Because it’s tradition? Because I stood under a chuppah I no longer believe was real?
You call this marriage. But what is a marriage without reciprocity, without presence? If I’m the only one showing up, it isn’t a relationship - it’s theater. Staying in a marriage like that doesn’t make you loyal; it makes you dishonest. And dishonesty isn’t holiness.
You talk about gaslighting. You claim we do it to you, dismissing your answers out of hand. But what do you call telling someone their questions don’t exist? That their doubts are just a sickness? That they’ve been seduced by “a quick survey of Wikipedia” and secular academics? You invalidate the journey, then act surprised when people walk away.
Doubt isn’t a sickness. It’s a symptom of caring deeply enough to ask hard questions. And yes, the answers matter. If they didn’t, we wouldn’t bother searching for them.
You write, “[They] have no right to abandon the Torah.” No right? Respectfully, you don’t get to decide that. Choice is fundamental to being human, even according to the Torah (וּבָחַרְתָּ בַּחַיִּים / הכל בידי שמים חוץ מיראת שמים / רשות לכל אדם נתונה) Free will is the foundation of everything. To deny someone the right to choose differently isn’t Torah - it’s tyranny.
You claim we left because we were naive and sheltered. But what about the people who weren’t naive? The ones who knew shas cold, who got smicha, who spent a decade in kollel, and still walked away? Do they fit neatly into your narrative? Or is it easier to dismiss them as broken too?
You say we deserve patience and love but no respect. That’s not how empathy works. Empathy isn’t about tolerating someone’s pain while holding onto disdain. It’s about stepping into their shoes, even if you disagree with where they walked. You don’t have to respect my conclusions to respect me as a person. But if you can’t even do that, what are we talking about?
My blog wasn’t written to tear down your world. It’s a lifeline for people like me - people trying to navigate the tension between two worlds. People who love their families and communities but can no longer make themselves believe. It’s a space to be seen, without judgment, without masks.
You say there’s no solution for nonbelievers except teshuva. Maybe. But teshuva starts with truth. And for us, the truth begins with admitting the emperor is naked. To deny that would be the real betrayal - not of you, not of the Torah, but of ourselves.
My point is that you have deluded yourself. You may very well have gotten to the point where you think you are the only the honest one. But why in the world should I or anybody else respect your point of view? How is this a legitimate demand? Did I ever demand that you or any other atheist/agnostic respect mine? Your comment about the emperors clothes sure doesn't demonstrate any respect. This doesn't mean I can't sympathize with you. I walked in your shoes. I had the same questions as you did. But questions are not a reason to reject your covenant with G-d. I don't invalidate your journey, but your destination.
I wrote that I don't believe the characters existed, and here we have exhibit No. 1.
Exit 98 claims to have been a successful learner, a lamdan no less. Yet he can claim a right to discard the covenant because of bechira. He even quotes a possuk that disproves him, where the Torah tells us clearly which choice to make, yet can misconstrue the conclusion in such a spectacular fashion.
I don't know if such people exist, or what their motivations really are, but these are not the successful lamdanim from Yeshivos.
His mistake in the translation of the possuk and the understanding of the concept of bechira is so glaring, that his claim to being a successful talmid of yeshivos seems pretty hollow.
Sounds like the drifter who did nothing but count the days until he could get married and have his own shiny new car, smartphone, wife, and starter home. Doesn't sound like someone who used his time productively. Which is kind of the point. He is attempting to make the claim that the questions are not a product of his failure in other parts of life, when the reality seems to be different.
Not that it makes a difference, just to his credibility and honesty. When the claim is that their lack of faith is a product of honest searching, this shows him up.
Nah. I’ve learned in Yeshivos, plenty of good ones. I spent time in Kollel, and dare I say it, I “know how to learn.” (Which is itself an almost mythical concept perpetuated in yeshivos to hold people down). And the fact that he used that possuk to cutely frame what he was trying to say tells me absolutely nothing about whether he was a lamdan or not. And the honest truth is that your use of it to discredit him just makes you look like you’re full of shit yourself.
It's a creative reinterpretation which strays front he original meaning. Kofrim would say the same about chazal's interpretation of "עין תחת עין". Once the pesukim are written, they are used to make all sorts of points not beholden to the Authors original intent.
>>>But why in the world should I or anybody else respect your point of view?
Because our position makes sense and yours is based on authority and wishful thinking, which is the very definition of delusion. You want Orthodoxy to be true. You want there to be a Torah and a god because it would fit so nicely into the ideas you've been raised to embrace. But there's nothing there. Not only does the emperor have no clothes...there's no emperor.
Respect needs to be earned, but there's no there there. According to the view that religion is made up, none of what you're saying is compelling. You're making threats and you're making demands, but it's all so frivolous to the OTD.
It's like threatening that if the OTD don't meet your demands and recant their evil ways, then Santa won't visit, or he will but he'll give out coal. And the OTD responds "your Santa doesn't exist!" That's literally what this is. You telling the OTD community that they need to apologize or else they'll be in big trouble, but your entire framework only matters and means anything if it's true, which is the thing OTD denies.
Yeshivaland doesn't 'do people'. It only 'does seforim'. The human element is completely missed by kollel type people, going l'chumrah in every possible matter, unless they want to do/not do the said matter, in which case it's fine.
Here's a parody of this article written by a friend of mine who is a prominent member of the OTD community.
There’s been a lot of chatter between me and the three anonymous friends I have on the internet, and if you extrapolate from the sample, that’s the whole world. They’ve been talking about this phenomena of Jews leaving the fold. Now you might think this has just started today, but it has actually been going on for almost 25 years! Ever since the internet came out. These dolts went out to a bunch of electrons seeking answers. Fools. Everyone knows the answers to the questions simply aren’t out there. You can think about it from today to tomorrow, and not a thing will make sense. It’s because you are looking in the wrong direction! Don’t look out there! Look inwardly. That’s where the answer is. Away from all that, what do you call it again… Oh ya, data.
In some cases, when people have doubts, they leave their communities, which is a cruel move, causing untold harm to their wives, children, and extended family on many levels (I use the male perspective here because we are talking about going off for pseudointellectual reasons, and women don’t trouble themselves with such things. Also, I am too chaste to consider a woman for non sexual reasons). Or they stay in their communities and live a double life, which is a cruel move, causing untold harm to their wives, children and extended families on many levels. Or they keep following halacha, using their frumkeit as a trojan horse, infecting the community with their poisonous hashkafas, which is a cruel move, causing untold harm…
So the question is, as I ask myself every day, is should I respect others?
The answer, raboisai, is a resounding no!
I mean sure, if you mean pitying, I’m on board. There are a lot of people who are nebach afflicted with questions, and doubts, and other weaknesses. But respect? Respect is a tall order. Respect means accepting that my peers are intelligent. That they are considered. That the things they do and think are because of their experiences they have had, and that they responded to those experiences in an intelligent, appropriate and healthy way. I think the reason why people throw the word respect around is because they don’t think about all it entails. It’s not a walk in the park. You have to fully humanize someone. And that’s not something I throw around lightly.
To accept their position, think of the absurd premises we have to accept. First, to even get into the question of “should I choose to be religious?” you have to assume that there is a choice! Hellooooooo! Have you ever heard of Bris milah? Bris ben habasarim? Indiana Jones and the Ark of the COVENANT? Because we made a deal. You may not remember it. It was in your former lives. But a lot of them. You signed off on it in at least 6 former lives. Nowadays we don’t do the paperwork. Just a quick signature to dot the i’s and snip the foreskins.
Let’s say you treated your wife like this. One day she burns the soup, and you just walk away? What kind of psychopath or amorah would do that? It’s obvious that you can’t just turn your back when things don’t go your way. Would you divorce your wife simply because you don’t see her? Because your friends all tell you she’s imaginary? Because she gives you the silent treatment when you take antipsychotics? Of course not! That would make you a bad person.
Now not all bad people are the same. While many twiddle their thumbs in their pork lairs and say “I’m such an aveirah boy”, some people are actually bad by accident. I know, it’s hard to believe, but these people are trying to do the right thing. We have a concept of a tinok shenishba, a baby who was kidnapped by pirates as a child and was raised with no knowledge of his judaism. In today’s world, where information is everywhere, we have the same problem. In the first case, the child has no information about his upbringing, and in the second, he has such good information that the information he has from his upbringing seems like nothing in comparison. Using a talmudic lens, you can see that these situations, while on the outside are different, are functionally identical.
This is especially dangerous for yeshivish individuals, who, due to their restrictive lifestyles, are unprepared to deny any information that comes their way. Ironically, it is their act of denying everything that makes them so vulnerable when a piece of information gets through. These people think they are intellectuals, but they are really naive. They believed everything we told them, about the Torah, about aggaditah, and even midrashim. Ya. They believed it so hard that they questioned it, challenged it, and assessed it; the three cornerstones of naivety!
Gaslighting
Some people think gaslighting is the slow, intentional manipulation of an individual to get them to doubt their internal sensors and experience in favour of an outside source. These people are crazy. What gaslighting actually means is not giving people enough attention. So I want to address that.
First of all, it’s true that we shut down answers, and don’t really have Rabbis prepared for questions. But that’s the point! If we don’t have the answers to questions, and no one in our community does, and we don’t even prioritize it in case anyone might, then there must not be real questions! So that’s the first thing I want you to understand. When you have a question, and you see that our system is set up to tell you that that shouldn’t be the case, maybe you should rethink if your question is really valid. Really worth taking up other people’s space and time.
Another thing to think about is that the Torah is so complex, you need to keep your thoughts on it 24/7. So if you are thinking about what’s wrong with it, of course you are going to find problems! You took your eye off the ball! I don’t know how you think you can have a rational discourse if your starting point is not giving the Torah the attention it requires.
Now some people say this is brainwashing, but that’s an ad hominem attack. This is when you attack the person instead of the argument, and ummm, the Torah is a person. So all attacks on it are ad hominen. Ya, that’s right. Even when I use the philosophers lingo, it still seems to always show I’m right.
And then on top of that, we DO have rabbis who have answers to these things. And how do you think the atheists reply? Oh, we’re not convinced. What does evolution have to do with throwing up a deck of cards? Have you ever read a science book? Absurd. Disgusting. With such an impenetrable wall of rejections, who is really doing the gaslighting here, I ask you?
So, with all this myriad of reasons why you were wrong before you even began to think, how is it even possible for you to be gaslit?
(This is where the article I am parodying ends. There is no section on cultural Judaism. Why am I even mentioning it if it doesn’t exist? That’s a great question. I think Rashi asks your question. Well, Rashi is talking about why there are grapes on a vine, but if you really listen, you will find the answer to your question. No, I can’t explain it to you. Part of the beauty of the Torah is you have to go on this journey yourself. What do you mean, it doesn’t seem to answer your question? Are you sure you understood your own question? I’ll tell you what. Think about it for a while, and when you get to the end of the Torah and you still find it unanswered, come back and we’ll figure it out then. And by figure it out, I mean tell you the Torah has no end and chuckle. There. Does that solve your problem?)
I don't know if it's funny, but it does a great job highlighting the ridiculousness of your post. As another friend commented, this parody is almost indistinguishable from the original.
"So the question is, as I ask myself every day, is should I respect others?"
Notice how he conflated rejecting his heresy with disrespecting others. Meaning, that the only way to be a person who respects others is to accept every narishkite in the world as equally valid as the Torah.
Hi Simon. I appreciate that you took the time to write that comment. I am sorry that you were offended. But I am speaking the truth. You write that people who go off do so out of strong internal convictions, and are deserving of respect for that. I don't think you really believe that anybody who does anything out of strong internal convictions or all opinions that are strongly held are worthy of respect. You almost certainly agree that certain strong internal convictions are contemptible. Why, in that very comment you called my "fundamentalist" religion "evil", and that it "really really sucks" while in the same breath complaining that I call those who go off "bad people". So it's hard to believe this is really a principle that you stand strongly by. My point was that you and your peers are making serious errors that are taking you very far from the most important truths and that your conclusions are not worthy of respect.
They are two separate issues and I was careful not to mix them.
One issue is the condescending attitude towards our intellectual journeys, which is based off of a caricature of what that journey looks like, and has no relation to what the ramifications of the beliefs are. That is always deserving of the recognition of the work and strength used to get there.
The second is the position you espoused that we are inherently 'bad'. That is a label I would apply to many ideologies, and the reason why I don't apply it to skeptics is because I don't believe it is actually bad. This is my position as a skeptic and I share this position with many believers. I also view your position to the contrary as dangerous and harmful. I could try to debate you on religious grounds (by appealing g to the Jewish sources that promote an alternative position), or I. Secular grounds (by appealing to moral principles or by showing you the effects of such an ideology) or through trying to disprove your faith itself. However, I don't feel I have the right to argue from a religious perspective, and I'm not interested and will not be successful at convincing frum.people to abandon their faith, so all I can do is relate my experience, say how much I hate this position, and hope people will be more understanding.
That just sounds like rules for thee and not for me. You can say whatever you want about many ideologies that you think are bad, you can call my community's ideology "evil", but I shouldn't dare show disrespect for your ideology.
I'll be very honest here. If someone truly believes that atheism is equally evil to murder or close I have nothing to tell them in response. I might try to simply expose them to other kinds of people which would subtly change their attitude, but I can't argue without arguing on the actual belief (which doesn't necessarily mean defending atheism, rather simply defending a more tolerant theology).
However, my starting point here is that I don't view skepticism that way. This is comparable to the way you would approach a rabid antisemite or a Muslim jihadist (this is not to say that frum people want to kill us, I'm just giving the comparison for the sake of the analogy). You have nothing to tell them without changing their belief, but you don't grant validity to their POV as something you will tolerate. You will continue to see what they are doing as bad.
Now, I understand that this can just as well be flipped on me to defend intolerance towards the OTD community. Therefore I cannot argue for tolerance, I can merely beg for it, and I hope (and for a large part think) that frum people can develop more tolerant attitudes towards us, and many already do.
From my perspective, this intolerance is evil. If it isn't from yours, that won't stop me from condemning it. If you will do the same towards me, we then have irreconcilable differences. But hopefully some people will heed our pleas and allow for some reconciliation.
When I was talking about respect for our journey, that is a separate discussion. You can abhorr our conclusions all you want, but that's not a reason to present the process falsely. That seems like a tactic to defend your beliefs through attacking those that disagree with you, which usually is coming from an insecurity in your own belief.
However, the main point is what I said above. We want to be at least tolerated, hopefully respected, and possibly celebrated. Every time you take that away from us it is a stab in the chest.
I'm not sure what I said that makes you think I'm promoting tolerating harmful positions.
Either way, your post promotes two things: a condescending attitude to the intellect of those that disagree with you, and a perspective which near completely negates the value of OTD people. We are bad and inexcusable even if you might not blame us for all that. While I commend such an approach with regards to jihadists, murderers, or viscous antisemitism, I abhor such an approach on the basis of religious differences. (My rule is that if your harming society, society shouldn't tolerate you l, but if you're not harming society, we should accept our differences.)
"One issue is the condescending attitude towards our intellectual journeys, which is based off of a caricature of what that journey looks like, and has no relation to what the ramifications of the beliefs are. That is always deserving of the recognition of the work and strength used to get there."
Why? If you're a standard westerner and especially a standard academic as you probably are intellectually you'd probably have to confront extreme discomfort to come to the conclusion that eg. there's racial differences in IQ which are genetic in origin. One can acknowledge that without praising the conclusion or having any respect for it in any way and Happy himself acknowledged the pain that comes with abandoning the faith. Are you expecting high accolades for confronting that discomfort or something?
"The second is the position you espoused that we are inherently 'bad'. "
This is not a position he espoused. Happy was מאריך on how we can't necessarily assume that people embrace bad conclusions because of a bad streak or something. Regardless, from his point of view it's still bad. He wasn't calling you specifically or even skeptics in general bad as people. You are not just your conclusions.
My biggest problem with this piece is how you don't leave these nonbelievers any good options for life. You readily admit that leaving their community can be extremely difficult and cruel on their families. But also say it's wrong for them to stay in the community and continue to keep halacha without believing. So what option is left?
It seems like you're saying: "You have to believe (be'emuna shlaima?!). Stop not believing!"
I think I made it clear that this is really addressed to believers. As far as how I would address the nonbelievers themselves as long as they are obstinately entrenched in their error, I would say they should continue to live in their community and try to keep their sins private. Which is very different than telling them their viewpoint is valid. See my comment to Exit 98 here https://exit98.substack.com/p/the-unchosen-path/comment/79655149
"On the other hand, there are some who have studied the relevant topics and are actually qualified to respond."
Who? I'm curious. The only Chareidi person who I know who has considered these questions seriously is R Yitzchok Breitowitz, and he is ok with possibilities others consider kefira.
I personally have found very strong answers in the works of R Jonathan Sacks, R Joshua Berman, and dare I say it, R Natan Slifkin. I have also spent a long time on this subject myself, and while you attack my faith as "conflicted", and while at one point it indeed was, that was only before I found these answers. Those answers restored my faith, yet they are dismissed by the vast majority of the yeshivish world as kefira.
(I do admit that I am conflicted as to how exactly halacha works and whether it should be updated, but I have complete faith that the Torah was given to Moshe Rabeinu by Hashem and was intended to convert the world from idolatry to Judaism and that there was an oral tradition accompanying it. I am in no way conflicted about those facts).
Finally, and this is no fault of yours but of mine, many people were confused about my main point, which means i did not express it clearly enough. I am in no way saying the Torah should only be a culture. I am saying is that we should live it as a culture AS WELL. The closest example of what I was thinking of is the Sephardi world, were there are many levels of observance yet everyone is connected. I would like the Ashkenazi world to follow that worldview instead of being so focused on boundaries. Yet no one would accuse the Sephardim of only believing the Torah as a culture.
Only Rabbi Breitowitz? What about me? What am I? Chopped liver? What about Rabbi Neugroschel? Remember, you don't have to like his answers. You can even argue with them. But you can't deny he looked into it seriously. What about Rabbi Inbal, who is a much more open minded as well as much more knowledgeable than Rabbi Neugroschel? He has some answers that some might consider kefira. What about Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan? What about Andrew Goldfinger?
Thanks for clarifying your main point! That sounds more reasonable.
You're chopped liver, based on your archology mocking post (which was pretty funny tbh, but hardly a serious answer). R Inbal is great. R Aryeh Kaplan was the first to suggest the mythical approach I like, but he never published it.
If you mean his approach to 6 days of creation, its in immortality resurrection, and age of the universe. Though I know it was first just a lecture at a university. Are you referring to something else?
Interesting. I've seen this in other books (I cant remember the title or author now but I have seen this on my ravs desk.)
I guess Rabbi Kaplan didn't publish it because he changed his opinion in the late 70's, like the article says. (I always was wondering if the one who writes Rabbi Kaplan retracted was dishonest, but I see now he just confused it with this.)
The fact that many Sefardim are doing a lot better now is to a large extent due to Ashkenazi influence, and I would argue that considering all Ashkenazi Jewry went through the last 200 years and their incredible recovery in the last 75 years (so there are now more frum Ashkenazis than Sefardim) the Ashkenazim did an incredible job.
I agree that we have a lot to learn from Sefardim but I think our community has a point too.
If you consider this post religious or having any coherence as it relates to traditional Jewish conceptions of the world, you got some learning to do my friend
I don't understand. Do you think, from a religious standpoint, that we should encourage skepticism? Given the number of smart people who are going OTD being that the subject matter is quite complex, is it wrong for us to just try to use our hand in chinuch to promote our truth, the one which has been with us for thousands of years? I think we need some kind of adult continuation of out chinuch where we learn to acclimate and ground ourselves, but what about this article is wrong from a religious perspective?
I am an a proudly observant jew, yet I find your article self righteous and shortsighted. Many people that leave orthodoxy, or religion altogether did so precisely because the way many frum people relate to doubts and questionings is exactly like you do: by insulting, humiliating and also, saying nothing of substance. You spent most of your article describing people that leave orthodoxy as dumb, irrational, weak and bad. Instead of asking yourself how we should relate to "such people" (as if they're a thing), you should endeavor to understand what made them leave, and find the answers to those questions. Personally, I'm not afraid to ask questions because I am certain of my beliefs and faith, I've done the work and faced my
doubts. But precisely because of that I have the integrity to respect their journey to truth. And if I ever a "non believer" speaks to me, I can listen without insulting, because I do not feel threatened. If you really feel strongly about the subject ( the phenomenon of people leaving frum judaism) maybe try to understand it better.
You might be proudly observant, but you should learn to read. If you would have read the post, you would have seen that I addressed doubts and questioning and said that there is nothing wrong with that, and I admitted that our community has a problem dealing with them.
The truth is, I had a hard time understanding who the article was addressed to. You addressed your perceived reasons for WHY they have doubts, didn't seem to tackle actual questions of emuna. But I guess if you are addressing people that are interacting with people that left, not actually the people that left, it makes more sense. Still I feel like people that are in "danger" of having their own משבר אמוני by interacting with people that already have doubts (which seems to be your intended audience) they probably already have doubt themselves, just haven't expressed them. In such a case, saying that non believers were the most "naive of their peers in yeshiva and mindlessly drank in any and everything their rabbis said..." will not help your case. (Besides the fact that it's a gross misrepresentation of "non believers". I have met a few of them, and most of them were most definitely NOT naive, in fact many were too smart and asked too many questions for which they were ridiculed. The saddest part is that THERE ARE ANSWERS to most questions)
You also mention that our community as issues addressing questions of faith, yet instead of really addressing the issue, you say it is a "testament to the resilience of our religious education" and that tipically such challenges are "not so serious in the first place, and there isn't much demand for professional in that area". There's a few more examples. To be sure, I don't entirely disagree with your point, there is no need to respect another person's opinion if you don't see value in it. But you can always respect the person that espouses them. And your article, though we'll written, uses non-believers' perceived questions to insult their intelligence and weak moral character, instead of trying to understand where they're coming from. But then again, you are probably not addressing them. But it seems futile to.me to address the believers.
It was addressed to believers. It's important to address the believers so that they don't think the nonbelievers have the moral upper hand. My argument is that abandoning the Torah is erroneous and is a moral failing, no matter if they think they are right.
Got it, your article makes more sense to me now. Though I do think we as believers should do a better job of understanding our own position without being afraid of theirs. And I think that's what you were trying to do with your article. I guess I disagreed with the nature of our position vis a vis non believers. I'll have a look at your other articles later in the week
I will add two more things and then I will retire myself from the conversation (I don't even know how I ended here to begin with)
1) for the author: the point of your article was to remind believers that non believers don't have the moral upper hand. From your article and subsequent conversations here I will assume that by that you mean that non believers don't have the INTELLECTUAL upper hand. The thing is, whoever thinks non believers have the intellectual upperhand may be right. I don't see how this should be a problem, but If this bothers someone, then it is only because that someone probably wants to be more educated and intellectual. If that is the case then that someone probably needs to go and study some philosophy and get more educated,שידע מה להשיב -לעצמו
2) for non believers or doubters on this chat: every one's journey is different and I don't pretend to understand your journey, but I will share a little bit of mine, in case it helps someone.
I had my first serious doubts on the existence of God while still in high school (Bais Yaacov), fortunately, my father studied philosophy in university,is very educated in general and in Torah specifically, and he has alot of intellectual integrity. Even so, it took me a few months to approach him with my questions. I honestly don't remember most of his answers (some I do, mostly about the truth of Judaism over other religions) but what I remember the most was his smile. Almost like he was expecting it, like it's a rite of passage. I think to this day, that's what reassured me the most about God's existence. Still, it took me about a year and half for the doubts to start fading away. And let no one tell you that your doubts only come from doing aveiros. I was very careful with shmiras hamitzvos, and I can tell you it was a very intellectual pursuit. And YET...today my relationship with God is purely relational and emotional ( i am 15 years away removed from my doubts). I don't have the inkling of a doubt. Can I answer everyone's intellectual questions? No. And most answers are anyways not fullproof. Why am I saying this? Because even though many doubts might start as intellectual doubts, the answers may not lie solely there. I will admit that as a woman, we may have more regard for the relational and emotional, but maybe some of you may anyway find answers were you never thought to look; your own life experience.
Wishing everyone a clear and non torturous journey to the truth. (And the right people to answer your questions too)
It looks to me like you are making my point from your perspective.
When your father smiled and gave you the impression that the answers were there, the questions were not able to remove you from that trust you had in the process. Once you trusted, you could hear the answers and appreciate them.
As I wrote a few times, once people trust, they understand the answers. It is the lack of trust that make the questions so all-encompassing and disturbing.
The trust isn't based on the answers, but is strengthened after the answers arrive.
Very well said. I could have written this myself. (That is the highest compliment possible ;))
The recent substacks seem to me an attempt to create a reality. The characters are not believable and the idea seems to be to try and push the idea that those who leave are purely cerebral. Since Avraham Avinu this has not been true. Although I don't buy the simplistic approach that 'Gedalya saw a cheeseburger, and when he had salivated enough over it, he began to doubt the source of the kashrus laws that prevented him from eating it,' there is a always a personal, emotional reason for a person to begin doubting. When trust isn't there, the foolishest of questions can overtake the intellect.
When a person begins his research with the trust that the abstract is as real as the corporeal, that the smartest, most critical people we know were Gedolei Hadoros such as Rabbi Akiva Eger and the Maharsha etc., and that the details were worked out in fine detail, he will approach his questions in a different manner.
Maybe it's just an expression our reality? Maybe your little bubble is not representative of the experiences of all other people? You don't know these people personally. I do. Dozens of them, and I'm sure there are many more. So you can stick your head in the sand and deny it, but you have no experiences to base that on.
You clearly aren't very familiar with the people you are opining on, and therefore have no reason to assume you understand them better than they claim themselves to be. I can't prove to you that mine and other's self assessment are correct, but I am fairly confident that if you would truly be privy to this world you are so ignorant of you would agree that your assessment is baseless.
But those who believe in Torah are so prone to accepting nonsense, like bogus segulas, miracle workers etc. Some may deny בחירה or the existence of חוקי הטבע.
Why do we get under your skin so much? Why does it bother you when we think that you are just porkei ol, not some kind of intellectual? What do you care?
The answer is, because you know the truth. Deep inside your heart, you know that your rationalizations are just weak claims and sound bytes, not real research and thoughtful questioning. You curse at me, but you mean yourself.
I never said I'm the whole world. But I am familiar with this part of the world that you claim is fictional. My experience (and the experience of others I know) confirm this reality, while you simply haven't experienced this kind of experience.
<i>We entered into this covenant at Sinai and renewed it several times, at Sinai, on the plains of Moab, at Mount Gerizim and Ebal, at the end of Joshua’s lifetime, during the reign of King Josiah, and when the Jews returned to the land of Israel with Ezra.</i>
But what if you believe all that to be a myth. What then? Would you tell people they are bound by a contract they believe to have never occurred?
Well, you are talking to a non-believer, right? Isn't that the premise of the post? Your plan can't be to say to them, "Hey, you are bound by a covenant." They would just find that comical.
I'm not talking to the nonbeliever. I'm talking to the believer. I have no plan for what to say to the nonbeliever, just like I have no plan to for what to say to the flat-earther. But I can simply tell him he is fooling himself.
The title of the post is "How to Relate to Nonbelievers". Maybe you are commenting on a different post? By the way, there are many things you could say to a Flat Earther, if there was one. They may not believe you, but you could easily present the evidence for a round Earth, and inquire why they do not find it compelling.
The title of the post doesn't mean how to argue with non-believer. This should be clear from the subtitle and content. Yes, there are many things one can say to a flat earther. And yes, they would probably not believe you. The same is with the nonbelievers that we are discussing.
So by "relate to non-believers" you mean actually "NOT relate to non-believers". Sorry I misunderstood. Personally, I think that if a person is not willing to consider the evidence presented by those with differing views, this is more indicative of a closed mind than anything else. Doesn't it amount to thinking "I'm right because I know I'm right and I don't need to hear anything else ever."
You were in space? Because you know that the flat-earthers claim the space pictures are fake, the same way the Torah deniers claim the Torah is fake history.
I don’t need to claim the Torah is fake or not. It’s irrelevant to me. I’ve seen no evidence to support any of the claims you make besides you going, “it’s true” I agree there is a lack of absolute truth in this world when it comes to most things but it doesn’t make your version or your beliefs true. That you wish to believe things contrary to evidence is your right but don’t judge those of us who choose not to. I don’t know there’s no god with certainty but I’ve seen no evidence so I’ll live my life in that way.
Dude I'm sorry to burst your bubble. But let me say this plainly. Your post is just plain stupid. Based on your post I should not follow my own instinct, intellect, research, amd moral compass because someone tells me a story that I believe is false? Why then should I believe your story? Maybe I should believe the story of Jesus or Mohammad or any of the other thousands of religions whose followers all believed be'emuna sheleima was true. There is literally no difference, other than the fact that I happened to have been born into a Jewish family and not a Muslim one, between me blindly following what I believe to be a morally corrupt, artificial, man made system, and a Muslim terrorist killing jews. After all, even if he feels that killing jews is morally wrong, he is told not to trust his own feelings and instead to follow what he's told. It is impossible for me to believe that if there is a god, that he intends for me to suspend my own intellect, my own feelings of right and wrong, and my own feeling of truth, simply because someone told me so. Why then give me the intellect? I davened for so many years that my doubts should go away, or that I should find the right rebbi to guide me. But it never happened. And at a certain point you can only do what you think is roght
right.
Bottom line - i agree that the torah does not allow you to respect our position. That's one of the reasons that I cannot fully respect judaism. I treat it with respect because I respect many of the people practicing it. But I do not have respect judaism itself.
I am saying that your instinctual, intellectual, and moral compass is severely misaligned. No, you should not follow Jesus and Mohammed. With a name like Levi Dayan, you are probably Jewish. Yes, it matters a lot.
Well I guess it's up to god to realign it then. I've tried my best and failed (though I no longer consider it a failure, I use this term based upon the predicate that God and the torah are real). And god knows I've asked for help through tears and pain and prayer. So at this point, if he's out there, the ball is in his court not mine. And if I ever meet him I'll tell him that
"....if there is a god, that he intends for me to suspend my own intellect, my own feelings of right and wrong, and my own feeling of truth, simply because someone told me so...."
It's not just God. Modern Chareidiland expects its adherents to replace 'God' with 'gedol' in your paragraph above. With their not more than about 100 year old concept of 'da'as torah'.
I don't know. And the vaad is not considered daas torah regardless. But I don't see why it matters. When I was in yeshiva, daas torah was a given. Life experience showed me that daas torah was bullshit. And so I began to think, well, if today's rabbis are mostly incompetent fools, or power hungry politicians, why should I think the rabbis of yesteryear were any different. And then why should I think that the gemara has any value, it was simply rabbis from thousands of years ago. At that point i began to see all of the mistakes amd morally questionable opinions in the gemara as further evidence that our religion was a very flawed man made system. And once rabbinic opinion lost its hold on me, I was open to rethink everything that I had been taught. It was only at this point that I began looking to sources outside of torah. And eventually came to the inescapable conclusion that all of torah was man made and in serious need of reevaluation. I then moved on to creationism, again going through arguments for and against. And I came to the very clear conclusion that the evidence for a singular conscious god who created everything and judges us and watches us does not exist. So... long story short... the first domino to fall was daas torah or emunas chachamim if you like that term better. It was all down hill from there.
Most intelligent adults don't accept 100% daas Torah. This is another example of how the public face of our society in no way reflects the inner beliefs of its members.
But that is nothing to do with kefirah. It's the opposite. The truth of Torah tells us that daas Torah is not really a thing.
I don't know how big your sample size is when you write 'most', but in Yeshivaland and Koleland the vast majority of intelligent adults absolutely do accept 100% da'as torah. True, they chose the 'da'as torah' their supports their particular agenda, but that's a different point.
I find it interesting that even though you consistently accuse non-believers of shallow and indeed malicious thinking, you make no actual attempt to engage with their actual, you know, thoughts. For example, non-believers may look at the fact that there is no archeological evidence whatsoever that the Exodus occurred, but some fairly strong evidence that Judaism is an indigenous religion that emerged out of Canaanite paganism. They conclude from this that the entire story of Mount Sinai and the reception of the Torah is a myth. You can dismiss all of that on purely religious grounds, saying that if the Torah says something, it must be true. But why do you insist that it's a shallow and malicious conclusion to reach? In my view, it very obviously isn't.
Huh. I neither said nor implied malicious. But it's bad thinking. Somebody who was brought up with the Torah, with the mitzvos, with a relationship with G-d, should not be swayed by the lack of archaeological evidence for the Exodus (not even true, by the way.) He should not interpret the evidence the way the non-Jewish or nonbelieving historians do. He should see the Torah as a national history book and treat the questions from archaeology as just that, questions. It would also do him well to realize that there are many believing archaeologists (in fact most digs have been performed by believers) who did not change their minds if they didn't find the evidence they expected.
You both said and implied malice: "You have no right to abandon this marriage. You are a bad person if you do so." You then say non-believers could be bad people "by mistake," but this is "highly unlikely."
So, you most definitely said that anyone who reaches conclusions about religion that you don't like is a bad person. For you to claim that you didn't say this is frankly astonishing. "Bad faith" doesn't even begin to describe such an argument.
You seem unable to grasp a rather simple thing: There are many people in the world, including Jews, who have concluded that the physical and metaphysical claims made by religion are not true. That is, what the Bible says happened didn't happen and what the Bible says happens doesn't happen. They haven't done so maliciously or out of a desire to indulge their vulgar appetites. They have reached this conclusion honestly and sincerely, and you are under at least some moral obligation to acknowledge that.
In the face of this, as a believer, you have two good options: a) engage with what they're saying and refute it or b) say that it's irrelevant to you and both believers and non-believers should mind their own business and leave each other alone.
You, however, choose a titanically bad option, which is to claim that non-believers are not just wrong, but are wrong because they're evil.
I'm sure you're comfortable with taking that position--which is, of course, your right--so I'll only say that if your ultimate desire is to persuade others and bring them over to your side, you're basically shooting yourself in the face.
Bad faith arguments are never very compelling and calling those who disagree with you horrible people is, to say the least, not going to rouse their sympathies.
What's bad faith is choosing one line of my post, and ignoring the rest where I explain that it's possible to be a bad person by mistake, and we should feel sorry for them.
I'm not sure why you have difficulty understanding the fact that many people can conclude wrongly, and make bad decisions based on these wrong conclusions. You probably have no problem understanding this when it comes to people who you consider on the wrong side of political debates or the wrong side of vaccine debates. I bet you don't respect their opinions, even though they will likewise tell you they reached their conclusion honestly and sincerely. This is exactly how we feel about those on the wrong side of the Torah debate.
I noted your "mistake" caveat and then noted that you say such situations are "highly unlikely." You choose to deny you said the latter even though it's in the same sentence as the former. There's your bad faith argument right there.
Your stated demand of non-believers is that they should do tshuva. In other words, they should submit to your beliefs and feel bad that they even contemplated doing otherwise. It's quite clear that you don't feel sorry for them in the least. In fact, you pretty obviously hate them.
Again, that's your right, but it's also absurd. It's one thing to hate people with contrary beliefs if they're actively hurting people. But the type of non-believers you're talking about almost always just want to live their lives without lying to themselves. You have no compelling reason whatsoever to hold them in such contempt.
Yes, and then you skip the rest of the sentence and next paragraph. Either lack of reading comprehension or laziness.
I don't demand they submit to my beliefs. I demand they submit to the their own former beliefs, which are also the beliefs of their family, community, parent, grandparents, ancestors, many of whom gave their lives for these beliefs. I demand they stop lying to themselves about who they are and feel pride in their heritage, rather than abandoning it in favor of the skepticism of foreign people.
Anybody reading this post in good faith would not come to the conclusion that there is any hatred here, the only hatred is coming from you.
So, you're admitting that you contradict yourself? Given that you clearly say the non-believers are bad people and only on very rare occasions become bad unintentionally, it's impossible to reach any other conclusion. Or perhaps you've changed your mind in the past 24 hours?
I don't see how you can engage in such scorched-earth rhetoric against an entire group of (innocent) people without hating them. Perhaps you think this is some kind of "tough love," but it strikes me as closer to "sadistic love."
I again find your reasoning absurd. The non-believers' former beliefs are precisely that: former. They no longer believe in them. Why on earth, then, should they submit to them? To do so would be to live a lie, and I think it's quite monstrous to demand that of anyone. Moreover, their former beliefs also happen to be your beliefs, which you would have me believe is some kind of random coincidence. That's clearly an argument in bad faith.
Jews can know who they are and feel pride in their heritage without living a hyper-orthodox lifestyle. If you do not believe this, then the overwhelming majority of the world's Jewish population are, in your eyes, bad Jews and presumably bad people. That is borderline insane.
Oh dear! I’m a believer in sacred history of the Exodus. But nothing in the BAR article presents any evidence of the Exodus.Conjecture, yes but no evidence.The stele is the oldest mention of Israel. But what does it mean, Israel is no more? What Israel did Menapath defeat? A nation? A person? W
Ho says it’s referring to Hebrews? As for the cities, it proves the Genesis author
Was familiar with Egyptian cities. And we know the antiquity of Genesis. But again, the Exodus narrative is not just about slaves building houses, it’s about God’s intervention and all that went with it. The evidence of which is zero.
We have zero archaeological evidence for most wars and migrations of the ancient world. Not reasonable to especially demand that for specific events in the Exodus.
The Exodus occurred C 1300 BCE from the largest empire the world had ever known, There are thousands and thousands of extant material from this period including wars and migrations. Zero about any events of the Exodus.
I mean that your reasoning is very erroneous. If somebody believes something untrue and acts upon that belief to break the law, his reasoning is not a defense.
Okay I understand a little better. It depends on why they believe an untruth and what crime it is.
But rules of law have a lot of policy reasons that determine how to think about things. When it comes to brute epistemology, shouldn’t a sound reasoning be a good defense even if someone get it wrong?
It the author implied that most people born religious and then became a non believer is likely doing so without justification and not like a Tinok Shenishba.
> "However, at the same time, it’s also important to mention that it’s possible for somebody to be a bad person by mistake. There is a well known passage in the Chazon Ish (1878-1953) which states that the non-religious of his day had a status of תינוקת שנשבו (children that were raised in non-Jewish captivity). Although it’s highly unlikely that this applies to somebody who was raised religious and leaves the faith, there is no doubt that the influence of secular society is more pernicious now than in previous generation. "
The last sentence is unclear, as he accedes to the point that outside influence is more pernicious today, yet still indicates that it's unlikely the label tinok shenishba applies.
Personally, I think it would, in a great majority of cases. Certainly it would in cases where boys are raised frum but exposed to things like pornogragphy early in teenage years, which would erode their fundamental moral, spiritual and emotional makeup to the point where even as young adults they're worldview would be seriously, perhaps morbidly, handicapped.
Likewise for those not exposed to intellectual pursuits such as Biblical Criticism or biology, who are then exposed to these ideas which are very attractively marketed by modern society, but in reality (imo) whose conclusions are not as dry cut as portrayed, and are essentially seduced by them - I think the label tinok shenishba would be appropriate.
I’m curious what the author thinks. I got the feeling from the post that religious turned nonbelievers almost always do not have justification and are not Tinok Shenishba.
The whole paragraph about breaking the covenant is very strange to me and I don’t understand the point of that paragraph. Obviously nonbelievers don’t believe in the covenant, so I’m wondering why it should have epistemic weight.
I completely agree with what you wrote that it is ridiculous to say that people should keep Yom Kippur "like others keep Christmas". It does indicate that the writer is unfortunately a confused soul (who has deep grievances against the Yiddishkeit he was raised with). The 'skeptics' too don't seem to understand what he wants from them.
However, your post too seems confusing to me.
I think the real topic should we be discussing is whether Yiddishkeit is primarily a 'relationship' (as discussed in the substack that Ash restacked) or is it primarily cold logic.
On the one hand, you seem to emphasize that it is simply cold logic. On the other hand, you emphasized the covenant etc. which only has meaning in the terms of viewing Yiddishkeit as a relationship, not as simply cold logic. Additionally, the explanation you gave for the Yeshivish-Charedi system (which I pretty much agree with) seems to be clearly emphasizing only the relationship aspect.
As to the Chazal which mb mentioned (and I mentioned in a comment on Ash's substack), I would like to quote the words of the Mesilas Yesharim (פרק ה).
אם הוא עוסק בתורה בראותו דרכיה, ציוויה ואזהרותיה, הנה סוף סוף מאליו יתחדש בו התעוררות שיביאהו אל הדרך הטוב. והוא מה שאמרו ז"ל (פתיחתא דאיכה רבתי): הלואי, אותי עזבו ותורתי שמרו, שהמאור שבה מחזירו למוטב.
To me this indicates that Yiddishkeit is not primarily cold logic but rather a relationship, and the best way of establishing and maintaining that relationship is בראותו דרכיה, ציוויה ואזהרותיה, i.e., by recognizing the beauty of the 'culture' of the Torah, not through cold historical research.
I assume this is really what Ash was aiming at, though he did a horrible job expressing himself.
I am especially perplexed by this part "The covenant with G-d that is the Torah can be likened to a marriage. You can’t just wake up one day and declare your wife doesn’t exist and walk away from the marriage etc. You have no right to abandon this marriage. You are a bad person if you do so."
True (and there are pesukim that compare the rebellion in God to infidelity), but only if your focus is truly on viewing Judaism as a marriage relationship and I think that was Ash's main point.
What would you say about a marriage in which the husband gives his wife a speech every day about how terrible it would be if she left him? Is that a real marriage relation? That was clearly how Ash felt about this upbringing.
I reiterate that I do think Ash's post was misleading as it made it sound like he wishes for a cross between Christianity (singing about love and peace for all) and ethno-nationalism.
But I think his heart is in the right place. It is hard for me to say the same about this post.
I never meant that Yiddishkeit is only established through cold historical research. Obviously, if Hashem would have taken us out of Egypt and then said "You're on your own from now, I will not be watching over you or protecting you and want nothing to do with you anymore, just keep the mitzvos or else", then Judaism wouldn't have survived for a day. Clearly the Torah is about a constant relationship. But where the nonbelievers *claim* they are coming from is that they don't believe the relationship started in the first place. In fact they may not even believe in G-d. And so any sense of relationship they felt growing up they now attribute to brainwashing or nostalgia or coincidence. I think it's important to negate that opinion.
"I reiterate that I do think Ash's post was misleading as it made it sound like he wishes for a cross between Christianity (singing about love and peace for all) and ethno-nationalism."
I've read the post a number of times and sent it to friends and many were pretty shocked by that claim or possibility. However you are the second or third to make that claim, so I suspect some of the fault certainly lays with me.
Just noticed this comment and I do feel that I should apologize.
On the one hand, I think I was the only commenter on your post who understood your intention from the beginning. But perhaps that understanding sharpened my disappointment at the turn you talk to sound like you want Yiddishkeit to be just matza balls, latkes and kumzitz's with secular Jews and I guess the mitzvos too for those who choose. After all, this is Judaism.
I don't think you really feel this way but I think your intense feelings against Charedism are causing to react emotionally and you seem to be heading almost to become another Slifkin. I wish you would stick only to constructive criticism with ideas for how to enact specific changes. I also wish you would acknowledge clear and often that what Charedism has accomplished in terms of the retention rate, fertility rate, marriage rate and low divorce rate is simply astonishing and there is no comparison in the entire world. I don't think we can make any progress at change unless we accept this as the baseline.
>I also wish you would acknowledge clear and often that what Charedism has accomplished in terms of the retention rate, fertility rate, marriage rate and low divorce rate is simply astonishing and there is no comparison in the entire world. I don't think we can make any progress at change unless we accept this as the baseline.
This is very important. I have said a few times I don't want to change the culture, merely some beliefs. I should make a post about why Chareidim are awesome (and why I am one too!)
As someone who grew up in a yeshivish community and has since lost my faith, I find your complete lack of empathy and understanding to be incredibly hurtful.
The notion that those of us who have departed from religious Judaism have "no right" to do so is simply untenable. You act as if we are bound by some unbreakable covenant, when the reality is that I and many others have come to the sincere conclusion that the Torah is not divinely revealed truth. This was not some hasty decision made after "5 seconds on Wikipedia." It came after years of deep questioning, study, and grappling with the challenges to traditional beliefs. I engaged extensively with rabbis, both yeshivish and modern orthodox, and even spoke with Orhodox Bible scholars and philosophers, and ultimately found the arguments for Orthodox Judaism unconvincing.
Yet you dismiss our journeys as mere "fooling ourselves" and the product of being "sheltered children." What an insult to the intellectual honesty and integrity of those like myself who have struggled mightily with these issues. You really have the audacity to compare our sincere doubts to the delusions of the mentally ill? You missed your calling as a mesivta mashgiach ruchani where these fiery shmuessin would find an appropriate audience of naive bochurim.
The fact that you view any questioning or dissent as illegitimate rather than an opportunity for serious engagement is deeply problematic. If the yeshivish world wants to stem the tide of those departing the faith, it would do well to approach this issue with more humility, nuance and intellectual honesty.
I'm sorry if I hurt you. I promise I have nothing but sympathy for you. But I can't respect your opinions. And frankly, I don't see how you can demand respect from me or anyone else. Respect as a human being, yes. Of your opinions, no. The fact that you may have spent years getting entrenched in your error doesn't impress me. If your substack is representative, I don't see anything there deeper than what you can get from 5 seconds on Wikipedia. Yes, you have fooled yourself. I don't view questioning as illegitimate. I view your conclusions as illegitimate.
He deserves to be hurt.
I’ve read your article. Honestly, I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry. It’s layered with certainty, dripping with authority, but it misses something fundamental: understanding. Not of the Torah, the Bris, or even the community, but of the people. The ones you dismiss as “dolt[s] with a laptop.” The ones you think have no right to walk away.
Let’s talk about the emperor’s new clothes. Everyone praises the invisible clothes because they’ve been told only fools can’t see them. Then one child dares to speak the truth: the emperor is naked.
That’s what it felt like for me. Growing up, I believed. I really did. I saw the emperor’s clothes, admired their beauty, praised their craftsmanship. Until one day, I didn’t. I looked closer, and what had seemed glorious unraveled in my hand. It wasn’t rebellion. It wasn’t laziness or naivety. It was honesty.
Now imagine being told, that despite seeing the truth, you are required to continue bowing to the emperor. To pretend. To say the words. Perform the rituals. Wear the mask. Why? Because it’s tradition? Because I stood under a chuppah I no longer believe was real?
You call this marriage. But what is a marriage without reciprocity, without presence? If I’m the only one showing up, it isn’t a relationship - it’s theater. Staying in a marriage like that doesn’t make you loyal; it makes you dishonest. And dishonesty isn’t holiness.
You talk about gaslighting. You claim we do it to you, dismissing your answers out of hand. But what do you call telling someone their questions don’t exist? That their doubts are just a sickness? That they’ve been seduced by “a quick survey of Wikipedia” and secular academics? You invalidate the journey, then act surprised when people walk away.
Doubt isn’t a sickness. It’s a symptom of caring deeply enough to ask hard questions. And yes, the answers matter. If they didn’t, we wouldn’t bother searching for them.
You write, “[They] have no right to abandon the Torah.” No right? Respectfully, you don’t get to decide that. Choice is fundamental to being human, even according to the Torah (וּבָחַרְתָּ בַּחַיִּים / הכל בידי שמים חוץ מיראת שמים / רשות לכל אדם נתונה) Free will is the foundation of everything. To deny someone the right to choose differently isn’t Torah - it’s tyranny.
You claim we left because we were naive and sheltered. But what about the people who weren’t naive? The ones who knew shas cold, who got smicha, who spent a decade in kollel, and still walked away? Do they fit neatly into your narrative? Or is it easier to dismiss them as broken too?
You say we deserve patience and love but no respect. That’s not how empathy works. Empathy isn’t about tolerating someone’s pain while holding onto disdain. It’s about stepping into their shoes, even if you disagree with where they walked. You don’t have to respect my conclusions to respect me as a person. But if you can’t even do that, what are we talking about?
My blog wasn’t written to tear down your world. It’s a lifeline for people like me - people trying to navigate the tension between two worlds. People who love their families and communities but can no longer make themselves believe. It’s a space to be seen, without judgment, without masks.
You say there’s no solution for nonbelievers except teshuva. Maybe. But teshuva starts with truth. And for us, the truth begins with admitting the emperor is naked. To deny that would be the real betrayal - not of you, not of the Torah, but of ourselves.
My point is that you have deluded yourself. You may very well have gotten to the point where you think you are the only the honest one. But why in the world should I or anybody else respect your point of view? How is this a legitimate demand? Did I ever demand that you or any other atheist/agnostic respect mine? Your comment about the emperors clothes sure doesn't demonstrate any respect. This doesn't mean I can't sympathize with you. I walked in your shoes. I had the same questions as you did. But questions are not a reason to reject your covenant with G-d. I don't invalidate your journey, but your destination.
I wrote that I don't believe the characters existed, and here we have exhibit No. 1.
Exit 98 claims to have been a successful learner, a lamdan no less. Yet he can claim a right to discard the covenant because of bechira. He even quotes a possuk that disproves him, where the Torah tells us clearly which choice to make, yet can misconstrue the conclusion in such a spectacular fashion.
I don't know if such people exist, or what their motivations really are, but these are not the successful lamdanim from Yeshivos.
That has nothing to do with being a lamdan, which is a matter of intellect, not obligation.
His mistake in the translation of the possuk and the understanding of the concept of bechira is so glaring, that his claim to being a successful talmid of yeshivos seems pretty hollow.
Sounds like the drifter who did nothing but count the days until he could get married and have his own shiny new car, smartphone, wife, and starter home. Doesn't sound like someone who used his time productively. Which is kind of the point. He is attempting to make the claim that the questions are not a product of his failure in other parts of life, when the reality seems to be different.
Not that it makes a difference, just to his credibility and honesty. When the claim is that their lack of faith is a product of honest searching, this shows him up.
Nah. I’ve learned in Yeshivos, plenty of good ones. I spent time in Kollel, and dare I say it, I “know how to learn.” (Which is itself an almost mythical concept perpetuated in yeshivos to hold people down). And the fact that he used that possuk to cutely frame what he was trying to say tells me absolutely nothing about whether he was a lamdan or not. And the honest truth is that your use of it to discredit him just makes you look like you’re full of shit yourself.
It's a creative reinterpretation which strays front he original meaning. Kofrim would say the same about chazal's interpretation of "עין תחת עין". Once the pesukim are written, they are used to make all sorts of points not beholden to the Authors original intent.
>>>But why in the world should I or anybody else respect your point of view?
Because our position makes sense and yours is based on authority and wishful thinking, which is the very definition of delusion. You want Orthodoxy to be true. You want there to be a Torah and a god because it would fit so nicely into the ideas you've been raised to embrace. But there's nothing there. Not only does the emperor have no clothes...there's no emperor.
Respect needs to be earned, but there's no there there. According to the view that religion is made up, none of what you're saying is compelling. You're making threats and you're making demands, but it's all so frivolous to the OTD.
It's like threatening that if the OTD don't meet your demands and recant their evil ways, then Santa won't visit, or he will but he'll give out coal. And the OTD responds "your Santa doesn't exist!" That's literally what this is. You telling the OTD community that they need to apologize or else they'll be in big trouble, but your entire framework only matters and means anything if it's true, which is the thing OTD denies.
Then you have my apology. Thank you for clarifying
And I apologize for any offense I caused!
Yeshivaland doesn't 'do people'. It only 'does seforim'. The human element is completely missed by kollel type people, going l'chumrah in every possible matter, unless they want to do/not do the said matter, in which case it's fine.
Here's a parody of this article written by a friend of mine who is a prominent member of the OTD community.
There’s been a lot of chatter between me and the three anonymous friends I have on the internet, and if you extrapolate from the sample, that’s the whole world. They’ve been talking about this phenomena of Jews leaving the fold. Now you might think this has just started today, but it has actually been going on for almost 25 years! Ever since the internet came out. These dolts went out to a bunch of electrons seeking answers. Fools. Everyone knows the answers to the questions simply aren’t out there. You can think about it from today to tomorrow, and not a thing will make sense. It’s because you are looking in the wrong direction! Don’t look out there! Look inwardly. That’s where the answer is. Away from all that, what do you call it again… Oh ya, data.
In some cases, when people have doubts, they leave their communities, which is a cruel move, causing untold harm to their wives, children, and extended family on many levels (I use the male perspective here because we are talking about going off for pseudointellectual reasons, and women don’t trouble themselves with such things. Also, I am too chaste to consider a woman for non sexual reasons). Or they stay in their communities and live a double life, which is a cruel move, causing untold harm to their wives, children and extended families on many levels. Or they keep following halacha, using their frumkeit as a trojan horse, infecting the community with their poisonous hashkafas, which is a cruel move, causing untold harm…
So the question is, as I ask myself every day, is should I respect others?
The answer, raboisai, is a resounding no!
I mean sure, if you mean pitying, I’m on board. There are a lot of people who are nebach afflicted with questions, and doubts, and other weaknesses. But respect? Respect is a tall order. Respect means accepting that my peers are intelligent. That they are considered. That the things they do and think are because of their experiences they have had, and that they responded to those experiences in an intelligent, appropriate and healthy way. I think the reason why people throw the word respect around is because they don’t think about all it entails. It’s not a walk in the park. You have to fully humanize someone. And that’s not something I throw around lightly.
To accept their position, think of the absurd premises we have to accept. First, to even get into the question of “should I choose to be religious?” you have to assume that there is a choice! Hellooooooo! Have you ever heard of Bris milah? Bris ben habasarim? Indiana Jones and the Ark of the COVENANT? Because we made a deal. You may not remember it. It was in your former lives. But a lot of them. You signed off on it in at least 6 former lives. Nowadays we don’t do the paperwork. Just a quick signature to dot the i’s and snip the foreskins.
Let’s say you treated your wife like this. One day she burns the soup, and you just walk away? What kind of psychopath or amorah would do that? It’s obvious that you can’t just turn your back when things don’t go your way. Would you divorce your wife simply because you don’t see her? Because your friends all tell you she’s imaginary? Because she gives you the silent treatment when you take antipsychotics? Of course not! That would make you a bad person.
Now not all bad people are the same. While many twiddle their thumbs in their pork lairs and say “I’m such an aveirah boy”, some people are actually bad by accident. I know, it’s hard to believe, but these people are trying to do the right thing. We have a concept of a tinok shenishba, a baby who was kidnapped by pirates as a child and was raised with no knowledge of his judaism. In today’s world, where information is everywhere, we have the same problem. In the first case, the child has no information about his upbringing, and in the second, he has such good information that the information he has from his upbringing seems like nothing in comparison. Using a talmudic lens, you can see that these situations, while on the outside are different, are functionally identical.
This is especially dangerous for yeshivish individuals, who, due to their restrictive lifestyles, are unprepared to deny any information that comes their way. Ironically, it is their act of denying everything that makes them so vulnerable when a piece of information gets through. These people think they are intellectuals, but they are really naive. They believed everything we told them, about the Torah, about aggaditah, and even midrashim. Ya. They believed it so hard that they questioned it, challenged it, and assessed it; the three cornerstones of naivety!
Gaslighting
Some people think gaslighting is the slow, intentional manipulation of an individual to get them to doubt their internal sensors and experience in favour of an outside source. These people are crazy. What gaslighting actually means is not giving people enough attention. So I want to address that.
First of all, it’s true that we shut down answers, and don’t really have Rabbis prepared for questions. But that’s the point! If we don’t have the answers to questions, and no one in our community does, and we don’t even prioritize it in case anyone might, then there must not be real questions! So that’s the first thing I want you to understand. When you have a question, and you see that our system is set up to tell you that that shouldn’t be the case, maybe you should rethink if your question is really valid. Really worth taking up other people’s space and time.
Another thing to think about is that the Torah is so complex, you need to keep your thoughts on it 24/7. So if you are thinking about what’s wrong with it, of course you are going to find problems! You took your eye off the ball! I don’t know how you think you can have a rational discourse if your starting point is not giving the Torah the attention it requires.
Now some people say this is brainwashing, but that’s an ad hominem attack. This is when you attack the person instead of the argument, and ummm, the Torah is a person. So all attacks on it are ad hominen. Ya, that’s right. Even when I use the philosophers lingo, it still seems to always show I’m right.
And then on top of that, we DO have rabbis who have answers to these things. And how do you think the atheists reply? Oh, we’re not convinced. What does evolution have to do with throwing up a deck of cards? Have you ever read a science book? Absurd. Disgusting. With such an impenetrable wall of rejections, who is really doing the gaslighting here, I ask you?
So, with all this myriad of reasons why you were wrong before you even began to think, how is it even possible for you to be gaslit?
(This is where the article I am parodying ends. There is no section on cultural Judaism. Why am I even mentioning it if it doesn’t exist? That’s a great question. I think Rashi asks your question. Well, Rashi is talking about why there are grapes on a vine, but if you really listen, you will find the answer to your question. No, I can’t explain it to you. Part of the beauty of the Torah is you have to go on this journey yourself. What do you mean, it doesn’t seem to answer your question? Are you sure you understood your own question? I’ll tell you what. Think about it for a while, and when you get to the end of the Torah and you still find it unanswered, come back and we’ll figure it out then. And by figure it out, I mean tell you the Torah has no end and chuckle. There. Does that solve your problem?)
I hope he used ChatGPT, because I hate to think that somebody wasted time on such a boring and unfunny parody.
Don't be a sore loser man. You spent your time writing what you like to write and he did the same. He just did a much better job
He did not use chatGPT.
I don't know if it's funny, but it does a great job highlighting the ridiculousness of your post. As another friend commented, this parody is almost indistinguishable from the original.
"So the question is, as I ask myself every day, is should I respect others?"
Notice how he conflated rejecting his heresy with disrespecting others. Meaning, that the only way to be a person who respects others is to accept every narishkite in the world as equally valid as the Torah.
Wow. Demolished him. Ouch!
https://substack.com/@simonfurst/note/c-80965017
Hi Simon. I appreciate that you took the time to write that comment. I am sorry that you were offended. But I am speaking the truth. You write that people who go off do so out of strong internal convictions, and are deserving of respect for that. I don't think you really believe that anybody who does anything out of strong internal convictions or all opinions that are strongly held are worthy of respect. You almost certainly agree that certain strong internal convictions are contemptible. Why, in that very comment you called my "fundamentalist" religion "evil", and that it "really really sucks" while in the same breath complaining that I call those who go off "bad people". So it's hard to believe this is really a principle that you stand strongly by. My point was that you and your peers are making serious errors that are taking you very far from the most important truths and that your conclusions are not worthy of respect.
They are two separate issues and I was careful not to mix them.
One issue is the condescending attitude towards our intellectual journeys, which is based off of a caricature of what that journey looks like, and has no relation to what the ramifications of the beliefs are. That is always deserving of the recognition of the work and strength used to get there.
The second is the position you espoused that we are inherently 'bad'. That is a label I would apply to many ideologies, and the reason why I don't apply it to skeptics is because I don't believe it is actually bad. This is my position as a skeptic and I share this position with many believers. I also view your position to the contrary as dangerous and harmful. I could try to debate you on religious grounds (by appealing g to the Jewish sources that promote an alternative position), or I. Secular grounds (by appealing to moral principles or by showing you the effects of such an ideology) or through trying to disprove your faith itself. However, I don't feel I have the right to argue from a religious perspective, and I'm not interested and will not be successful at convincing frum.people to abandon their faith, so all I can do is relate my experience, say how much I hate this position, and hope people will be more understanding.
That just sounds like rules for thee and not for me. You can say whatever you want about many ideologies that you think are bad, you can call my community's ideology "evil", but I shouldn't dare show disrespect for your ideology.
I'll be very honest here. If someone truly believes that atheism is equally evil to murder or close I have nothing to tell them in response. I might try to simply expose them to other kinds of people which would subtly change their attitude, but I can't argue without arguing on the actual belief (which doesn't necessarily mean defending atheism, rather simply defending a more tolerant theology).
However, my starting point here is that I don't view skepticism that way. This is comparable to the way you would approach a rabid antisemite or a Muslim jihadist (this is not to say that frum people want to kill us, I'm just giving the comparison for the sake of the analogy). You have nothing to tell them without changing their belief, but you don't grant validity to their POV as something you will tolerate. You will continue to see what they are doing as bad.
Now, I understand that this can just as well be flipped on me to defend intolerance towards the OTD community. Therefore I cannot argue for tolerance, I can merely beg for it, and I hope (and for a large part think) that frum people can develop more tolerant attitudes towards us, and many already do.
From my perspective, this intolerance is evil. If it isn't from yours, that won't stop me from condemning it. If you will do the same towards me, we then have irreconcilable differences. But hopefully some people will heed our pleas and allow for some reconciliation.
When I was talking about respect for our journey, that is a separate discussion. You can abhorr our conclusions all you want, but that's not a reason to present the process falsely. That seems like a tactic to defend your beliefs through attacking those that disagree with you, which usually is coming from an insecurity in your own belief.
However, the main point is what I said above. We want to be at least tolerated, hopefully respected, and possibly celebrated. Every time you take that away from us it is a stab in the chest.
I think I was pretty clear in the post that we should tolerate the nonbelievers.
Derech agav, about your first sentence, I would point out that many (maybe most?) people don't find murder to be so terrible https://www.reddit.com/r/healthcare/comments/1h6h3ls/unitedhealth_ceo_shot_dead_outside_new_york/ What do you think? Should we respect such opinions? Or merely tolerate the people who hold them?
I'm not sure what I said that makes you think I'm promoting tolerating harmful positions.
Either way, your post promotes two things: a condescending attitude to the intellect of those that disagree with you, and a perspective which near completely negates the value of OTD people. We are bad and inexcusable even if you might not blame us for all that. While I commend such an approach with regards to jihadists, murderers, or viscous antisemitism, I abhor such an approach on the basis of religious differences. (My rule is that if your harming society, society shouldn't tolerate you l, but if you're not harming society, we should accept our differences.)
"One issue is the condescending attitude towards our intellectual journeys, which is based off of a caricature of what that journey looks like, and has no relation to what the ramifications of the beliefs are. That is always deserving of the recognition of the work and strength used to get there."
Why? If you're a standard westerner and especially a standard academic as you probably are intellectually you'd probably have to confront extreme discomfort to come to the conclusion that eg. there's racial differences in IQ which are genetic in origin. One can acknowledge that without praising the conclusion or having any respect for it in any way and Happy himself acknowledged the pain that comes with abandoning the faith. Are you expecting high accolades for confronting that discomfort or something?
"The second is the position you espoused that we are inherently 'bad'. "
This is not a position he espoused. Happy was מאריך on how we can't necessarily assume that people embrace bad conclusions because of a bad streak or something. Regardless, from his point of view it's still bad. He wasn't calling you specifically or even skeptics in general bad as people. You are not just your conclusions.
See my reply to happy.
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/how-to-relate-to-nonbelievers/comment/81127321?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=45kjth
My biggest problem with this piece is how you don't leave these nonbelievers any good options for life. You readily admit that leaving their community can be extremely difficult and cruel on their families. But also say it's wrong for them to stay in the community and continue to keep halacha without believing. So what option is left?
It seems like you're saying: "You have to believe (be'emuna shlaima?!). Stop not believing!"
Doesn't that strike you as a ridiculous position?
I think I made it clear that this is really addressed to believers. As far as how I would address the nonbelievers themselves as long as they are obstinately entrenched in their error, I would say they should continue to live in their community and try to keep their sins private. Which is very different than telling them their viewpoint is valid. See my comment to Exit 98 here https://exit98.substack.com/p/the-unchosen-path/comment/79655149
"On the other hand, there are some who have studied the relevant topics and are actually qualified to respond."
Who? I'm curious. The only Chareidi person who I know who has considered these questions seriously is R Yitzchok Breitowitz, and he is ok with possibilities others consider kefira.
I personally have found very strong answers in the works of R Jonathan Sacks, R Joshua Berman, and dare I say it, R Natan Slifkin. I have also spent a long time on this subject myself, and while you attack my faith as "conflicted", and while at one point it indeed was, that was only before I found these answers. Those answers restored my faith, yet they are dismissed by the vast majority of the yeshivish world as kefira.
(I do admit that I am conflicted as to how exactly halacha works and whether it should be updated, but I have complete faith that the Torah was given to Moshe Rabeinu by Hashem and was intended to convert the world from idolatry to Judaism and that there was an oral tradition accompanying it. I am in no way conflicted about those facts).
Finally, and this is no fault of yours but of mine, many people were confused about my main point, which means i did not express it clearly enough. I am in no way saying the Torah should only be a culture. I am saying is that we should live it as a culture AS WELL. The closest example of what I was thinking of is the Sephardi world, were there are many levels of observance yet everyone is connected. I would like the Ashkenazi world to follow that worldview instead of being so focused on boundaries. Yet no one would accuse the Sephardim of only believing the Torah as a culture.
Only Rabbi Breitowitz? What about me? What am I? Chopped liver? What about Rabbi Neugroschel? Remember, you don't have to like his answers. You can even argue with them. But you can't deny he looked into it seriously. What about Rabbi Inbal, who is a much more open minded as well as much more knowledgeable than Rabbi Neugroschel? He has some answers that some might consider kefira. What about Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan? What about Andrew Goldfinger?
Thanks for clarifying your main point! That sounds more reasonable.
At least chopped liver doesn't think it's anything more than chopped liver. You on the other hand....
You're chopped liver, based on your archology mocking post (which was pretty funny tbh, but hardly a serious answer). R Inbal is great. R Aryeh Kaplan was the first to suggest the mythical approach I like, but he never published it.
The January sixth post?
That was hilarious
It was! But didn't actually address any issues seriously.
If you mean his approach to 6 days of creation, its in immortality resurrection, and age of the universe. Though I know it was first just a lecture at a university. Are you referring to something else?
He wrote an unpublished pdf on evolution and the torah. https://kavvanah.blog/2019/10/24/aryeh-kaplan-on-evolution-a-missing-chapter-of-the-handbook-of-jewish-thought/
Interesting. I've seen this in other books (I cant remember the title or author now but I have seen this on my ravs desk.)
I guess Rabbi Kaplan didn't publish it because he changed his opinion in the late 70's, like the article says. (I always was wondering if the one who writes Rabbi Kaplan retracted was dishonest, but I see now he just confused it with this.)
I am curious if you understand the implications of saying that we should just emulate the Sefardim. Do you want this https://exit98.substack.com/p/the-unchosen-path/comment/79587777 ? (only 1 kosher butcher for 100k people).
The fact that many Sefardim are doing a lot better now is to a large extent due to Ashkenazi influence, and I would argue that considering all Ashkenazi Jewry went through the last 200 years and their incredible recovery in the last 75 years (so there are now more frum Ashkenazis than Sefardim) the Ashkenazim did an incredible job.
I agree that we have a lot to learn from Sefardim but I think our community has a point too.
I, quite frankly, don't believe that comment
I’m so happy you wrote this article….in my eyes you have essentially discredited your entire post history, thanks for showing your true colors. ❤️
By being religious?
If you consider this post religious or having any coherence as it relates to traditional Jewish conceptions of the world, you got some learning to do my friend
I don't understand. Do you think, from a religious standpoint, that we should encourage skepticism? Given the number of smart people who are going OTD being that the subject matter is quite complex, is it wrong for us to just try to use our hand in chinuch to promote our truth, the one which has been with us for thousands of years? I think we need some kind of adult continuation of out chinuch where we learn to acclimate and ground ourselves, but what about this article is wrong from a religious perspective?
Jerry, he is one of the nonbelievers, as if that wasn't obvious enough, see here https://simonfurst.substack.com/p/the-clash-of-eras-historical-consciousness/comment/69424650 yet he presumes to lecture you about "traditional Jewish conceptions of the world"
Read my next article 😉
https://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=21013&hilit=%D7%AA%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%91%D7%95%D7%AA+%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%9D+%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%95
https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1AP7_0tieJf3DjkG_rsiPmPYBIn0A-Plb_AiDJFz7JE8/mobilebasic
I must say this guy really gets it best.
https://substack.com/@postkahanism/note/c-81318091?
And this
https://substack.com/@postkahanism/note/c-81170075
I am an a proudly observant jew, yet I find your article self righteous and shortsighted. Many people that leave orthodoxy, or religion altogether did so precisely because the way many frum people relate to doubts and questionings is exactly like you do: by insulting, humiliating and also, saying nothing of substance. You spent most of your article describing people that leave orthodoxy as dumb, irrational, weak and bad. Instead of asking yourself how we should relate to "such people" (as if they're a thing), you should endeavor to understand what made them leave, and find the answers to those questions. Personally, I'm not afraid to ask questions because I am certain of my beliefs and faith, I've done the work and faced my
doubts. But precisely because of that I have the integrity to respect their journey to truth. And if I ever a "non believer" speaks to me, I can listen without insulting, because I do not feel threatened. If you really feel strongly about the subject ( the phenomenon of people leaving frum judaism) maybe try to understand it better.
You might be proudly observant, but you should learn to read. If you would have read the post, you would have seen that I addressed doubts and questioning and said that there is nothing wrong with that, and I admitted that our community has a problem dealing with them.
The truth is, I had a hard time understanding who the article was addressed to. You addressed your perceived reasons for WHY they have doubts, didn't seem to tackle actual questions of emuna. But I guess if you are addressing people that are interacting with people that left, not actually the people that left, it makes more sense. Still I feel like people that are in "danger" of having their own משבר אמוני by interacting with people that already have doubts (which seems to be your intended audience) they probably already have doubt themselves, just haven't expressed them. In such a case, saying that non believers were the most "naive of their peers in yeshiva and mindlessly drank in any and everything their rabbis said..." will not help your case. (Besides the fact that it's a gross misrepresentation of "non believers". I have met a few of them, and most of them were most definitely NOT naive, in fact many were too smart and asked too many questions for which they were ridiculed. The saddest part is that THERE ARE ANSWERS to most questions)
You also mention that our community as issues addressing questions of faith, yet instead of really addressing the issue, you say it is a "testament to the resilience of our religious education" and that tipically such challenges are "not so serious in the first place, and there isn't much demand for professional in that area". There's a few more examples. To be sure, I don't entirely disagree with your point, there is no need to respect another person's opinion if you don't see value in it. But you can always respect the person that espouses them. And your article, though we'll written, uses non-believers' perceived questions to insult their intelligence and weak moral character, instead of trying to understand where they're coming from. But then again, you are probably not addressing them. But it seems futile to.me to address the believers.
It was addressed to believers. It's important to address the believers so that they don't think the nonbelievers have the moral upper hand. My argument is that abandoning the Torah is erroneous and is a moral failing, no matter if they think they are right.
I guess we have different experiences with nonbelievers, which shouldn't be surprising. In any case the passage about their naivety was intended as a limud zechus for the nonbelievers and a frank statement about the problems with our educational system. I accept your criticism that I insulted the intelligence of many intelligent nonbelievers. However, I do understand very well where they are coming from, as I have researched their questions/objection and many others they have probably not thought of. Obviously, I can't write a post addressing every single question on the Torah. But I have addressed some of the nonbelievers on their own blogs see these https://apikorsus.substack.com/p/when-did-the-exodus-happen, https://simonfurst.substack.com/p/is-torah-shbaal-peh-from-sinai-and, https://simonfurst.substack.com/p/is-torah-shbaal-peh-from-sinai-and-e5b, https://simonfurst.substack.com/p/is-torah-shbaal-peh-from-sinai-and-5f3 . I also addressed some aspects of Biblical Criticism here https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/why-the-chumash-is-not-written-like and gave my own suggestion for some of the chronological problems involving the Mabul https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/i/102879527/my-novel-reinterpretation-attempt. Also see my comments here https://daastorah.substack.com/p/a-new-chareidi-book-promotes-the-1e0
Got it, your article makes more sense to me now. Though I do think we as believers should do a better job of understanding our own position without being afraid of theirs. And I think that's what you were trying to do with your article. I guess I disagreed with the nature of our position vis a vis non believers. I'll have a look at your other articles later in the week
I will add two more things and then I will retire myself from the conversation (I don't even know how I ended here to begin with)
1) for the author: the point of your article was to remind believers that non believers don't have the moral upper hand. From your article and subsequent conversations here I will assume that by that you mean that non believers don't have the INTELLECTUAL upper hand. The thing is, whoever thinks non believers have the intellectual upperhand may be right. I don't see how this should be a problem, but If this bothers someone, then it is only because that someone probably wants to be more educated and intellectual. If that is the case then that someone probably needs to go and study some philosophy and get more educated,שידע מה להשיב -לעצמו
2) for non believers or doubters on this chat: every one's journey is different and I don't pretend to understand your journey, but I will share a little bit of mine, in case it helps someone.
I had my first serious doubts on the existence of God while still in high school (Bais Yaacov), fortunately, my father studied philosophy in university,is very educated in general and in Torah specifically, and he has alot of intellectual integrity. Even so, it took me a few months to approach him with my questions. I honestly don't remember most of his answers (some I do, mostly about the truth of Judaism over other religions) but what I remember the most was his smile. Almost like he was expecting it, like it's a rite of passage. I think to this day, that's what reassured me the most about God's existence. Still, it took me about a year and half for the doubts to start fading away. And let no one tell you that your doubts only come from doing aveiros. I was very careful with shmiras hamitzvos, and I can tell you it was a very intellectual pursuit. And YET...today my relationship with God is purely relational and emotional ( i am 15 years away removed from my doubts). I don't have the inkling of a doubt. Can I answer everyone's intellectual questions? No. And most answers are anyways not fullproof. Why am I saying this? Because even though many doubts might start as intellectual doubts, the answers may not lie solely there. I will admit that as a woman, we may have more regard for the relational and emotional, but maybe some of you may anyway find answers were you never thought to look; your own life experience.
Wishing everyone a clear and non torturous journey to the truth. (And the right people to answer your questions too)
This is a stunning comment. Wow.
Thanks for this beautiful comment. Your father sounds like a special person. I would love to be such a father to my daughters.
It looks to me like you are making my point from your perspective.
When your father smiled and gave you the impression that the answers were there, the questions were not able to remove you from that trust you had in the process. Once you trusted, you could hear the answers and appreciate them.
As I wrote a few times, once people trust, they understand the answers. It is the lack of trust that make the questions so all-encompassing and disturbing.
The trust isn't based on the answers, but is strengthened after the answers arrive.
Very well said. I could have written this myself. (That is the highest compliment possible ;))
The recent substacks seem to me an attempt to create a reality. The characters are not believable and the idea seems to be to try and push the idea that those who leave are purely cerebral. Since Avraham Avinu this has not been true. Although I don't buy the simplistic approach that 'Gedalya saw a cheeseburger, and when he had salivated enough over it, he began to doubt the source of the kashrus laws that prevented him from eating it,' there is a always a personal, emotional reason for a person to begin doubting. When trust isn't there, the foolishest of questions can overtake the intellect.
When a person begins his research with the trust that the abstract is as real as the corporeal, that the smartest, most critical people we know were Gedolei Hadoros such as Rabbi Akiva Eger and the Maharsha etc., and that the details were worked out in fine detail, he will approach his questions in a different manner.
Suddenly, answers are more readily available.
Maybe it's just an expression our reality? Maybe your little bubble is not representative of the experiences of all other people? You don't know these people personally. I do. Dozens of them, and I'm sure there are many more. So you can stick your head in the sand and deny it, but you have no experiences to base that on.
People have a self-image that often doesn't reflect reality.
See here https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/how-to-relate-to-nonbelievers/comment/81043397 where I showed one of the lamdanim to be on a low level by any standard.
You clearly aren't very familiar with the people you are opining on, and therefore have no reason to assume you understand them better than they claim themselves to be. I can't prove to you that mine and other's self assessment are correct, but I am fairly confident that if you would truly be privy to this world you are so ignorant of you would agree that your assessment is baseless.
When a person stops believing in Hashem and His Torah, his mind is open to all kinds of beliefs.
Now he's 'fairly confident' about something he knows nothing about.
Yet we should believe that his non-belief in Torah is based on something serious.
But those who believe in Torah are so prone to accepting nonsense, like bogus segulas, miracle workers etc. Some may deny בחירה or the existence of חוקי הטבע.
Those who don't believe in Torah are also prone to believing nonsense.
There will always be fools in the world.
I'm done you troll. Just go fuck yourself.
Somehow, your lack of confidence shines through.
Why do we get under your skin so much? Why does it bother you when we think that you are just porkei ol, not some kind of intellectual? What do you care?
The answer is, because you know the truth. Deep inside your heart, you know that your rationalizations are just weak claims and sound bytes, not real research and thoughtful questioning. You curse at me, but you mean yourself.
So, I'm the little bubble, and you're the wider world.
Interesting.
I never said I'm the whole world. But I am familiar with this part of the world that you claim is fictional. My experience (and the experience of others I know) confirm this reality, while you simply haven't experienced this kind of experience.
How hard was it to understand what I meant?
<i>We entered into this covenant at Sinai and renewed it several times, at Sinai, on the plains of Moab, at Mount Gerizim and Ebal, at the end of Joshua’s lifetime, during the reign of King Josiah, and when the Jews returned to the land of Israel with Ezra.</i>
But what if you believe all that to be a myth. What then? Would you tell people they are bound by a contract they believe to have never occurred?
Then you are just fooling yourself. Like, what if a person believes the Earth is flat? Ok then.
Well, you are talking to a non-believer, right? Isn't that the premise of the post? Your plan can't be to say to them, "Hey, you are bound by a covenant." They would just find that comical.
I'm not talking to the nonbeliever. I'm talking to the believer. I have no plan for what to say to the nonbeliever, just like I have no plan to for what to say to the flat-earther. But I can simply tell him he is fooling himself.
The title of the post is "How to Relate to Nonbelievers". Maybe you are commenting on a different post? By the way, there are many things you could say to a Flat Earther, if there was one. They may not believe you, but you could easily present the evidence for a round Earth, and inquire why they do not find it compelling.
The title of the post doesn't mean how to argue with non-believer. This should be clear from the subtitle and content. Yes, there are many things one can say to a flat earther. And yes, they would probably not believe you. The same is with the nonbelievers that we are discussing.
So by "relate to non-believers" you mean actually "NOT relate to non-believers". Sorry I misunderstood. Personally, I think that if a person is not willing to consider the evidence presented by those with differing views, this is more indicative of a closed mind than anything else. Doesn't it amount to thinking "I'm right because I know I'm right and I don't need to hear anything else ever."
We can observe the earth. It's much harder to prove historicity.
You were in space? Because you know that the flat-earthers claim the space pictures are fake, the same way the Torah deniers claim the Torah is fake history.
I don’t need to claim the Torah is fake or not. It’s irrelevant to me. I’ve seen no evidence to support any of the claims you make besides you going, “it’s true” I agree there is a lack of absolute truth in this world when it comes to most things but it doesn’t make your version or your beliefs true. That you wish to believe things contrary to evidence is your right but don’t judge those of us who choose not to. I don’t know there’s no god with certainty but I’ve seen no evidence so I’ll live my life in that way.
Were you raised frum? Because if not, this post isn't talking about you.
So this only applies to FFB who go OTD? Us BTs who left it are all good. Cheers! I won’t worry about it then.
We don't have pictures of Mayan Torah. We have mesorah, not photographic or video evidence.
Photographs and videos can be faked without much difficulty. This is precisely what the flat earthers claim. Or they say it's an optical illusion.
Dude I'm sorry to burst your bubble. But let me say this plainly. Your post is just plain stupid. Based on your post I should not follow my own instinct, intellect, research, amd moral compass because someone tells me a story that I believe is false? Why then should I believe your story? Maybe I should believe the story of Jesus or Mohammad or any of the other thousands of religions whose followers all believed be'emuna sheleima was true. There is literally no difference, other than the fact that I happened to have been born into a Jewish family and not a Muslim one, between me blindly following what I believe to be a morally corrupt, artificial, man made system, and a Muslim terrorist killing jews. After all, even if he feels that killing jews is morally wrong, he is told not to trust his own feelings and instead to follow what he's told. It is impossible for me to believe that if there is a god, that he intends for me to suspend my own intellect, my own feelings of right and wrong, and my own feeling of truth, simply because someone told me so. Why then give me the intellect? I davened for so many years that my doubts should go away, or that I should find the right rebbi to guide me. But it never happened. And at a certain point you can only do what you think is roght
right.
Bottom line - i agree that the torah does not allow you to respect our position. That's one of the reasons that I cannot fully respect judaism. I treat it with respect because I respect many of the people practicing it. But I do not have respect judaism itself.
I am saying that your instinctual, intellectual, and moral compass is severely misaligned. No, you should not follow Jesus and Mohammed. With a name like Levi Dayan, you are probably Jewish. Yes, it matters a lot.
Well I guess it's up to god to realign it then. I've tried my best and failed (though I no longer consider it a failure, I use this term based upon the predicate that God and the torah are real). And god knows I've asked for help through tears and pain and prayer. So at this point, if he's out there, the ball is in his court not mine. And if I ever meet him I'll tell him that
It's possible we failed you or it's possible you didn't try hard enough. But you can't escape blame.
"....if there is a god, that he intends for me to suspend my own intellect, my own feelings of right and wrong, and my own feeling of truth, simply because someone told me so...."
It's not just God. Modern Chareidiland expects its adherents to replace 'God' with 'gedol' in your paragraph above. With their not more than about 100 year old concept of 'da'as torah'.
100% daas torah was the first domino to fall for me. It was just a matter of time after that.
I think this proves Happy's point. 100% daas torah sounds as fantastical as the baal shem tov's flying chariot.
Lol. Punctuation is important. My bad. I meant 100% agree. And then was saying that daas torah was the first domino to fall
Ok. My bad.
But I still consider this peculiar and a bit naive.
How many people in Lakewood take 'daas torah' seriously? How many listen to the Lakewood Vaad? 20%? And how many of those are over 30?
I know in chafetz chaim at least their rabbis words are taken as gospel. R"l.
I don't know. And the vaad is not considered daas torah regardless. But I don't see why it matters. When I was in yeshiva, daas torah was a given. Life experience showed me that daas torah was bullshit. And so I began to think, well, if today's rabbis are mostly incompetent fools, or power hungry politicians, why should I think the rabbis of yesteryear were any different. And then why should I think that the gemara has any value, it was simply rabbis from thousands of years ago. At that point i began to see all of the mistakes amd morally questionable opinions in the gemara as further evidence that our religion was a very flawed man made system. And once rabbinic opinion lost its hold on me, I was open to rethink everything that I had been taught. It was only at this point that I began looking to sources outside of torah. And eventually came to the inescapable conclusion that all of torah was man made and in serious need of reevaluation. I then moved on to creationism, again going through arguments for and against. And I came to the very clear conclusion that the evidence for a singular conscious god who created everything and judges us and watches us does not exist. So... long story short... the first domino to fall was daas torah or emunas chachamim if you like that term better. It was all down hill from there.
Most intelligent adults don't accept 100% daas Torah. This is another example of how the public face of our society in no way reflects the inner beliefs of its members.
But that is nothing to do with kefirah. It's the opposite. The truth of Torah tells us that daas Torah is not really a thing.
I don't know how big your sample size is when you write 'most', but in Yeshivaland and Koleland the vast majority of intelligent adults absolutely do accept 100% da'as torah. True, they chose the 'da'as torah' their supports their particular agenda, but that's a different point.
Which is why it should never be taught in the first place. Hopefully you did learn Rashi on chumash in Bereshis about adding things to commands...
But not all orthodox jews believe that. You could have found more rational communities which encourage independence.
I find it interesting that even though you consistently accuse non-believers of shallow and indeed malicious thinking, you make no actual attempt to engage with their actual, you know, thoughts. For example, non-believers may look at the fact that there is no archeological evidence whatsoever that the Exodus occurred, but some fairly strong evidence that Judaism is an indigenous religion that emerged out of Canaanite paganism. They conclude from this that the entire story of Mount Sinai and the reception of the Torah is a myth. You can dismiss all of that on purely religious grounds, saying that if the Torah says something, it must be true. But why do you insist that it's a shallow and malicious conclusion to reach? In my view, it very obviously isn't.
Huh. I neither said nor implied malicious. But it's bad thinking. Somebody who was brought up with the Torah, with the mitzvos, with a relationship with G-d, should not be swayed by the lack of archaeological evidence for the Exodus (not even true, by the way.) He should not interpret the evidence the way the non-Jewish or nonbelieving historians do. He should see the Torah as a national history book and treat the questions from archaeology as just that, questions. It would also do him well to realize that there are many believing archaeologists (in fact most digs have been performed by believers) who did not change their minds if they didn't find the evidence they expected.
You both said and implied malice: "You have no right to abandon this marriage. You are a bad person if you do so." You then say non-believers could be bad people "by mistake," but this is "highly unlikely."
So, you most definitely said that anyone who reaches conclusions about religion that you don't like is a bad person. For you to claim that you didn't say this is frankly astonishing. "Bad faith" doesn't even begin to describe such an argument.
You seem unable to grasp a rather simple thing: There are many people in the world, including Jews, who have concluded that the physical and metaphysical claims made by religion are not true. That is, what the Bible says happened didn't happen and what the Bible says happens doesn't happen. They haven't done so maliciously or out of a desire to indulge their vulgar appetites. They have reached this conclusion honestly and sincerely, and you are under at least some moral obligation to acknowledge that.
In the face of this, as a believer, you have two good options: a) engage with what they're saying and refute it or b) say that it's irrelevant to you and both believers and non-believers should mind their own business and leave each other alone.
You, however, choose a titanically bad option, which is to claim that non-believers are not just wrong, but are wrong because they're evil.
I'm sure you're comfortable with taking that position--which is, of course, your right--so I'll only say that if your ultimate desire is to persuade others and bring them over to your side, you're basically shooting yourself in the face.
Bad faith arguments are never very compelling and calling those who disagree with you horrible people is, to say the least, not going to rouse their sympathies.
What's bad faith is choosing one line of my post, and ignoring the rest where I explain that it's possible to be a bad person by mistake, and we should feel sorry for them.
I'm not sure why you have difficulty understanding the fact that many people can conclude wrongly, and make bad decisions based on these wrong conclusions. You probably have no problem understanding this when it comes to people who you consider on the wrong side of political debates or the wrong side of vaccine debates. I bet you don't respect their opinions, even though they will likewise tell you they reached their conclusion honestly and sincerely. This is exactly how we feel about those on the wrong side of the Torah debate.
I noted your "mistake" caveat and then noted that you say such situations are "highly unlikely." You choose to deny you said the latter even though it's in the same sentence as the former. There's your bad faith argument right there.
Your stated demand of non-believers is that they should do tshuva. In other words, they should submit to your beliefs and feel bad that they even contemplated doing otherwise. It's quite clear that you don't feel sorry for them in the least. In fact, you pretty obviously hate them.
Again, that's your right, but it's also absurd. It's one thing to hate people with contrary beliefs if they're actively hurting people. But the type of non-believers you're talking about almost always just want to live their lives without lying to themselves. You have no compelling reason whatsoever to hold them in such contempt.
Yes, and then you skip the rest of the sentence and next paragraph. Either lack of reading comprehension or laziness.
I don't demand they submit to my beliefs. I demand they submit to the their own former beliefs, which are also the beliefs of their family, community, parent, grandparents, ancestors, many of whom gave their lives for these beliefs. I demand they stop lying to themselves about who they are and feel pride in their heritage, rather than abandoning it in favor of the skepticism of foreign people.
Anybody reading this post in good faith would not come to the conclusion that there is any hatred here, the only hatred is coming from you.
So, you're admitting that you contradict yourself? Given that you clearly say the non-believers are bad people and only on very rare occasions become bad unintentionally, it's impossible to reach any other conclusion. Or perhaps you've changed your mind in the past 24 hours?
I don't see how you can engage in such scorched-earth rhetoric against an entire group of (innocent) people without hating them. Perhaps you think this is some kind of "tough love," but it strikes me as closer to "sadistic love."
I again find your reasoning absurd. The non-believers' former beliefs are precisely that: former. They no longer believe in them. Why on earth, then, should they submit to them? To do so would be to live a lie, and I think it's quite monstrous to demand that of anyone. Moreover, their former beliefs also happen to be your beliefs, which you would have me believe is some kind of random coincidence. That's clearly an argument in bad faith.
Jews can know who they are and feel pride in their heritage without living a hyper-orthodox lifestyle. If you do not believe this, then the overwhelming majority of the world's Jewish population are, in your eyes, bad Jews and presumably bad people. That is borderline insane.
"should not be swayed by the lack of archaeological evidence for the Exodus (not even true, by the way.)"
Would you kindly share with us the archaeological evidence for the Exodus, plz?
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/exodus/exodus-fact-or-fiction/
https://armstronginstitute.org/238-evidence-of-the-exodus
Oh dear! I’m a believer in sacred history of the Exodus. But nothing in the BAR article presents any evidence of the Exodus.Conjecture, yes but no evidence.The stele is the oldest mention of Israel. But what does it mean, Israel is no more? What Israel did Menapath defeat? A nation? A person? W
Ho says it’s referring to Hebrews? As for the cities, it proves the Genesis author
Was familiar with Egyptian cities. And we know the antiquity of Genesis. But again, the Exodus narrative is not just about slaves building houses, it’s about God’s intervention and all that went with it. The evidence of which is zero.
We have zero archaeological evidence for most wars and migrations of the ancient world. Not reasonable to especially demand that for specific events in the Exodus.
The Exodus occurred C 1300 BCE from the largest empire the world had ever known, There are thousands and thousands of extant material from this period including wars and migrations. Zero about any events of the Exodus.
I don’t really understand. If a nonbeliever such as myself has reasons why they don’t believe, what should compel them to believe?
I saw in a different reply that you say they are fooling themselves. What do you mean by that?
I mean that your reasoning is very erroneous. If somebody believes something untrue and acts upon that belief to break the law, his reasoning is not a defense.
Okay I understand a little better. It depends on why they believe an untruth and what crime it is.
But rules of law have a lot of policy reasons that determine how to think about things. When it comes to brute epistemology, shouldn’t a sound reasoning be a good defense even if someone get it wrong?
Makes sense to me. I’m curious what the author thinks.
It may well be a sound defense. This is the basis of the Chazon Ish's defense of tinok shenishba - the same would apply here.
It the author implied that most people born religious and then became a non believer is likely doing so without justification and not like a Tinok Shenishba.
He specifically wrote this:
> "However, at the same time, it’s also important to mention that it’s possible for somebody to be a bad person by mistake. There is a well known passage in the Chazon Ish (1878-1953) which states that the non-religious of his day had a status of תינוקת שנשבו (children that were raised in non-Jewish captivity). Although it’s highly unlikely that this applies to somebody who was raised religious and leaves the faith, there is no doubt that the influence of secular society is more pernicious now than in previous generation. "
The last sentence is unclear, as he accedes to the point that outside influence is more pernicious today, yet still indicates that it's unlikely the label tinok shenishba applies.
Personally, I think it would, in a great majority of cases. Certainly it would in cases where boys are raised frum but exposed to things like pornogragphy early in teenage years, which would erode their fundamental moral, spiritual and emotional makeup to the point where even as young adults they're worldview would be seriously, perhaps morbidly, handicapped.
Likewise for those not exposed to intellectual pursuits such as Biblical Criticism or biology, who are then exposed to these ideas which are very attractively marketed by modern society, but in reality (imo) whose conclusions are not as dry cut as portrayed, and are essentially seduced by them - I think the label tinok shenishba would be appropriate.
I’m curious what the author thinks. I got the feeling from the post that religious turned nonbelievers almost always do not have justification and are not Tinok Shenishba.
The whole paragraph about breaking the covenant is very strange to me and I don’t understand the point of that paragraph. Obviously nonbelievers don’t believe in the covenant, so I’m wondering why it should have epistemic weight.
Ok. Here goes a real comment.
I completely agree with what you wrote that it is ridiculous to say that people should keep Yom Kippur "like others keep Christmas". It does indicate that the writer is unfortunately a confused soul (who has deep grievances against the Yiddishkeit he was raised with). The 'skeptics' too don't seem to understand what he wants from them.
However, your post too seems confusing to me.
I think the real topic should we be discussing is whether Yiddishkeit is primarily a 'relationship' (as discussed in the substack that Ash restacked) or is it primarily cold logic.
On the one hand, you seem to emphasize that it is simply cold logic. On the other hand, you emphasized the covenant etc. which only has meaning in the terms of viewing Yiddishkeit as a relationship, not as simply cold logic. Additionally, the explanation you gave for the Yeshivish-Charedi system (which I pretty much agree with) seems to be clearly emphasizing only the relationship aspect.
As to the Chazal which mb mentioned (and I mentioned in a comment on Ash's substack), I would like to quote the words of the Mesilas Yesharim (פרק ה).
אם הוא עוסק בתורה בראותו דרכיה, ציוויה ואזהרותיה, הנה סוף סוף מאליו יתחדש בו התעוררות שיביאהו אל הדרך הטוב. והוא מה שאמרו ז"ל (פתיחתא דאיכה רבתי): הלואי, אותי עזבו ותורתי שמרו, שהמאור שבה מחזירו למוטב.
To me this indicates that Yiddishkeit is not primarily cold logic but rather a relationship, and the best way of establishing and maintaining that relationship is בראותו דרכיה, ציוויה ואזהרותיה, i.e., by recognizing the beauty of the 'culture' of the Torah, not through cold historical research.
I assume this is really what Ash was aiming at, though he did a horrible job expressing himself.
I am especially perplexed by this part "The covenant with G-d that is the Torah can be likened to a marriage. You can’t just wake up one day and declare your wife doesn’t exist and walk away from the marriage etc. You have no right to abandon this marriage. You are a bad person if you do so."
True (and there are pesukim that compare the rebellion in God to infidelity), but only if your focus is truly on viewing Judaism as a marriage relationship and I think that was Ash's main point.
What would you say about a marriage in which the husband gives his wife a speech every day about how terrible it would be if she left him? Is that a real marriage relation? That was clearly how Ash felt about this upbringing.
I reiterate that I do think Ash's post was misleading as it made it sound like he wishes for a cross between Christianity (singing about love and peace for all) and ethno-nationalism.
But I think his heart is in the right place. It is hard for me to say the same about this post.
I never meant that Yiddishkeit is only established through cold historical research. Obviously, if Hashem would have taken us out of Egypt and then said "You're on your own from now, I will not be watching over you or protecting you and want nothing to do with you anymore, just keep the mitzvos or else", then Judaism wouldn't have survived for a day. Clearly the Torah is about a constant relationship. But where the nonbelievers *claim* they are coming from is that they don't believe the relationship started in the first place. In fact they may not even believe in G-d. And so any sense of relationship they felt growing up they now attribute to brainwashing or nostalgia or coincidence. I think it's important to negate that opinion.
All my replies were really about Ash's post. I don't see any point in discussing the skeptics.
Aww, thanks.
"I reiterate that I do think Ash's post was misleading as it made it sound like he wishes for a cross between Christianity (singing about love and peace for all) and ethno-nationalism."
I've read the post a number of times and sent it to friends and many were pretty shocked by that claim or possibility. However you are the second or third to make that claim, so I suspect some of the fault certainly lays with me.
Just noticed this comment and I do feel that I should apologize.
On the one hand, I think I was the only commenter on your post who understood your intention from the beginning. But perhaps that understanding sharpened my disappointment at the turn you talk to sound like you want Yiddishkeit to be just matza balls, latkes and kumzitz's with secular Jews and I guess the mitzvos too for those who choose. After all, this is Judaism.
I don't think you really feel this way but I think your intense feelings against Charedism are causing to react emotionally and you seem to be heading almost to become another Slifkin. I wish you would stick only to constructive criticism with ideas for how to enact specific changes. I also wish you would acknowledge clear and often that what Charedism has accomplished in terms of the retention rate, fertility rate, marriage rate and low divorce rate is simply astonishing and there is no comparison in the entire world. I don't think we can make any progress at change unless we accept this as the baseline.
>I also wish you would acknowledge clear and often that what Charedism has accomplished in terms of the retention rate, fertility rate, marriage rate and low divorce rate is simply astonishing and there is no comparison in the entire world. I don't think we can make any progress at change unless we accept this as the baseline.
This is very important. I have said a few times I don't want to change the culture, merely some beliefs. I should make a post about why Chareidim are awesome (and why I am one too!)