Obviously the nekuda is that the emunah in the amitas hatorah is not as strong as the emuna in the science, be it a conscious decision by some, and a sub-conscious by others.
The whole "Rationalist" approach is based on this, that they take a minimalistic approach, as that suits their worldview better, but if you ask a rationalist how nevuah works, they are still stuck, since accepting nevuah at face value as described by the great "rational" Rambam doesn't shtim with their whole mehalach.
Well said! I think this runs very deep and can explain almost all differences between Charedim and their counterparts. And it's not only confined to science. It's also 'Emuna' in secularism vis-a-vis the Torah.
Actually, a rationalist would define nevuah as a total natural process of reaching a very high state of consciousness. That's how Micah Goodman explains the Rambam in Moreh on nevuah. (Maimonides and the Book that Changed Judaism). I have no clue if he's correct, as I have never learnt the Moreh, but they definitely claim to have an explanation.
Micah Goodman explains the Rambam that way? Well, he's wrong. And if the Rambam really meant it that way, he's wrong too (although I very much doubt he meant to say that). Judaism didn't start from the Rambam. There will be a section in my upcoming post about this.
I have no clue whether he's wrong or right, as I was never a Navi. But it does explain "Aspaklaria" pretty well - a pure state of consciousness unaffected by externalities.
You may not be a navi, but you learned navi. And a navi can speak to Hashem and predict the future! Not natural, unless you have a very unusual definition of natural!
Thank you HaRav Rational Traditionalist for this excellent post. It seems that you favor the second approach, called by Natan in his book the "Prochronic approach". However, as Natan points out, it is also the scientific consensus that there was already human civilization and even cities more than 5783 years ago (although he points this out with considerably more chutzpah and mockery towards his betters). So I think that your second approach still relies somewhat on the first approach, that is, a partial rejection of the Most Current Scientific Consensus (TM), no?
It's not really arguable that there's a lot of truth to the first approach, and the second approach also seems to almost certainly contain much truth as well. The question is where to apply what, and if the two together would cover everything. As for my own feelings on the subject - I tried to make clear in the post that I honestly have other things to worry about. I tend to identify with R' Aharon Schechter's approach which he laid out in the video Dr. Slifkin keeps referencing (sarcastically, of course; he doesn't appear to comprehend Rav Schechter's very sensible and well grounded position).
The whole thing is frankly ridiculous to me. If someone doesn't believe in Yiddishkeit, no answer or apologetics to this particular question is going convince him of the truth of Yiddishkeit. If he does, so you know exactly what Hashem wants you to know about the creation of the world. He couldn't be any more clear about not only what you are meant to know on the subject, but also about how absolutely crucial it is to know that. He says it over and over and insists that you structure your entire life around testifying to this reality. If you pick an olive out of your salad on Shabbos you get thrown off a cliff and we throw stones at your head until you die - because that constitutes a denial of the fundamental eidus ki sheishes yamim asah Hashem es hashamayim v'es ha'aretz. What on earth more do you want Him to say that would convince you that this is the creation narrative He wants you to know about?
So you have a question? Az voss? This is your only question about life? Ever pondered infinity? Or Zeno's paradoxes? Or whatever? What in Heaven's name makes THIS the one question in life that should drive people crazy forever? We sit in the Beis Medrash and deal with questions all the time. Sometimes we have good answers, sometimes we don't. We don't spend a lifetime agonizing over why G-d would make things confusing by writing an extra drasha for tzaras habas even though it's an eishes ach shelo b'makom mitzvah.
Even more so in this case, that Chazal and Ramban already told us is an extremely mysterious thing that you won't get to the bottom of without a mesorah to Moshe. And they said that before they found a stegosaurus in their backyard...
100%. I have posted similar thoughts on RJ in the past. Dinosaurs pose no more of a challenge to our faith, and probably much less of a challenge to our faith than tzadik v'ra lo, for example.
In Slifkin's book, page 87-89, he discusses "fun a kashe shtarbt men nisht". One of his arguments that we should be worried about this kashe in particular is as follows:
'Imagine if you were trying to deprogram someone has been sucked into a cult. When you point out to him the flaws in the cult's ideology, he replies "You don't die from a question"'.
This is representative of his attitude towards Torah throughout the book.
Actually, if you want to appeal to 'the mesorah', 'the mesorah' always has been to treat the 'science of the day' with respect. Numerous passages in the gemorroh and chazal attest to this. Look at all the 'medicine' therein, which we know comes from the surrounding nations. Do you believe the bizaiire cures in the gemoroh ever worked, when we know as a fact from today's knowledge about disease and the body, they could never have worked.
Yeshivish answers - nishtanu hatevah or they must have worked otherwise they wouldnt' be recorded. You know, if the chap gets better is due to the featus of a dead white (or is black) cat, and if he dies, well, Hashem decided the medicine should not work on this occasion.
There is of course Reb Avrohom be harambam and others who writes chazal quoted the science of the time. But you will simply dismiss him as not being part of 'the mesorah', as you happily dismiss any source that makes you uncomfortable.
We know they couldn't have worked unless human biology and illnesses changed radically over the last 1,500 years. But if you want to go with 'nishtena hatevah' despite there being zero evidence for it, that's cool with me. I prefer to believe that Abbaya's nursemaid simply quoted the science and 'medicine' of their time.
There’s a Yeshivish answer brought in rabbi Akiva Eiger (yore dea 336) though.I am not sure what degrees he or the marill that he quotes have. Most who study his teachings would consider him a bright person. I believe he even talks about you over there.
"[1] “Science” is by definition the study of theories that are experimentally disprovable. To call those who speculate about what happened a hundred million years ago “scientists” is a misnomer, and wrongly confers on them the credibility of those who can objectively verify their assertions. No scientist in his right mind would promote an experimental drug that was formulated entirely by theory without any amount of clinical testing; all of paleontology and cosmology are, and forever will remain, in that category."
Paleontology and Cosmology (and Geology) make testable predictions. Don't have the time to go through the literature right now to try to get a list but they're not saying their theories just for fun speculation they're trying to explain something.
"'It’s peculiar that one whose worldview rests so heavily on their being ‘no psak in hashkafa’ seems to have paskined so decisively against this fairly mainstream premise that it engenders dismissive sardonic mention."
Same for a lot of other things it'd seem.
"To the contrary, the actual theories involved are quite murky, wildly speculative, riddled with gaps and internal contradiction, and are the subject of considerable skepticism from within the scientific community itself. In real terms, the nisayon presented by the ‘age of the earth question’ is not so much from the intrinsic convincingness of their conclusions – to an unbiased observer they’re not very convincing at all – but rather from the human tendency to be impressed by what ‘everybody knows’. "
This is objectively untrue. The standard cosmological model, old earth etc. are not the subject of basically any skepticism within the scientific community. The only people arguing against are doing so for political reasons (Exhibit A: Lamarckianism in Soviet Russia and Exhibit B: The discovery institute and Stephen Meyer - who agree with an old earth though they dispute certain details of evolutionary theory arguing there's a need for special creation during the Cambrian explosion - cf. the Wedge document). "to an unbiased observer they’re not very convincing at all" 1. No idea if this is true, I haven't spent much time looking into the evidence they're basing their judgements on and 2. It's also irrelevant, that might well just reflect his lack of background (Exhibit A: the more reasonable and less biased of Slifkin and Co.)
It's not either making 'testable predictions' or 'saying their theories just for fun speculation they're trying to explain something'.
It's neither.
It is either 'reproducible science', or 'doing the best with what they have'.
They cannot set up ten universes of 100 million years old to see if the theory of theirs of how evolution happens would reproduce itself. So it is not testable. Even if predictions would be proof, it would only be true if virtually all predictions come true, if only some come true, that tells us very little.
And nobody ever suggested that the theories were 'for the fun of it'.
Computer models are useful disproving retarded theories. A computer model of the globe shows that curvature and a noticeably lowered horizon should be easily detected at the altitude jet aircraft fly at. They are not, in reality. The model is wrong. Either the earth is a MUCH larger ball than we are told, by like 100x or more...or the earth is not a ball of dirt at all, constantly subjecting everything on it to four different vectors of acceleration which are absolutely undetectable. Our bodies are capable of sensing minute changes in acceleration. The smart phone in your pocket is capable of detecting even smaller changes. Yet we are told it is axiomatic that we cannot sense any of these four (not one!) vectors which we are constantly subjected to.
Would anyone use computer models to approve a medication? Computers are just ways of working things out using human knowledge. Computers cannot reproduce universes.
Is Paleontology correct 100% of the time in its predictions? Because if it is anything less than that, they cannot tell us that evolution is 100% true.
"Would anyone use computer models to approve a medication? Computers are just ways of working things out using human knowledge. Computers cannot reproduce universes." We use computer models all the time for cosmology, epidemiology etc. Various theories (eg. that a certain variable is such and such) have mathematical implications that can be modeled.
Vis a vis paleontology: Ask a paleontologist; I don't know.
Your mendacity is inexcusable. You change the goalposts for convenience.
Nobody thought there weren't computer models. But computers are based on GIGO. Humans made the formulae, and humans are prone to mistakes. Which is why science that can't be reproduced is generally not accepted as settled science. For some reason, evolution received a free pass.
Epidemiology uses computer models. And makes mistakes that it has to constantly fix. Epidemiology is a proof against computer models, not pro.
Did you know red shift is actually quantized? Yeah, just like the famous "black body problem" of old. I didn't, until very recently. All I ever was taught was the regurgitated factoid that astronomically observed red shift correlated with velocity and distance. If red shift is quantized, which it seems to actually be, that is a big problem for the theory. Among many other issues.
"Paleontology and Cosmology (and Geology) make testable predictions."
Retarded. Dark Matter and Dark Energy, which combined account for 95% of the mass and energy needed for their retarded theory to work, are the embodiment of an untestable prediction.
If I close my eyes and listen to you words read out loud, you sound no different than my elementary school science teachers from the 1970s. Is this the best you've got? People think they know a little from some childhood science lessons, and think they know a lot, and for life.
If you want to argue science you should probably do it with someone who has something invested in whether this particular science is correct (eg.a naturalist atheist). I simply have nothing invested in this and hence no motivation to really inquire into it. Even if, arguendo, everything they're saying was true it makes no real difference to me (for reasons that are not relevant to this post).
That being said, since I simply don't have the time/interest/motivation/what-have-you to become an expert and analyze the evidence myself I have to rely on who I determine to be the experts. I could either rely on the (mostly Christian but some others) Intelligent Design Theorists and Young Earth Creationists or mainstream scientists. The former have a virtually unanimously agreed upon and extremely obvious political agenda (in YEC writing often self-admitted) behind what they're saying. The latter by contrast, following Hume, affirm a fact-value distinction which would prevent them from discerning any political agendas or whatnot from evolution even if they wanted to. In addition to seeming to be less biased the fact that the most knowledgeable people in the field (as far as I can assess) virtually unanimously agree the evidence is like the mainstream (even if they say God created it old or whatever) is pretty conclusive unless I'm going to become an expert myself.
Actually, despite the theory of the earth coming into creation on its own and life developing on its own and let alone evolving being statistically impossible, mainstream scientists will not even entertain the idea of Intelligent Design and continue to search for alternative far-fetched ways to explain it. I once heard an interview with one of the leading cosmologists in the world, where he admitted that the statistical probability of the universe as we know it coming into existence on its own is less than if one were to pre-select one atom out of the universe and someone would be able to succeed at selecting it at random. Yet when the interviewer asked him if he would accept Intelligent Design as a possibility, he refused as "that's not science".
Scientists don't see their job as deriving philosophical conclusions from their research (eg. God). Intelligent design is a philosophical position. They are simply there to report on the facts (eg. your example of "the statistical probability of the universe as we know it coming into existence on its own is less than if one were to pre-select one atom out of the universe and someone would be able to succeed at selecting it at random") the implications of those facts (the universe was intelligently designed) is the domain of philosophy. In philosophy the fine-tuning argument is, in fact, extensively discussed and hotly debated (with physicist and cosmologist input where relevant).
I know that's all scientists claim to be concerned about. But if all his job is to report the facts as he sees them, then why can't Intelligent Design be a possibility?
When he says "it's not science" he's not saying Intelligent Design is false. He's simply saying it's not a possibility within the domain of science (unless you're going to use it to makes testable predictions) since that's not the sort of question science deals with.
Fine. If, lo oleinu, somebody close to you became ill, I doubt you will consider all treatment as being from the work of 'retards' and all the treaters as being 'retards'. It's all based on science you know.
One of the many hypocrisies in the chareid world is 'all the scientists/doctors/whoever' are wrong in everything to do with COVID, yet when it comes to infertility and other nasties, the charehdie world runs after the same scientists/doctors. Fund raisers, machers, organisations etc.
You sound invested. None of this is true: "This is objectively untrue. The standard cosmological model, old earth etc. are not the subject of basically any skepticism within the scientific community." Or, ""Paleontology and Cosmology (and Geology) make testable predictions.""
I'm not. I used to be. I had pictures of the moon landings and Viking mission adorning my walls for years when I was young. I even worked in the space program (it's highly compartmentalized, so no one doing anything knows what anyone else is doing). Science is not the province of "professional scientists," who obviously have agendas too, starting with obtaining grant money.
Get yourself a Nikon P900 camera, go to the coast, point it towards the horizon, and zoom in. That's more scientific than the science you see broadcast on mass media. You will discover that the horizon is a visual artifact due to perspective and not a hard boundary. Ships do not disappear. TL;DR We can see too far and there is no curve, out to hundreds of miles. That is the bottom line, and all the rest is window dressing.
When you outsource your discernment to others, which you and all your fellow rationalists do, you end up digesting the output of others. In other words, Garbage In, Garbage Out.
You would be better of with the Charedim, who know more about the true nature of the world just by delving into the Talmud.
I insinuate nothing. I know it is. We can see too far. Water finds its level. There is no observable curvature or detectable horizon. These are verifiable facts any individual can see for himself.
Commercial airline pilots know. ALL OF THEM. Ask one the next time you fly. They don't talk about it, but when asked, they admit the truth. You notice things when you spend thousands of hours at 30000 feet and higher.
Since a retard above mentioned computer models, here is where a model is useful. According the globe earth model, a lowered horizon and curvature should be easily observed at the altitudes jet aircraft fly at, yet they aren't. No curvature and the horizon always rises to eye level. This is easily verifiable. When you see curvature in the endless images paraded online, you are seeing the optical effect of fisheye lenses, not actual curvature.
So how do people fly around the world? And if you tell me that no one ever has, I've personally flown from New York to Israel over the Atlantic. And I personally know a fellow who's flown from Israel to China over Asia. And I personally know a fellow who's flown from NY to China over the Pacific. So how else would you explain this other than the earth being round??
I can't take seriously the "scientists don't know what they are talking about" argument. You could make an effort to study how we have proof that the earth is very old, and evolution happened, but I guess that would be a waste of your time. Time you could be using to study Torah.
No one ever denies physics when it takes us to the moon, but apply that same predictable, testable knowledge to the universe and now it's unprovable theory? I guess some types of carbon are more prone to miracles than others? The laws of physics and genetic inheritance are only real when they don't contradict the literal meaning of the text?
Why make things the are hidden to most humans appear old, and then tell us they are not really old?
Why trick humanity like that? Is the only conclusion that the word around us lies? That the processes that govern reality are deceiving us? Some people struggle with faith, and just saying "We don't know, our sages haven't figured it out yet but don't you dare think it's not literal" doesn't really work.
Did HaShem really make transitional fossils, and tectonic plates move, and create the cosmic microwave background just to test 20th and 21th century people? These things where never intellectual challenges to our ancestors, since they didn't knew about them. But they were always there.
If you are really ok with creation being mysterious, why can't it be a non-literal account of what happened? Does it make more sense to believe fossils were never alive, than to believe the words are symbolic? Not to mention that creation is by far not the only part that contradicts reality. Is the sumerian creation myth also a test of faith?
What sort of hetter is 'he's a yochid'? Slifkin is also a yochid, so lets all get back to 'the beis' and stop this time wasting. Thursday night there is cholent and kigul on offer (as per 'the mesorah') for all those ultra holy benei torah who need encouragement to learn....
It's not a heter. It's a statement of fact. If you want to know the heter, ask him, not us. The rebbe doesn't disparage fellow Jews and stir up hate. He tells his chasidim to not follow his ways as far as they relate to zmanin. Slifkin encourages others to join him in hatred. He's not a yachid but an erstwhile leader.
With him, and you, the mockery and cynicism and hatred never stop.
The question to ask is not 'why make an old universe'? The question to ask is 'why evolve a universe'?
I assume the evolutionists amongst us agree that an omnipotent G-d could have created a universe as literally described in Bereishis. They just believe He didn't. Why didn't he? What was the purpose of evolving a universe for millions of years with no humans to recognize Him?
The question of 'why would he do it' is completely moot.
I believe He did it for the same reason there are stars that are invisible to us, and fossils exist before you find them. For G-d to see. After all, plants and stars were created before us.
If the christians are that great, why doesn't slifkin convert?
There is something so kapo-like for a person to be angry at his community and to turn to the goyim for affirmation. Even non-religious don't act like that, only otds and farbissene.
"....old and forgotten ‘minority opinions’, regardless of their acceptance in normative mesorah, ensures that the discussion of any viewpoint’s legitimacy quickly devolves into a flurry of search engine gymnastics, creative readings, and innovative applications. We have little stomach for such distractions"
Of course you have 'little stomach' to deal with rishonim and acharonim that do not hold of the classic charedi opinion that all is literal and days means days of 24 hours (so not obvious that days means days of 24 hours, rashi in chagigoh has to provide his shittoh that yomim means yomim of 24 hours - miclall d'ika cholkim - rashi doesn't bother to rebut every man in the street) and that there was some sort of evolutionary process in creation. Classic chareidi dichui. I have no stomach to argue, its the end of seider. Great substantive rebuttal.
The Rambam in Moreh writes clearly that if scientists would show that the earth existing forever, he would happily interpret the torah likewise, and the possuk 'v-horetz l'olem omedes' as literal. Presumably that's an old and forgotten minority opinion that can conveniently ignored. As can all the meroh mekomos Slifkin does quote in his books. After all, there is a clear mesorah of the correct treatment of these issues in line with the chareidi way, the said mesorah conveniently guarded and decided as correct by the chareidim, what a conincidence.
I believe in both mesorah and da'as torah as concepts. But both have become hopelessly corrupted to be useful now in practice. All we have is the printed text to rely on. If chassidim blatently created their own mesorah, overturning all that came before, and today be accepted (the amshinov rebbe b'pumbi lit menorah at 4.45AM), I believe that no group has any longer any moral high ground in accusing the other of 'not following mesorah'. You know, by the way, there is no mesorah in deliberately bringing up kids with no education to cope in their host countries thus forcing many of them to live in poverty and rely on benefits. Like Humpty Dumpty when 'words can mean whatever I want them to mean', 'the mesorah' can be whatever I want it to be.
Again, if you don't believe in mesorah, what does this Rambam guy's opinion matter? The only reason the Rambam has any authority at all is because of this so-called mesorah you reject.
Again, I wrote clearly I believe in mesorah as a concept. And the Rambam's words are printed. And yes, there are cholkim on the rambam, including the rambam himself. And 'matter' is a vague word, what exactly do you mean here by 'matter'. Maybe they don't 'matter' - he still wrote them, though.
You believe everything printed? The New Testament was printed before the Rambam. Augustine of Hippo was printed. For that matter, so are chassidishe rebbes. What makes you think the Rambam is any more authoritative than them?
If the Rambam's words don't matter, why are you bringing them up? Who cares if he wrote them?
You are deflecting now. Deal with my 'etzem nekudah' or keep quiet.
No group nowadays has the moral authority to claim that 'the mesorah supports them'. Who decided who the guardians of 'the mesorah is'? Chareidim decided they are the guardians of the mesorah that supports their point of view. Great logic there.
There is no mesorah for any particular tzad in all this torah and science stuff (other than the age of the earth, which is just one of many facets of the whole torah and science business). It's all a machlokas like every other machlokas. This torah and science business only started around sixty years ago, there cannot possibly be any mesorah. Rav Carmell was an early pioneer, a talmid of Rav Dessler and he, for example, had no problem interpreting the gemmoroh that says cats have venom in their claws are referring to bacteria. The charedi mesorah - the only correct one of course I say sarcasticaly - would say either nishtanu hatevah or there is poison in the cat's claws that science has yet undeteced (what do those scientists know against the gemoroh? )or some combination of the two.
What's sad about you is that I have rendered you silent after numerous exchanges, on this blog (the record speaks for itself, unless you delete your comments here and in other posts), yet you continue to posture like you are in the right. How long do you want to continue? You, like many bitter and angry people, are just dragging traumas experienced in childhood into your adult life. Your arguments are childish, because they were formed in childhood, and remain unexamined since then. Get over it and grow up already.
I rarely respond to you because you are childish, rude and don't address my points. I have better things to do like respond to others who do make some attempt to respond properly.....
If he is a yachid, he is a bad example to provide. That's pretty clear. Literal "whataboutism". It's only a pertinent question to you. It's not a yeshivish answer. It's the answer of a healthy versus cynical Jew.
Test, the honest thing to do would be to ask him directly. I hear he's very approachable. You don't. You ask us, who don't know him nor his motivations or justifications. That makes you a dishonest retard.
There is a Mesora, and the only ones that kept it up were the Charedim. Not the other way around.
If you claim there is a different Mesora, show it to us. Can you tell us of any Mesora that accepted the Rambam's philosophical positions through the ages? Because I know of none. All Seforim that we use did not accept his position, from the Gra to the Maharal, the Maharsha to Reb Yonasan Eibeschutz.
I don't claim there is a mesorah for anything. Practically every thing is a machlokas. You know, the maharal (one on your list) says midroshim do not have to be taken literally and no way did vashti grow a tale, whatever the talmud says. That's the mesorah?!? And Rav Yackov Emden believed Rav Eibeshutz was an apikorus, So which of those two has the true mesorah?
Feb 22, 2023·edited Mar 10, 2023Liked by מכרכר בכל עוז
Great segue into Vashti's tail, though I have no idea how you did it.
Anyway, Mesorah isn't about what kugel to eat, or whether Vashti had a tail. Mesorah is about the underlying concepts, and the Rambam's radical view was not accepted historically. Kabbalah was mostly accepted, except by a tiny minority of outliers. Non-Jewish philosophy was mostly discarded, and the Rambam's mahalach of ignoring Chazal based on his own ideas was not perpetuated.
If you think differently, show me any classic Seforim on that path.
I agree, but there is no mesorah on this 'torah and science' business. None at all. Todays yeshviish chareidim invented 'the mesorah' that coincidentally supports their POV. Fifty years ago when this first started, suggestions, by chareidim were made that did not involve 'nishtanu hatevah' and 'what do those scientist apikorsim know', That's new.
You are treating the matter with superficial glasses.
There is a Mesora that Chazal's words are final. Even if the Rambam did not hold so.
There is a Mesora that the Torah is not allegorical. Even if the Rambam did not hold so.
There is a Mesora that the world's values and mores do not obligate us. Even if the Rambam did not hold so.
There is a Mesora that our Emuna is not to be based on our own logic. Even if the Rambam did not hold so.
There is a Mesora to accept the secret tradition of the Torah as part of the Torah on Har Sinai. Even if the Rambam did not hold so.
And that is what the new generation of 'thinkers' would like to uproot. If the Charedim are the only ones to uphold this Mesora, they are not to blame.
Indeed. You may have a problem with the maharal who says vashti never grew a tail, clearly he doesn't believe in the mesorah that chazal 'had the final say'. You may have a problem with rabbi dessler who writes that cats do not have venom in their claws, different to what chazal say.
But more critically chazal made very few clear statements concerning the 'torah and science' debate. Mind you, tather embarrassingly they conceded in Pesochim that the non Jewish scientists were correct and chazal were wrong.
Is there a machlokes on the calendar? How about which day of the week is Shabbos? The actual arguments people like you like to point out are usually about details, not broad swaths of halacha and hashkafa.
When I realized the Big Bang Model was outright fabricated, only a few years ago, I reassessed my own views of midrash and agada and now believe they are less fantastical and metaphorical than before. How much, I don't know.
"Of course you have 'little stomach' to deal with rishonim and acharonim that do not hold of the classic charedi opinion that all is literal and days means days of 24 hours (so not obvious that days means days of 24 hours, rashi in chagigoh has to provide his shittoh that yomim means yomim of 24 hours - miclall d'ika cholkim - rashi doesn't bother to rebut every man in the street) and that there was some sort of evolutionary process in creation. Classic chareidi dichui. I have no stomach to argue, its the end of seider. Great substantive rebuttal."
These sources are generally misinterpreted. Eg. Rashi is not providing his opinion he's explaining the meaning of the words "the characteristics of day and the characteristics of night" (what else would it be besides what Rashi says?)
"The Rambam in Moreh writes clearly that if scientists would show that the earth existing forever, he would happily interpret the torah likewise, and the possuk 'v-horetz l'olem omedes' as literal."
There's another Rambam where he says creation ex nihilo is a principle of the Jewish faith in contrast to Plato's and Aristotle's theories which are total kefira. In the section you refer to he distinguishes between Aristotle's theory which is irreconcilable with Judaism and Plato's theory which, if required for incontestable philosophical reasons, can be. (Note: the philosophical arguments he referenced were deductive in nature meaning there could not, in principle even, be any other than the posited explanation. This is simply not what science is even attempting to do.) These two Rambams seem to contradict each other (and simply quoting one, as Marc Shapiro notes is often done, is simply dishonest). The most frequently proposed reconciliation is that until the doctrine of eternity is proven conclusively it's a principle of faith that God created the world out of nothing. (Note: Rambam would say if Aristotle's theories were proven you'd just give up on Judaism.) Since, science is simply not trying to present the sort of proof the Rambam refers to this source is simply irrelevant.
I'm wondering, how do you see the Rambams contradict each other? Does Marc Shapiro say they contradict each other?
I don't see any contradiction, as far as I can tell, the Rambam explains explicitly what the difference between Aristotle and Plato is. He is very clear that Aristotle's understanding is completely irreconcilable with Judaism, and if it were proven true, it would debunk the Torah ח"ו.
אבל אמונת הקדמות על הצד אשר יראה אותו אריסטו שהוא על צד החיוב ולא ישתנה טבע כלל ולא יצא דבר חוץ ממנהגו – הנה היא סותרת הדת מעיקרה ומכזבת לכל אות בהכרח ומבטלת כל מה שתיחל בו התורה או תפחיד ממנו – האלהים! אלא יפורשו האותות גם כן כמו שעשו בעלי התוך מן הישמעאלים ויצאו בזה למין מן ההזיה.
Read my comment more closely. I acknowledged that Rambam's accomodationist comments only applied to Plato's theory. Since Plato's theory isn't completely unthinkable given Judaism (in allowing miracles etc.) while not proven it's assumed to be apikorsus, if philosophically proven we could reinterpret the pesukim to allow for it.
You say they are misinterpreted. Fine. Others say they were not.
You know, that's called a machlokas. What bnei torah spend most of their lives on. Machlokas. Big deal.
There is nothing that says the chareidi side of the machlokas is more correct than the other side, other than 'the mesorah'. The said mesorah being attested to, coincdentally, by the chareidim. Considering the whole torah and science business started maybe sixty years ago, it's a bit rich to claim 'the mesorah' supports one side more than the other.
"The most frequently proposed reconciliation is that until the doctrine of eternity is proven conclusively it's a principle of faith that God created the world out of nothing. "
That's exactly my point. The charedi mesorah is that if the doctrine of etnernty can never be proven conclusively, its just the scientists mucked it up somehow, or made false assumptions or whatever.......
He confused us by giving us a Torah and thousands of years of Mesorah that provides misleading information about the origins of the world"
To be fair, I'd you read Natan's book, you will see he actually provides a solid answer to this point: Bereshit was always understood in the paradigm of ancient myth, where it matters not reality but what it comes to teach (the entire ancient world thought and taught that way, for an explanation why, read "Where Earth Meets The Sky"). What happened when the world slowly aged out of using myth, many ancient myths were either discarded or mistakenly understood to be fact. (A good example of this are those who take clear mythological midrashim literally, or those who believe when Chazal said a chilazon comes up once in 70 years Chazal really meant exactly 70 years to the day, instead of "one lifetime".) Since Maaseh Bereshis was never taught in public, it too was subject to this mistaken revision of myth to fact. So Hashem didn't confuse us, in fact he gave an explanation that would be readily understandable to the first generations of those who kept the Torah. It is us who are unfamiliar with that way of thinking who mistakenly take it as fact. I happen to think that this explanation is quite convincing.
I am aware of Dr. Slifkin's position, and virtually everything I wrote in the post applies to it as well. I just didn't mention it specifically because it wasn't necessary for most readers. An approach that simply denies the truth of the Torah is not something that most believing Jews are working within.
It's actually by far the most common framework for Modern Orthodox academics who accept single authorship. (Herzog College etc). Gerald Shroeder's ridiculous approach is just accepted by BTs.
This is much, much worse than all the explanations that Slifkin rejects. He is saying that the Torah is simply lying (for good intentions). IYH I will write a post on this this week or next.
Also, I don't entirely agree with Rational Traditionalist on this, I have some explanations that you might like better (but Slifkin would probably reject). IYH a post about that as well.
It's most certainly not a lie. It's a question of genre. If you think Harry Potter is nonfiction, then yes, JK Rowling is lying. But it's not nonfiction. Similarly, the Torah's creation account has all the hallmarks of myth. Talking snakes, God walking in his Garden, Chiasmic theological order of creation, and many more (Yonatan Grossman's book "Creation" has a good rundown of them). Any ancient reader would have correctly understood the genre and categorized it as such. It is us who mistake it and accuse the Torah of cha"v lying.
Ancient readers most certainly did not think it was fiction, neither did Philo, nor Josephus, nor Chazal. And Slifkin is quite clear that they understood it as truth, not as fiction. But the Torah fed them lies ("fiction") according to what they thought.
However, as I will write in my post, ancient readers understood that all of it may not be literal, and that there was a deeper meaning. But Slifkin explicitly rejects allegory in favor of saying it was theological fiction.
It doesn't matter what you call it. "Myth" is just as bad. If you mean allegory, which Slifkin EXPLICITLY rejects, then I can agree partially, with some qualifications.
1) seventy is an archetypical topological number. Unless you literally believe that there are exactly 70 languages, seventy nations (and these numbers stayed static from bavel to chazal, with a language and nation magically disappearing the second a new one developed) and that carob trees live and grow for exactly 70 years, it is far more likely that 70 is symbolic, especially considering that 70 shows up many more times than the examples I gave and symbolic bumbers are par for the time period.
2) we know exactly what the chilazon is - it's the hexaplex trunculus, and it assuredly does not come up literally every 70 years, but once every few years to decades, thousands and thousands of them wash up on beaches at once, usually due to a tidal wave or other natural disaster. (There are videos on YouTube of this phenomenon.) It is likely Chazal is referring to this.
Point number one is definitely a possibility, but until you know what the chilazon is you can't know for sure. Which brings us to point number 2, we actually have no idea if the trunculus is the true chilazon. There is actually zero direct evidence to that.
All we know is that it dyes purple, never dyed blue, and was impossible to dye blue in ancient times. But not sure I have patience to discuss this now.
No one doubts that plenty of "evidence" in support of evolution was outright fabricated. If you actually look into the history, and I have enough, for my own satisfaction, you will find that much of what is claimed about dinosaurs is likewise fabricated, and was even done so to provide support for evolution. But no one wants to go down that route, because then you might be tarred with the CIA-manufactured label of "conspiracy theorist." I prefer "conspiracy queryist" myself.
Obviously the nekuda is that the emunah in the amitas hatorah is not as strong as the emuna in the science, be it a conscious decision by some, and a sub-conscious by others.
The whole "Rationalist" approach is based on this, that they take a minimalistic approach, as that suits their worldview better, but if you ask a rationalist how nevuah works, they are still stuck, since accepting nevuah at face value as described by the great "rational" Rambam doesn't shtim with their whole mehalach.
Well said! I think this runs very deep and can explain almost all differences between Charedim and their counterparts. And it's not only confined to science. It's also 'Emuna' in secularism vis-a-vis the Torah.
Actually, a rationalist would define nevuah as a total natural process of reaching a very high state of consciousness. That's how Micah Goodman explains the Rambam in Moreh on nevuah. (Maimonides and the Book that Changed Judaism). I have no clue if he's correct, as I have never learnt the Moreh, but they definitely claim to have an explanation.
Micah Goodman explains the Rambam that way? Well, he's wrong. And if the Rambam really meant it that way, he's wrong too (although I very much doubt he meant to say that). Judaism didn't start from the Rambam. There will be a section in my upcoming post about this.
I have no clue whether he's wrong or right, as I was never a Navi. But it does explain "Aspaklaria" pretty well - a pure state of consciousness unaffected by externalities.
You may not be a navi, but you learned navi. And a navi can speak to Hashem and predict the future! Not natural, unless you have a very unusual definition of natural!
Super Site.Keep it Up
Thank you HaRav Rational Traditionalist for this excellent post. It seems that you favor the second approach, called by Natan in his book the "Prochronic approach". However, as Natan points out, it is also the scientific consensus that there was already human civilization and even cities more than 5783 years ago (although he points this out with considerably more chutzpah and mockery towards his betters). So I think that your second approach still relies somewhat on the first approach, that is, a partial rejection of the Most Current Scientific Consensus (TM), no?
It's not really arguable that there's a lot of truth to the first approach, and the second approach also seems to almost certainly contain much truth as well. The question is where to apply what, and if the two together would cover everything. As for my own feelings on the subject - I tried to make clear in the post that I honestly have other things to worry about. I tend to identify with R' Aharon Schechter's approach which he laid out in the video Dr. Slifkin keeps referencing (sarcastically, of course; he doesn't appear to comprehend Rav Schechter's very sensible and well grounded position).
The whole thing is frankly ridiculous to me. If someone doesn't believe in Yiddishkeit, no answer or apologetics to this particular question is going convince him of the truth of Yiddishkeit. If he does, so you know exactly what Hashem wants you to know about the creation of the world. He couldn't be any more clear about not only what you are meant to know on the subject, but also about how absolutely crucial it is to know that. He says it over and over and insists that you structure your entire life around testifying to this reality. If you pick an olive out of your salad on Shabbos you get thrown off a cliff and we throw stones at your head until you die - because that constitutes a denial of the fundamental eidus ki sheishes yamim asah Hashem es hashamayim v'es ha'aretz. What on earth more do you want Him to say that would convince you that this is the creation narrative He wants you to know about?
So you have a question? Az voss? This is your only question about life? Ever pondered infinity? Or Zeno's paradoxes? Or whatever? What in Heaven's name makes THIS the one question in life that should drive people crazy forever? We sit in the Beis Medrash and deal with questions all the time. Sometimes we have good answers, sometimes we don't. We don't spend a lifetime agonizing over why G-d would make things confusing by writing an extra drasha for tzaras habas even though it's an eishes ach shelo b'makom mitzvah.
Even more so in this case, that Chazal and Ramban already told us is an extremely mysterious thing that you won't get to the bottom of without a mesorah to Moshe. And they said that before they found a stegosaurus in their backyard...
100%. I have posted similar thoughts on RJ in the past. Dinosaurs pose no more of a challenge to our faith, and probably much less of a challenge to our faith than tzadik v'ra lo, for example.
In Slifkin's book, page 87-89, he discusses "fun a kashe shtarbt men nisht". One of his arguments that we should be worried about this kashe in particular is as follows:
'Imagine if you were trying to deprogram someone has been sucked into a cult. When you point out to him the flaws in the cult's ideology, he replies "You don't die from a question"'.
This is representative of his attitude towards Torah throughout the book.
Actually, if you want to appeal to 'the mesorah', 'the mesorah' always has been to treat the 'science of the day' with respect. Numerous passages in the gemorroh and chazal attest to this. Look at all the 'medicine' therein, which we know comes from the surrounding nations. Do you believe the bizaiire cures in the gemoroh ever worked, when we know as a fact from today's knowledge about disease and the body, they could never have worked.
Yeshivish answers - nishtanu hatevah or they must have worked otherwise they wouldnt' be recorded. You know, if the chap gets better is due to the featus of a dead white (or is black) cat, and if he dies, well, Hashem decided the medicine should not work on this occasion.
1. Numerous passages in the Gemara also attest to the rejection of non-Jewish wisdom when it contradicts the Torah.
2. We don't know they could have never worked. You just made that up on the spot.
There is of course Reb Avrohom be harambam and others who writes chazal quoted the science of the time. But you will simply dismiss him as not being part of 'the mesorah', as you happily dismiss any source that makes you uncomfortable.
Very little science directly 'contradicts' the torah. Most of the 'science and torah' debate is about scientists contradicting later sources.
We know they couldn't have worked unless human biology and illnesses changed radically over the last 1,500 years. But if you want to go with 'nishtena hatevah' despite there being zero evidence for it, that's cool with me. I prefer to believe that Abbaya's nursemaid simply quoted the science and 'medicine' of their time.
Rav Avraham Ben HaRambam does not say they went with the science of the time when it contradicted the Torah. Duh.
We don't know their medicine of their couldn't have worked. You just made that up on the spot.
Nothing new to say, eh?
When you have something new to say besides rebbes and cholent, I will have something new to respond!
There’s a Yeshivish answer brought in rabbi Akiva Eiger (yore dea 336) though.I am not sure what degrees he or the marill that he quotes have. Most who study his teachings would consider him a bright person. I believe he even talks about you over there.
"[1] “Science” is by definition the study of theories that are experimentally disprovable. To call those who speculate about what happened a hundred million years ago “scientists” is a misnomer, and wrongly confers on them the credibility of those who can objectively verify their assertions. No scientist in his right mind would promote an experimental drug that was formulated entirely by theory without any amount of clinical testing; all of paleontology and cosmology are, and forever will remain, in that category."
Paleontology and Cosmology (and Geology) make testable predictions. Don't have the time to go through the literature right now to try to get a list but they're not saying their theories just for fun speculation they're trying to explain something.
"'It’s peculiar that one whose worldview rests so heavily on their being ‘no psak in hashkafa’ seems to have paskined so decisively against this fairly mainstream premise that it engenders dismissive sardonic mention."
Same for a lot of other things it'd seem.
"To the contrary, the actual theories involved are quite murky, wildly speculative, riddled with gaps and internal contradiction, and are the subject of considerable skepticism from within the scientific community itself. In real terms, the nisayon presented by the ‘age of the earth question’ is not so much from the intrinsic convincingness of their conclusions – to an unbiased observer they’re not very convincing at all – but rather from the human tendency to be impressed by what ‘everybody knows’. "
This is objectively untrue. The standard cosmological model, old earth etc. are not the subject of basically any skepticism within the scientific community. The only people arguing against are doing so for political reasons (Exhibit A: Lamarckianism in Soviet Russia and Exhibit B: The discovery institute and Stephen Meyer - who agree with an old earth though they dispute certain details of evolutionary theory arguing there's a need for special creation during the Cambrian explosion - cf. the Wedge document). "to an unbiased observer they’re not very convincing at all" 1. No idea if this is true, I haven't spent much time looking into the evidence they're basing their judgements on and 2. It's also irrelevant, that might well just reflect his lack of background (Exhibit A: the more reasonable and less biased of Slifkin and Co.)
You have a false choice.
It's not either making 'testable predictions' or 'saying their theories just for fun speculation they're trying to explain something'.
It's neither.
It is either 'reproducible science', or 'doing the best with what they have'.
They cannot set up ten universes of 100 million years old to see if the theory of theirs of how evolution happens would reproduce itself. So it is not testable. Even if predictions would be proof, it would only be true if virtually all predictions come true, if only some come true, that tells us very little.
And nobody ever suggested that the theories were 'for the fun of it'.
1. We have computer models.
2. Paleontology makes predictions about where you'll find certain things etc. (I don't know the details; ask a paleontologist.)
3. You're correct about the mistaken phrasing. Sorry about that.
Computer models are useful disproving retarded theories. A computer model of the globe shows that curvature and a noticeably lowered horizon should be easily detected at the altitude jet aircraft fly at. They are not, in reality. The model is wrong. Either the earth is a MUCH larger ball than we are told, by like 100x or more...or the earth is not a ball of dirt at all, constantly subjecting everything on it to four different vectors of acceleration which are absolutely undetectable. Our bodies are capable of sensing minute changes in acceleration. The smart phone in your pocket is capable of detecting even smaller changes. Yet we are told it is axiomatic that we cannot sense any of these four (not one!) vectors which we are constantly subjected to.
Would anyone use computer models to approve a medication? Computers are just ways of working things out using human knowledge. Computers cannot reproduce universes.
Is Paleontology correct 100% of the time in its predictions? Because if it is anything less than that, they cannot tell us that evolution is 100% true.
"Would anyone use computer models to approve a medication? Computers are just ways of working things out using human knowledge. Computers cannot reproduce universes." We use computer models all the time for cosmology, epidemiology etc. Various theories (eg. that a certain variable is such and such) have mathematical implications that can be modeled.
Vis a vis paleontology: Ask a paleontologist; I don't know.
Your mendacity is inexcusable. You change the goalposts for convenience.
Nobody thought there weren't computer models. But computers are based on GIGO. Humans made the formulae, and humans are prone to mistakes. Which is why science that can't be reproduced is generally not accepted as settled science. For some reason, evolution received a free pass.
Epidemiology uses computer models. And makes mistakes that it has to constantly fix. Epidemiology is a proof against computer models, not pro.
People are actually considering this: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/should-computer-simulations-replace-animal-testing-for-heart-drugs/
P.S. Accusing me of deliberately lying because you disagree with me is really poor etiquette.
Halton Arp.
Did you know red shift is actually quantized? Yeah, just like the famous "black body problem" of old. I didn't, until very recently. All I ever was taught was the regurgitated factoid that astronomically observed red shift correlated with velocity and distance. If red shift is quantized, which it seems to actually be, that is a big problem for the theory. Among many other issues.
"Paleontology and Cosmology (and Geology) make testable predictions."
Retarded. Dark Matter and Dark Energy, which combined account for 95% of the mass and energy needed for their retarded theory to work, are the embodiment of an untestable prediction.
If I close my eyes and listen to you words read out loud, you sound no different than my elementary school science teachers from the 1970s. Is this the best you've got? People think they know a little from some childhood science lessons, and think they know a lot, and for life.
If you want to argue science you should probably do it with someone who has something invested in whether this particular science is correct (eg.a naturalist atheist). I simply have nothing invested in this and hence no motivation to really inquire into it. Even if, arguendo, everything they're saying was true it makes no real difference to me (for reasons that are not relevant to this post).
That being said, since I simply don't have the time/interest/motivation/what-have-you to become an expert and analyze the evidence myself I have to rely on who I determine to be the experts. I could either rely on the (mostly Christian but some others) Intelligent Design Theorists and Young Earth Creationists or mainstream scientists. The former have a virtually unanimously agreed upon and extremely obvious political agenda (in YEC writing often self-admitted) behind what they're saying. The latter by contrast, following Hume, affirm a fact-value distinction which would prevent them from discerning any political agendas or whatnot from evolution even if they wanted to. In addition to seeming to be less biased the fact that the most knowledgeable people in the field (as far as I can assess) virtually unanimously agree the evidence is like the mainstream (even if they say God created it old or whatever) is pretty conclusive unless I'm going to become an expert myself.
Actually, despite the theory of the earth coming into creation on its own and life developing on its own and let alone evolving being statistically impossible, mainstream scientists will not even entertain the idea of Intelligent Design and continue to search for alternative far-fetched ways to explain it. I once heard an interview with one of the leading cosmologists in the world, where he admitted that the statistical probability of the universe as we know it coming into existence on its own is less than if one were to pre-select one atom out of the universe and someone would be able to succeed at selecting it at random. Yet when the interviewer asked him if he would accept Intelligent Design as a possibility, he refused as "that's not science".
So tell me, who has an agenda?
Scientists don't see their job as deriving philosophical conclusions from their research (eg. God). Intelligent design is a philosophical position. They are simply there to report on the facts (eg. your example of "the statistical probability of the universe as we know it coming into existence on its own is less than if one were to pre-select one atom out of the universe and someone would be able to succeed at selecting it at random") the implications of those facts (the universe was intelligently designed) is the domain of philosophy. In philosophy the fine-tuning argument is, in fact, extensively discussed and hotly debated (with physicist and cosmologist input where relevant).
I know that's all scientists claim to be concerned about. But if all his job is to report the facts as he sees them, then why can't Intelligent Design be a possibility?
When he says "it's not science" he's not saying Intelligent Design is false. He's simply saying it's not a possibility within the domain of science (unless you're going to use it to makes testable predictions) since that's not the sort of question science deals with.
Today, Scientists are retards. In the old days, when real science was done, they were believers, who wanted understand the world that Hashem created.
Fine. If, lo oleinu, somebody close to you became ill, I doubt you will consider all treatment as being from the work of 'retards' and all the treaters as being 'retards'. It's all based on science you know.
One of the many hypocrisies in the chareid world is 'all the scientists/doctors/whoever' are wrong in everything to do with COVID, yet when it comes to infertility and other nasties, the charehdie world runs after the same scientists/doctors. Fund raisers, machers, organisations etc.
You sound invested. None of this is true: "This is objectively untrue. The standard cosmological model, old earth etc. are not the subject of basically any skepticism within the scientific community." Or, ""Paleontology and Cosmology (and Geology) make testable predictions.""
I'm not. I used to be. I had pictures of the moon landings and Viking mission adorning my walls for years when I was young. I even worked in the space program (it's highly compartmentalized, so no one doing anything knows what anyone else is doing). Science is not the province of "professional scientists," who obviously have agendas too, starting with obtaining grant money.
Get yourself a Nikon P900 camera, go to the coast, point it towards the horizon, and zoom in. That's more scientific than the science you see broadcast on mass media. You will discover that the horizon is a visual artifact due to perspective and not a hard boundary. Ships do not disappear. TL;DR We can see too far and there is no curve, out to hundreds of miles. That is the bottom line, and all the rest is window dressing.
When you outsource your discernment to others, which you and all your fellow rationalists do, you end up digesting the output of others. In other words, Garbage In, Garbage Out.
You would be better of with the Charedim, who know more about the true nature of the world just by delving into the Talmud.
Are you insinuating that the Earth is flat?
I insinuate nothing. I know it is. We can see too far. Water finds its level. There is no observable curvature or detectable horizon. These are verifiable facts any individual can see for himself.
Commercial airline pilots know. ALL OF THEM. Ask one the next time you fly. They don't talk about it, but when asked, they admit the truth. You notice things when you spend thousands of hours at 30000 feet and higher.
Since a retard above mentioned computer models, here is where a model is useful. According the globe earth model, a lowered horizon and curvature should be easily observed at the altitudes jet aircraft fly at, yet they aren't. No curvature and the horizon always rises to eye level. This is easily verifiable. When you see curvature in the endless images paraded online, you are seeing the optical effect of fisheye lenses, not actual curvature.
I just checked Google maps and zoomed out. Clearly round. Sorry pal.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
So how do people fly around the world? And if you tell me that no one ever has, I've personally flown from New York to Israel over the Atlantic. And I personally know a fellow who's flown from Israel to China over Asia. And I personally know a fellow who's flown from NY to China over the Pacific. So how else would you explain this other than the earth being round??
"Water finds its level." What does this even mean?
I can't take seriously the "scientists don't know what they are talking about" argument. You could make an effort to study how we have proof that the earth is very old, and evolution happened, but I guess that would be a waste of your time. Time you could be using to study Torah.
No one ever denies physics when it takes us to the moon, but apply that same predictable, testable knowledge to the universe and now it's unprovable theory? I guess some types of carbon are more prone to miracles than others? The laws of physics and genetic inheritance are only real when they don't contradict the literal meaning of the text?
Why make things the are hidden to most humans appear old, and then tell us they are not really old?
Why trick humanity like that? Is the only conclusion that the word around us lies? That the processes that govern reality are deceiving us? Some people struggle with faith, and just saying "We don't know, our sages haven't figured it out yet but don't you dare think it's not literal" doesn't really work.
Did HaShem really make transitional fossils, and tectonic plates move, and create the cosmic microwave background just to test 20th and 21th century people? These things where never intellectual challenges to our ancestors, since they didn't knew about them. But they were always there.
If you are really ok with creation being mysterious, why can't it be a non-literal account of what happened? Does it make more sense to believe fossils were never alive, than to believe the words are symbolic? Not to mention that creation is by far not the only part that contradicts reality. Is the sumerian creation myth also a test of faith?
as for the last footnote on the sheer hypocrisy of N.S., see this --
https://www.hyehudi.org/welfare-for-me-but-not-for-thee/
What sort of hetter is 'he's a yochid'? Slifkin is also a yochid, so lets all get back to 'the beis' and stop this time wasting. Thursday night there is cholent and kigul on offer (as per 'the mesorah') for all those ultra holy benei torah who need encouragement to learn....
It's not a heter. It's a statement of fact. If you want to know the heter, ask him, not us. The rebbe doesn't disparage fellow Jews and stir up hate. He tells his chasidim to not follow his ways as far as they relate to zmanin. Slifkin encourages others to join him in hatred. He's not a yachid but an erstwhile leader.
With him, and you, the mockery and cynicism and hatred never stop.
The question to ask is not 'why make an old universe'? The question to ask is 'why evolve a universe'?
I assume the evolutionists amongst us agree that an omnipotent G-d could have created a universe as literally described in Bereishis. They just believe He didn't. Why didn't he? What was the purpose of evolving a universe for millions of years with no humans to recognize Him?
The question of 'why would he do it' is completely moot.
I believe He did it for the same reason there are stars that are invisible to us, and fossils exist before you find them. For G-d to see. After all, plants and stars were created before us.
If the christians are that great, why doesn't slifkin convert?
There is something so kapo-like for a person to be angry at his community and to turn to the goyim for affirmation. Even non-religious don't act like that, only otds and farbissene.
That post of slifkin's is beneath contempt.
He's not saying the Christians are *so* great. He's saying they're dealing with an issue better than we are. That's all.
"....old and forgotten ‘minority opinions’, regardless of their acceptance in normative mesorah, ensures that the discussion of any viewpoint’s legitimacy quickly devolves into a flurry of search engine gymnastics, creative readings, and innovative applications. We have little stomach for such distractions"
Of course you have 'little stomach' to deal with rishonim and acharonim that do not hold of the classic charedi opinion that all is literal and days means days of 24 hours (so not obvious that days means days of 24 hours, rashi in chagigoh has to provide his shittoh that yomim means yomim of 24 hours - miclall d'ika cholkim - rashi doesn't bother to rebut every man in the street) and that there was some sort of evolutionary process in creation. Classic chareidi dichui. I have no stomach to argue, its the end of seider. Great substantive rebuttal.
The Rambam in Moreh writes clearly that if scientists would show that the earth existing forever, he would happily interpret the torah likewise, and the possuk 'v-horetz l'olem omedes' as literal. Presumably that's an old and forgotten minority opinion that can conveniently ignored. As can all the meroh mekomos Slifkin does quote in his books. After all, there is a clear mesorah of the correct treatment of these issues in line with the chareidi way, the said mesorah conveniently guarded and decided as correct by the chareidim, what a conincidence.
And why do you think the Rambam has any authority at all? Do you subscribe to the idea of .....mesorah?
I believe in both mesorah and da'as torah as concepts. But both have become hopelessly corrupted to be useful now in practice. All we have is the printed text to rely on. If chassidim blatently created their own mesorah, overturning all that came before, and today be accepted (the amshinov rebbe b'pumbi lit menorah at 4.45AM), I believe that no group has any longer any moral high ground in accusing the other of 'not following mesorah'. You know, by the way, there is no mesorah in deliberately bringing up kids with no education to cope in their host countries thus forcing many of them to live in poverty and rely on benefits. Like Humpty Dumpty when 'words can mean whatever I want them to mean', 'the mesorah' can be whatever I want it to be.
Again, if you don't believe in mesorah, what does this Rambam guy's opinion matter? The only reason the Rambam has any authority at all is because of this so-called mesorah you reject.
Again, I wrote clearly I believe in mesorah as a concept. And the Rambam's words are printed. And yes, there are cholkim on the rambam, including the rambam himself. And 'matter' is a vague word, what exactly do you mean here by 'matter'. Maybe they don't 'matter' - he still wrote them, though.
You believe everything printed? The New Testament was printed before the Rambam. Augustine of Hippo was printed. For that matter, so are chassidishe rebbes. What makes you think the Rambam is any more authoritative than them?
If the Rambam's words don't matter, why are you bringing them up? Who cares if he wrote them?
You are deflecting now. Deal with my 'etzem nekudah' or keep quiet.
No group nowadays has the moral authority to claim that 'the mesorah supports them'. Who decided who the guardians of 'the mesorah is'? Chareidim decided they are the guardians of the mesorah that supports their point of view. Great logic there.
There is no mesorah for any particular tzad in all this torah and science stuff (other than the age of the earth, which is just one of many facets of the whole torah and science business). It's all a machlokas like every other machlokas. This torah and science business only started around sixty years ago, there cannot possibly be any mesorah. Rav Carmell was an early pioneer, a talmid of Rav Dessler and he, for example, had no problem interpreting the gemmoroh that says cats have venom in their claws are referring to bacteria. The charedi mesorah - the only correct one of course I say sarcasticaly - would say either nishtanu hatevah or there is poison in the cat's claws that science has yet undeteced (what do those scientists know against the gemoroh? )or some combination of the two.
The Amshinover Rebbe is a yachid and tells his chasidim to act according to normative halacha. Don't be retarded.
But what about him? Yeshivish answer 'he is a yochid' that answers precisely nothing.
What's sad about you is that I have rendered you silent after numerous exchanges, on this blog (the record speaks for itself, unless you delete your comments here and in other posts), yet you continue to posture like you are in the right. How long do you want to continue? You, like many bitter and angry people, are just dragging traumas experienced in childhood into your adult life. Your arguments are childish, because they were formed in childhood, and remain unexamined since then. Get over it and grow up already.
I rarely respond to you because you are childish, rude and don't address my points. I have better things to do like respond to others who do make some attempt to respond properly.....
If he is a yachid, he is a bad example to provide. That's pretty clear. Literal "whataboutism". It's only a pertinent question to you. It's not a yeshivish answer. It's the answer of a healthy versus cynical Jew.
Test, the honest thing to do would be to ask him directly. I hear he's very approachable. You don't. You ask us, who don't know him nor his motivations or justifications. That makes you a dishonest retard.
There is a Mesora, and the only ones that kept it up were the Charedim. Not the other way around.
If you claim there is a different Mesora, show it to us. Can you tell us of any Mesora that accepted the Rambam's philosophical positions through the ages? Because I know of none. All Seforim that we use did not accept his position, from the Gra to the Maharal, the Maharsha to Reb Yonasan Eibeschutz.
I don't claim there is a mesorah for anything. Practically every thing is a machlokas. You know, the maharal (one on your list) says midroshim do not have to be taken literally and no way did vashti grow a tale, whatever the talmud says. That's the mesorah?!? And Rav Yackov Emden believed Rav Eibeshutz was an apikorus, So which of those two has the true mesorah?
Great segue into Vashti's tail, though I have no idea how you did it.
Anyway, Mesorah isn't about what kugel to eat, or whether Vashti had a tail. Mesorah is about the underlying concepts, and the Rambam's radical view was not accepted historically. Kabbalah was mostly accepted, except by a tiny minority of outliers. Non-Jewish philosophy was mostly discarded, and the Rambam's mahalach of ignoring Chazal based on his own ideas was not perpetuated.
If you think differently, show me any classic Seforim on that path.
I agree, but there is no mesorah on this 'torah and science' business. None at all. Todays yeshviish chareidim invented 'the mesorah' that coincidentally supports their POV. Fifty years ago when this first started, suggestions, by chareidim were made that did not involve 'nishtanu hatevah' and 'what do those scientist apikorsim know', That's new.
You are treating the matter with superficial glasses.
There is a Mesora that Chazal's words are final. Even if the Rambam did not hold so.
There is a Mesora that the Torah is not allegorical. Even if the Rambam did not hold so.
There is a Mesora that the world's values and mores do not obligate us. Even if the Rambam did not hold so.
There is a Mesora that our Emuna is not to be based on our own logic. Even if the Rambam did not hold so.
There is a Mesora to accept the secret tradition of the Torah as part of the Torah on Har Sinai. Even if the Rambam did not hold so.
And that is what the new generation of 'thinkers' would like to uproot. If the Charedim are the only ones to uphold this Mesora, they are not to blame.
Indeed. You may have a problem with the maharal who says vashti never grew a tail, clearly he doesn't believe in the mesorah that chazal 'had the final say'. You may have a problem with rabbi dessler who writes that cats do not have venom in their claws, different to what chazal say.
But more critically chazal made very few clear statements concerning the 'torah and science' debate. Mind you, tather embarrassingly they conceded in Pesochim that the non Jewish scientists were correct and chazal were wrong.
Is there a machlokes on the calendar? How about which day of the week is Shabbos? The actual arguments people like you like to point out are usually about details, not broad swaths of halacha and hashkafa.
When I realized the Big Bang Model was outright fabricated, only a few years ago, I reassessed my own views of midrash and agada and now believe they are less fantastical and metaphorical than before. How much, I don't know.
"Of course you have 'little stomach' to deal with rishonim and acharonim that do not hold of the classic charedi opinion that all is literal and days means days of 24 hours (so not obvious that days means days of 24 hours, rashi in chagigoh has to provide his shittoh that yomim means yomim of 24 hours - miclall d'ika cholkim - rashi doesn't bother to rebut every man in the street) and that there was some sort of evolutionary process in creation. Classic chareidi dichui. I have no stomach to argue, its the end of seider. Great substantive rebuttal."
These sources are generally misinterpreted. Eg. Rashi is not providing his opinion he's explaining the meaning of the words "the characteristics of day and the characteristics of night" (what else would it be besides what Rashi says?)
"The Rambam in Moreh writes clearly that if scientists would show that the earth existing forever, he would happily interpret the torah likewise, and the possuk 'v-horetz l'olem omedes' as literal."
There's another Rambam where he says creation ex nihilo is a principle of the Jewish faith in contrast to Plato's and Aristotle's theories which are total kefira. In the section you refer to he distinguishes between Aristotle's theory which is irreconcilable with Judaism and Plato's theory which, if required for incontestable philosophical reasons, can be. (Note: the philosophical arguments he referenced were deductive in nature meaning there could not, in principle even, be any other than the posited explanation. This is simply not what science is even attempting to do.) These two Rambams seem to contradict each other (and simply quoting one, as Marc Shapiro notes is often done, is simply dishonest). The most frequently proposed reconciliation is that until the doctrine of eternity is proven conclusively it's a principle of faith that God created the world out of nothing. (Note: Rambam would say if Aristotle's theories were proven you'd just give up on Judaism.) Since, science is simply not trying to present the sort of proof the Rambam refers to this source is simply irrelevant.
I'm wondering, how do you see the Rambams contradict each other? Does Marc Shapiro say they contradict each other?
I don't see any contradiction, as far as I can tell, the Rambam explains explicitly what the difference between Aristotle and Plato is. He is very clear that Aristotle's understanding is completely irreconcilable with Judaism, and if it were proven true, it would debunk the Torah ח"ו.
אבל אמונת הקדמות על הצד אשר יראה אותו אריסטו שהוא על צד החיוב ולא ישתנה טבע כלל ולא יצא דבר חוץ ממנהגו – הנה היא סותרת הדת מעיקרה ומכזבת לכל אות בהכרח ומבטלת כל מה שתיחל בו התורה או תפחיד ממנו – האלהים! אלא יפורשו האותות גם כן כמו שעשו בעלי התוך מן הישמעאלים ויצאו בזה למין מן ההזיה.
Read my comment more closely. I acknowledged that Rambam's accomodationist comments only applied to Plato's theory. Since Plato's theory isn't completely unthinkable given Judaism (in allowing miracles etc.) while not proven it's assumed to be apikorsus, if philosophically proven we could reinterpret the pesukim to allow for it.
You say they are misinterpreted. Fine. Others say they were not.
You know, that's called a machlokas. What bnei torah spend most of their lives on. Machlokas. Big deal.
There is nothing that says the chareidi side of the machlokas is more correct than the other side, other than 'the mesorah'. The said mesorah being attested to, coincdentally, by the chareidim. Considering the whole torah and science business started maybe sixty years ago, it's a bit rich to claim 'the mesorah' supports one side more than the other.
"The most frequently proposed reconciliation is that until the doctrine of eternity is proven conclusively it's a principle of faith that God created the world out of nothing. "
That's exactly my point. The charedi mesorah is that if the doctrine of etnernty can never be proven conclusively, its just the scientists mucked it up somehow, or made false assumptions or whatever.......
He confused us by giving us a Torah and thousands of years of Mesorah that provides misleading information about the origins of the world"
To be fair, I'd you read Natan's book, you will see he actually provides a solid answer to this point: Bereshit was always understood in the paradigm of ancient myth, where it matters not reality but what it comes to teach (the entire ancient world thought and taught that way, for an explanation why, read "Where Earth Meets The Sky"). What happened when the world slowly aged out of using myth, many ancient myths were either discarded or mistakenly understood to be fact. (A good example of this are those who take clear mythological midrashim literally, or those who believe when Chazal said a chilazon comes up once in 70 years Chazal really meant exactly 70 years to the day, instead of "one lifetime".) Since Maaseh Bereshis was never taught in public, it too was subject to this mistaken revision of myth to fact. So Hashem didn't confuse us, in fact he gave an explanation that would be readily understandable to the first generations of those who kept the Torah. It is us who are unfamiliar with that way of thinking who mistakenly take it as fact. I happen to think that this explanation is quite convincing.
I am aware of Dr. Slifkin's position, and virtually everything I wrote in the post applies to it as well. I just didn't mention it specifically because it wasn't necessary for most readers. An approach that simply denies the truth of the Torah is not something that most believing Jews are working within.
It's actually by far the most common framework for Modern Orthodox academics who accept single authorship. (Herzog College etc). Gerald Shroeder's ridiculous approach is just accepted by BTs.
I second that.
This is much, much worse than all the explanations that Slifkin rejects. He is saying that the Torah is simply lying (for good intentions). IYH I will write a post on this this week or next.
Also, I don't entirely agree with Rational Traditionalist on this, I have some explanations that you might like better (but Slifkin would probably reject). IYH a post about that as well.
It's most certainly not a lie. It's a question of genre. If you think Harry Potter is nonfiction, then yes, JK Rowling is lying. But it's not nonfiction. Similarly, the Torah's creation account has all the hallmarks of myth. Talking snakes, God walking in his Garden, Chiasmic theological order of creation, and many more (Yonatan Grossman's book "Creation" has a good rundown of them). Any ancient reader would have correctly understood the genre and categorized it as such. It is us who mistake it and accuse the Torah of cha"v lying.
Saying the Torah is fiction is just as bad.
Ancient readers most certainly did not think it was fiction, neither did Philo, nor Josephus, nor Chazal. And Slifkin is quite clear that they understood it as truth, not as fiction. But the Torah fed them lies ("fiction") according to what they thought.
However, as I will write in my post, ancient readers understood that all of it may not be literal, and that there was a deeper meaning. But Slifkin explicitly rejects allegory in favor of saying it was theological fiction.
Myth does not equal fiction. Please read the book I recommended. It's on libgen for free.
It doesn't matter what you call it. "Myth" is just as bad. If you mean allegory, which Slifkin EXPLICITLY rejects, then I can agree partially, with some qualifications.
I just realized that I misquoted the Title. I apologize. It's "When They Severed Earth from Sky" https://www.amazon.com/When-They-Severed-Earth-Sky/dp/0691127743
Why you so convinced that once in 70 years is not literal?
Many different reasons.
1) seventy is an archetypical topological number. Unless you literally believe that there are exactly 70 languages, seventy nations (and these numbers stayed static from bavel to chazal, with a language and nation magically disappearing the second a new one developed) and that carob trees live and grow for exactly 70 years, it is far more likely that 70 is symbolic, especially considering that 70 shows up many more times than the examples I gave and symbolic bumbers are par for the time period.
2) we know exactly what the chilazon is - it's the hexaplex trunculus, and it assuredly does not come up literally every 70 years, but once every few years to decades, thousands and thousands of them wash up on beaches at once, usually due to a tidal wave or other natural disaster. (There are videos on YouTube of this phenomenon.) It is likely Chazal is referring to this.
Point number one is definitely a possibility, but until you know what the chilazon is you can't know for sure. Which brings us to point number 2, we actually have no idea if the trunculus is the true chilazon. There is actually zero direct evidence to that.
All we know is that it dyes purple, never dyed blue, and was impossible to dye blue in ancient times. But not sure I have patience to discuss this now.
No one doubts that plenty of "evidence" in support of evolution was outright fabricated. If you actually look into the history, and I have enough, for my own satisfaction, you will find that much of what is claimed about dinosaurs is likewise fabricated, and was even done so to provide support for evolution. But no one wants to go down that route, because then you might be tarred with the CIA-manufactured label of "conspiracy theorist." I prefer "conspiracy queryist" myself.