What a great post. I also believe there are no proofs, in fact, there are often strong counterproofs. Buy the reason I am frum is precisely the reason you are - it is our traditional way to worship Hashem, whose majesty screams to us from everywhere we look.
To be clear I think there is strong evidence, and there is not strong counter-evidence at all. But that itself doesn't constitute a conclusive proof, nor do we need a conclusive proof.
Thers evidence that theres a G-d. Matan Torah is a bit more of a stretch (but id assume once theres a G-d he He created us for a reason and should make His will known somehow).
Yes, you do think that. But only because you are willing to engage in selective reasoning. There's a reason most people don't accept the truth of the Torah, and it's not because they are baalei tayvah. It's because the evidence simply isn't there.
Only once one has lives the beauty does it start making sense.
That's what flat-earthers say about round earthers also. But I say the other side is engaging in selective reasoning because they don't admit the possibility or plausibility of the supernatural. It is also because they are baalei tayvah and have been enveloped by the general anti-religious spirit of Enlightenment thinking.
"Yes, you do think that. But only because you are willing to engage in selective reasoning. There's a reason most people don't accept the truth of the Torah, and it's not because they are baalei tayvah. It's because the evidence simply isn't there."
It could be also be that they just haven't thought about it much altogether. It's not as though modern society is filled with a bunch of deep thinkers who spend their time pondering the deep questions of life.
There's also a lot of post-modern types who apriori reject the idea of evidence to begin with. (Note that I'm not making a claim about the evidence. I'm simply noting that polling humanity isn't a very good guide to the truth of the matter.)
In his sefer רשומי אהרן Reb Ahron Felder Zatsal brings from Reb Moshe zatsal not to bring up emunah questions in schools because the questions are often better than the answers. I believe the main point is that the Torah was not meant to be studied as a science book. The point isn’t that there is something untrue about the Torah but rather that it isn’t really relevant to us to understand the science of how the Torah is true. What is relevant to us is the lessons of חובת האדם בעולמו contained in the Torah, and these lessons should themselves be self-evident as the truth.
Moreover, I understand the entire concept of truth to be an aspect of the human experience. Therefore the truth of the Torah must stem the human experience which is its purpose, not through external proofs. As the Ramban writes in the hakdama to מלחמת ה’ the Torah is not a math book, therefore the proofs to its truth are not scientific.
I looked up the quote and I quoted it wrong so I am bringing the lashon.
רשומי אהרן ח"ב עמוד ט. היתה א שהגיע למו"ר זצ"ל לשאול אם כדאי להדפיס ספר שבו יש קושיות ותירוצים בעניני אמונה בהקב"ה להוציא מלבם של הכופרים דעות כוזבות והשיב לו מו"ר זצ"ל שאם ברצונו להדפיס ספר כזה אז יש לו להשמיט את הקושיות ורק לכתוב את התירוצים כי בדרך כלל הקושיות יותר חזקות מהתירוצים
I actually like that mehalech a lot. An honest seeker of truth will find the answers he needs and also be well educated in the depth of Torah when reading the rest of the answers, with out having to dwell on questions he would not think of.
Bringing things up in schools does not necessarily reflect the depth of Judaism. There's the full truth and the way to be mechanech. The idea you mention that the proofs are not relevant for us to understand, please then explain to me why רבינו בחיי wrote שער היחוד בחובובת הלבבות, why Rabi Yehuda Halevi wrote the Kuzari, why the Rambam wrote מורה נבוחים, and why the רמב"ן wrote ספר ויכוח.
I agree that all that is still not enough, but the intellectual ideas of Judaism formulated in the form of proofs is integral to Jewish understanding.
It's a מחלוקת ראשונים if we use philosophical proof or if historical proof of our ancestors is the main idea. No one says the whole thing is irrelevant like Yehoshua (till recently). The פירוש לב טוב mostly brings sources regarding this, not against proof in general, besides for some Chasidim he brings who were more radical, not like the Rishonim. The Ramban wrote what transpired with a משומד, but he was only forced to debate, not to publish his dialogue afterwards. Rav Yehuda Halevi wrote a sefer of proofs without resorting to philosophy, which he was against. The sefer is not against proofs, its against the style that was used then. The Gra encouraged learning it to strengthen emuna, and it is all logical.
But first let me state that the Chovos Halvavos and the Moreh Nevuchim are irrelevant to this conversation. Their issue wasn't "formulating proofs to Judaism" but rather they held that understanding ייחוד ה' philosophically is one of the most basic mitzvos of Yiddishkeit.
Now to the point.
I really was too brief. I am not fully comfortable with Ash's statement yet I do feel that it captures excellently the extreme tension surrounding this issue. I only felt comfortable liking it after it was qualified by others and after I quoted Reb Moshe zatsal. (Did you see the full quote above?)
This is what I wrote "The point isn’t that there is something untrue about the Torah but rather that it isn’t really relevant to us to understand the science of how the Torah is true." My intention was that while we know that the Torah is 100% true we have no obligation to understand how to reconcile every word of the Torah with modern science.
Moreover, we shouldn't even expect to be able to reconcile the 2 as the Torah is not meant to be studied as a science book and we can't expect to grasp the science of how every word is true.
Sounds good to me (see my comment on Rav Moshe's Lashon). I guess the only thing I'll add to this and i am sure you''ll agree, that people on a higher scientific level may need more to make themselves comfortable but for the rest of us, the basic outline should be fine.
AFAIK, חכמי אשכנז וצרפת didn't deal with proofs at all (polemics with גלחים ומשומדים are not proofs)
WRT רמב"ן, IIRC he had no choice but to publish, and the ספר doesn't deal with proofs, כאמור
WRT רבי יהודה הלוי, he rejected the idea of philosophical proofs. He din't write historical proofs, what he said was that "אבל פתיחת דברי היא המופת, ועוד כי היא הראיה: אין צריך עמה לא ראיה ולא מופת" (מאמר ראשון, אות טו ועיין אות צא, שם)
הגר"א is quoted: "והיה מחבב הגר"א ספר מנורת המאור וספר חובת הלבבות זולת שער היחוד, ובמקום שער היחוד היה אומר שילמדו ספר כוזרי הראשון שהוא קדוש וטהור ועיקרי אמונת ישראל ותורה תלויים בו" (תוספת מעשה רב, תרמ"ד, סי' ט"ו)
I'm can't decipher all those Roshei Tavos so i'll stick to the content I understand. חכמי אשכנז וצרפת didn't put out sefarim on emuna at all as far as I know, so I don't see anything conclusive from that.
"The Ramban had no choice but to publish" Who told you that? He had no one forcing him to write anything down once the live debate was over. As far as proofs, since when does proof just mean philosophical? Debating a Christian and transcribing it is not emuna peshuta.
Same with כוזרי, as you yourself quoted him saying that "what I am about to say is the best proof, and no other proof is needed". The book is full of thought provoking questions and answers.
That was also the Shita of the Gra, that we do not resort to greek style philosophy but the kuzari full of עקרי אמונת ישראל.
The reason HE gave for it, that the answers are not as good, depends on the maturity and experience a person has, because otherwise Rav Moshe would have to answer for the emuna sefarim I quoted. I happen to know someone who spoke to Rav Reuven Feinstein and he said he learnt שער יחוד and מורה נבוחים as a bachur.
By the way, I myself never learnt much of the above two, I just learnt כוזרי ספר העקרים רמבם מדע and read the contemporary books, a bit of Rabbi Miller and Rabbi Kaplan. It really bothers me when people claim there's no such thing as proof in Judaism, especially Schmetzer who goes so far as to blame such an idea on the חובות הלבבות and the Rambam, by snipping off half their statements and other such misquotes.
He is a nice man. I stayed at his house for Shabbos (twice, I believe), but I feel his approach is very dangerous for Yiddishkeit, especially as his books are all over Lakewood and carry the aura of authority.
OK I see we are on the same page now. By the way, did you ever see Rav Moshe Wolfsons book The core of Emuna? The writing is a bit juvenile but the content is very solid and mainstream from what I've seen, or as others would call it a "happy medium."
I love this comment because it encapsulates in a nutshell the kiruv (Or Someach/ Aish) and Emunah education (Sapirman/ Shmeltzer etc.) debates. I expounded a bit more elsewhere in this discussion.
I liked the comparison to Alexander the Great. It reminded me of a recent conversation I had with a irreligious fellow, who said he isn't sure if there is enough historical proof to say God spoke to the Jewish people. When I asked why this was different than Gorge Washington, he replied "it's not the same, Gorge Washington doesn't come along with responsibilities, God does." What a good answer.
There is a difference though. We have letters from george washington as well as potraits people took of him. We have documents he signed on like the declaration of independence. There are mant outside sources (even correspondence with King George etc) we'd be able to dig up from museums collections. With Matan Torah all we have is Tanach and Chazal who come to the picture 1000 years later.
Sure, later history has more surviving documentation. But that's just a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one. In any case, I prefer comparing the Torah to ancient history, like Alexander the Great, which has very little documentation from the time he actually lived.
"Most primary sources written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander are lost, but a few inscriptions and fragments survive."
Its more than the Torah but we seem to have found the מזבח at Har Eival with a the קרבנות as described in the torah. We obviously cant hinge all of our אמונה on that but its strong evidence.
You might not be aware, but the Christian goyim say much the same thing as you: Judaism (aka "Rabbinic Judaism") is YOUNGER than Christianity, because, after all, the Talmud was written around 500 CE. Your reasoning is just as faulty. Committed to writing is not the same thing as written.
What your counterargument? Theres no absolute proof that the gemara was "commited to writing at sinai" besides for our mesora of torah shebal peh. Besides for that theres no outside sources corroborating it (besides for a bit of archaelogy which includes much conjecture). I believe in torah misinai but its not like George Washington.
I agree. The Rambam holds משה received the מצוות with their interpretation. All of the drashot were chazal as the Sanhedrin can darshin anew in evry generation (הלכות ממרים).
The Rambam says anything which is a matter of מחלוקת is not from sinai(even though its 100 דאורייתא).
I was just mentioning that its not the same as a historical event like George Washington which has outside corroboration and dosent rely on מסורה.
If they agree with the Tzedukim, thats a real argument, goyim or not. I dont agree because i have a mesora (and i believe theres a reason the tzedukim died out after the second temple). I however agree that the torah wasnt meant to be taken as is but rather Rabbinic Interpretation was always part and parcel of its transmission. You still can call that a proof. Indication yes, proof no.
(Hey Happy, sorry for my long absence, missed you too! I'm going to continue to be absent after Shabbos as well but for now, here I am. I'm looking forward to reading your other posts בין הזמנים bl'n...)
What an important post! A lot of commentators already expressed the idea beautifully, and I doubt I will be adding anything of value, but to be honest, I love talking...
הקב"ה is not felt by the גוף, only by the נשמה. Almost everyone who talks about this explains this as the פשט in the גמרא in ברכות which says about the נשמה that יבא זה וישבח לזה. The Rambam is מאריך about this, as well as many, many others. In order to get there, one needs to be פורש מגופו and get in touch with his נשמה, the point of connection between us and אבינו שבשמים.
This may not be scientific in the sense we are used, but we are not married to being scientific, rather to the truth. And it is undeniably true. Even a Christians wrong experience is this feeling, although when vague it can be misinterpreted.
Once one develops even just an ounce of קדושה in his bones, there is nothing irrational anymore about yiddishkeit.
All questions, which are clouded by terms of logos, like 'rationality' or 'science', are really nothing more than figuring out a world without this reality. One who has never experienced this has to make sense of a cold, godless world, and all of their 'rational' arguments are nothing more than codes of them screaming out they have no שייכות to קדושה nebach.
You apparently never felt "kedusha in your bones" so it's meaningless. I have nothing to say that will make you feel it except encouraging you to go learn and daven with more feeling and sincerity.
100%, there is nothing "irrational" about a Krishna dude and his beliefs. They aren't wrong because they are irrational. They are wrong because they are wrong. An atheist conflates the two. He says religion is wrong BECAUSE it is irrational
"I doubt there are many people out there who went from secular to religious primarily based on whatever he or others like him consider “conclusive proof” or even “evidence”. If any one of you are kiruv professionals who disagree with this, or if you know of such examples, I would be interested."
I'm no professional, and would be equally interested in hearing from some. My sense is that there's a slice of fire-and-brimstone kiruv types who claim to have absolute proof which will blow away any doubters in 5 minutes or less. They tend to be Israeli, and baalei teshuva themselves. They're successful with a slice of the population which crave that sort of thing, and more importantly, are satisfied with it.
It's worth noting that R Dovid Gottlieb insists that he's NOT offering any sort of proof, but rather sufficient evidence to believe.
"Why should they be confused for no reason? However, for those of you who read Irrationalist Modoxism, that battle has probably long been lost for you personally"
1. AL KHAZARI: I must trouble thee to give me a clear and concise discourse on religious principles.. Since I have not been granted a perfect faith free from doubts, and I was formerly sceptical, had my own opinions, and exchanged ideas with philosophers and followers of other religions, I consider it most advantageous to learn and to instruct myself how to refute dangerous and foolish views. Tradition in itself is a good thing if it satisfies the soul, but a perturbed soul prefers research, especially if examination leads to the verification of tradition. Then knowledge and tradition become united.
2. The Rabbi: Where is the soul which is strong enough not to be deceived by the views of philosophers, scientists, astrologers, adepts, magicians, materialists, and others, and can adopt a belief without having first passed through many stages of heresy? Life is short, but labour long. Only few there are to whom belief comes naturally, who avoid all these views, and whose soul always detects the points of error in them. I hope that thou art one of those few. Since I cannot resist, I will not lead thee the way of the Karaites, who ascended the heights of metaphysics without intermediate steps. I will give thee a clear standpoint, which will assist thee to acquire clear notions of matter and form, elements, nature, soul, intellect, and metaphysics in general. After this I will prove to thee, as briefly as possible, that the rational soul can exist without a body; further, the existence of reward hereafter, providence and omnipotence."
You make good points, I'd just like to point out that Uri Zohar writes in his book that he decided to become frum after one conversation with Rav Zilberman proving the Torah.
Correct me if I am mistaken but I thought his book is mainly about what I am focused on, that humanity and it's relationship with the world screams out חובת האדם בעולמו. Certainly he needed to be convinced that Hashem and the Torah are real but is that the main focus?
I never said it was the main focus, I was responding to those that say "no one became frum by hearing proofs" that here's an example to the contrary. I didn't say we should be talking proofs all our life.
I think it's important to clarify that this whole discussion is really solely about focus and priority. I don't think even Ash believes that we shouldn't provide people with everything in our arsenal. His point is that the main focus must always be internalizing the Torah's message not external proofs. This is also the tradition. I imagine even חוקר agrees with דוד that someone learning Torah יומם ולילה will view everything else as shallow, and that's great.
Happy's main point was actually something else, that the need to have "absolute proof" is rooted in hubris.
Personally, I feel that hubris of this sort is very dangerous for Yiddishkeit, as it causes people to ground Yiddishkeit to hard to defend positions.
I see now what you meant all along and I agree with you. It's more about relating the depth of Yidishkait than the proof. דע מה להשיב is only a small part of a much bigger picture.
I apologize, for some reason it slipped from me. I actually went greatly out of my way to get a bracha from him, in no way did I think he didn't deserve any less than הרב הצדיק החסיד והפרוש.
In the link Reb rkz posted there is a discussion about this an pgs. 3-4
הודעהעל ידי סגי נהור « ב' יוני ,13 2022 2:08 am
באחת ההקלטות שהועלו כאן, רא"ז מעיד שעם הזמן הוא הבין שאמונה אינה באה ע"י הוכחות שכליות אלא מתוך התעוררות פנימית. זה נושא שעלה כאן בפורום כמה וכמה פעמים. והגילוי הזה די הפתיע אותי, כי הוא לכאורה היה הסמל והדוגמא לשיטת ההוכחות.
הודעהעל ידי הרואה « ב' אוגוסט ,08 2022 9:45 pm
אני שמעתי מפיו שלקח לו שנים להבין שמה ששכנע אותו לחזור בתשובה זה לא ההוכחות השכליות עצמם שהוא שמע מהרב זילברמן, את ההוכחות האלו הוא שמע כבר לפני כן מאדם אחר, אלא עיקר הנושא זה שראה את הרב זילברמן עצמו כאדם שברור לחלוטין שהוא עצמו מאמין וחי לפי הדברים באותה מידה שבה אומר אותם
כלומר היה פה שילוב מעניין של שכנוע שכלי ורגשי.
The second comment is longer and there is also a discussion in this pages about his realization that for the next generation sechel is not what talks to them as much and they need chasidus especially breslev.
"Mt San Jacinto from 123 miles in High Res IR on super clear day!"
"Jtolan Media 1" was the inspiration for my interest in infrared imaging. He clearly also has a much sharper engineering background than me. Later videos make use of a theodolite (the tool used for surveying). Along with more sophisticated analysis and stereo imaging techniques. He has done numerous videos from airplane flights and identified landmarks many hundreds of miles away. This is not some idiot that can be so easily debunked. Although you are welcome to try.
This video takes a very prominent mountain (Mount San Jacinto in Southern California, where I grew up), and identifies several landmarks at different elevations. He measures the actual amount of refraction between these landmarks. And also shows what should be visible on a globe versus what is visible in the video he took. On a globe, only the top 1000 feet or so should be visible, but you can see the entire thing. The mountain was utterly invisible in the visible spectrum but very prominent in IR. You can practically reach out and touch it, even from over 100 miles away.
You can believe what you want to believe, but this is hard core evidence. The other videos I linked to do not do anything like this.
We have strong indications but we cant call them proofs necessarily. They are things we should use to build up and deepen our אמונה but we cant put all of our eggs in one basket. Thats the issue of using a scientific wonder to prove Hashem. As soon as theres one hole it can all come crashing down like a house of cards.
Specifically regarding flat versus ball, you miss the mark. And you make a certain category error. Natan made a post some months back on flat earth which falls into this category. I responded to the points he made, which are of a similar quality, probably convincing no one in particular.
But there is another point I made then and I make consistently. That of empirical evidence, not proof. What convinced me about the flatness of our realm was the solid, absolutely overwhelming body of EVIDENCE, NOT PROOF, that we can see too far.
If the earth is a globe 7,926 miles in diameter, then the curvature is not only readily apparent, but absolutely measurable at the surface. There is some mildly complicated trigonometry involved for the mathematically correct calculation, but this shorthand formula for the curvature is accurate to well within 1% of the true figure out to many hundreds of miles:
eight inches per mile squared
At one mile distance, the ground curves eight inches. Not much, right? At 10 miles, 800 inches of curvature should be observable. At 40 (and I have seen tests that go this far), 12800 inches (1066.67 feet) of curvature should be observed. This curvature should be observable over land and water, as per the story we are told.
And also, out to hundreds of miles, this formula is more known by its lack of validation than any actual confirmation anywhere.
These kind of observations are being done all over the world. Here are two videos done by Arabs in Israel across the Kinneret as one example:
There are many, many more. I am doing my own part to contribute to the same body of evidence.
None of these are PROOF. All of them are EVIDENCE against an easily verifiable claim, assuming the earth is a globe.
How you respond to this kind of evidence is up to you, but it is solid evidence that demolishes the key globe argument. The rest is basically irrelevant window dressing.
For example, the claim of the use of green screen and CGI, readily apparent to me, who grew up steeped in the entertainment business, are claims of "proof" according to your definition. So are references to odd emergency landings by passenger jets that make no sense on a globe but do on a flat earth. Proof, yes, but they are not evidence that specifically addresses the claims of the globe model, that of a ball just under 8000 miles in diameter.
It's what makes Natan's post on the subject, and the comments of his sycophants, so retarded and misleading. They never address the concrete irrefutable evidence, only the "proofs," which are often made of straw anyway.
There is likewise, and l'havdil, a compelling body of evidence vis a vis the Torah and its authenticity. But it is not as clear cut as the succinct and catchy "WE CAN SEE TOO FAR" phrase that captures the essential problem of the globe model.
You want to believe in the globe, by all means do so. It doesn't matter what you are taught, or what the implications are of it not existing. If you believe in it, you are doing so against EVIDENCE, not proof.
Hi Shimshon, thanks for the lengthy response. Regarding your claims of seeing too far, what do you think of this article, where the author claims that atmospheric refraction can account for that?
This video has the effect clearly visible with a building. The LOWER floors are compressed MORE, because the air is denser and more refractive lower down. It's clear as day. The higher floors are compressed less.
Atmospheric refraction is real, but it acts like a lens. Various constituents in the air, particularly moisture, contribute to it. It can compress and expand light. It does not bend it over an imaginary curve. Anyone who says so, even when they have a MS in physics, either doesn't know what he's talking about or hasn't thought it through sufficiently.
It doesn't explain the hundreds of repeated tests all over the world demonstrating the complete lack of curvature.
Also, infrared is less affected by AR, which is why I have an IR-capable camera. IR is refracted much less in general. It's why most lenses have an alternate marking on them for IR photography, because the focus is different. And why it is capable of seeing much father than the visible spectrum.
I have seen videos demonstrating the effect clearly. The higher floors of a distant building will be shorter than the lower floors, because it COMPRESSES the light, like a lens does, and its effect is not equal with altitude (or the other way around, I don't remember right now). The lower floors are not in reality shorter or taller than the the higher floors.
Thanks. I am not very familiar with atmospheric refraction, but I did the following experiment:
I lifted my right hand about a foot away from my face, parallel to my face, to obscure an object at the end of the room, in front of me. I then used my left hand to take my glasses, and lifted them about halfway between my face and my right hand so that they were about parallel to the top of my right hand, and turned them at about a 60 degree angle. When I did that and looked at the lens of the glasses, I was clearly able to see part of the object that was otherwise blocked by my right hand. So it seems to me that refraction has that ability to see around blockages, at least slightly.
However, you are probably more familiar with atmospheric refraction than I am, and you are certainly more familiar with cameras, so you would know if such a thing is possible with atmospheric refraction or not.
When looking at pencil in a cup half full of water it looks like the pencil is magically split in two at the interface of the water and air. Inserting a physically distinct lens in the light path has a different effect than light traversing through a single medium. You don't see above or around a curve because of it.
I'm just putting the argument out there. It's your choice whether to accept it or not. Just don't react like חוקר, who is not being honest, even by his own admission. The entire premise irks him, therefore he goes on the attack, and flails.
"Due to Earth’s curvature, ships traveling over an ocean disappear from the bottom up. This fact is one of the first evidence to confirm the Earth is a sphere, and one of the first facts of which flat-Earthers had to invent various “explanations” for.
Some of the popular “explanations” are: refraction, perspective, zooming reveal distant ships and visibility limitations. None can explain away the fact.
Refraction bends light so that it does not travel in a straight line. Normally atmospheric refraction bends light downward, and we see the ships that would have been unseen without refraction. But under special circumstances, the reverse can happen. However, it would not make half a ship disappear in half while maintaining a clearly defined horizon."
======
(I should note that I don't have particularly strong feelings on the matter. If it somehow it turned out that the earth really were flat, I wouldn't be upset. Really makes no difference in my life as long as stuff like GPS and inter-continental flight continued to work.)
If that were the case, the ships on the horizon would accelerate right off the edge. They wouldn't slowly disappear from view, and they certainly wouldn't ever reappear.
Why? Just cut the globe in half so its half a globe. That would explain ships going over the horizon and and reappearing when coming back. I'm pretty sure this is how the ancients understood it, as opposed to a flat disc, because they saw ships disappearing over the horizon and they knew the sun rises and sets later as you travel west.
Watch the same video I provided for Happy, if he wants to take the few minutes to watch it, Shaul. Refraction, horizon, it's covered there.
Us mystics are more into empirical results than the rationalists. The rationalists keep coming up with explanations with no foundation in physics that defy logic and common sense. We take our cameras out and prove the same point ad nauseum. We can see too far. It's real.
The Flat Earth Society is some sort of limited hangout. It is not a legit org that any of us pay attention to. It seems to exist to make flat earth look stupid.
YouTube is blocked on my computer. But I'll just say that my belief that the earth is spherical isn't based on any complicated theorizing. It's pretty basic reasoning/observation. It could be wrong, just as any other belief I have could be wrong, but it wouldn't be because I've rationalized away competing evidence.
Asks the person who says he will never comment to me again.
Test, you have all sorts of questions about all sorts of things. Nothing satisfies the unsatisfiable. But here goes.
Seeing too far doesn't mean I have the answers on everything, but I will speculate. There is a rakia, and I believe it meets surface at some point. Probably deep into the vohu, which the Gemara in Chagiga says is a ring of darkness that surrounds the earth.
The entirety of modern cosmology is based on an assumption that 95% of the matter and energy needed to substantiate its claims exists, while it has never been detected and never will be. It's a flimsy reed to rest your beliefs on.
But you should take comfort. Happy and many others who contend with you share your beliefs on cosmology. They don't want to take a stand because some self-styled experts say they should believe science over our mesorah.
Seriously, what kind of question is that, given my answer? If the dome (aka rakia) touches ground at some point, you can walk around the edge of world. Speculative anonymous reports say that this is the case in reality, that it is impenetrable, and that there is no going through it.
Even though interesting, and plausible to me, I am not a fan of speculation-mongering.
There is quite a bit of evidence of a rakia, but it is more subtle than "we can see too far." For example, rainbows are bows because the rakia is curved, and they are optical projections emanating via it. Try to figure the conditions to simulate one in the lab. Impossible without a curved surface in the light path. Otherwise, they are always straight. This is not all, but it is food for the thoughtful.
Yes - Shimshon this is a legit question - please explain. According to this, as I understand it, a trans-global (or trans-disc or whatever) trip is possible - If, for example, you are heading west and hit the rakia you are forced to go either north or south and go around the disc to the other side. But 1) what's to decide if you go north or south and 2) that would mean passing the north or south pole (or whatever you will call it)?
"If the earth is a globe 7,926 miles in diameter, then the curvature is not only readily apparent, but absolutely measurable at the surface. There is some mildly complicated trigonometry involved for the mathematically correct calculation, but this shorthand formula for the curvature is accurate to well within 1% of the true figure out to many hundreds of miles: eight inches per mile squared"
Please answer the question חוקר. Are you retarded or illiterate? No one uses the shorthand formula except for quick calculations, for which it is more than accurate enough. In the videos I presented, the mathematically correct trigonometric calculation is utilized.
This is not counter-proof or counter-evidence of anything.
Here is the calculation using the approximation of 8 inches per mile squared: 6666.67 feet
What did I say about the approximation? This: "...this shorthand formula for the curvature is accurate to well within 1% of the true figure out to many hundreds of miles..."
People who make spurious arguments like do you, חוקר, are worse than retarded. What I said was 100% accurate, and my comment will not be edited.
If you want to experience more ruchnius in your life, the first thing to do is stop being so retarded. If you have an actual rebuttal to my words, by all means, present it. You don't. You just don't like the words or their implications, and react in an angry fashion saying absolutely nothing of substance.
Retarded and illiterate. I am not debating you, nor did I state anything inaccurately. You could've ignored what I wrote and held fast to your beliefs and not made yourself look stupid. My point stands firm on what evidence is and how it differs from proof.
Retard my name is Shimshon, and you will not see any edits to my comment, which you didn't even duplicate in full. Pointless anyway. I hope you will shut up now.
This retard, and he is a retard, is debunking a formula I said outright is an approximation, even if it is an accurate one. You, by linking to it directly in the video (at 272 seconds), are retarded by association.
You have addressed nothing of what I said. Try again. Can you actually contribute using your own words?
I don't know if this will help, but I used to think the latter; now I think the former. There is little common ground in the conversation because we are using two entirely different sets of techniques and have entirely different world views. It's only challenging because deep down we also have our nagging little doubts. Like are we really going to meet God after 120? That's serious business. We aren't always ready to be so serious all the time. But when we listen to people like the Tannaim and Amoraim and Rishonim and Acharonim, all really, really serious people, and they had the clarity of mind to wrap their heads around this stuff.
It really boils down to who you trust.
If you don't know yet, I was a real heavy atheist for a really long time. As good as they get. First I was the classic militant atheist, then I realized the extreme value of religion and then I was exposed to someone frum who really made me question my confidence. As much as the atheist likes to say that he jut hasn't seen 'proof,' it really means that he is closed to hearing that perhaps these millions of ancients (and all Jews) actually could know what they're taking about.
You shouldn't be scared to talk to the atheist because you have millenniums of wisdom on them. You just have to be opened to accepting that others who know more than you ever will can get you closer and closer to the truth if you follow them and ignore the seemingly clever arguments which really boil down to them not understanding what we're all about.
It's a long story but eventually I realized that the real reason why I went off wasn't because of arguments (like I thought, and like most atheists think). You read a blog like AJCA and it sounds very systematic and logical. But behind it all, I realized, I didn't believe because I didn't 'feel' the truth of Judaism.
I don't mean this in a silly way. I mean this in a way where all the logical structures we use so passionately and logically are ultimately just set up to conform to what we are anyways feeling. The reason certain arguments move us is because they talk to an inner core and it feels right. All the atheist arguments, and why they spoke to me so deeply originally, were because of how they sat with me. As much as it sounds like a algorithm and a logical systematic structure, it's really not that at the core.
For example, their is nothing particularly illogical in an inherent form about miracles happening. But since we've never seen miracles, it seems strange to think that things were once different. This is an "if then" structure - "if we've never seen it, it must have never been," but what we really mean is that I think it's strange that miracles should have happened in the past because what changed? Obviously, if Judaism has any truth to it, something has changed and the question falls away, but before understanding what changed, the "if then" structure really speaks to us because it truly does seem strange.
Once we open up the idea of God and the decline of the generations, it can seem less strange. But why would I accept such a theory of God and this decline, maybe the atheist perspective is the true one? And it is backed up by the scientific account of the universe?
I'm not even saying I have all the answers, but as we learn about what the Tannaim and Ammoraim and Rishonim and Acharonim were all about; when we learn of their tremendous wisdom and accept the possibility that they may know something I don't, which is evident when these really logical people claim to understand things like sfiros which were always an anomaly to me, I start to see that there are things to learn. My "logos" begins to accept that there is more out there which cannot be defined by science, and when I pursue these truths I feel the truth as strongly as any other and it settles as logical.
The atheist's beliefs also come from their emotional appeal. It doesn't 'feel' rational so it's not true.
At the end of the day all that matters is who you decide to trust and hang out with.
Have fun trying to get an atheist to understand this. He just hears that we're not being logical, but really I'm delving into the appeal of logic at large.
Once this step is taken, the trust system of Judaism as well as is origin story is quite convincing. It really, really is. As long as one can accept that there is a God and that He wants something for us. And if I still have a lot of questions, I get closer and closer to the truth every time I learn another layer of Judaism.
(To clarify, this is not postmodernism; this is understanding why we believe what we do on a deeper level, including logic itself.)
(BTW I've been on the RJ blog in the past under a different pseudonym when I was an atheist but I've been absent for a while rethinking everything and thank God I've come out the other side. I'll let you guess, but I'm not going to admit anything...)
If I am included in the other commenters here then I will respond that I do agree to some extent with this. I see this as a major problem with the maaracha fought against Sapirman, and especially the book(s) Shmeltzer wrote on the topic.
However, why should we want our children exposed to stupidity (because that's what it is). Don't we want them to grow up smart?
We should never ever discourage questions. True Yiddishkeit encourages questions. But we should discourage our children from getting confused by stupidity.
If you are interested, I can email you a certain essay written against Rabbi Sapirman's approach, that I think it deals with it far more intelligently than Schmeltzer does. It is available online but I'm not sure it's easy to find. But it is possible you have seen it already.
I got it years ago (not long after Schmeltzer's book came out). Hasn't it been priinted in Dialogue since with a response from Rabbi Sapirman?
I really am trying to stay away from the practical ramifications of this issue as I feel it is for experienced, understanding and caring mechanchim to decide for their talmidim.
What's important for everyone is to understand what is the root of the debate and how it relates to our basic approach to Yiddishkeit.
I can't resist some comments on the Sapirman debate.
There seems to be strong evidence that Rabbi Sapirman is right that many teenagers need to be provided with more tools in their arsenal. However, as you and Reb Leib pointed out they may be raising topics which teenagers simply don't have the tools to fully grasp. Additionally, as Happy is essentially saying, by putting themselves into the the position of know-it-all they may be staking themselves on hard to defend position.
Evolution is an excellent example of this. Is it necessary for us to convince our teenagers that we are smarter than all modern scientists. Rabbi Sapirman even ends off recommending those who are interested to continue the research on their own. Do we really expect them to research and and refute the entire gamut of evolutionary theory? And for what?
I believe they should be told quite simply that there are 3 topics which science has no knowledge of, and in fact as science progresses they seem to realize even more about how little they know. It is merely a random coincidence that these 3 topics happen to correspond with the 3 Ikrei Haemunah of the Sefer Haikrim.
1. The origin of evolutionary mechanisms, especially the origin of life. (מציאות ה').
2. Consciousness and the vast distance between humankind and animals. (The experience of תורה מן השמים).
3. The question of determinism.
This is not "external proofs", but rather shows that science and the Torah are simply speaking about different things, which reinforces the idea that the Torah and science are 2 totally separate entities.
I see now you are in between Saperman and Schmeltzer regarding Emuna for children. I am still trying to figure out what your position on emuna is out side the realm of chinuch. Can you share a bit more?
As far as exposing Kids, I would say that by teaching kids on how to be smart, like training them in critical thinking, or taught the depth and beauty of things, might be of help when they do get exposed to stupidity eventually, as unfortunately happens to most of us. I am not a Mechanech, I am just relating what worked for me personally.
There is no point. Most people, apikorsim included, are simply not that intelligent. However, apikorsum think they are, and that their questions are good questions, and their answers are good answers.
Personally, I find engagement tedious, as I have made clear in different ways. Because the questions are usually dishonestly presented even when they are good, which is often not the case. You, generally not specifically, are more interested in debate, that is, recruiting to join you in apikorsus, than learning.
It is better to stay far away from the likes of you, particularly for those not capable of knowing what to answer a heretic.
What about you חוקר? You asked, in the comments to this post:
"Curious, what would you or Ash say to someone who say their issues is that they have either current or lifelong inability to experience spirituality?"
Do you want an honest answer? Or do you consider this an invitation to engage in more debate?
I don't love most of this comment but the beginning is very important, that they think they are so smart and intelligent when they're just providing rhetoric
The same "you" is in force from this point in my comment on: "You, generally not specifically..." Until I address you directly.
Do I need to clarify every use of the term? It wasn't directed at you personally. And it certainly wasn't meant as an insult. It should be clear that when I mean to insult, I know how to insult. Try reading what I wrote again, a few times even, and maybe it will become apparent.
You should try a more original insult if you want to take a stab it it. When you use the word, everyone, particularly me, knows you're just channeling...me.
To experience ruchniyus, you must first be receptive to it. You, personally, along with your fellow travelers, from my perspective, are not. It takes work.
What is the point of your lies Ash? I could be wrong, but it does seem like test and חוקר and even Norm are addressing evidence, not resorting to laitzanus. Are you a Boomer? Would explain things.
Haha, I can tell you (or whoever is asking this) is not a woman!
But in truth for many people including myself, this is a lifelong avodah and there is no blanket answer for everybody. You (or he) should ask somebody who knows them personally rather than a random blogger.
If I may jump in here, an inability to experience spirituality is the name of the game. Even those who get to feel it, the Rambam says that a second later, they are right back to where they started. The עבודה is to hold on to it and when we are מתמיד in it, it begins to become alive. Hours of learning and davening without distraction is basically the only way. The Chazon Ish described the feelings which are awakened after hours of רציפות. This is the words of the pasuk, העתיף עיניך בו ואיננו.
Women have the ability to 'feel it' with less effort, but in this דור and climate many of them are too distracted as well. We live in the world of מלכות אדום, the world of חיצוניות, where this is the biggest challenge, and why atheism is so rampant.
He said "experience" not "feel", and I believe this is the more appropriate word. Feelings are fleeting. But an experience can leave a deep impression than lingers long after a feeling has passed.
To add, the reason why certain people are "גדולים" is because they live their lives in touch with the reality of the world and have a clearer grasp on what is important. Those who don't even know what this stuff is see no value in what we call "דעת תורה" because the whole concept is meaningless to them. That is the beginning of the end.
1. Which of these descriptions best defines the focus of ameilus baTorah? A. בירור חובת האדם בעולמו (אבות 4:5 ובפרט בפירוש רבינו יונה, נפה"ח ריש שער ד). B. A spiritual experience.
2. The feminine nature is best defined as: A. More spiritual (see Rambam Teshuva 10:1), or B. More closely identified with חובת האדם בעולמו (גבורה, מלכות)?
I don’t think spirituality is the most accurate word here. I believe it isשיתברר ויתאמת אצל האדם מה חובתו בעולמו. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of human nature and the relationship between humanity and the world should understand that there must exist a concept of חובת האדם בעולמו. How to recognize that the Torah is the embodiment of this requires an appreciation of בכל דרכיך דעהו, that wherever you are holding the Torah can provide a depth of understanding to the meaning and purpose of every part of your life. The most important task for Yiddishkeit is broadening and deepening this recognition to apply it to every aspect of the human experience.
They should stop being so materialistic and focus on spirituality until they break out of their rut. But, as Happy said, it is a lifelong avodah etc...
What a great post. I also believe there are no proofs, in fact, there are often strong counterproofs. Buy the reason I am frum is precisely the reason you are - it is our traditional way to worship Hashem, whose majesty screams to us from everywhere we look.
To be clear I think there is strong evidence, and there is not strong counter-evidence at all. But that itself doesn't constitute a conclusive proof, nor do we need a conclusive proof.
Thers evidence that theres a G-d. Matan Torah is a bit more of a stretch (but id assume once theres a G-d he He created us for a reason and should make His will known somehow).
Yes, you do think that. But only because you are willing to engage in selective reasoning. There's a reason most people don't accept the truth of the Torah, and it's not because they are baalei tayvah. It's because the evidence simply isn't there.
Only once one has lives the beauty does it start making sense.
That's what flat-earthers say about round earthers also. But I say the other side is engaging in selective reasoning because they don't admit the possibility or plausibility of the supernatural. It is also because they are baalei tayvah and have been enveloped by the general anti-religious spirit of Enlightenment thinking.
"Yes, you do think that. But only because you are willing to engage in selective reasoning. There's a reason most people don't accept the truth of the Torah, and it's not because they are baalei tayvah. It's because the evidence simply isn't there."
It could be also be that they just haven't thought about it much altogether. It's not as though modern society is filled with a bunch of deep thinkers who spend their time pondering the deep questions of life.
There's also a lot of post-modern types who apriori reject the idea of evidence to begin with. (Note that I'm not making a claim about the evidence. I'm simply noting that polling humanity isn't a very good guide to the truth of the matter.)
Yeah, the Bible critics are definitely totally objective and unbiased, and never engage in selective reasoning. Only we do.
In his sefer רשומי אהרן Reb Ahron Felder Zatsal brings from Reb Moshe zatsal not to bring up emunah questions in schools because the questions are often better than the answers. I believe the main point is that the Torah was not meant to be studied as a science book. The point isn’t that there is something untrue about the Torah but rather that it isn’t really relevant to us to understand the science of how the Torah is true. What is relevant to us is the lessons of חובת האדם בעולמו contained in the Torah, and these lessons should themselves be self-evident as the truth.
Moreover, I understand the entire concept of truth to be an aspect of the human experience. Therefore the truth of the Torah must stem the human experience which is its purpose, not through external proofs. As the Ramban writes in the hakdama to מלחמת ה’ the Torah is not a math book, therefore the proofs to its truth are not scientific.
I looked up the quote and I quoted it wrong so I am bringing the lashon.
רשומי אהרן ח"ב עמוד ט. היתה א שהגיע למו"ר זצ"ל לשאול אם כדאי להדפיס ספר שבו יש קושיות ותירוצים בעניני אמונה בהקב"ה להוציא מלבם של הכופרים דעות כוזבות והשיב לו מו"ר זצ"ל שאם ברצונו להדפיס ספר כזה אז יש לו להשמיט את הקושיות ורק לכתוב את התירוצים כי בדרך כלל הקושיות יותר חזקות מהתירוצים
I actually like that mehalech a lot. An honest seeker of truth will find the answers he needs and also be well educated in the depth of Torah when reading the rest of the answers, with out having to dwell on questions he would not think of.
Please reas what I wrote here https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/the-problem-of-conclusive-proof/comment/39421814
It encapsulates my feelings on this.
It does seem that Reb Moshe was saying something more than this but I see no purpose in standing on it. After all, Reb Moshe didn't write it.
Bringing things up in schools does not necessarily reflect the depth of Judaism. There's the full truth and the way to be mechanech. The idea you mention that the proofs are not relevant for us to understand, please then explain to me why רבינו בחיי wrote שער היחוד בחובובת הלבבות, why Rabi Yehuda Halevi wrote the Kuzari, why the Rambam wrote מורה נבוחים, and why the רמב"ן wrote ספר ויכוח.
I agree that all that is still not enough, but the intellectual ideas of Judaism formulated in the form of proofs is integral to Jewish understanding.
It's a מחלוקת ראשונים IIRC.
Detailed in פירוש לב טוב on חובת הלבבות
Two comments, that don't negate the מחלוקת
The רמב"ן wrote ספר ויכוח after a forced debate with a משומד
רבי יהודה הלוי wrote כוזרי to argue against the concepts of "proofs" as it was used at that time.
It's a מחלוקת ראשונים if we use philosophical proof or if historical proof of our ancestors is the main idea. No one says the whole thing is irrelevant like Yehoshua (till recently). The פירוש לב טוב mostly brings sources regarding this, not against proof in general, besides for some Chasidim he brings who were more radical, not like the Rishonim. The Ramban wrote what transpired with a משומד, but he was only forced to debate, not to publish his dialogue afterwards. Rav Yehuda Halevi wrote a sefer of proofs without resorting to philosophy, which he was against. The sefer is not against proofs, its against the style that was used then. The Gra encouraged learning it to strengthen emuna, and it is all logical.
Ok. Let me clarify further.
But first let me state that the Chovos Halvavos and the Moreh Nevuchim are irrelevant to this conversation. Their issue wasn't "formulating proofs to Judaism" but rather they held that understanding ייחוד ה' philosophically is one of the most basic mitzvos of Yiddishkeit.
Now to the point.
I really was too brief. I am not fully comfortable with Ash's statement yet I do feel that it captures excellently the extreme tension surrounding this issue. I only felt comfortable liking it after it was qualified by others and after I quoted Reb Moshe zatsal. (Did you see the full quote above?)
This is what I wrote "The point isn’t that there is something untrue about the Torah but rather that it isn’t really relevant to us to understand the science of how the Torah is true." My intention was that while we know that the Torah is 100% true we have no obligation to understand how to reconcile every word of the Torah with modern science.
Moreover, we shouldn't even expect to be able to reconcile the 2 as the Torah is not meant to be studied as a science book and we can't expect to grasp the science of how every word is true.
Can you stomach that?
Sounds good to me (see my comment on Rav Moshe's Lashon). I guess the only thing I'll add to this and i am sure you''ll agree, that people on a higher scientific level may need more to make themselves comfortable but for the rest of us, the basic outline should be fine.
AFAIK, חכמי אשכנז וצרפת didn't deal with proofs at all (polemics with גלחים ומשומדים are not proofs)
WRT רמב"ן, IIRC he had no choice but to publish, and the ספר doesn't deal with proofs, כאמור
WRT רבי יהודה הלוי, he rejected the idea of philosophical proofs. He din't write historical proofs, what he said was that "אבל פתיחת דברי היא המופת, ועוד כי היא הראיה: אין צריך עמה לא ראיה ולא מופת" (מאמר ראשון, אות טו ועיין אות צא, שם)
הגר"א is quoted: "והיה מחבב הגר"א ספר מנורת המאור וספר חובת הלבבות זולת שער היחוד, ובמקום שער היחוד היה אומר שילמדו ספר כוזרי הראשון שהוא קדוש וטהור ועיקרי אמונת ישראל ותורה תלויים בו" (תוספת מעשה רב, תרמ"ד, סי' ט"ו)
I'm can't decipher all those Roshei Tavos so i'll stick to the content I understand. חכמי אשכנז וצרפת didn't put out sefarim on emuna at all as far as I know, so I don't see anything conclusive from that.
"The Ramban had no choice but to publish" Who told you that? He had no one forcing him to write anything down once the live debate was over. As far as proofs, since when does proof just mean philosophical? Debating a Christian and transcribing it is not emuna peshuta.
Same with כוזרי, as you yourself quoted him saying that "what I am about to say is the best proof, and no other proof is needed". The book is full of thought provoking questions and answers.
That was also the Shita of the Gra, that we do not resort to greek style philosophy but the kuzari full of עקרי אמונת ישראל.
Thank you
My point wasn't that Reb Moshe said not to bring it up in school but rather the reasoning he gave for it.
The reason HE gave for it, that the answers are not as good, depends on the maturity and experience a person has, because otherwise Rav Moshe would have to answer for the emuna sefarim I quoted. I happen to know someone who spoke to Rav Reuven Feinstein and he said he learnt שער יחוד and מורה נבוחים as a bachur.
By the way, I myself never learnt much of the above two, I just learnt כוזרי ספר העקרים רמבם מדע and read the contemporary books, a bit of Rabbi Miller and Rabbi Kaplan. It really bothers me when people claim there's no such thing as proof in Judaism, especially Schmetzer who goes so far as to blame such an idea on the חובות הלבבות and the Rambam, by snipping off half their statements and other such misquotes.
If you would only know how much sleep I lost over Schmeltzer's books you would realize that you are talking to the wrong person.
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/the-problem-of-conclusive-proof/comment/39511995
He is a nice man. I stayed at his house for Shabbos (twice, I believe), but I feel his approach is very dangerous for Yiddishkeit, especially as his books are all over Lakewood and carry the aura of authority.
OK I see we are on the same page now. By the way, did you ever see Rav Moshe Wolfsons book The core of Emuna? The writing is a bit juvenile but the content is very solid and mainstream from what I've seen, or as others would call it a "happy medium."
מורה נבוכים is not meant for most people, as the רמב"ם himself wrote.
That doesn't mean emuna isn't built in the intellectual realm, just that people's intellectual needs vary.
I love this comment because it encapsulates in a nutshell the kiruv (Or Someach/ Aish) and Emunah education (Sapirman/ Shmeltzer etc.) debates. I expounded a bit more elsewhere in this discussion.
I liked the comparison to Alexander the Great. It reminded me of a recent conversation I had with a irreligious fellow, who said he isn't sure if there is enough historical proof to say God spoke to the Jewish people. When I asked why this was different than Gorge Washington, he replied "it's not the same, Gorge Washington doesn't come along with responsibilities, God does." What a good answer.
There is a difference though. We have letters from george washington as well as potraits people took of him. We have documents he signed on like the declaration of independence. There are mant outside sources (even correspondence with King George etc) we'd be able to dig up from museums collections. With Matan Torah all we have is Tanach and Chazal who come to the picture 1000 years later.
Sure, later history has more surviving documentation. But that's just a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one. In any case, I prefer comparing the Torah to ancient history, like Alexander the Great, which has very little documentation from the time he actually lived.
I agree with that, it just happens to be with my conversation מעשה שהיה כך היה.
We dont have any correspondence from him or accounts of his generals regarding his battles etc?
Very little. Most of it is stuff written centuries later, quoting earlier sources that are lost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_Alexander_the_Great
"Most primary sources written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander are lost, but a few inscriptions and fragments survive."
Its more than the Torah but we seem to have found the מזבח at Har Eival with a the קרבנות as described in the torah. We obviously cant hinge all of our אמונה on that but its strong evidence.
He didn't sign the DoI.
You might not be aware, but the Christian goyim say much the same thing as you: Judaism (aka "Rabbinic Judaism") is YOUNGER than Christianity, because, after all, the Talmud was written around 500 CE. Your reasoning is just as faulty. Committed to writing is not the same thing as written.
What your counterargument? Theres no absolute proof that the gemara was "commited to writing at sinai" besides for our mesora of torah shebal peh. Besides for that theres no outside sources corroborating it (besides for a bit of archaelogy which includes much conjecture). I believe in torah misinai but its not like George Washington.
Much of gemmoroh is NOT torah sh'pel pah. It concerns gedorim and gezeiros d'rabbonnons.
I agree. The Rambam holds משה received the מצוות with their interpretation. All of the drashot were chazal as the Sanhedrin can darshin anew in evry generation (הלכות ממרים).
The Rambam says anything which is a matter of מחלוקת is not from sinai(even though its 100 דאורייתא).
I was just mentioning that its not the same as a historical event like George Washington which has outside corroboration and dosent rely on מסורה.
It's a very difficult Rambam as we have clear machlokas in d'oreysohs. Shevarim for example. Plenty of peshotim out there in the rambam.
I don't argue with goyim. I am just aware of some of their points.
If they agree with the Tzedukim, thats a real argument, goyim or not. I dont agree because i have a mesora (and i believe theres a reason the tzedukim died out after the second temple). I however agree that the torah wasnt meant to be taken as is but rather Rabbinic Interpretation was always part and parcel of its transmission. You still can call that a proof. Indication yes, proof no.
Cant*
Yea I know, but most people don't believe in him because of the evidence.
It's an HONEST answer.
I agree with you, as that was exactly my point. Its not about the proof but coming to terms with the fact you need to do something about it.
(Hey Happy, sorry for my long absence, missed you too! I'm going to continue to be absent after Shabbos as well but for now, here I am. I'm looking forward to reading your other posts בין הזמנים bl'n...)
What an important post! A lot of commentators already expressed the idea beautifully, and I doubt I will be adding anything of value, but to be honest, I love talking...
הקב"ה is not felt by the גוף, only by the נשמה. Almost everyone who talks about this explains this as the פשט in the גמרא in ברכות which says about the נשמה that יבא זה וישבח לזה. The Rambam is מאריך about this, as well as many, many others. In order to get there, one needs to be פורש מגופו and get in touch with his נשמה, the point of connection between us and אבינו שבשמים.
This may not be scientific in the sense we are used, but we are not married to being scientific, rather to the truth. And it is undeniably true. Even a Christians wrong experience is this feeling, although when vague it can be misinterpreted.
Once one develops even just an ounce of קדושה in his bones, there is nothing irrational anymore about yiddishkeit.
All questions, which are clouded by terms of logos, like 'rationality' or 'science', are really nothing more than figuring out a world without this reality. One who has never experienced this has to make sense of a cold, godless world, and all of their 'rational' arguments are nothing more than codes of them screaming out they have no שייכות to קדושה nebach.
Thanks, missed you too!
Classic cult mehalech. Members of any cult will 'proove' their cult with similar words.
Dude, just because cults do this doesn't make it not real. Maybe they are tapping into a reality?
Indeed. My point is it's not a proof for anything and hence sentences like this are nonsense;
"Once one develops even just an ounce of קדושה in his bones, there is nothing irrational anymore about yiddishkeit."
The rationality or not of Yiddishkeit has nothing to do with 'kedushoh in bones' whatever that is meant to mean.
You apparently never felt "kedusha in your bones" so it's meaningless. I have nothing to say that will make you feel it except encouraging you to go learn and daven with more feeling and sincerity.
Completely irrelevant point. It's not about ME. I have no doubt Hare Krishnas feel kedushoh in their bones. Does that make Harry Krishna rational?
100%, there is nothing "irrational" about a Krishna dude and his beliefs. They aren't wrong because they are irrational. They are wrong because they are wrong. An atheist conflates the two. He says religion is wrong BECAUSE it is irrational
"I doubt there are many people out there who went from secular to religious primarily based on whatever he or others like him consider “conclusive proof” or even “evidence”. If any one of you are kiruv professionals who disagree with this, or if you know of such examples, I would be interested."
I'm no professional, and would be equally interested in hearing from some. My sense is that there's a slice of fire-and-brimstone kiruv types who claim to have absolute proof which will blow away any doubters in 5 minutes or less. They tend to be Israeli, and baalei teshuva themselves. They're successful with a slice of the population which crave that sort of thing, and more importantly, are satisfied with it.
It's worth noting that R Dovid Gottlieb insists that he's NOT offering any sort of proof, but rather sufficient evidence to believe.
https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=174558
https://mosaicapress.com/product/reason-to-believe/
"Why should they be confused for no reason? However, for those of you who read Irrationalist Modoxism, that battle has probably long been lost for you personally"
The chaver makes a similar point to the kuzari:
https://www.sefaria.org/Kuzari.5.1?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en
1. AL KHAZARI: I must trouble thee to give me a clear and concise discourse on religious principles.. Since I have not been granted a perfect faith free from doubts, and I was formerly sceptical, had my own opinions, and exchanged ideas with philosophers and followers of other religions, I consider it most advantageous to learn and to instruct myself how to refute dangerous and foolish views. Tradition in itself is a good thing if it satisfies the soul, but a perturbed soul prefers research, especially if examination leads to the verification of tradition. Then knowledge and tradition become united.
2. The Rabbi: Where is the soul which is strong enough not to be deceived by the views of philosophers, scientists, astrologers, adepts, magicians, materialists, and others, and can adopt a belief without having first passed through many stages of heresy? Life is short, but labour long. Only few there are to whom belief comes naturally, who avoid all these views, and whose soul always detects the points of error in them. I hope that thou art one of those few. Since I cannot resist, I will not lead thee the way of the Karaites, who ascended the heights of metaphysics without intermediate steps. I will give thee a clear standpoint, which will assist thee to acquire clear notions of matter and form, elements, nature, soul, intellect, and metaphysics in general. After this I will prove to thee, as briefly as possible, that the rational soul can exist without a body; further, the existence of reward hereafter, providence and omnipotence."
You make good points, I'd just like to point out that Uri Zohar writes in his book that he decided to become frum after one conversation with Rav Zilberman proving the Torah.
Correct me if I am mistaken but I thought his book is mainly about what I am focused on, that humanity and it's relationship with the world screams out חובת האדם בעולמו. Certainly he needed to be convinced that Hashem and the Torah are real but is that the main focus?
I never said it was the main focus, I was responding to those that say "no one became frum by hearing proofs" that here's an example to the contrary. I didn't say we should be talking proofs all our life.
I think it's important to clarify that this whole discussion is really solely about focus and priority. I don't think even Ash believes that we shouldn't provide people with everything in our arsenal. His point is that the main focus must always be internalizing the Torah's message not external proofs. This is also the tradition. I imagine even חוקר agrees with דוד that someone learning Torah יומם ולילה will view everything else as shallow, and that's great.
Happy's main point was actually something else, that the need to have "absolute proof" is rooted in hubris.
Personally, I feel that hubris of this sort is very dangerous for Yiddishkeit, as it causes people to ground Yiddishkeit to hard to defend positions.
I see now what you meant all along and I agree with you. It's more about relating the depth of Yidishkait than the proof. דע מה להשיב is only a small part of a much bigger picture.
הרב אורי זוהר זצ"ל was very special
http://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=59699&hilit=%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99+%D7%96%D7%95%D7%94%D7%A8&sid=bea000d8c13abe88e271dc4bb13b14ad#p759904
I apologize, for some reason it slipped from me. I actually went greatly out of my way to get a bracha from him, in no way did I think he didn't deserve any less than הרב הצדיק החסיד והפרוש.
In the link Reb rkz posted there is a discussion about this an pgs. 3-4
הודעהעל ידי סגי נהור « ב' יוני ,13 2022 2:08 am
באחת ההקלטות שהועלו כאן, רא"ז מעיד שעם הזמן הוא הבין שאמונה אינה באה ע"י הוכחות שכליות אלא מתוך התעוררות פנימית. זה נושא שעלה כאן בפורום כמה וכמה פעמים. והגילוי הזה די הפתיע אותי, כי הוא לכאורה היה הסמל והדוגמא לשיטת ההוכחות.
הודעהעל ידי הרואה « ב' אוגוסט ,08 2022 9:45 pm
אני שמעתי מפיו שלקח לו שנים להבין שמה ששכנע אותו לחזור בתשובה זה לא ההוכחות השכליות עצמם שהוא שמע מהרב זילברמן, את ההוכחות האלו הוא שמע כבר לפני כן מאדם אחר, אלא עיקר הנושא זה שראה את הרב זילברמן עצמו כאדם שברור לחלוטין שהוא עצמו מאמין וחי לפי הדברים באותה מידה שבה אומר אותם
כלומר היה פה שילוב מעניין של שכנוע שכלי ורגשי.
The second comment is longer and there is also a discussion in this pages about his realization that for the next generation sechel is not what talks to them as much and they need chasidus especially breslev.
Thanks. The lack of a title there did bother me.
IIRC he describes an extended process. It wasn't some 5 minute pep talk.
True, anything in 5 min isn't worth much, but I was just pointing out that there are people who become from on the basis of intellectual proof.
I'm going to comment here. If you're interested in evidence, what it is, and how to gather it and analyze it, this is interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxLwaaU1aNk
"Mt San Jacinto from 123 miles in High Res IR on super clear day!"
"Jtolan Media 1" was the inspiration for my interest in infrared imaging. He clearly also has a much sharper engineering background than me. Later videos make use of a theodolite (the tool used for surveying). Along with more sophisticated analysis and stereo imaging techniques. He has done numerous videos from airplane flights and identified landmarks many hundreds of miles away. This is not some idiot that can be so easily debunked. Although you are welcome to try.
This video takes a very prominent mountain (Mount San Jacinto in Southern California, where I grew up), and identifies several landmarks at different elevations. He measures the actual amount of refraction between these landmarks. And also shows what should be visible on a globe versus what is visible in the video he took. On a globe, only the top 1000 feet or so should be visible, but you can see the entire thing. The mountain was utterly invisible in the visible spectrum but very prominent in IR. You can practically reach out and touch it, even from over 100 miles away.
You can believe what you want to believe, but this is hard core evidence. The other videos I linked to do not do anything like this.
We have strong indications but we cant call them proofs necessarily. They are things we should use to build up and deepen our אמונה but we cant put all of our eggs in one basket. Thats the issue of using a scientific wonder to prove Hashem. As soon as theres one hole it can all come crashing down like a house of cards.
Insightful, and I am flattered.
Specifically regarding flat versus ball, you miss the mark. And you make a certain category error. Natan made a post some months back on flat earth which falls into this category. I responded to the points he made, which are of a similar quality, probably convincing no one in particular.
But there is another point I made then and I make consistently. That of empirical evidence, not proof. What convinced me about the flatness of our realm was the solid, absolutely overwhelming body of EVIDENCE, NOT PROOF, that we can see too far.
If the earth is a globe 7,926 miles in diameter, then the curvature is not only readily apparent, but absolutely measurable at the surface. There is some mildly complicated trigonometry involved for the mathematically correct calculation, but this shorthand formula for the curvature is accurate to well within 1% of the true figure out to many hundreds of miles:
eight inches per mile squared
At one mile distance, the ground curves eight inches. Not much, right? At 10 miles, 800 inches of curvature should be observable. At 40 (and I have seen tests that go this far), 12800 inches (1066.67 feet) of curvature should be observed. This curvature should be observable over land and water, as per the story we are told.
And also, out to hundreds of miles, this formula is more known by its lack of validation than any actual confirmation anywhere.
These kind of observations are being done all over the world. Here are two videos done by Arabs in Israel across the Kinneret as one example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3VudY7gb-w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISsq-RTPURY
The Great Salt Lake in Utah (21 miles distance, expected curvature of 3528 inches missing):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsnmX0XRNTk
Another test of comparable distance in Canada:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4i49EP1Ekc
There are many, many more. I am doing my own part to contribute to the same body of evidence.
None of these are PROOF. All of them are EVIDENCE against an easily verifiable claim, assuming the earth is a globe.
How you respond to this kind of evidence is up to you, but it is solid evidence that demolishes the key globe argument. The rest is basically irrelevant window dressing.
For example, the claim of the use of green screen and CGI, readily apparent to me, who grew up steeped in the entertainment business, are claims of "proof" according to your definition. So are references to odd emergency landings by passenger jets that make no sense on a globe but do on a flat earth. Proof, yes, but they are not evidence that specifically addresses the claims of the globe model, that of a ball just under 8000 miles in diameter.
It's what makes Natan's post on the subject, and the comments of his sycophants, so retarded and misleading. They never address the concrete irrefutable evidence, only the "proofs," which are often made of straw anyway.
There is likewise, and l'havdil, a compelling body of evidence vis a vis the Torah and its authenticity. But it is not as clear cut as the succinct and catchy "WE CAN SEE TOO FAR" phrase that captures the essential problem of the globe model.
You want to believe in the globe, by all means do so. It doesn't matter what you are taught, or what the implications are of it not existing. If you believe in it, you are doing so against EVIDENCE, not proof.
Hi Shimshon, thanks for the lengthy response. Regarding your claims of seeing too far, what do you think of this article, where the author claims that atmospheric refraction can account for that?
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/danny-faulkner/2021/02/05/black-swan-evidence-earth-flat/
This video has the effect clearly visible with a building. The LOWER floors are compressed MORE, because the air is denser and more refractive lower down. It's clear as day. The higher floors are compressed less.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuJ0dGLeMDY
And as I said, IR is affected less. Which is why I prefer IR for my own efforts.
Atmospheric refraction is real, but it acts like a lens. Various constituents in the air, particularly moisture, contribute to it. It can compress and expand light. It does not bend it over an imaginary curve. Anyone who says so, even when they have a MS in physics, either doesn't know what he's talking about or hasn't thought it through sufficiently.
It doesn't explain the hundreds of repeated tests all over the world demonstrating the complete lack of curvature.
Also, infrared is less affected by AR, which is why I have an IR-capable camera. IR is refracted much less in general. It's why most lenses have an alternate marking on them for IR photography, because the focus is different. And why it is capable of seeing much father than the visible spectrum.
I have seen videos demonstrating the effect clearly. The higher floors of a distant building will be shorter than the lower floors, because it COMPRESSES the light, like a lens does, and its effect is not equal with altitude (or the other way around, I don't remember right now). The lower floors are not in reality shorter or taller than the the higher floors.
Would you like me to try to find a video?
Thanks. I am not very familiar with atmospheric refraction, but I did the following experiment:
I lifted my right hand about a foot away from my face, parallel to my face, to obscure an object at the end of the room, in front of me. I then used my left hand to take my glasses, and lifted them about halfway between my face and my right hand so that they were about parallel to the top of my right hand, and turned them at about a 60 degree angle. When I did that and looked at the lens of the glasses, I was clearly able to see part of the object that was otherwise blocked by my right hand. So it seems to me that refraction has that ability to see around blockages, at least slightly.
However, you are probably more familiar with atmospheric refraction than I am, and you are certainly more familiar with cameras, so you would know if such a thing is possible with atmospheric refraction or not.
When looking at pencil in a cup half full of water it looks like the pencil is magically split in two at the interface of the water and air. Inserting a physically distinct lens in the light path has a different effect than light traversing through a single medium. You don't see above or around a curve because of it.
I'm just putting the argument out there. It's your choice whether to accept it or not. Just don't react like חוקר, who is not being honest, even by his own admission. The entire premise irks him, therefore he goes on the attack, and flails.
"Uh, I thought basically the entire comment was all flat earth drivel."
You consider the subject not worth discussing, and react accordingly. That's dishonest. Your response to my statement was dishonest.
What about ships on the horizon? You can literally watch them disappear.
https://flatearth.ws/disappearing-ship
"Due to Earth’s curvature, ships traveling over an ocean disappear from the bottom up. This fact is one of the first evidence to confirm the Earth is a sphere, and one of the first facts of which flat-Earthers had to invent various “explanations” for.
Some of the popular “explanations” are: refraction, perspective, zooming reveal distant ships and visibility limitations. None can explain away the fact.
Refraction bends light so that it does not travel in a straight line. Normally atmospheric refraction bends light downward, and we see the ships that would have been unseen without refraction. But under special circumstances, the reverse can happen. However, it would not make half a ship disappear in half while maintaining a clearly defined horizon."
======
(I should note that I don't have particularly strong feelings on the matter. If it somehow it turned out that the earth really were flat, I wouldn't be upset. Really makes no difference in my life as long as stuff like GPS and inter-continental flight continued to work.)
https://earth.google.com/web/@44.25827569,39.24200068,789.68676517a,16047082.90450573d,35y,-0h,0t,0r
https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/ELY1
Maybe it's not a flat disc but like a yarmulka shape?
If that were the case, the ships on the horizon would accelerate right off the edge. They wouldn't slowly disappear from view, and they certainly wouldn't ever reappear.
Why? Just cut the globe in half so its half a globe. That would explain ships going over the horizon and and reappearing when coming back. I'm pretty sure this is how the ancients understood it, as opposed to a flat disc, because they saw ships disappearing over the horizon and they knew the sun rises and sets later as you travel west.
Watch the same video I provided for Happy, if he wants to take the few minutes to watch it, Shaul. Refraction, horizon, it's covered there.
Us mystics are more into empirical results than the rationalists. The rationalists keep coming up with explanations with no foundation in physics that defy logic and common sense. We take our cameras out and prove the same point ad nauseum. We can see too far. It's real.
The Flat Earth Society is some sort of limited hangout. It is not a legit org that any of us pay attention to. It seems to exist to make flat earth look stupid.
YouTube is blocked on my computer. But I'll just say that my belief that the earth is spherical isn't based on any complicated theorizing. It's pretty basic reasoning/observation. It could be wrong, just as any other belief I have could be wrong, but it wouldn't be because I've rationalized away competing evidence.
So what actually happens when you get to the edge of the earth? I've asked you before, you never answered.
Asks the person who says he will never comment to me again.
Test, you have all sorts of questions about all sorts of things. Nothing satisfies the unsatisfiable. But here goes.
Seeing too far doesn't mean I have the answers on everything, but I will speculate. There is a rakia, and I believe it meets surface at some point. Probably deep into the vohu, which the Gemara in Chagiga says is a ring of darkness that surrounds the earth.
The entirety of modern cosmology is based on an assumption that 95% of the matter and energy needed to substantiate its claims exists, while it has never been detected and never will be. It's a flimsy reed to rest your beliefs on.
But you should take comfort. Happy and many others who contend with you share your beliefs on cosmology. They don't want to take a stand because some self-styled experts say they should believe science over our mesorah.
Thank you. But what happens when you reach the edge?
Seriously, what kind of question is that, given my answer? If the dome (aka rakia) touches ground at some point, you can walk around the edge of world. Speculative anonymous reports say that this is the case in reality, that it is impenetrable, and that there is no going through it.
Even though interesting, and plausible to me, I am not a fan of speculation-mongering.
There is quite a bit of evidence of a rakia, but it is more subtle than "we can see too far." For example, rainbows are bows because the rakia is curved, and they are optical projections emanating via it. Try to figure the conditions to simulate one in the lab. Impossible without a curved surface in the light path. Otherwise, they are always straight. This is not all, but it is food for the thoughtful.
Is there a point to this line of questioning?
What do you mean by 'walk around the edge of the world'?
Yes - Shimshon this is a legit question - please explain. According to this, as I understand it, a trans-global (or trans-disc or whatever) trip is possible - If, for example, you are heading west and hit the rakia you are forced to go either north or south and go around the disc to the other side. But 1) what's to decide if you go north or south and 2) that would mean passing the north or south pole (or whatever you will call it)?
Now you're just belaboring the point and sound retarded.
"If the earth is a globe 7,926 miles in diameter, then the curvature is not only readily apparent, but absolutely measurable at the surface. There is some mildly complicated trigonometry involved for the mathematically correct calculation, but this shorthand formula for the curvature is accurate to well within 1% of the true figure out to many hundreds of miles: eight inches per mile squared"
Please answer the question חוקר. Are you retarded or illiterate? No one uses the shorthand formula except for quick calculations, for which it is more than accurate enough. In the videos I presented, the mathematically correct trigonometric calculation is utilized.
This is not counter-proof or counter-evidence of anything.
Here, for the record is the actual calculation of curvature out to 100 miles: 6667.6173 feet
There are many online calculators. I used this one: https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=100&h0=0&unit=imperial
Here is the calculation using the approximation of 8 inches per mile squared: 6666.67 feet
What did I say about the approximation? This: "...this shorthand formula for the curvature is accurate to well within 1% of the true figure out to many hundreds of miles..."
People who make spurious arguments like do you, חוקר, are worse than retarded. What I said was 100% accurate, and my comment will not be edited.
If you want to experience more ruchnius in your life, the first thing to do is stop being so retarded. If you have an actual rebuttal to my words, by all means, present it. You don't. You just don't like the words or their implications, and react in an angry fashion saying absolutely nothing of substance.
Retarded and illiterate. I am not debating you, nor did I state anything inaccurately. You could've ignored what I wrote and held fast to your beliefs and not made yourself look stupid. My point stands firm on what evidence is and how it differs from proof.
Retard my name is Shimshon, and you will not see any edits to my comment, which you didn't even duplicate in full. Pointless anyway. I hope you will shut up now.
This retard, and he is a retard, is debunking a formula I said outright is an approximation, even if it is an accurate one. You, by linking to it directly in the video (at 272 seconds), are retarded by association.
You have addressed nothing of what I said. Try again. Can you actually contribute using your own words?
"This retard, and he is a retard,"
My brain automatically converts your comments into Yosef Mizrachi accented English: 'Zees wetawd, end hee is a wetawd'
There isn't strong, overwhelming, inconvenient evidence.
Incontrovertible. I don't get the edit thing
Love this, thank you. The difference is the acceptance of even the possibility of a spiritual dimension.
I don't know if this will help, but I used to think the latter; now I think the former. There is little common ground in the conversation because we are using two entirely different sets of techniques and have entirely different world views. It's only challenging because deep down we also have our nagging little doubts. Like are we really going to meet God after 120? That's serious business. We aren't always ready to be so serious all the time. But when we listen to people like the Tannaim and Amoraim and Rishonim and Acharonim, all really, really serious people, and they had the clarity of mind to wrap their heads around this stuff.
It really boils down to who you trust.
If you don't know yet, I was a real heavy atheist for a really long time. As good as they get. First I was the classic militant atheist, then I realized the extreme value of religion and then I was exposed to someone frum who really made me question my confidence. As much as the atheist likes to say that he jut hasn't seen 'proof,' it really means that he is closed to hearing that perhaps these millions of ancients (and all Jews) actually could know what they're taking about.
You shouldn't be scared to talk to the atheist because you have millenniums of wisdom on them. You just have to be opened to accepting that others who know more than you ever will can get you closer and closer to the truth if you follow them and ignore the seemingly clever arguments which really boil down to them not understanding what we're all about.
That is my experience.
You used to be an atheist. What changed? Appreciating the value of religion doesn't make it true.
(I'm a believer, but I'm not sure how you can convince an atheist out of his worldview unless he exposed to learning)
It's a long story but eventually I realized that the real reason why I went off wasn't because of arguments (like I thought, and like most atheists think). You read a blog like AJCA and it sounds very systematic and logical. But behind it all, I realized, I didn't believe because I didn't 'feel' the truth of Judaism.
I don't mean this in a silly way. I mean this in a way where all the logical structures we use so passionately and logically are ultimately just set up to conform to what we are anyways feeling. The reason certain arguments move us is because they talk to an inner core and it feels right. All the atheist arguments, and why they spoke to me so deeply originally, were because of how they sat with me. As much as it sounds like a algorithm and a logical systematic structure, it's really not that at the core.
For example, their is nothing particularly illogical in an inherent form about miracles happening. But since we've never seen miracles, it seems strange to think that things were once different. This is an "if then" structure - "if we've never seen it, it must have never been," but what we really mean is that I think it's strange that miracles should have happened in the past because what changed? Obviously, if Judaism has any truth to it, something has changed and the question falls away, but before understanding what changed, the "if then" structure really speaks to us because it truly does seem strange.
Once we open up the idea of God and the decline of the generations, it can seem less strange. But why would I accept such a theory of God and this decline, maybe the atheist perspective is the true one? And it is backed up by the scientific account of the universe?
I'm not even saying I have all the answers, but as we learn about what the Tannaim and Ammoraim and Rishonim and Acharonim were all about; when we learn of their tremendous wisdom and accept the possibility that they may know something I don't, which is evident when these really logical people claim to understand things like sfiros which were always an anomaly to me, I start to see that there are things to learn. My "logos" begins to accept that there is more out there which cannot be defined by science, and when I pursue these truths I feel the truth as strongly as any other and it settles as logical.
The atheist's beliefs also come from their emotional appeal. It doesn't 'feel' rational so it's not true.
At the end of the day all that matters is who you decide to trust and hang out with.
Have fun trying to get an atheist to understand this. He just hears that we're not being logical, but really I'm delving into the appeal of logic at large.
Once this step is taken, the trust system of Judaism as well as is origin story is quite convincing. It really, really is. As long as one can accept that there is a God and that He wants something for us. And if I still have a lot of questions, I get closer and closer to the truth every time I learn another layer of Judaism.
(To clarify, this is not postmodernism; this is understanding why we believe what we do on a deeper level, including logic itself.)
(BTW I've been on the RJ blog in the past under a different pseudonym when I was an atheist but I've been absent for a while rethinking everything and thank God I've come out the other side. I'll let you guess, but I'm not going to admit anything...)
If I am included in the other commenters here then I will respond that I do agree to some extent with this. I see this as a major problem with the maaracha fought against Sapirman, and especially the book(s) Shmeltzer wrote on the topic.
However, why should we want our children exposed to stupidity (because that's what it is). Don't we want them to grow up smart?
We should never ever discourage questions. True Yiddishkeit encourages questions. But we should discourage our children from getting confused by stupidity.
If you are interested, I can email you a certain essay written against Rabbi Sapirman's approach, that I think it deals with it far more intelligently than Schmeltzer does. It is available online but I'm not sure it's easy to find. But it is possible you have seen it already.
I got it years ago (not long after Schmeltzer's book came out). Hasn't it been priinted in Dialogue since with a response from Rabbi Sapirman?
I really am trying to stay away from the practical ramifications of this issue as I feel it is for experienced, understanding and caring mechanchim to decide for their talmidim.
What's important for everyone is to understand what is the root of the debate and how it relates to our basic approach to Yiddishkeit.
I can't resist some comments on the Sapirman debate.
There seems to be strong evidence that Rabbi Sapirman is right that many teenagers need to be provided with more tools in their arsenal. However, as you and Reb Leib pointed out they may be raising topics which teenagers simply don't have the tools to fully grasp. Additionally, as Happy is essentially saying, by putting themselves into the the position of know-it-all they may be staking themselves on hard to defend position.
Evolution is an excellent example of this. Is it necessary for us to convince our teenagers that we are smarter than all modern scientists. Rabbi Sapirman even ends off recommending those who are interested to continue the research on their own. Do we really expect them to research and and refute the entire gamut of evolutionary theory? And for what?
I believe they should be told quite simply that there are 3 topics which science has no knowledge of, and in fact as science progresses they seem to realize even more about how little they know. It is merely a random coincidence that these 3 topics happen to correspond with the 3 Ikrei Haemunah of the Sefer Haikrim.
1. The origin of evolutionary mechanisms, especially the origin of life. (מציאות ה').
2. Consciousness and the vast distance between humankind and animals. (The experience of תורה מן השמים).
3. The question of determinism.
This is not "external proofs", but rather shows that science and the Torah are simply speaking about different things, which reinforces the idea that the Torah and science are 2 totally separate entities.
I see now you are in between Saperman and Schmeltzer regarding Emuna for children. I am still trying to figure out what your position on emuna is out side the realm of chinuch. Can you share a bit more?
As far as exposing Kids, I would say that by teaching kids on how to be smart, like training them in critical thinking, or taught the depth and beauty of things, might be of help when they do get exposed to stupidity eventually, as unfortunately happens to most of us. I am not a Mechanech, I am just relating what worked for me personally.
There is no point. Most people, apikorsim included, are simply not that intelligent. However, apikorsum think they are, and that their questions are good questions, and their answers are good answers.
Personally, I find engagement tedious, as I have made clear in different ways. Because the questions are usually dishonestly presented even when they are good, which is often not the case. You, generally not specifically, are more interested in debate, that is, recruiting to join you in apikorsus, than learning.
It is better to stay far away from the likes of you, particularly for those not capable of knowing what to answer a heretic.
What about you חוקר? You asked, in the comments to this post:
"Curious, what would you or Ash say to someone who say their issues is that they have either current or lifelong inability to experience spirituality?"
Do you want an honest answer? Or do you consider this an invitation to engage in more debate?
I don't love most of this comment but the beginning is very important, that they think they are so smart and intelligent when they're just providing rhetoric
The same "you" is in force from this point in my comment on: "You, generally not specifically..." Until I address you directly.
Do I need to clarify every use of the term? It wasn't directed at you personally. And it certainly wasn't meant as an insult. It should be clear that when I mean to insult, I know how to insult. Try reading what I wrote again, a few times even, and maybe it will become apparent.
You should try a more original insult if you want to take a stab it it. When you use the word, everyone, particularly me, knows you're just channeling...me.
To experience ruchniyus, you must first be receptive to it. You, personally, along with your fellow travelers, from my perspective, are not. It takes work.
Of course, being misbatel to a rebbe like Vox Day certainly helps.
What is the point of your lies Ash? I could be wrong, but it does seem like test and חוקר and even Norm are addressing evidence, not resorting to laitzanus. Are you a Boomer? Would explain things.
Haha, I can tell you (or whoever is asking this) is not a woman!
But in truth for many people including myself, this is a lifelong avodah and there is no blanket answer for everybody. You (or he) should ask somebody who knows them personally rather than a random blogger.
If I may jump in here, an inability to experience spirituality is the name of the game. Even those who get to feel it, the Rambam says that a second later, they are right back to where they started. The עבודה is to hold on to it and when we are מתמיד in it, it begins to become alive. Hours of learning and davening without distraction is basically the only way. The Chazon Ish described the feelings which are awakened after hours of רציפות. This is the words of the pasuk, העתיף עיניך בו ואיננו.
Women have the ability to 'feel it' with less effort, but in this דור and climate many of them are too distracted as well. We live in the world of מלכות אדום, the world of חיצוניות, where this is the biggest challenge, and why atheism is so rampant.
Someone asking this is not alone.
He said "experience" not "feel", and I believe this is the more appropriate word. Feelings are fleeting. But an experience can leave a deep impression than lingers long after a feeling has passed.
To add, the reason why certain people are "גדולים" is because they live their lives in touch with the reality of the world and have a clearer grasp on what is important. Those who don't even know what this stuff is see no value in what we call "דעת תורה" because the whole concept is meaningless to them. That is the beginning of the end.
To this I would respond with this comment.
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/happy-jumping-elephant-day/comment/39695735
Probably the best comment I ever saw on Substack
Welcome back Reb דוד. I was getting nervous about you.
I see you wrote that you will continue to be absent after Shabbos, but when you have a chance perhaps you can answer 2 questions. (This is really at the core of what I seem to disagree with you. See my comment above https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/the-problem-of-conclusive-proof/comment/39421504). Please provide sources.
1. Which of these descriptions best defines the focus of ameilus baTorah? A. בירור חובת האדם בעולמו (אבות 4:5 ובפרט בפירוש רבינו יונה, נפה"ח ריש שער ד). B. A spiritual experience.
2. The feminine nature is best defined as: A. More spiritual (see Rambam Teshuva 10:1), or B. More closely identified with חובת האדם בעולמו (גבורה, מלכות)?
I don’t think spirituality is the most accurate word here. I believe it isשיתברר ויתאמת אצל האדם מה חובתו בעולמו. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of human nature and the relationship between humanity and the world should understand that there must exist a concept of חובת האדם בעולמו. How to recognize that the Torah is the embodiment of this requires an appreciation of בכל דרכיך דעהו, that wherever you are holding the Torah can provide a depth of understanding to the meaning and purpose of every part of your life. The most important task for Yiddishkeit is broadening and deepening this recognition to apply it to every aspect of the human experience.
(This is תורת הגרשר"ה על רגל אחת וד"ל(
As I mentioned elsewhere https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/my-review-of-the-top-restaurant-in/comment/22930368 I view the idea of דע מה שתשיב לאפיקורס also in this light, not as a challenge to our faith, but as a challenge to us to recognize the wisdom of the Torah in every aspect of reality.
I have never read any Bible criticism (and I am offended by Happy’s assumption that we all did) but I do find much of the responses to it very beautiful. For example this https://rationalbelief.org.il/%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%A7%D7%99-%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-2/ I have recently been studying Reb Elchonon Samet’s Torah on Tehilim https://etzion.org.il/en/search?mainSearch=samet%20tehilim&size=24&from=0&lang=en and it provides a wonderfully beautiful perspective on how to view a kapitel Tehillim.
They should stop being so materialistic and focus on spirituality until they break out of their rut. But, as Happy said, it is a lifelong avodah etc...
Stop being so skeptical.