Where Are Natan's Friends?
A mysterious disappearance and its tragic implications
Those of us who remember Rationalist Judaism's glory days recall a time when every post was throatily cheered by throngs of admirers, each new "rationalist" innovation greeted like the second coming, and any voice of dissent - the poor sap who would point out that the offerings were hardly Jewish and even less rational - was immediately smothered under the devotees' righteous scorn of closed minded adherence to such outmoded concepts as mesora, limud haTorah, and achievable kedusha.
My, have things changed.
A glance at any recent post leaves one wondering where the crowds have gone. Of late, the High Priest of Rationality can barely pull together a quorum for a service, and just at a time when his tenets are finally receiving critical scrutiny at that. On the halachicity of kollel study, he struggles to extricate himself from a self-made entanglement of ignorance, with nary a friend to throw him a life preserver. He derides chareidi belief in such primitive concepts as briyas ha'olam and the mabul, receives derision in return, and his defensive line of letzanim go completely AWOL leaving him alone and naked in the public square. In multiple successive statements, he struggles to figure out if he really thinks Torah protects; but then why did he make fun of people who believe so; well of course it does but not practically; never mind, yes practically but you guys don't think so; er you actually do think so but relying on it is both naive and selfish; until finally giving up and instructing the reader to just consult his books and see if you can figure it out from there. All with barely any fire cover from his old comrades. To where have they all disappeared?
And then, suddenly, they reappeared in full force. Slifkin announces that ‘intellectually honest’ people realize that there’s no good proof for Judaism, and out they come thundering from the woodworks, enthusiastically voicing their hoorahs and bravos. He himself shrewdly stops short of denying Judaism outright1, but his adherents are under no such restriction as the conversation spirals into what can only be described as a display reminiscent of the good old days.
And, tragically, a display that answers our question as well. His congregation has disappeared because it is gone. "Rationalism" has turned out to be yet another intellectual dead end; eventually they just got tired of faking it and have taken the natural next step. After years of attempting to reform Judaism to make it more atheistic, they've thrown in the towel and have simply embraced atheism all out. We've completed the full circuit from "how dare you call me a kofer, I'm just as Jewish as you only smarter" to "yeah I don't believe in Judaism, whatcha gonna do about it", and it's taken far quicker than anyone could've imagined.
We've seen this show before, and it always seems to end the same way, doesn't it?
As a site that has come to be seen as somewhat of a Slifkin watchdog2, where does this leave us?
The answer is it leaves us nowhere. We will not be commenting on nor discussing the specifics of this particular issue, for a very simple reason: our mission is to discuss trends and ideologies that, however ridiculously, clamor for legitimacy within a Jewish framework. We are not here to debate the truth of Judaism in the first place. There are ample resources available for those who wish to delve into the intellectual grounding of Judaism versus atheism, but, as we've previously expressed, this site is not one of them.
If you'd like to discuss or debate - vigorously and with good humor - misrepresentations of the Torah's position on Torah study, feminism, nissim, and the license for textual reinterpretation, this is the place for you. If you'd like to weigh in on the inherent "rationality" of assuming that Hashem gave us a Torah 3000 years ago but has utterly disregarded its transmission and development ever since, hop aboard.
But if you'd like to let us know that you personally don't believe in G-d at all, and demand we prove His existence to you while you stand on one leg and chuckle, you've come to the wrong place. Any such comments will be ignored.
Rachmana litzlan.
And so he must, lest he lose his gig as Judaism's resident iburchacham. Outright atheists are a dime a dozen.
This is far from our stated and exclusive purpose, but we've apparently become associated with such a mandate to the extent that some expect us to comment on RJ's latest degeneration. Hence this explanatory post.
Amazing post that really captures the underlying dynamic. Just off the top of my head, does anybody recognize "fozziebear", "Dstaum", "Baruch Pelta", "Rationalist Medical Halacha", "G*3"? Also, see this comment from one of Natan's friends, "liked" by Natan
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/the-drowning-man/comment/13759768
The Chasam Sofer writes in a Teshuva about his fights against the nascent reform movement that he is careful to keep the fight within the parameters of 'good vs. evil' and not about individuals.
There are, I believe, two reasons for this:
1. A human being is more than his individual beliefs. If a person is trying to prove that a character like Geiger, for example, is completely wrong and a danger to Judaism, one runs the risk of finding the fight against the rest of his character. He may be a kind, generous individual, who is a good friend to his friends, a good father to his family etc.. Nobody who knows him will accept that he is a danger to society and Torah, and the fight will be lost. If the topic remains the issue itself, no other consideration can sully the argument.
2. The evil of the anti-Torah movements transcends humans. Geiger will die or disappear, but reform Judaism will remain a problem. By focusing on the actual issue - the warped belief system of the reform movement, the Chasam Sofer could ensure that his argument will endure.
The same is true about this new movement of pseudo-intellectualism, grounded in ignorance and based on frivolity. Stop mentioning people by name, ignore their personal existence. Keep the argument of Emes against Sheker and you will be more successful. Every time I see someone's name in a post title, I cringe. I am far from a fan of Slifkin's, but he is a human being and arguments should not be with humans. It sullies the purity of the argument.