To give an idea of how warped, twisted, irrational, and fucked-up a religious worldview can be, I've compiled three examples below in blue. In red, you'll see what a possible "Jewish" reaction should be according to Jewish hashkafah (and note: I've given a very charitable outlook), and in green, my actual reactions based on a rational worldview.
1. I see a video of radical ISIS militants murdering an innocent aid worker.
Jewish reaction: Oy, this is terrible! Why did Hashem allow Ishmael to survive? All this could have been prevented! Maybe we should just make Israel completely Jewish and kick out all the Muslims. Look how crazy they are! They kill people because they believe in a fake religion! The Torah would never say to do anything like that! [ignores the Torah commandment to wipe out the Amalekites, including babies]. Moshiach must be coming! The war of the end times must be coming! Oh, Hashem, please save us! [ignores that the god who is being prayed to for help with serial-killers is the same exact god who created psychopathic serial killers in the first place].
Rational reaction: Human brains are all on a spectrum, and some fall into the psychopathic, serial-killer category. This is really unfortunate for a civilized society in the 21st century, and the best thing we can do is either imprison these primates, or kill them simply to prevent them from hurting other innocent people. Of course, the best possible outcome would be if we had the technology to literally change their brains, or have a brain transplant, to make them completely rational, empathetic, intelligent members of society. But if we can't cure them yet because of our lack of neurological understanding, the next-best course of action is simply prevent them from hurting others. However, being angry at them is just silly, since there's no such a thing as free will. It's like being "angry" at a tornado, or lightning.
2. I see a friend in an abusive marriage where one spouse yells, controls, and possibly even hits the other.
Jewish reaction: Well, this is bad. But at the very least, they should go to therapy! Hashem cries when a couple gets divorced! So at the very least, try therapy! [Ignores the fact that Maimonides specifically says that halacha allows the beating of a wife.] I know a heimishe therapist they can try. True, they don't have a real degree, but everyone in the community loves them!
Rational reaction: No one is obligated to be in any relationship they don't want to be in. And if one person is physically, or even verbally abusive, that's already a very good reason to leave. Abusive actions are well-defined in psychology, and we also know that it's usually the best idea to leave - immediately. Get to a safe place and leave!
3. I read the part of the Torah where it says to kill gay people.
Jewish reaction: I don't understand, I personally don't understand why we should do this, but I'm not doing it! There's no more Sanhedrin! Maybe when Moshiach comes we'll kill the gays, but not now! And also, Jews never killed gays, calm down! Even if a court killed them once in 70 years, that's very rare! [Ignores the fact that murdering a gay person EVER is immoral, horrific, irrational, and psychopathic.] But I can't admit that the Torah is imperfect! Even if one verse is wrong, that would invalidate the whole thing! The Torah is just! Just because I don't understand something, doesn't mean it's not perfect. [Horrible appeal to ignorance fallacy.]
Rational Reaction: Wow. That's a horribly primitive and ignorant view regarding homosexuality. But what more could we expect from ignorant, barbaric, superstitious, homophobic, and possibly psychopathic shepherds from 2,000 years ago? It's wonderful that I live in a society that doesn't support or endorse this as rational or binding. And I have confidence that, one day, more of the world will realize that following primitive scriptures don't lead to human well-being or happiness ... we do. We decide what makes us happy, based on logic, evidence, and a secular-worldview. And I'm so happy to condemn this as what it is: horrible and immoral - and proof that these scriptures were not written by a loving author.
I'm so happy to be free from the shackles of a "Jewish reaction" and able to "react" based on my own heart, my own intelligence, and my own thoughts. And that's the best way to understand the universe - using your own mind, not through a book.
1. I see a video of radical ISIS militants murdering an innocent aid worker.
Jewish reaction: Oy, this is terrible! Why did Hashem allow Ishmael to survive? All this could have been prevented! Maybe we should just make Israel completely Jewish and kick out all the Muslims. Look how crazy they are! They kill people because they believe in a fake religion! The Torah would never say to do anything like that! [ignores the Torah commandment to wipe out the Amalekites, including babies]. Moshiach must be coming! The war of the end times must be coming! Oh, Hashem, please save us! [ignores that the god who is being prayed to for help with serial-killers is the same exact god who created psychopathic serial killers in the first place].
Rational reaction: Human brains are all on a spectrum, and some fall into the psychopathic, serial-killer category. This is really unfortunate for a civilized society in the 21st century, and the best thing we can do is either imprison these primates, or kill them simply to prevent them from hurting other innocent people. Of course, the best possible outcome would be if we had the technology to literally change their brains, or have a brain transplant, to make them completely rational, empathetic, intelligent members of society. But if we can't cure them yet because of our lack of neurological understanding, the next-best course of action is simply prevent them from hurting others. However, being angry at them is just silly, since there's no such a thing as free will. It's like being "angry" at a tornado, or lightning.
2. I see a friend in an abusive marriage where one spouse yells, controls, and possibly even hits the other.
Jewish reaction: Well, this is bad. But at the very least, they should go to therapy! Hashem cries when a couple gets divorced! So at the very least, try therapy! [Ignores the fact that Maimonides specifically says that halacha allows the beating of a wife.] I know a heimishe therapist they can try. True, they don't have a real degree, but everyone in the community loves them!
Rational reaction: No one is obligated to be in any relationship they don't want to be in. And if one person is physically, or even verbally abusive, that's already a very good reason to leave. Abusive actions are well-defined in psychology, and we also know that it's usually the best idea to leave - immediately. Get to a safe place and leave!
3. I read the part of the Torah where it says to kill gay people.
Jewish reaction: I don't understand, I personally don't understand why we should do this, but I'm not doing it! There's no more Sanhedrin! Maybe when Moshiach comes we'll kill the gays, but not now! And also, Jews never killed gays, calm down! Even if a court killed them once in 70 years, that's very rare! [Ignores the fact that murdering a gay person EVER is immoral, horrific, irrational, and psychopathic.] But I can't admit that the Torah is imperfect! Even if one verse is wrong, that would invalidate the whole thing! The Torah is just! Just because I don't understand something, doesn't mean it's not perfect. [Horrible appeal to ignorance fallacy.]
Rational Reaction: Wow. That's a horribly primitive and ignorant view regarding homosexuality. But what more could we expect from ignorant, barbaric, superstitious, homophobic, and possibly psychopathic shepherds from 2,000 years ago? It's wonderful that I live in a society that doesn't support or endorse this as rational or binding. And I have confidence that, one day, more of the world will realize that following primitive scriptures don't lead to human well-being or happiness ... we do. We decide what makes us happy, based on logic, evidence, and a secular-worldview. And I'm so happy to condemn this as what it is: horrible and immoral - and proof that these scriptures were not written by a loving author.
I'm so happy to be free from the shackles of a "Jewish reaction" and able to "react" based on my own heart, my own intelligence, and my own thoughts. And that's the best way to understand the universe - using your own mind, not through a book.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI know of no such statement of Maimonides. Almost certainly you will not find any such statement as I would have heard about such a statement if it existed. Contrary to what you wrote, Maimonides always empathized the usage of one's intelligence. He wrote that we should not rely on traditions. Aristotle was an empiricist and said that people fulfill their telos when they develop the intellect. In fact, science was created to learn about the laws of nature that G-d created.
ReplyDeleteI'd be happy to share it with you, as I did using a hyperlink above. I am wondering how anyone with any intelligence can think that Maimonides was a rational, empathetic human being when he advocates wife-beating. Anyway, feel free to tell me what you think, but here it is:
Deletehttps://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/952895/jewish/Ishut-Chapter-Twenty-One.htm
10
Whenever a woman refrains from performing any of the tasks that she is obligated to perform, she may be compelled to do so, even with a rod.
י
כָּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁתִּמָּנַע מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה מִן הַמְּלָאכוֹת שֶׁהִיא חַיֶּבֶת לַעֲשׂוֹתָן כּוֹפִין אוֹתָהּ וְעוֹשָׂה אֲפִלּוּ בְּשׁוֹט.
Maimonides helped people daily. For example, as the Sultan’s physician, he would travel to Cairo to check on the king's health every day. When he returned half the day was already gone and he was exhausted and hungry. Outside his home, many people wanted to see him. He takes a quick break to eat and then tends to the sick for the remainder of the day. Then he meets with the petitioners two hours into the night. He is lying in bed, and can hardly speak. On Shabbat, he spends his day teaching. Thus, Maimonides wrote to ibn Tibbon that he will have little time to talk with him.
DeleteMaimonides also had compassion for animals. In Guide (3, 48) he gives the reasons for the law of chasing away the mother bird as showing compassion to animals. You are ignoring most of his rational and empathetic views. This is very misleading, in my eyes.
Thus, it seems very unlikely and uncharacteristic of Maimonides to write that a man can use a rod on his wife. If he did permit this act it almost certainly did not reflect his own view, despite the fact that he codified it as law. However, I think this language is not meant to be taken literally as it is inconsistent with the rest of Maimonides' teachings.
Here is an excellent essay by a very good scholar about Maimonides on the topic of wife-beating. See link below:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233104737_Did_Maimonides_Really_Say_That_The_Widespread_Claim_that_He_Condoned_Wife-Battering_May_Be_Mistaken
PS Saying that the Rambam was not empathetic is a real denigration of the Rambam.
DeleteI'll denigrate anyone who supports wife-beating. When you asked for the source, I gave it to you. Now how can you say the Rambam was "compassionate" when he allowed the beating to be codified in Jewish law? How is that compassionate at all?
DeleteI'm not asking for a summation of the Rambam's entire character. I'm sure he also did good things in his life. But we're not having a conversation about the good things - we're discussing the very BAD thing he wrote down and permitted.
So how are you okay with Rambam permitting wife-beating now that I showed you the source?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIf he codified it as law it does not necessarily reflect his own views. He might have included it in his Mishneh Torah because people wanted to know what was prohibited and what was not, although many of these laws were no longer applicable during his age.
DeleteIn any case, had you read the essay I shared, you would learn that the language is not meant to be taken literally as it is inconsistent with everything he said previously. Rambam was very sensitive toward human feelings. He had compassion for animals, so much so, that he wrote that G-d neither needs nor wants sacrifices.
Thus, it seems that Rambam did not actually permit wife-beating. And if he did, this was an “essential truth,” a thing he felt he needed to write for the masses and in no way reflects his true view.
I looked at the essay, but it's all opinions. I want an OBJECTIVE methodology to determine what the Rambam ACTUALLY meant.
DeleteSo you're saying that the Rambam wrote what he didn't mean? First of all, then how can we actually determine what he meant? And if he didn't mean it, then why would he write it in the first place?
Why wouldn't the Rambam's view match up with the "essential truth" of the Torah?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYes, Maimonides wrote for two audiences the intellectual and the masses. Like most philosophers, he included ideas that were helpful but not true. This tradition dates back to the Greeks, but virtually all philosophers hid their views from the general public. Plato called them “Noble Lies,” noble because while untrue, they helped people. Maimonides called them “Essential Truths” or "Necessary beliefs." He did this because he correctly understood that the general population, indeed the vast majority of people cannot handle the truth and feel threatened by it.
DeleteEven the Bible used “essential truths.” For example, Maimonides wrote that G-d does not become angry because G-d does not have human emotions. Whenever the Bible speaks about G-d becoming angry it does so because people needed to believe that G-d would punish them if they did not act properly. This was for the common man.
Thus, he wrote his Guide for two audiences, the uneducated who will think he is agreeing with them, and for the educated who will mine his writings for his true view. Thus, one needs to read the entire Guide to get a feel for what he says is true.
DeleteA good way to uncover Maimonides' true view is to ask whether the idea is consistent with the rest of his rationalistic philosophy. Those ideas that are true are true, those ideas that are inconsistent with everything he said previously are not true. This is the Straussian method.
How could it possibly be helpful to write down a lie for people where you tell them it is permissible to BEAT their wives?
DeleteAlso, instead of dancing around with apologetics, let's change the subject: do you think a god exists, and do you think he condones wife-beating as well?
It is possible that he included it in his Mishneh Torah because people wanted to know what was prohibited and what was not, but this was an “essential truth,” and in no way reflects his true view.
DeleteWith regards to G-d, why would you think that He would condone it? G-d does not even want sacrifices. I take another approach. My conception of G-d is that of a Maimonidean deistic, Aristotelian conception of an impersonal G-d, who is not involved in human affairs.
You ask whether G-d exists. Does it matter whether G-d exists? While we may be unable to prove or disprove G-d’s existence, this hasn't stopped many from trying on both ends of the spectrum. Besides, this is not important for me. What is important is proper behavior. This is one of the many benefits of religion since it helps improve society.
DeleteBesides, atheism is an irrational belief (and it IS a religion). Since atheists make the bold claim "that G-d does not exist," the burden of proof is on them. Because when we refer to G-d we refer to an Infinite Oneness, a thing that transcends time or space. My question to the atheist is this: how can you prove that G-d, which transcends all finite borders, can be disproven when you can't use any application of measurements!? Since any attempt to disprove G-d’s existence requires that you measure G-d, which, by definition, is an impossibility!
Firstly: if you belief in a deistic god, I'm curious how you interpret the whole Torah. There are a hundred verses where "god" is telling the Jews to bring animal sacrifices, so do you just ignore those?
DeleteSecondly: if you admit you can't prove that a god exists, why would you believe that it's actually true? How do you know a deistic god exists?
Lastly, "atheism" is a term that is used differently by different atheists. The average atheist does not claim that "god does not exist." Rather, they say that, "I am unconvinced that a god does actually exist." Those are two separate propositions. I don't claim that no god exists. I'm saying, "Religious people DO claim that a god exists, and they have not met their burden of proof for this claim." So I don't need to "disprove" anything. Religious people who are making a claim need to provide EVIDENCE for their claim.
Rambam explains that anything attributed to G-d, whether it is speech, action, or thought, is metaphorical. This would mean that G-d literally did not give us the Torah.
DeleteWith regards to sacrifices, Maimonides felt God does not need nor want sacrifices, and only "allowed" them because people wanted to show love of G-d. It is a concession to human needs.
I accept Judaism because I see the value in its goal of self and society improvement and how it encourages Jews to think. Also, the universe seems to be fine-tuned. If the earth's position were slightly off, life would be an impossibility. This implies G-d's existence.
DeletePS So you're saying that your more of an agnostic as opposed to being of an atheist, and say “Perhaps G-d exists. I don’t know for sure and I can’t prove it.”?
"Gnosticism" is a label regarding someone's confidence about "knowledge," while "Theism" addresses the belief about gods. You can be a "gnostic theist," meaning someone who claims they KNOW a god exists, and they also BELIEVE a god exists. Or you can be an AGNOSTIC theist, meaning you don't know if a god exists, but you BELIEVE a god exists. By definition, if you want to put it that way, I think any rational person, theists and atheists included, will admit that they are always open to learning more if good evidence presents itself. If you are claiming that atheists are mistaken, you'd need to DEMONSTRATE that they're mistaken. Can you do that?
DeleteAlso, I find it interesting (assuming that you're a practicing, Orthodox Jew) that you are a deist. So why do you pray at all? Why keep shabbos, yom tov, etc.? Why do anything from the Torah that was apparently "commanded by a god" because you don't believe the god gives any commands. Is that correct?
Lastly, fine-tuning is an interesting topic, but ultimately there is no conclusive evidence that our planet proves that a god exists. Do you think the existence of life on earth NECESSARILY proves that a god exists?
I think the G-d theory explains much about the universe. For example, should you drop a glass and watched as the pieces slowly fell into place and fixed itself, you'd say it was a miracle, and yet the human body can heal itself from a cut. Does this necessary prove G-d? No. But that is no reason to discount it.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to the mitzvot, I like the Shabbat. Although these practices developed by our people do not always make sense, this does not detract from the idea that they help encourage people to be the best that they can be and to help others do so as well.
Maimonides writes that the purpose of the Torah is threefold: (1) to teach some truths, and (2) helps improve people and (3) society (Guide 3:27).
There is a reason to discount the god hypothesis. Because if it hasn't met its burden of proof, why should we entertain it? Before you accept that a hypothesis is probable, you have to determine that it's at least POSSIBLE. How did you determine that, because a human body can heal itself from a cut, that its possible that the cause of this was a god?
DeleteIf you're going to start entertaining notions like that, wouldn't you expect our bodies to be IMMORTAL and unable to be cut at all? Why would a "god" give us bodies that can be cut? It doesn't make sense.
But regarding keeping the Torah: if you're going to argue that Judaism is USEFUL, that's a different point than arguing that it's TRUE. But I'm curious why you think it's useful anyway. You say it can "improve people and society," but there's a host of things in the Torah that are positively harmful for society, such as making women second-class citizens, or killing gay people, or killing people for lighting a fire on Shabbos. Why do you think these are "improving" society?
Good question. Although the Torah will endure, how it is interpreted will change. Today's Judaism is not Torah Judaism but Rabbinic Judaism. Thus, we no longer practice sacrifices and slavery.
DeleteFor example, Maimonides correctly understood that it is “impossible (for a person or nation) to go suddenly from one extreme to another; it is…impossible for him to suddenly discontinue everything to which he has been accustomed.” Thus the Torah had to deal with the then primitive mindset of the people. As a result, the Torah, for example, “allowed” sacrifices. Although Maimonides felt that G-d does not need or want sacrifices, G-d only “allowed” sacrifices as a concession for human needs. However, the Torah limits and restricts them as to show that the practice is wrong in the hopes to wean people away from them. The Torah mentioning them does not mean it approved it.
Maimonides wrote that, “He did not command us to give up and to discontinue all these manners of service; for to obey such a commandment it would have been contrary to the nature of man, who generally cleaves to that to which he is used; it would in those days have made the same impression as a prophet would make at present if he called us to the service of G-d and told us in His name, that we should not pray to Him, not fast, not seek His help in time of trouble; that we should serve Him in thought, not by any action. For this reason G-d allowed these kinds of service to continue.” (Guide,3:32, from the easy to read M. Friedlander translation).
The rabbis correctly understood that sacrifices were only a concession to the primitive nature of human beings. Thus when the temple was destroyed in 70 CE the rabbis stopped the practice altogether, replacing it with study and prayer. The same applies to slavery. The Torah modified, restricted, and refrained the treatment of slaves to show that it was wrong and should be abandoned. Thus, it is no surprise that there are remnants of many pagan practices that the rabbis later changed.
These laws were instituted because of the weakness of human nature, but were meant to cease as people improved. This applies to the laws of slavery. So too other laws, such as witchcraft, the evil son, an eye for an eye, the captured woman and so on. Eventually, these laws were altered or discontinued entirely, since the Torah encourages proper behavior. A careful reading of the Torah will show that it wants these laws to be discontinued. Maimonides knew this.
Thus, the rabbis, feeling sensitive to human needs, wrote that these laws were never implemented. The Talmud (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 71a) requires so many preconditions that it rendered capital punishment practically impossible. "Why then was the law written?," the Talmud asks. "That you may study it and receive reward.”
In short, G-d does not want people to obey all of the biblical laws. Thus, Maimonides wrote that the Torah helps improve people and society.