I've recently discovered an interesting sub-sect of Judaism. I don't understand exactly where they all come from (Ultra-Orthodoxy, Modern-Orthodoxy, etc.), but I know they all meet on some basic points. These are people who use a term "Rationalist Judaism," based on the approach of the "Rationalist Rishonim" (medieval Torah scholars, such as the Rambam).
The website I found was Natan Slifkin's "Rationalist Judaism" blog (rationalistjudaism.com), and the critiques here will be on the articles and concepts I've found on that website.
There are two basic ways that Jews interpret reality: one is through the belief in revelation, or "divine wisdom" that is revealed by god through prophets, passed down by rabbis.
The other way is to use rational methods to explore the natural universe and come to conclusions based on logic.
These fundamentals are already a basis of much argument among Jews: how to interpret different Torah verses, etc. However, the whole point of this article is that I wish to express a message to them: please don't call the second approach, "Rationalist Judaism."
See, what those Jews are doing is forgetting that the entire foundational belief of Judaism (that a god exists) would need to be demonstrated. Otherwise, that belief CANNOT be called "rational."
So if you accept a single irrational belief (the god of Judaism), you cannot then attach the word "rational" in front of it and say, "We are 'rationalist' Jews! We use reason to explore the universe!" A hundred "rational" beliefs on a foundation of "irrationality" is, by definition, irrational. It's like doing a math problem flawlessly - but allowing a single instance of 1+1=3. EVERYTHING after that is, by definition, WRONG, no matter how accurately you've calculated the equation.
This article is not intended to bash or insult rationalist Jews. In fact, I always applaud people who value rationality, who attempt to back up their views with evidence, and who see the value of reason, logic, and critical thinking.
However, I must point out irrationality where I see it - and "ignoring" the MAIN claim of Judaism - simply to go off and argue about k'zaysim and how big olives are - misses the whole point of rationality.
Epistemology is the philosophical study of "knowledge," and what it means to really "know" something. Modern understanding is that knowledge must be "justified," which means it's not enough to simply "believe" something ... it must be demonstrated, as well.
It seems to me that rationalist Jews love using logic, researching, and value evidence - but only for topics that have already been "approved" by the dictates of Judaism and the mesorah. If you're willing to research everything but not ONE THING ... then you are, by definition, not willing to look at everything, because everything is connected. That ONE THING may overturn your entire worldview.
With all this being said, I must applaud Natan Slifkin when he wrote this post, "The Limits of Rationalism," in which he seems to come "dangerously" close to admitting that the so-called "rationalist approach" cannot be utilized everywhere, or fully, by most Jewish people, since it would probably destroy their faith. If that is what is meant in the article, I'd very likely agree with that, although Rabbi Slifkin, like in many of his posts, presents both sides of the argument and then abruptly ends the conversation without revealing too much of his own, personal thoughts.
Therefore, I make it clear: if there are rationalist Jews who REALLY want to be rational - who value logic, science, and evidence - the BEST TOPIC you could start with is whether a god exists at all. Because arguing about some archaic, little-known sefer that you bring down in a footnote somewhere may be theologically impressive ... but it's completely irrelevant, and a waste of energy, when you consider that every single topic that is being argued about in Judaism is built on a foundation of a god. Use rationalism there, before going off on a million different tangents. Only then do you get to truly call yourself a "Rationalist Jew." And I suspect, if someone is truly open and intellectually honest ... they will ultimately end up just a "rationalist," since Judaism is, by no definition, "rational."
The website I found was Natan Slifkin's "Rationalist Judaism" blog (rationalistjudaism.com), and the critiques here will be on the articles and concepts I've found on that website.
There are two basic ways that Jews interpret reality: one is through the belief in revelation, or "divine wisdom" that is revealed by god through prophets, passed down by rabbis.
The other way is to use rational methods to explore the natural universe and come to conclusions based on logic.
These fundamentals are already a basis of much argument among Jews: how to interpret different Torah verses, etc. However, the whole point of this article is that I wish to express a message to them: please don't call the second approach, "Rationalist Judaism."
See, what those Jews are doing is forgetting that the entire foundational belief of Judaism (that a god exists) would need to be demonstrated. Otherwise, that belief CANNOT be called "rational."
So if you accept a single irrational belief (the god of Judaism), you cannot then attach the word "rational" in front of it and say, "We are 'rationalist' Jews! We use reason to explore the universe!" A hundred "rational" beliefs on a foundation of "irrationality" is, by definition, irrational. It's like doing a math problem flawlessly - but allowing a single instance of 1+1=3. EVERYTHING after that is, by definition, WRONG, no matter how accurately you've calculated the equation.
This article is not intended to bash or insult rationalist Jews. In fact, I always applaud people who value rationality, who attempt to back up their views with evidence, and who see the value of reason, logic, and critical thinking.
However, I must point out irrationality where I see it - and "ignoring" the MAIN claim of Judaism - simply to go off and argue about k'zaysim and how big olives are - misses the whole point of rationality.
Epistemology is the philosophical study of "knowledge," and what it means to really "know" something. Modern understanding is that knowledge must be "justified," which means it's not enough to simply "believe" something ... it must be demonstrated, as well.
It seems to me that rationalist Jews love using logic, researching, and value evidence - but only for topics that have already been "approved" by the dictates of Judaism and the mesorah. If you're willing to research everything but not ONE THING ... then you are, by definition, not willing to look at everything, because everything is connected. That ONE THING may overturn your entire worldview.
With all this being said, I must applaud Natan Slifkin when he wrote this post, "The Limits of Rationalism," in which he seems to come "dangerously" close to admitting that the so-called "rationalist approach" cannot be utilized everywhere, or fully, by most Jewish people, since it would probably destroy their faith. If that is what is meant in the article, I'd very likely agree with that, although Rabbi Slifkin, like in many of his posts, presents both sides of the argument and then abruptly ends the conversation without revealing too much of his own, personal thoughts.
Therefore, I make it clear: if there are rationalist Jews who REALLY want to be rational - who value logic, science, and evidence - the BEST TOPIC you could start with is whether a god exists at all. Because arguing about some archaic, little-known sefer that you bring down in a footnote somewhere may be theologically impressive ... but it's completely irrelevant, and a waste of energy, when you consider that every single topic that is being argued about in Judaism is built on a foundation of a god. Use rationalism there, before going off on a million different tangents. Only then do you get to truly call yourself a "Rationalist Jew." And I suspect, if someone is truly open and intellectually honest ... they will ultimately end up just a "rationalist," since Judaism is, by no definition, "rational."
Rationalistic Judaism is an oxymoron. When the term is used it is meant rational up to a point. BTW I wrote a long review on Rav Slifkin's book.
ReplyDelete@Alter Cocker
Delete"Rational-up-to-a-point" is a roundabout way of saying, "irrational."
LOL!
Please feel free to share this article with the other people you meet on your blogs, and Natan's blog.
Do you have an index of posts ? What will be your focus ? Despite what N8 has written, I doubt there is any good basis for Orthodox Judaism in any of it's forms. I have searched far and wide and found no intellectually honest responses to the many isssues I have raised at my blog. I am fairly certain Orthodox Judaism is bogus and there is no good evidence for G-d. I also agree somewhat with Dawkin's characterization of the G-d of the OT. Jews should admit that the entire religion is bogus and was man made. They are not special or chosen in any way .
Delete@Apikoresjew, While I liked and enjoyed what you wrote, I disagree with you. The existence of G-d can be demonstrated and have been in the past. Please see this essay here: http://libertarianjew.blogspot.com/2010/11/am-i-really-deist.html
ReplyDeleteContrary to what you wrote, Rationalist Judaism does exist within the religious world-view. Maimonides was a great rationalist. Frankly, I don't see how anyone could be an atheist after studying Rambam.
ACJA, I disagree with Dawkin's description of the G-d of the Torah. He is looking at it with a Christian perspective. Now you might say that G-d killed 70,000 Israelites because He was upset, but if he interprets that passage in light of Maimonides we learn that G-d does not have emotions. Thus, G-d cannot become angry. We also learn that David's census was done publicly with resulted in an ambush by his enemies, resulting in a three-day plague. G-d did not cause the plague. Hence, we must disagree with Dawkins.
@Turk Hill Dawkins is reading the Tenach as it is written without the mountains of apologetics by Jews or Christians or anybody.
Delete@TH - AAHHH - so that is a link to your blog. Did not know you had one. Anyway, no proofs in that specific link, unless I missed it. BTW DEISM is not really consistent with traditional Judaism.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@ACJA, And he would be correct if we read the Bible literary. But the Bible (Tanakh) is not meant to be read literally. Not to mention that Dawkins is using a translation of a translation! One reason people reject the Bible out of hand is because they feel it is unscientific. But scientist Gerald Schroeder opines that there is no conflict between science and the Torah. Maimonides explained that whenever a scientific claim is proven true we must reinterpret the Torah (i.e., we read it allegorically). Thus, when Aristotle proved that only an impersonal G-d exists, Maimonides wrote that G-d is not involved in human affairs. The Bible only attributes events to G-d because G-d is the ultimate cause. Thus, G-d did not smite 70,000 Israelites.
DeletePS Maimonides was a deist.
@TH Schroeder twists our holy texts and alo misinforms on science sometimes. I wrote a detailed review of his book. See http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-science-of-god-schroeder-1997-part-1.html and http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-science-of-god-schroeder-chapter-1_9.html
DeleteRambam made up stuff to reconcile Greek Philosophy with Judaism. I do not think Rambam was a full Deist . Also, crucial to historical Judaism was that their god would interfere on their behalf and in the world, a belief also shared by some others in the ancient near east. "But the Bible (Tanakh) is not meant to be read literally." I agree some parts are intended as poetry or allegory etc:, but that is not license to claim any part you are not comfortable into a metaphor etc: I suggest you read my blog posts to get a feel for my POV. It turns Tenach etc: into meaningless documents and a get out of jail free card for religious.
DeleteRegarding Deism - how do you understand the term ?
DeleteI think Maimonides was a deist. Maimonides' conception of G-d was a deistic, Aristotelian conception of an impersonal G-d. Just as the sun is an impersonal source of light, so too is G-d an impersonal source of nature. This would mean that G-d is not involved in human affairs (i.e., 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 the Torah per se. Rambam also claims that these radical views were not only his views but the views of the prophets, and he reinterprets the prophets to be Aristotelian philosophers who used their intelligence to predict "what ought to be" rather than G-d intervening. I think that Maimonides' G-d is superior to most conceptions of G-d. Most people view G-d like children. Whereas Maimonides version of religion is religion for adults. This seems to me to be not only rational but highly useful.
Delete.
@TH I am not sure how many Scholars would agree with your interpretations of Rambam. Also almost every Scholar would not agree with Rambam's view of the prophets etc:. But if as you claim "Maimonides' conception of G-d was a deistic, Aristotelian conception of an impersonal G-d?" and" "G-d is not involved in human affairs" and no Sinai Torah revelation then what is left of Judaism ? Also being an atheist I can even agree with all that - I would deem G-d the underlying quantum field or fields ( the "Sun") from which our Universe ("light") emerges from, but that is not the sort of god(s) of the Tenach and most other popular religions. P.S. Been a while since I read Moreh, but if memory serves me I am not convinced you have Rambam accurate on some the issues you mention. Even Scholars disagree on how to understand him.
Delete@TH I wrote posts involving apologetics and much if it either directly or indirectly addresses Rambam. Here are some specific blog posts on Rambam - see the embedded CUTOFF link and Statute link - start here http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2014/03/explanations-of-pagan-customs-in_18.html
Delete@ACJA Thank you for sharing your essays. I will read them. With regard to Rambam and the prophets, this is the position of Professor Menachem Kellner. With regard to Maimonides' conception of G-d, see Professor Leo Strauss.
DeleteMaimonides was a rationalist. He wrote that the basic human duty was to use reason and study science. Maimonides held an Aristotelian conception of prophecy and revelation. For example, Maimonides felt that Moses meditated on nature and produced the Torah. This implies that the Torah was not literally the result of revelation - rather, the Torah is a product of Moses' prophecy (intellectual enlightenment in Maimonidean terms). Unfortunately, many scholars ignore Maimonides' radical, Aristotelian conception of G-d, which he presents in his law code and the Guide of the Perplexed. This is intellectually dishonest in my view.
I dispute with your view that a belief in God is irrational since the creation is of itself a demonstration of the existence of a Creator. The deist, Thomas Paine called atheism "half-rational" because it dismisses the rational belief of a God.
DeleteThus, one can be both religious and science-minded, Maimonides is an example. The proper approach is to accept science and if you want to also be religious, be like Maimonides and only accept those tenets of religion that are rational.
Rationalism includes things that can be empirically proven, even if they cannot be proven scientifically. I KNOW, not believe, that there is a country called China even though I have never seen it, because empirically, it has been proven to me. Much of Jewish rationalism fits into this category. An example, Rambam writes that Creation cannot be philosophically proven, but he knows it to be true because the Torah says so. Rambam does not "believe" in the Torah in the manner as belief is understood by the irrationalists, but rather because he finds the Sinai narrative to be plausible to the point that he has virtually no doubt as to its authenticity. That might not be "rational" in the scientific sense, but it is far from irrational.
ReplyDeleteI dispute with your view that a belief in God is irrational since the creation is of itself a demonstration of the existence of a Creator. The deist, Thomas Paine called atheism "half-rational" because it dismisses the rational belief of a God.
ReplyDeleteThus, one can be both religious and science-minded, Maimonides is an example. The proper approach is to accept science and if you want to also be religious, be like Maimonides and only accept those tenets of religion that are rational.