Originally posted on Divrei Acher
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Link
I'm reading Gershom Scholem's autobiography, and the strongest impression that I got from it so far, was the intellectually stimulating environment he found himself in. The Apikorsus of all brands was there for the picking. There were groups, circles, clubs and organizations of all kinds based on this or that shared common belief. Today, there are a few of us here and there who have to go to great lengths to meet a like minded soul. When I read accounts of that time period, I feel like I'm in the wrong century. Granted, most of the intellectual fads of the time, were based on some sort of socialism, which is revolting to me, mostly due to it's naivete, and completely unfounded belief in humanity. Nonetheless, it was a time fertile for intellectual creativity, and Meshugaim like us, who cared or at least though they cared for the truth, were common enough to be a class for themselves, that can flourish as such.
This bring me to my second point, the different manifestations of our Apikorsus. It seems like these guys had guts, something that I find lacking in many of us, myself including, to a degree. Certainly, much of this difference can be attributed to demographics. Most Jews at that time, especially in Eastern Europe, were religious, and that was the time when those that couldn't stay were leaving. It was a mass exodus, simply because it's time had come. In numbers there is power, and it seems like the established religious power holders, were on the defensive. We're now a century after this process, and the religious community has come back in a much smaller, compact and introverted form. It's also been setup (at least the ultra Orthodox) with the primary goal of keeping its members in the fold. This has created a very different dynamic, a sort of reversion to tribalism if I may use the term, which is very successful at keeping it's limited numbers in the fold.
And still, I think there is something missing. Maybe it's living in America, the land of the cheeseburger and the SUV. I don't know, but why can't we be something more than just a couple of Meshugaim. We're definitely a product of the times, and times have changed, alas they've become more boring.
POSTED BY ACHER AT 2:56 PM
=====================================
8 COMMENTS:
Freethinking Upstart said...
>Granted, most of the intellectual fads of the time, were based on some sort of socialism, which is revolting to me, mostly due to it's naivete, and completely unfounded belief in humanity.
Maybe you could talk more about your revulsion with socialism. I find political theories intriguing.
What do you think most of the intellectual fads of today are based on?
JULY 19, 2009 3:34 PM
Frum Heretic said...
If you haven't already read it, check out the fascinating article from The Nation: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090126/grafton/single
JULY 19, 2009 6:05 PM
Baal Habos said...
Acher, agreed, it's kind of sad there are so few of us. That's actually on of the depressing things about blogging. I expected to see the circle of bloggers grow exponentially, but that has not really happened.
Frum Heretic, the best line in that article: "You know that I believe that mysticism is nonsense, total and complete nonsense, but the history of nonsense is scholarship."
JULY 19, 2009 8:39 PM
Pen Tivokeish said...
I believe it a has a lot to do with material wealth.
Poverty was and still is a great motivator.
Also, the kotzker vort: "אַל תֹּאמַר מֶה הָיָה שֶׁהַיָּמִים הָרִאשֹׁנִים הָיוּ טוֹבִים מֵאֵלֶּה כִּי לֹא מֵחָכְמָה שָׁאַלְתָּ עַל זֶה. " that it may be true, but no need to dwell upon it. :)
JULY 20, 2009 5:21 PM
Baal Habos said...
PT, yes, poverty is a great motivator. So how come Bnei Brak is not awash with skepticism? (Or is it?)
I think there's more to it.
JULY 21, 2009 7:17 AM
Acher said...
"You know that I believe that mysticism is nonsense, total and complete nonsense, but the history of nonsense is scholarship."
By far my favorite quote of all time.
PT,
Yor point is valid but isn't completely accurate historically. Often lots of fevrent intellectual activity was going on amongst youth who grew up in middle class families or even well off. Case in point, Scholem himself.
Oh the times they are changing, hoho the times they are changing...
Bob Dylan
FTU,
It's too bad I was very tired last night when I read your comment, because I was very much in the mood for writing some bitingly sarcastic polemic against foolish do-good political movements. Today, I'm in a more equanimous state of mind, which is good I guess. Briefly, my cynical nature and the clear perception that everyone is ultimately selfish, no matter what sauce they may put their words in (it's a simple fact of nature), makes me scoff at any type of socialism, which is ultimately based on some belief in the goodness of the human spirit. Utter nonesense, and all attempts at it have proven my view to be correct again and again.
As to contemporary political thought, I have to admit that politics doesn't interest as much, if at all, as history, and I only study political theories for their historical value, so I'm relatively ignorant as to contemporary political thought.
JULY 21, 2009 7:55 PM
evanstonjew said...
First of all Scholem wasn't an apikoris in our sense. He came from an assimilated home and returned to Judaism. Second he was religious, even mystical though he never went to a shul. Third the difference between then and now was that they had hope, and though very sophisticated in a Berlin-German way, they were not cynical. Fourth he wasn't a socialist but a radical close to anarchists. His friend Benjamin became a communist, but Scholem was never ever close.
Scholem knew little of East European yiddishkeit. Buber did. Scholem was a great yekke, right about Zionism, right about Israreli politics, right about Hanna Arendt and Eichman to name just a few of his famous polemical fights.
If I had to pick the greatest of that chabura in the sense of the most geshmack I would say Agnon.The greatest German Jewish writer of that period for me is Kafka. The one with the greatest general influence is Benjamin. The guy who taught me the most about Judaism is Freud followed by Scholem. LOL.
What a wonderful awesome generation.
JULY 22, 2009 12:55 AM
Acher said...
EJ,
>though he never went to a shul
Incorrect, but otherwise, true, true, true, and true. But I wasn't specifically referring to Scholem, reading him just got me thinking of the times, and in reality I probably relate more to the Russian intellectual, the ostjude, than to his Yekke couterpart. There was much more cynicism there, but it seems like at that time it was of a constructive kind, not of the desperate kind I see in myself and others today.
JULY 22, 2009 7:46 PM
Showing posts with label Divrei Acher. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Divrei Acher. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Eichah
Originally posted on Divrei Acher
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Link
Listening to Eichah last night, I realized a simple thing, namely that of the first 4 chapters in which the Psukim are composed in alphabetical order, there is a discrepancy in the order used. Only the first chapter goes according to the order we're familiar with, chapters 2-4 have Peh before Ayin in all three chapters. Is this a mistake in transmission, or more likely, there were different orders used in different times? Has anyone noticed this, also any suggestions about literature on this topic.
What disappointed me about this finding last night, was the following: I've read Eichah dozens of times already, and it took me to become an Apikores to realize something as simple as this? Were we really that blind? I know we were, but that blind!
Another simple thing that came to my attention is that the meaning of the Posuk,
רְאֵה יְהוָה וְהַבִּיטָה, לְמִי עוֹלַלְתָּ כֹּה: אִם-תֹּאכַלְנָה נָשִׁים פִּרְיָם עֹלְלֵי טִפֻּחִים, אִם-יֵהָרֵג בְּמִקְדַּשׁ אֲדֹנָי כֹּהֵן וְנָבִיא
'See, O LORD, and consider, to whom Thou hast done thus! Shall the women eat their fruit, the children that are dandled in the hands? Shall the priest and the prophet be slain in the sanctuary of the Lord? (Lamentations 2:20)
has nothing to do with the Gemara's Pshat that says the latter half of the Psouk is a retort by God, referring to the slaying of Zecharyah by the Jews hundreds of years prior. This I kind of knew, but still the Drush which RSH"I brings down was always so vivid, I would automatically read it that way.
Nu, so what's the Mussar Haskel. Don't read TN"KH without Meforshim: you will become an Apikores. And conversely, the surest way to become an Apikores is to read the text of TN"KH by itself! But please boys and girls don't try this at home, it is dangerous.
POSTED BY ACHER AT 6:57 PM
LABELS: EICHAH
================================
4 COMMENTS:
zdub said...
They messed up with the links, but this should still work:
The Peh/Ayin Order in the Acrostics of the Book of Eichah.
JULY 30, 2009 8:39 PM
Baal Habos said...
Acher, great catch!
Some will say, what's the big deal? Chazal already caught all this, as pointed out by zdub. Well, Chazal had a much smaller corpus of literature to work with. I.e. they never had to mess with Tosifos (or even Gemarah)! So while we are attuned to scouring the details of the Mishna Berurah and Toisfois, Chazal had the luxury of analyzing the core texts. (Obviously I didn't do such a fine job with my Sanhedrin, because I don't ever recall hearing about this Ayin/Peh issue.)
And zdub, thanks for that link.
Interestingly enough, with the reversed order, this vort does not hold true.
JULY 31, 2009 10:40 AM
Acher said...
Zdub,
First, I'm happy to know that I have more than a dozen readers, maybe with 13 it means we can make a Pesach Seder, (Lfum Chad Girsa) :)
Anyway, thanks for the link, and that means I should check my emails from the Sforimblog more often for good stuff like this.
BHB,
I was actually very disappointed that I didn't remember the Gemarah in Sanhedrin myself, I did go through Sanhedrin some years back. But again, my greater disappointment lies in the fact that it took me till now to realize it.
And that Vort is true, I mean the good part of it: Elvis = Lives, Mamesh what can be more Poshut than that :)
And please if you have anything more like that please email me, you know I love this type of stuff.
JULY 31, 2009 8:00 PM
Modernorthodoxhistorian said...
I wrote an article on this:
see seforim.traditiononline.org
it is the last article on the site
Mitchell First
OCTOBER 6, 2009 8:23 PM
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Link
Listening to Eichah last night, I realized a simple thing, namely that of the first 4 chapters in which the Psukim are composed in alphabetical order, there is a discrepancy in the order used. Only the first chapter goes according to the order we're familiar with, chapters 2-4 have Peh before Ayin in all three chapters. Is this a mistake in transmission, or more likely, there were different orders used in different times? Has anyone noticed this, also any suggestions about literature on this topic.
What disappointed me about this finding last night, was the following: I've read Eichah dozens of times already, and it took me to become an Apikores to realize something as simple as this? Were we really that blind? I know we were, but that blind!
Another simple thing that came to my attention is that the meaning of the Posuk,
רְאֵה יְהוָה וְהַבִּיטָה, לְמִי עוֹלַלְתָּ כֹּה: אִם-תֹּאכַלְנָה נָשִׁים פִּרְיָם עֹלְלֵי טִפֻּחִים, אִם-יֵהָרֵג בְּמִקְדַּשׁ אֲדֹנָי כֹּהֵן וְנָבִיא
'See, O LORD, and consider, to whom Thou hast done thus! Shall the women eat their fruit, the children that are dandled in the hands? Shall the priest and the prophet be slain in the sanctuary of the Lord? (Lamentations 2:20)
has nothing to do with the Gemara's Pshat that says the latter half of the Psouk is a retort by God, referring to the slaying of Zecharyah by the Jews hundreds of years prior. This I kind of knew, but still the Drush which RSH"I brings down was always so vivid, I would automatically read it that way.
Nu, so what's the Mussar Haskel. Don't read TN"KH without Meforshim: you will become an Apikores. And conversely, the surest way to become an Apikores is to read the text of TN"KH by itself! But please boys and girls don't try this at home, it is dangerous.
POSTED BY ACHER AT 6:57 PM
LABELS: EICHAH
================================
4 COMMENTS:
zdub said...
They messed up with the links, but this should still work:
The Peh/Ayin Order in the Acrostics of the Book of Eichah.
JULY 30, 2009 8:39 PM
Baal Habos said...
Acher, great catch!
Some will say, what's the big deal? Chazal already caught all this, as pointed out by zdub. Well, Chazal had a much smaller corpus of literature to work with. I.e. they never had to mess with Tosifos (or even Gemarah)! So while we are attuned to scouring the details of the Mishna Berurah and Toisfois, Chazal had the luxury of analyzing the core texts. (Obviously I didn't do such a fine job with my Sanhedrin, because I don't ever recall hearing about this Ayin/Peh issue.)
And zdub, thanks for that link.
Interestingly enough, with the reversed order, this vort does not hold true.
JULY 31, 2009 10:40 AM
Acher said...
Zdub,
First, I'm happy to know that I have more than a dozen readers, maybe with 13 it means we can make a Pesach Seder, (Lfum Chad Girsa) :)
Anyway, thanks for the link, and that means I should check my emails from the Sforimblog more often for good stuff like this.
BHB,
I was actually very disappointed that I didn't remember the Gemarah in Sanhedrin myself, I did go through Sanhedrin some years back. But again, my greater disappointment lies in the fact that it took me till now to realize it.
And that Vort is true, I mean the good part of it: Elvis = Lives, Mamesh what can be more Poshut than that :)
And please if you have anything more like that please email me, you know I love this type of stuff.
JULY 31, 2009 8:00 PM
Modernorthodoxhistorian said...
I wrote an article on this:
see seforim.traditiononline.org
it is the last article on the site
Mitchell First
OCTOBER 6, 2009 8:23 PM
Monday, November 28, 2011
Oy Oy Shabbos
Originally posted on Divrei Acher
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Link
Over Shabbos, two things got me thinking.
First, when we say during Hagbah:
וְזֹאת, הַתּוֹרָה, אֲשֶׁר-שָׂם מֹשֶׁה, לִפְנֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל-פִּי יְהוָה בְּיַד-מֹשֶׁה
the first part of the sentence being from Deuteronomy 4:44, and the second from Numbers 9:23, I thought: is this the best we came up with for expressing that the whole Torah was given to Moshe by God? The answer is yes, because for those who know, it doesn't state anywhere in the Chumash that God relayed all of it to Moshe, so yes, this Mishmash Posuk is the best we came up with for stating what the Torah itself is conspicuously missing. Which lead me to think: did I have to get this far to realize this. Why didn't I notice that we say this Mishmash sentence because we've got nothing better, five, ten years ago. I also knew that this is a composite Posuk, but I never thought, why, why nothing better. Unfortunately, the truth is that we usually don't think straight, especially when we're brought up to simply follow what we're taught. This is why I usually don't explain what brought me to my Apikorsus to those not familiar with the issues, and what I tell the same people when they say: do you think you're smarter than RSH"I, RMB"M or whomever. And, Ein Hachi Nami, I'm not. But in order to realize the Chulent your in, you have to look at it from outside. It only takes one peak, but that one peak makes an immeasurable difference.
The second thing was when the Rav spoke for the Aufruf there, and he asked what's the origin of the Brochoh given to the newlyweds "בית נאמן בישראל"? He answered that the source comes from Abigail who beseeched David saying: "Forgive, I pray thee, the trespass of thy handmaid;
כִּי עָשֹׂה-יַעֲשֶׂה יְהוָה לַאדֹנִי בַּיִת נֶאֱמָן for the LORD will certainly make my lord a sure house."
Now the meaning of this wish as far as I know is either that the couple should build a faithful house in Israel, meaning faithful to the Jewish faith. Or that one should have a בית נאמן a faithful household, בית taking on the meaning as in ביתו זו אשתו. The real story behind David and Abigail is actually not very veiled in the text of Shmuel, and it tells a story that is the farthest thing from faithfulness. Although he probably is correct, that the phrase originates from there, but this is a good example of projecting contemporary imagery onto very different people from the past.
POSTED BY ACHER AT 10:00 PM
=========================================
5 COMMENTS:
Baal Habos said...
Nice, nice.
But
>It only takes one peak, but that one peak makes an immeasurable difference.
I'm not sure about that. It takes lots of peaks, but there is the peak that breaks the camel's back.
JUNE 7, 2009 8:16 AM
Acher said...
True, I was referring to that one all important peek, the one that breaks the camels back. In my life, it was the foray into biblical criticism, and it was that one peak, more than any other one thing.
JUNE 7, 2009 12:04 PM
Avi said...
Please dont make me think about it. It's too depressing....Avi
JUNE 11, 2009 2:40 PM
He Who Fights Monsters said...
Let me put it to you this way:
What's more troubling - that evidence of Noah's flood doesn't seem to exist, or that the flood story was imported from Sumerian mythology?
JUNE 14, 2009 2:40 AM
Acher said...
I don't understand why either would be troubling, it's not a personal matter, it's a question of historical accuracy.
JUNE 16, 2009 2:01 PM
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Link
Over Shabbos, two things got me thinking.
First, when we say during Hagbah:
וְזֹאת, הַתּוֹרָה, אֲשֶׁר-שָׂם מֹשֶׁה, לִפְנֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל-פִּי יְהוָה בְּיַד-מֹשֶׁה
the first part of the sentence being from Deuteronomy 4:44, and the second from Numbers 9:23, I thought: is this the best we came up with for expressing that the whole Torah was given to Moshe by God? The answer is yes, because for those who know, it doesn't state anywhere in the Chumash that God relayed all of it to Moshe, so yes, this Mishmash Posuk is the best we came up with for stating what the Torah itself is conspicuously missing. Which lead me to think: did I have to get this far to realize this. Why didn't I notice that we say this Mishmash sentence because we've got nothing better, five, ten years ago. I also knew that this is a composite Posuk, but I never thought, why, why nothing better. Unfortunately, the truth is that we usually don't think straight, especially when we're brought up to simply follow what we're taught. This is why I usually don't explain what brought me to my Apikorsus to those not familiar with the issues, and what I tell the same people when they say: do you think you're smarter than RSH"I, RMB"M or whomever. And, Ein Hachi Nami, I'm not. But in order to realize the Chulent your in, you have to look at it from outside. It only takes one peak, but that one peak makes an immeasurable difference.
The second thing was when the Rav spoke for the Aufruf there, and he asked what's the origin of the Brochoh given to the newlyweds "בית נאמן בישראל"? He answered that the source comes from Abigail who beseeched David saying: "Forgive, I pray thee, the trespass of thy handmaid;
כִּי עָשֹׂה-יַעֲשֶׂה יְהוָה לַאדֹנִי בַּיִת נֶאֱמָן for the LORD will certainly make my lord a sure house."
Now the meaning of this wish as far as I know is either that the couple should build a faithful house in Israel, meaning faithful to the Jewish faith. Or that one should have a בית נאמן a faithful household, בית taking on the meaning as in ביתו זו אשתו. The real story behind David and Abigail is actually not very veiled in the text of Shmuel, and it tells a story that is the farthest thing from faithfulness. Although he probably is correct, that the phrase originates from there, but this is a good example of projecting contemporary imagery onto very different people from the past.
POSTED BY ACHER AT 10:00 PM
=========================================
5 COMMENTS:
Baal Habos said...
Nice, nice.
But
>It only takes one peak, but that one peak makes an immeasurable difference.
I'm not sure about that. It takes lots of peaks, but there is the peak that breaks the camel's back.
JUNE 7, 2009 8:16 AM
Acher said...
True, I was referring to that one all important peek, the one that breaks the camels back. In my life, it was the foray into biblical criticism, and it was that one peak, more than any other one thing.
JUNE 7, 2009 12:04 PM
Avi said...
Please dont make me think about it. It's too depressing....Avi
JUNE 11, 2009 2:40 PM
He Who Fights Monsters said...
Let me put it to you this way:
What's more troubling - that evidence of Noah's flood doesn't seem to exist, or that the flood story was imported from Sumerian mythology?
JUNE 14, 2009 2:40 AM
Acher said...
I don't understand why either would be troubling, it's not a personal matter, it's a question of historical accuracy.
JUNE 16, 2009 2:01 PM
Hechsher on What??
Originally posted on Divrei Acher
Friday, May 7, 2010
Link
We've come beyond the threshold of absurdity even for Charedi shenanigans. It seems that it has become Assuer to own any stocks, lest they be involved in Chillul Shabbos or other Halacha compromising activities.
http://www.vosizneias.com/54954/2010/05/06/tel-aviv-badatz-new-ruling-forbids-charedim-to-invest-in-any-stocks
But wait! This is not all. The Gedoilim always have a Refuah Kodem L'Makoh. So there are Hechsherim for ETFs and bonds etc.
And so the contest is on! Who can correctly predict the next thing to be Assur. The winner gets to monopolize the Hechsher ensuing from that Issur.
POSTED BY ACHER AT 12:34 AM
====================================
6 COMMENTS:
G*3 said...
That's brilliant. I wish I'd thought of it.
It just goes to show, even in a down economy there are opportunities for those who think outside the box.
MAY 7, 2010 12:51 AM
Undercover Kofer said...
Maybe this will allow people from the Eidah Charedis to get some higher education (Business MA or so) in order to give out hech-share-im ;)
MAY 7, 2010 3:24 AM
Baal Habos said...
Whiskey?
http://yudelstake.blogspot.com/2010/05/alert-no-whisky-should-be-used-without.html
MAY 7, 2010 2:44 PM
Acher said...
BHB,
Presto, grab the lead in this market before it's too late, it could be a lucrative opportunity.... just look at Kedem's strong arm tactics..... they can def bve applied tp the whiskey business as well....
MAY 7, 2010 5:22 PM
Lady-Light said...
או-או-שכחתי להחליף מעברית לאנגלית
Sorry about that.
Here's a good one: having a label on fish or chicken (or for that matter, matzah meal) which says "glatt."
The word has come to mean "mehadrin meha-mehadrin," not 'smooth' in lung-checking, as it originally meant.
Go figure: it's the chumra of the week club.
OCTOBER 1, 2010 3:57 PM
Friday, May 7, 2010
Link
We've come beyond the threshold of absurdity even for Charedi shenanigans. It seems that it has become Assuer to own any stocks, lest they be involved in Chillul Shabbos or other Halacha compromising activities.
http://www.vosizneias.com/54954/2010/05/06/tel-aviv-badatz-new-ruling-forbids-charedim-to-invest-in-any-stocks
But wait! This is not all. The Gedoilim always have a Refuah Kodem L'Makoh. So there are Hechsherim for ETFs and bonds etc.
And so the contest is on! Who can correctly predict the next thing to be Assur. The winner gets to monopolize the Hechsher ensuing from that Issur.
POSTED BY ACHER AT 12:34 AM
====================================
6 COMMENTS:
G*3 said...
That's brilliant. I wish I'd thought of it.
It just goes to show, even in a down economy there are opportunities for those who think outside the box.
MAY 7, 2010 12:51 AM
Undercover Kofer said...
Maybe this will allow people from the Eidah Charedis to get some higher education (Business MA or so) in order to give out hech-share-im ;)
MAY 7, 2010 3:24 AM
Baal Habos said...
Whiskey?
http://yudelstake.blogspot.com/2010/05/alert-no-whisky-should-be-used-without.html
MAY 7, 2010 2:44 PM
Acher said...
BHB,
Presto, grab the lead in this market before it's too late, it could be a lucrative opportunity.... just look at Kedem's strong arm tactics..... they can def bve applied tp the whiskey business as well....
MAY 7, 2010 5:22 PM
Lady-Light said...
או-או-שכחתי להחליף מעברית לאנגלית
Sorry about that.
Here's a good one: having a label on fish or chicken (or for that matter, matzah meal) which says "glatt."
The word has come to mean "mehadrin meha-mehadrin," not 'smooth' in lung-checking, as it originally meant.
Go figure: it's the chumra of the week club.
OCTOBER 1, 2010 3:57 PM
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Series: "Uberchumradoxius" its Development and Causes Thereof
Originally posted on Divrei Acher
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Last year (7,654 A.D.) I was at a conference and I became aware of a new area of research. The topic being researched is the phenomenon of a certain subspecies called Uberchumradoxius* which is now extinct, but has been of great interest lately in the scientific community. Two opposing camps with diametrically opposed views as to the development of Uberchumradoxius have risen in the scientific community.
One camp hypothesizes that the subspecies evolved naturally amongst the general population. They theorize that the earliest forms of Uberchumradoxius had just slight deviations from regular specimen. With time these were accentuated by natural selection and continued mutations, which were favored due to the peculiar environment that was the habitat of Uberchumradoxius.
The opposing camp ridicules this theory, pointing out the anti-natural nature of the subspecies, its hazardous tendencies towards itself and its habitat, behaviors that would absolutely preclude the selection of this subspecies even in very controlled environments. If natural selection was running its course, this latter camp claims, the first even slightly deviant specimen with tendencies resembling anything similar to Uberchumradoxius would probably not have survived into adulthood to procreate, and any offspring thereof would have certainly died in infancy. So destructive to its own survival are the behaviors of Uberchumradoxius. This is an accepted fact, and no one in the scientific community doubts the long-term repercussions to itself that the behavior of Uberchumradoxius ultimately poses.
The former camp maintains though, that in the short-term there were benefits to being a Uberchumradoxius as opposed to a normal specimen, given the peculiar environment of Uberchumradoxius. The latter camp disagrees with this vehemently, stating unequivocally that no benefits favored by natural selection can be found in the behaviors of Uberchumradoxius. So how does this camp account for the prolonged existence of Uberchumradoxius? They claim that the only possible cause could be something called "Intelligent Design". What they mean by this peculiar term is that some force with intelligence, favored the development of Uberchumradoxius. This force was able to steer Uberchumradoxius through the otherwise swift end it would have met at the hands of natural selection. The subspecies was able to produce viable offspring with even more accentuated traits that are the hallmark of Uberchumradoxius. As of yet, no satisfactory explanation has been given as to the nature and motives of this force. Speculations range from extraterrestrial experiments, to others who claim some type of long-term benefit for the general species, which learned to avoid tendencies exhibited by Uberchumradoxius because of its relatively quick demise. This camp admits that none of their speculations are sane, but they claim being forced into them by the absolute improbability of natural selection favoring Uberchumradoxius under any circumstances.
That's a synopsis of the scholarship on the topic to date.
Upcoming in the series:
Arguments pro and con presented by both sides, and snippets of conversation I overheard between proponents of the differing views at the conference.
*Origin: German Uber - above, more; Chumra is an obscure word from the now dead Aramaic, here a connotation of extreme; Latin doxius - a derivation from dox - belief, opinion
One camp hypothesizes that the subspecies evolved naturally amongst the general population. They theorize that the earliest forms of Uberchumradoxius had just slight deviations from regular specimen. With time these were accentuated by natural selection and continued mutations, which were favored due to the peculiar environment that was the habitat of Uberchumradoxius.
The opposing camp ridicules this theory, pointing out the anti-natural nature of the subspecies, its hazardous tendencies towards itself and its habitat, behaviors that would absolutely preclude the selection of this subspecies even in very controlled environments. If natural selection was running its course, this latter camp claims, the first even slightly deviant specimen with tendencies resembling anything similar to Uberchumradoxius would probably not have survived into adulthood to procreate, and any offspring thereof would have certainly died in infancy. So destructive to its own survival are the behaviors of Uberchumradoxius. This is an accepted fact, and no one in the scientific community doubts the long-term repercussions to itself that the behavior of Uberchumradoxius ultimately poses.
The former camp maintains though, that in the short-term there were benefits to being a Uberchumradoxius as opposed to a normal specimen, given the peculiar environment of Uberchumradoxius. The latter camp disagrees with this vehemently, stating unequivocally that no benefits favored by natural selection can be found in the behaviors of Uberchumradoxius. So how does this camp account for the prolonged existence of Uberchumradoxius? They claim that the only possible cause could be something called "Intelligent Design". What they mean by this peculiar term is that some force with intelligence, favored the development of Uberchumradoxius. This force was able to steer Uberchumradoxius through the otherwise swift end it would have met at the hands of natural selection. The subspecies was able to produce viable offspring with even more accentuated traits that are the hallmark of Uberchumradoxius. As of yet, no satisfactory explanation has been given as to the nature and motives of this force. Speculations range from extraterrestrial experiments, to others who claim some type of long-term benefit for the general species, which learned to avoid tendencies exhibited by Uberchumradoxius because of its relatively quick demise. This camp admits that none of their speculations are sane, but they claim being forced into them by the absolute improbability of natural selection favoring Uberchumradoxius under any circumstances.
That's a synopsis of the scholarship on the topic to date.
Upcoming in the series:
Arguments pro and con presented by both sides, and snippets of conversation I overheard between proponents of the differing views at the conference.
*Origin: German Uber - above, more; Chumra is an obscure word from the now dead Aramaic, here a connotation of extreme; Latin doxius - a derivation from dox - belief, opinion
6 comments:
A Pusheter Yid said...
You are ahead of the curve here.
Baal Habos said...
I have often wondered about this. How on earth have the Chareidim seemingly gained ascendance?
Possible answers
A) They're parasitic, dependent on the largesse of the non chareidim.
B) Natural selection takes some time. It's Malthus theory (limited resources) that triggered Darwin's thought processes. The S&^T is just beginning to hit the fan in the Chareidi world and we'll see some real change when the financial realities start forcing change in the Chareidi way of life.
Possible answers
A) They're parasitic, dependent on the largesse of the non chareidim.
B) Natural selection takes some time. It's Malthus theory (limited resources) that triggered Darwin's thought processes. The S&^T is just beginning to hit the fan in the Chareidi world and we'll see some real change when the financial realities start forcing change in the Chareidi way of life.
Acher said...
Ah BHB, so you're biased against the "Intelligent Design" proponents. You haven't even heard their arguments as to the utter impossibility of the natural evolvement of Uberchumradoxius.
But on a serious note you're right on both accounts. I think that they are parasitic, but the general community can only support sparse individuals of this kind, not a whole community. So it'll take its time like you say.
But on a serious note you're right on both accounts. I think that they are parasitic, but the general community can only support sparse individuals of this kind, not a whole community. So it'll take its time like you say.
Baal Habos said...
If it's ID, then obviously ID favors the Reform over Chareidim. ID also seems to favor the CHristians and the Muslims.
Joshua said...
Actually, the financial collapse seems to have hit the chareidi community badly. Some (especially in New York) were getting financing from less frum relatives who can no longer afford to support their relatives as much. The long-term effects of the current economic crisis may have substantial impacts on the chareidi community.
Acher said...
True, I'm aware of that. This post is mostly for a little Litzonus than anything else. The issue is quite obvious. I hope to continue on these series soon.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Undoubtedly Beyond Any Reason
Originally posted on Divrei Acher
Thursday, April 23, 2009
I am ashamed to admit that I read through most of this book in the past few days. I did so because a certain Rav with whom I have a very good relationship asked me to read through it. Yes, I'm being Kiruved, but being that he is a very reasonable man whose companionship I value, I acquiesced to his request. Admittedly he is naive in having me read this, but that's his business.
In any event, I must warn you before I launch into my Kefirotic tirade. I do so, because the author of the book himself warns against reading the book, or certain parts thereof, unless it's necessary. I'll paraphrase his warning, the gist of which is as follows:
"Since I will be talking about things which Chas V'Sholom can Chas V'Sholom bring one Chas V'Sholom Chas V'Sholom to Chas V'Sholom Chas V'Sholom Chas V'Sholom doubt any part of the Holy Toira Chas V'Sholom Chas V'Sholom, I BS"D hope, and ask that only readers who already Lo Aleibu Chalila are having Chas V'Sholom d..d..oub..ts Chalila V'Chas V'Sholom Lo Aleinu open and read this book. If you've picked up this book, and you Baruch Hashem BS"D have no Sfeikois Cholilaa V'Chas about the holy Toira, I trust you will heed Daas Toira and drop this book, never to think of it again. So only those who Lo Aleinu Nebach Chas V'Sholom have a need to strengthen their Emuna against doubts Chas V'Sholom, are allowed to read this book."
This is the warning, and having paid homage to it (in the spirit of Satmar websites banning the Internet), we proceed to 'critique' this masterpiece. The first three chapters are the main points being made; proofs of God's existence, proofs to the Torah, and proofs that there is punishment and an afterlife. These chapters and an appendix 'disproving' the theory of evolution are the main thrust of the book. Other gems of 'proofs' include 'proving' Moshiach, and the resurrection of the dead. In addition there are chapters about the uniqueness of Klal Yisroel, it's survival in exile, and the 'right' attitude towards the holocaust. I only read through the first two chapters, and an appendix titled "The Downfall of the Theory of Evolution". More than that I couldn't read, I hope the readers will forgive me.
The first thing that struck me was the lack of command of the English language. It's written as if by a seventh grader. Now, I'm no professor of English, but a book of a few hundred pages should live up to some standards. Admittedly, a book shouldn't be judged by its cover or the writer's command of the language, it's content that matters, but it did leave a bad taste in my mouth. Alas, on the content front, it was immeasurably worse. I can hear the readers murmuring to themselves, "what was he expecting? It's a Kiruv book for goodness sake". True, and as mentioned I wasn't expecting much, I was reading it as a courtesy to this Rav. But this one was worse than anything else. I've read other Kiruv (or similar) books, some of them at least try to sound a bit knowledgeable of the subject matter they're discussing. Of the two main topics in the book, the theory of evolution, and the Torah's historicity and circumstances of its origin, he knows so little as to not even realize the immensity of ignorance he has to hide.
Now to the subject matter.
The first chapter, titled "Compelling Evidence of a Creator" starts of with the usual examples of the intricately complex and wonderfully interwoven systems found in nature. The orange and the banana, how they turn ripe and acquire a bright color at the same time, thereby attracting animals, as if knowing how to do so. From that he goes onto the Venus fly trap, bats and their system of echolocation, the complexity of the human body and the brain etc. All of this to show that it's statistically impossible for any of these phenomena to arise randomly. I assume all the readers know that, so I won't go into explaining why he was destroying a straw man. Waldman also realizes that for those 'tainted' by the theory of evolution as he puts it, one needs more than just showing the impossibility of generating such complex systems randomly. He writes that he intentionally didn't discuss the theory of evolution in the first chapter and left it in the appendix, so that only those who (Nebach, Chas V'Sholom) are in need for such refutations read them.
So let's get to the appendix titled "The Downfall of the Theory of Evolution" and see if that gets us anywhere. He begins by differentiating between macroevolution and microevolution, how the latter occurs within a species, and the former leads to new species. Microevolution is an observed fact, but it doesn't necessarily lead to macroevolution, bla bla bla. Here we come to this piece of brilliance:
"It's interesting to note that in the 1980's many professional scientists decided to accept the facts as they saw them, and the facts clearly pointed to a God. So they developed the "anthropic principle" which suggests that the universe is "man-centered," created by God, with one of man's functions being the responsibility to recognize the amazing design that God put into the universe."
What!?!? Does he know what the anthropic principle is. Where did here about it? I know that some people use the anthropic principle to argue for intelligent design, but scientists "developing the anthropic principle... which suggests the universe is created by God, with one of man's functions being the responsibility to recognize the amazing design that God... " how ignorant can you be. He doesn't have a library in town? A computer? But no, there is still more. Another quote:
"(theory: the Random House dictionary tells us that this is an explanation that has not yet been proven true)"
Only ignoramuses use this definition of theory pertaining to evolution, any dictionary will use the theory of evolution as an example of a scientific system, proven by observations and experiments.
The two basic problems he has with evolution, are mutations and the fossil record. Mutations, he rightfully notes, are almost always harmful. The problem is that he doesn't understand that given enough time, natural selection will favor those rare beneficial mutations, which can evolve into new species. This he conspicuously fails to mention.
The fossil problem he divides in two. The first one is summed up in the following quote:
"Even in the lowest strata we find fossils of the most complex living forms which according to evolutionists couldn't have developed until a much later date."
This claim as far as I know is not true, Waldman himself only quotes one source, also a sign that he couldn't find much more than that, because he loves to quote these type of things.
If anyone has more information on this, please let me know.
The second part of the fossil argument, is the beloved gap problem. I actually do think that there is a problem here, namely that the gaps seem to be large in many cases. What I mean is that, unlike Waldman who doesn't know what he is talking about when he clamors for his bird with half a wing, something that would never happen for obvious reasons. What I'm talking about is that often there are large gaps between specimen, something that one should find less of if all species fossilize randomly. What Waldman doesn't mention is the rarity of fossilization, and how some species are only known from a few fossils, which mitigates (although I think doesn't eradicate) the gap problem.
The last point he discusses, is the age of the universe. Here we have another display of scholarship:
"It's also interesting to note that it has been shown that the methods that scientists use to date different material such as carbon dating, etc. have many inaccuracies."I won't even discuss the nonsense this is based on, I think the readers are familiar with it, we all know that each of the dating methods are relatively accurate for their respective purposes. But this guy uses carbon dating inaccuracies to show the problem of dating the world as billions of years old. Does he even know what carbon dating is? Does he know anything about it except how to spell it? I'm afraid not.
I do think that the theory of evolution has its shortcomings. First and foremost, as far as I'm concerned it doesn't explain the origin of life. I know all the supposed tries to do so, but they don't cut it for me. I haven't seen anything close to a satisfying explanation of the rise of self replicating systems, life's building blocks. This though doesn't disprove the theory of evolution, it just shows that the theory is either lacking, or not yet fully understood. If someone is so sure as to the only solution to this problem being God, so be it. I think it may be the only solution for now, but it also may be an answer based on ignorance rather than knowledge, because otherwise evolution has too much behind it.
I also find it difficult at times to wrap my head around the idea that all of this complexity is a result of a blind mechanism. If someone feels that this also is only explainable by intelligent design, maybe. I have a suspicion it's unnecessary.
I think that an honest attempt to identify the shortcomings of the theory of evolution, based on a proper understanding of theory, would go only about as far as this paragraph. But obviously Waldman is writing a Kiruv book, and Chas V'Sholom that such a book be based on an actual understanding of science.
I think the post is already way longer than I originally intended, and I'm only half way through. I still didn't get to the real juicy part, chapter two: "The Divine Origin of the Torah." So stay tuned for that display of analytical thought.
20 comments:
Rabbi Pinky Schmeckelstein said...
You are a Minuval who is sullying the name of skeptics the world over. Surprising you got past the second page of such drivel...
Acher said...
I admit to my sins.
What can I do, I promised the man I'd read it, but once I read as much as I could, I had to get it off my chest. Hence the lengthy post.
What can I do, I promised the man I'd read it, but once I read as much as I could, I had to get it off my chest. Hence the lengthy post.
Rabbi Pinky Schmeckelstein said...
I have had a realization recently about guys like this and arguments like these: They are looking for scientific certitude on issues of faith. We live in an age of science and empiricism which, I personally woul argue, do not exclude the Divine. But they are a completely seperate notion: In my opinion, evolution addresses the "How", but theology, philosophy, etc. address the "Why". So you can believe in God or not, but that is a separate issue from the science of the development of life. But when fundamentalists try to prove the "Why" at a scientific level, they only harm their own credibility with "rationalists". BTW, I love your depiction of the author's forewarnings... though I think you missed one "Chas V'Sholom".
Acher said...
Oy vey, Hashem Yishmerenu (Chas V'Sholom).
>In my opinion, evolution addresses the "How", but theology, philosophy, etc. address the "Why".
But don't you think that these are becoming bankrupt, if they even were ever viable. In other words, what makes you think there is a 'why'.
>In my opinion, evolution addresses the "How", but theology, philosophy, etc. address the "Why".
But don't you think that these are becoming bankrupt, if they even were ever viable. In other words, what makes you think there is a 'why'.
Hasidic Rebel said...
Good post. Re your own problem with evolution, I don't think that's an issue of evolutionary theory per se, since natural selection and adaptation don't apply (at least not in the conventional sense) to non-living molecular structures. I don't think evolution even purports to explain that puzzle, nor do I think it ever will.
The answer will most likely be found in a new theory that will synthesize a completely different set of observable data from that which led to Darwin's theory.
The answer will most likely be found in a new theory that will synthesize a completely different set of observable data from that which led to Darwin's theory.
The Hedyot said...
This book might help. I just took it out from the NYPL.
Acher said...
HR,
Correct, the origin of life is not covered by evolutionary theory because it works through natural selection, which manifests itself on existing self replicating systems. Although, some have tried to explain the origin of life through similar methods. Regardless, what I mean is the self-evolving/random generation of life, as opposed to a directed/engineered explanation of it. I think that God may still be the only answer at the moment, but, I think it's an answer from ignorance rather than one based on knowledge. It's a last resort, in other words not really an answer.
Correct, the origin of life is not covered by evolutionary theory because it works through natural selection, which manifests itself on existing self replicating systems. Although, some have tried to explain the origin of life through similar methods. Regardless, what I mean is the self-evolving/random generation of life, as opposed to a directed/engineered explanation of it. I think that God may still be the only answer at the moment, but, I think it's an answer from ignorance rather than one based on knowledge. It's a last resort, in other words not really an answer.
Acher said...
>This book might helpHelp for what? Do you mean for a better general understanding of the theory of evolution (I could certainly use help there as well), or for a specific problem. From the amazon page I didn't see anything in the description talking about the origin of life. Or do you mean the fossil record: gaps, stratification?
Hasidic Rebel said...
Hedyot, I'm actually reading Coyne's book right now. It's a good read, written mostly in non-technical, layman-friendly language. But I don't like his polemical ax against Creationism; I believe science, when doing science, should remain dispassionate.
But it won't answer Acher's question on the origin of life. For that, try this one: Genesis: The scientific quest for the origin of life.
But it won't answer Acher's question on the origin of life. For that, try this one: Genesis: The scientific quest for the origin of life.
Rabbi Pinky Schmeckelstein said...
"But don't you think that these are becoming bankrupt, if they even were ever viable. In other words, what makes you think there is a 'why'."
I am not arguing whether or not there is a God, I am just saying that the physics/ mechanics of the world is a separate question from theology and philosophy. I reject the notion that says: If there is a Creator > Then evolution must be false. But I would also disagree with a statement that says: If evolution is true > Then there must not be a Creator. Again -- my argument is made out of logic, not theology.
I am not arguing whether or not there is a God, I am just saying that the physics/ mechanics of the world is a separate question from theology and philosophy. I reject the notion that says: If there is a Creator > Then evolution must be false. But I would also disagree with a statement that says: If evolution is true > Then there must not be a Creator. Again -- my argument is made out of logic, not theology.
Acher said...
>But I would also disagree with a statement that says: If evolution is true > Then there must not be a Creator.
Strictly speaking yes. But it makes God and a purposeful world less likely and more superfluous.
Strictly speaking yes. But it makes God and a purposeful world less likely and more superfluous.
Shtreimel said...
How you made it to the appendix is beyond me. Someone got for me as a 'gift' (similar premise to yours) and it took me a chapter or two. I had it in my car for ages - one day, I thought, I will finish it. It now lays somewhere on the streets of this great city waiting for an unsuspecting soul.
Acher said...
Well I didn't read it from cover to cover through the appendix. That particular appendix is basically part of chapter one, so I had to get the complete picture. I ended up reading about half the book.
eitz hadaas said...
Hey Acher,
This Rabbi Waldmen was my English teacher in UTA. He came the first day to class with a grapefruit in his pocket and had us look at the complex packets in it. He was a little Avigdor Miller wannabe.
Anyway, HR and Acher.
What you (HR) write about "natural selection and adaptation don't apply (at least not in the conventional sense) to non-living molecular structures" I think it does since (as I already mentioned to you once, I believe) that Darwinian theory is a statement about rising complexity in any kind of system. Meaning, that in any system the state of survival will become the "good" state, and it itself will be the reward. Any member of the system that utilizes the surroundings best will be favored, in the sense that it will survive.
While on the molecular level there isn't the reproductive factor, as molecules don't reproduce, there is still the adaptability factor as a chemical bonds can break apart and form new bonds (the likes of which an organism can't do, since the only way an organism can change is through the next generation).
And while molecules and their components may or may not have the longest lifespan, the chemical equilibrium they are in does. Therefore the equilibrium sets a standard by which the system selects its components.
I agree that Darwinian Biology and Darwinism as it is used in pop culture refers to the question of bio diversity not bio genesis. However, an understanding of Darwinian systematics (how any exclusive system will produce Darwinian designed forms) should follow through even on the molecular level.
While this idea complicates somethings, since it would mean that tho origin of life was a necessary result of the organization of the primordial soup, not an accidental. Stanley Miller tried to explain and demonstrate that but his experiment design has been questioned.
And Acher, about the fossil gaps. You might want to look up S.J. Gould's paper on Punctuated Equilibrium http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_comes-of-age.html
This Rabbi Waldmen was my English teacher in UTA. He came the first day to class with a grapefruit in his pocket and had us look at the complex packets in it. He was a little Avigdor Miller wannabe.
Anyway, HR and Acher.
What you (HR) write about "natural selection and adaptation don't apply (at least not in the conventional sense) to non-living molecular structures" I think it does since (as I already mentioned to you once, I believe) that Darwinian theory is a statement about rising complexity in any kind of system. Meaning, that in any system the state of survival will become the "good" state, and it itself will be the reward. Any member of the system that utilizes the surroundings best will be favored, in the sense that it will survive.
While on the molecular level there isn't the reproductive factor, as molecules don't reproduce, there is still the adaptability factor as a chemical bonds can break apart and form new bonds (the likes of which an organism can't do, since the only way an organism can change is through the next generation).
And while molecules and their components may or may not have the longest lifespan, the chemical equilibrium they are in does. Therefore the equilibrium sets a standard by which the system selects its components.
I agree that Darwinian Biology and Darwinism as it is used in pop culture refers to the question of bio diversity not bio genesis. However, an understanding of Darwinian systematics (how any exclusive system will produce Darwinian designed forms) should follow through even on the molecular level.
While this idea complicates somethings, since it would mean that tho origin of life was a necessary result of the organization of the primordial soup, not an accidental. Stanley Miller tried to explain and demonstrate that but his experiment design has been questioned.
And Acher, about the fossil gaps. You might want to look up S.J. Gould's paper on Punctuated Equilibrium http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_comes-of-age.html
Acher said...
EH,
Thanks for stopping by.
I won't insist on whether the principle of natural selection can be applied to non-self-replicating systems. I don't think that the present state of knowledge allows us to extend the principle of natural selection to non-self-replicating systems. As to Stanley Miller, I actually had the Miller-Urey experiment in mind when I wrote that proposed explanations of the origin of life are inadequate according to my limited understanding. Miller-Urey only shows that it's theoretically conceivable that complex organic compounds will arise under certain conditions. That's a far cry from self-replicating systems. I'm not saying that these are inherently different in nature, and a Miller-Urey like experiment can't explain their origin. What I'm saying is that I don't currently see an explanation.
Thanks for stopping by.
I won't insist on whether the principle of natural selection can be applied to non-self-replicating systems. I don't think that the present state of knowledge allows us to extend the principle of natural selection to non-self-replicating systems. As to Stanley Miller, I actually had the Miller-Urey experiment in mind when I wrote that proposed explanations of the origin of life are inadequate according to my limited understanding. Miller-Urey only shows that it's theoretically conceivable that complex organic compounds will arise under certain conditions. That's a far cry from self-replicating systems. I'm not saying that these are inherently different in nature, and a Miller-Urey like experiment can't explain their origin. What I'm saying is that I don't currently see an explanation.
Orthoprax said...
Acher,
It isn't evolutionary theory that's involved in abiogenesis-related hypotheses per se. There are a number of different competing ideas out there but none, as you rightly state, which seem to really have a lock on the issue.
This issue though has little bearing on the question of God's existence. The simple fact that the universe has the characteristics that make it possible for these first units of life to form could suggest a "guiding hand" just as thoroughly as an inexplicable arrival of life in the universe.
If anything, the less we need to appeal to supernatural intervention, the more suggestive is the proposition of an overriding "plan." After all, God shouldn't need to intervene on a perfectly planned creation.
It isn't evolutionary theory that's involved in abiogenesis-related hypotheses per se. There are a number of different competing ideas out there but none, as you rightly state, which seem to really have a lock on the issue.
This issue though has little bearing on the question of God's existence. The simple fact that the universe has the characteristics that make it possible for these first units of life to form could suggest a "guiding hand" just as thoroughly as an inexplicable arrival of life in the universe.
If anything, the less we need to appeal to supernatural intervention, the more suggestive is the proposition of an overriding "plan." After all, God shouldn't need to intervene on a perfectly planned creation.
Acher said...
Orthoprax,
All true. I, as do many others, have a tendency to fall back on God when coming to a dead end. I think that this is an answer based on ignorance, although I'm not sure. Maybe there are some questions that require that answer. I grow more and more skeptical of this possibility, but you never know. That was essentially my point.
All true. I, as do many others, have a tendency to fall back on God when coming to a dead end. I think that this is an answer based on ignorance, although I'm not sure. Maybe there are some questions that require that answer. I grow more and more skeptical of this possibility, but you never know. That was essentially my point.
Joshua said...
Regarding microevolution and macroevolution. Whenever anyone claims that speciation hasn't been observed my favorite thing to do is point out that in fact the evidence for speciation is so overwhelming that AIG, one of the world's largest young earth creationist ministries, lists it as an argument that creationists should not use http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use which generally trips them up pretty well.
Frum Heretic said...
King Shlomo was right that there is nothing new under the sun: the anti-evolution stuff is just more moronic recycled bullcrap.
BTW, an absolutely wonderful book to check out is Donald Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters.
BTW, an absolutely wonderful book to check out is Donald Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)