tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-130547712024-03-12T21:35:54.845-04:00Jewish AtheistStill and all, why bother? Here's my answer. Many people need desperately to receive this message: I feel and think much as you do, care about many of the things you care about, although most people do not care about them. You are not alone. --VonnegutJewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.comBlogger708125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-29801724741479302782011-07-10T22:06:00.004-04:002011-07-10T22:11:05.038-04:00It Gets Besser<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/63dQlz0LUAw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br /><br />Pretty incredible. Even though I grew up Modern Orthodox, I found myself feeling a visceral sense of freedom when I saw the "after" pictures. Before, their lives and appearances were chosen for them. After, they chose for themselves. <br /><br />(HT: <a href="http://failedmehttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifssiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2011/07/it-gets-besser-123.html">Failed Messiah</a>. Apparently "besser" means "better" in Yiddish.)Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.com104tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-91269884631485410042011-05-31T10:31:00.005-04:002011-05-31T10:36:58.238-04:00High School Kid Kicked Out of House, Threatened for Opposing Graduation Prayer at Public SchoolThis story's been going around the atheist blogosphere and reddit for a while:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.alternet.org/belief/151086/high_school_student_stands_up_against_prayer_at_public_school_and_is_ostracized%2C_demeaned_and_threatened/">High School Student Stands Up Against Prayer at Public School and Is Ostracized, Demeaned and Threatened</a><br /><br /><blockquote>Damon Fowler, an atheist student at Bastrop High School in Louisiana, was about to graduate. His public school was planning to have a prayer as part of the graduation ceremony: as they traditionally did, as so many public schools around the country do every year. But Fowler -- knowing that government-sponsored prayer in the public schools is unconstitutional and legally forbidden -- contacted the school superintendent to let him know that he opposed the prayer, and would be contacting the ACLU if it happened. The school -- at first, anyway -- agreed, and canceled the prayer.<br /><br />Then Fowler's name, and his role in this incident, was leaked. As a direct result:<br /><br /> 1) Fowler has been hounded, pilloried, and ostracized by his community.<br /><br /> 2) One of Fowler's teachers has publicly demeaned him.<br /><br /> 3) Fowler has been physically threatened. Students have threatened to "jump him" at graduation practice, and he has received multiple threats of bodily harm, and even death threats.<br /><br /> 4) Fowler's parents have cut off his financial support, kicked him out of the house, and thrown his belongings onto the front porch.<br /><br />Oh, and by the way? They went ahead and had the graduation prayer anyway.</blockquote><br /><br />Bunch of small-minded bullies.<br /><br />In good news, Damon has become something of a hero in the atheist world, he has a supportive older brother, and atheists around the country have so far donated almost $30,000 to give him a scholarship for college.Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.com27tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-1943209544623196322011-05-27T09:57:00.005-04:002011-05-27T10:03:57.747-04:00Interesting Interview with Michael Jenkins of Footsteps<blockquote>Footsteps is a unique organization. Founded by Malkie Schwartz in 2003 to assist former Charedim in exploring the world beyond their former insular communities, Footsteps is part social club, part therapy-house, part educational laboratory. Members gather for a bite to eat from its well-stocked pantries, to read the latest issue of the New Yorker, or simply pop in at the end of a day’s work or schooling to meet with others of like mind, to “hang out,” to laugh over the latest absurdities in their lives, past and present. They also come for more formal discussions: free-flowing drop-in groups, dating and sex talk, and educational lectures. They might stay for five minutes or five hours. And Michael Jenkins is always there to greet them with his easy cheer.<br /><br />Along with Executive Director Lani Santo, social worker Alix Newpol, and a dedicated group of volunteers, Michael organizes the organization’s programs, facilitates many of the discussion groups, and provides members with one-on-one counseling. </blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.unpious.com/2011/05/an-interview-with-michael-jenkins/">The interview</a>. <a href="http://www.unpious.com/">Unpious</a>, by the way, has some of the best writing I've seen from formerly Orthodox people.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.footstepsorg.org/about.php">Footsteps</a>Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.com21tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-19726789729611156512011-05-26T09:35:00.002-04:002011-05-26T09:39:57.426-04:00Matt Dillahunty on How He Became an Atheist and More<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LVgUCUPGDpo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br /><br />I thought this was pretty good. By <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty">Matt Dillahunty</a>, president of the Atheist Community of Austin and host of the Austin Public-access television cable TV show and podcast <a href="http://www.atheist-experience.com/">The Atheist Experience</a>.Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-65134773823272776492011-05-11T09:21:00.002-04:002011-05-11T09:25:07.013-04:00A New Term for Intellectual Dishonesty<a href="http://www.beyondbt.com/2011/05/11/how-would-you-describe-your-secular-knowledge-integration-strategy/">Secular Knowledge Integration Strategy</a><br /><blockquote><p>How Would You Describe Your Secular Knowledge Integration Strategy?</p> <p>a) I discard or ignore most secular knowledge</p> <p>b) I accept most secular knowledge and only discard that which blatantly contradicts Torah</p> <p>c) I carefully sift secular knowledge to see if it is truly consistent with Torah</p> d) Other</blockquote><br />This is not a parody. It's from a group blog for <span style="font-style: italic;">baalei teshuva</span> -- people who have become Orthodox Jews as opposed to having been born into it.Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-80854057607562018352011-05-08T21:21:00.004-04:002011-05-08T21:37:56.051-04:00Atheism vs. AgnosticismI've been seeing a lot of confusion about the term "atheist" lately -- specifically the misconception that it implies 100% certitude (surely impossible.)<br /><br />I thought this chart (via reddit's enormous <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/h6qlh/when_anyone_says_soandso_was_an_agnostic_not_an/">atheism</a> community) really clears it up:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Pn6XYACO7SM/TcdCJ9GsjII/AAAAAAAAANg/NQ4eALCvaiQ/s1600/graph.gif"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 343px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Pn6XYACO7SM/TcdCJ9GsjII/AAAAAAAAANg/NQ4eALCvaiQ/s400/graph.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5604521000074775682" border="0" /></a><br /><br />Strong atheism is the belief that there are no gods. Weak atheism is simply an absence of a belief in God. Neither one implies certainty.<br /><br />Similarly, theism is the belief that there is at least one god, even if you aren't 100% sure. <br /><br />Agnosticism is (1) the belief that neither gods' existence nor nonexistence can be known or (2) simply a lack of certainty about gods' existence or nonexistence. The chart above uses the former definition, although the latter is perhaps more common in lay usage. Both meanings are compatible with atheism or theism, although people who are pretty sure one way or the other tend not to use the term. <br /><br />I consider myself a "strong" atheist in that I believe that there are no gods, but I do not claim 100% certainty. <br /><br />Hope that clears things up.Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-74519160863947748232011-04-22T10:14:00.005-04:002011-04-22T11:26:44.526-04:00More Questions from a Teenaged Modern Orthodox Skeptic<a href="http://jewishatheist.blogspot.com/2011/03http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif/advice-for-teenaged-modern-orthodox.html">Previously</a>.<br /><blockquote>Hey, its me XXXXX again, that 16 year old kid. I emailed you a little while ago and I have a few more things that I would like to ask you. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to read and answer my questions as I am trying to find my way in life.<br /><ol><br /><li>Is there a particular reason you believe there is no god? Obviously there is a lack of evidence, but is there something in particular that makes you sure that he does not exist?</li><br /><li>Why do you prefer the term atheist over agnostic? About a week ago I told a friend of mine in yeshiva in Isreal that I am about "75% percent atheist." He responded, "You're not an atheist only tards are atheist, you're agnostic. No one can be 100% sure that god exists or does not exist." I guess he does have a point. Obviously it is impossible to prove or disprove god 100% so why do you (I guess make the leap of faith is the proper term here, how ironic) and say that god definitely does not exist and therefore identify as an atheist, over agnostic?</li><br /><li>This is something i struggle with a little. I even went ahead and made a list of my 5 commandments and mission statement to help guide me if I decide atheism is the way to go. In Orthodox Judaism your goals and ways of achieving them are very clear-cut: <span style="font-style:italic;">daven</span>, learn, give <span style="font-style:italic;">tzedaka</span>, and worship god etc. However atheism has no doctrine of faith, and therefore, correct me if I'm wrong, you really have nothing to guide you. From an atheist perspective life must not have meaning (this is not necessarily a bad thing, this is just what I see when I look at it objectively.) Do you have a purpose in life? I figure mine would just be to get rich, be happy, and help people. Is there anything that can really drive an atheist? Maybe there does not have to be, but coming from my perspective a life without god seems very meaningless. Any of your thoughts on this subject would be greatly appreciated.</li><br /></ol><br />Also you mentioned last time that I should pay attention to the comments. I did and they were great. It's awesome to see so many different perspectives on the subject. If you want to answer my questions on the blog, that would be great just so I could see what others have to say about them, but obviously it's your call.<br /><br />Thank you so much for reading this and I eagerly await your response.</blockquote><br /><br />Hey, thanks for writing again. I'll take my swings at answering your questions and hopefully the commenters will chime in as well.<br /><br /><h3>Why don't I use the term agnostic?</h3>I would not say I am "sure" God doesn't exist. When I say I'm an atheist, I mean only that I don't believe that God exists. I recognize that I could be wrong, and I'm prepared to change my mind if confronted with new evidence or new arguments, but having spent a lot of time reading, writing, thinking, and arguing about the matter, I just don't believe that God exists. As an analogy, I don't believe that the Loch Ness monster exists, but if someone went out and captured it tomorrow and showed it to me (and convinced various kinds of experts that it was genuine) I would suddenly believe in the Loch Ness monster. Does that mean I'm agnostic on the subject of the Loch Ness monster? I don't think so.<br /><br />Your friend's definition of agnostic is way too broad and would necessarily include 99% of humanity. Believe in God, don't believe in God, nobody except the mentally ill are 100% sure, even if they say they are. Does he consider himself an agnostic, by his own argument?<br /><br /><h3>Why am I an atheist?</h3>I would say that the lack of evidence for gods opened up the possibility but after that it's pretty much what seems more reasonable. As I've mentioned in the past, Stephen Hawking's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168">A Brief History of Time</a> convinced me that the universe could have been "created" without any god's intervention and Richard Dawkins's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703/">The Blind Watchmaker</a> convinced me that humans and all other living things could have evolved without any "Watchmaker."<br /><br />At that point, I just kind of asked myself, well, does the universe make more sense with gods or without them? (Imagine being at the optometrist -- does this lens look more clear or does that one?) And to me, it just makes more sense without one. It explains why bad things happen to good people, why innocent infants are born with horrible diseases, why the universe appears to be vast and indifferent, etc. etc.<br /><br />There's a philosophical principle called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor">Occam's Razor</a> that sort of formalizes one good argument for why an absence of evidence should make us work with the assumption that God does not exist. It exists in many forms, but perhaps the most concise is "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." That means that if A could have caused something to happen by itself, in the absence of evidence ("necessity") it's kind of silly to believe that A+B caused it. Another version that is perhaps a little misleading but in some ways more clear is "The simplest explanation is usually the best."<br /><br />So if you take something like the Holocaust and look at it through this lens, it becomes pretty clear which explanation is more simple. On the one hand, we have an indifferent universe so we shouldn't expect it to prevent something like the Holocaust from happening. On the other hand, we have God and have to come up with all sorts of additional explanations -- that he's allowing man to have free will, that he was punishing us, that it's all part of his mysterious plan, etc. -- to reconcile the idea of a loving God with the horrific reality of the Holocaust.<br /><br />Or let's take a scientific example. In ancient Greece, they didn't know that the earth was a globe that is tilted on its axis and that's why we have seasons. So instead, they made up this story:<br /><blockquote>Persephone's mother, Demeter, found out that her daughter was in the underworld. She was terribly upset by this news. She was so distraught over losing her daughter that she withdrew her usual blessing from the Earth. She refused to provide for the harvest until her daughter was brought back to her. This resulted in droughts on the Earth. A famine soon began.<br /><br />Realizing that humankind would perish without crops, Zeus ordered Hades to free Persephone. But there was one condition… Persephone could be freed as long as she hadn't eaten any food in Hades. Just before he set her free, Hades tempted Persephone to eat a few pomegranate seeds from his garden. Because Persephone had eaten while in the underworld, she could not be freed. But without Demeter's attention to the earth, all of humankind would die.<br /><br />Zeus was forced to negotiate with Hades about where Persephone would live. It was decided that Persephone would stay with Hades in the underworld for four months every year. During the other months, she would return to Earth to be with her mother. Every time that Persephone left her mother to live in the underworld, Demeter grieved. She withdrew her blessing of a good harvest on the Earth. Thus, the four months of separation caused cold, barren winters. When Persephone was returned to her mother, Demeter would be so glad that she would be kind to the Earth again. This would lead to spring, and then summer, followed by fall. In this way, the seasons were established.</blockquote><br />When people found out about the fact that summer happens when your hemisphere of the globe is closer to the sun, they could have said well that's true, but it's also because of Persephone. That's where Occam's Razor comes in. We no longer need the Persephone story to explain the seasons -- the Earth's tilt is quite sufficient -- so out goes the story (and others like it.)<br /><br />(Of course, I'm sure that if there were Modern Orthodox Greek Polytheists running around today, many would insist that this story is obviously allegorical and that the ancient Greek myths are perfectly compatible with modern science. Others would explain that the tilt of the Earth explanation is actually coded within the Persephone story.)<br /><br /><h3>On meaning</h3>This is a big question and something that many atheists wrestle with for a long time. In fact, I think it's one of the primary (unconscious?) motives for people to become or to stay religious in the first place. If you're religious (at least in fundamentalist religions like OJ) then you are told what the purpose is and given explicit rules and guidelines for how to live your life. Many people find that very comforting. (Of course it also causes problems for people who don't exactly fit into the rules, like gay people or those who care about them, like people who care more about what's true than what they're supposed to believe, etc. For that reason and others, it only kind of works if you're good at not asking questions, not thinking about certain things, living in denial, or engaging in compartmentalization.)<br /><br />As you allude to, there are no rules and guidelines for being an atheist. Atheism is not a religion or even a philosophy, it's a simple lack of belief in one particular thing. Just as not-believing-in-astrology doesn't give your life meaning or specific rules, not-believing-in-god doesn't either. So there are as many approaches to these questions as there are atheists.<br /><br />Some atheists (and some theists) are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism">existentialists</a>. They believe that you are responsible for creating your own meaning and examine the best ways of doing that and living that meaning passionately. Other atheists are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism">nihilists</a> who agree with the existentialists that there is no objective meaning, but don't necessarily take it any further than that. Others are hedonists. Others don't really think about it.<br /><br />As for me, I think it's actually kind of a silly question. I'm not saying you're silly for asking it -- we all ask it -- but that if you think about it, it's kind of a strange way to look at things. Do we ask what the meaning of a summer afternoon is? Or what's the purpose of Tuesday? The question to me reflects some kind of internalized <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic">Protestant work ethic</a> that implies that things are only worthwhile if they are productive in some way. I think it's worth really examining that piece of cultural indoctrination.<br /><br />I try to just live my life as I see fit. I want to be comfortable, so I went into a career where I could make decent money doing something I like, but I didn't care enough about being rich that I was willing to do something I didn't like or to work many more hours in order to achieve great wealth. I love my wife and I want a family, so I got married. I care about other people, so I help them when I can and try to avoid causing them harm. I have various hobbies I enjoy, so I engage in them often. Etc. And again, I have seen and continue to see a psychologist to help me kind of examine myself, recognize and dismantle some of my internalized beliefs that aren't necessarily true, and continue to make good choices and improve my life.<br /><br />I know that someday I'm going to die but that doesn't really bother me -- I figure not being born never bothered me so being dead will probably be about the same. I know that someday the sun is going to gradually become a Red Giant and then a White Dwarf and that someday long after that the whole universe will meet some kind of end in which no thing could live, too. But that's just how it is. It's sad and tragic like death is sad and tragic, but what are you gonna do? Enjoy it while you can.Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-58982756020254262992011-04-04T16:08:00.005-04:002011-04-04T16:49:16.954-04:00The Yetzer Haemes (The Inclination to Truth)In Orthodox Judaism they talk about the yetzer hatov (good inclination) and the yetzer hara (evil inclination) as components of the human psyche. It's obviously an oversimplified version of reality, but so is Freud's id/ego/superego. It can still be a useful concept.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PX2MWO2UoRg/TZomO69wRVI/AAAAAAAAANY/R2TlS-Ifz7o/s1600/259335-animal_house_pinto1_super.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PX2MWO2UoRg/TZomO69wRVI/AAAAAAAAANY/R2TlS-Ifz7o/s400/259335-animal_house_pinto1_super.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5591823925122188626" border="0" /></a><br /><br />As regular readers know, I've been thinking for a long time about how and why some people become skeptics and others, even very smart and educated ones, continue to believe in what I see as fairy tales. I've investigated various hows like <a href="http://jewishatheist.blogspot.com/search/label/compartmentalization">compartmentalization</a> and good, old-fashioned <a href="http://jewishatheist.blogspot.com/2007/07/modern-orthodoxys-state-of-denial.html">denial</a>, but I haven't really gotten into the why. Why did I stop believing, while others maintain their faith or even harden it?<br /><br />Subjectively, it feels to me like I have what I'll call a yetzer haemes, the inclination to truth. When I think or hear something that doesn't ring true, I feel a nagging sensation in my brain, analogous to the one I felt when I was a kid and wanted to break a rule that my parents had set, which would have been the yetzer hatov. I feel it when someone I disagree with says something that rings false, but I also feel it even when someone I agree with makes an argument that rings false. It's even caused me to delete some of my own drafts for this blog instead of posting them.<br /><br />Maybe it's a function of nerdiness. I am a computer programmer, and I have (but fight) that nerd's compulsive desire to "fix" statements that are even just a little imprecise, let alone false. You know that nerd who will interject into a conversation to correct somebody's off-the-cuff remark about something totally unimportant? ("Well, actually, in ancient Rome, the aqueduct was blah blah blah...") That would be me if I hadn't learned how to shut up so I wouldn't get made fun of in middle school*. <br /><br />There does seem to be a correlation between nerds and atheism. Scientists are disproportionately atheists, science fiction is full of atheism, etc. On the other hand, engineers and accountants are nerds who tend to be believers more often than programmers and scientists do, in my experience -- maybe their need for an orderly, sensible universe combined with a cautious, conservative nature overrides their desire for correctness at all costs. And anyone who knows Orthodox Jews knows there are plenty of nerds who believe, too.<br /><br />So do other people just not have that yetzer? Or is it much weaker? Or have they just gotten into the habit of ignoring it or running it over? Has religion taught them to ignore it, perhaps identifying it with the yetzer hara? Is it possible that even fundamentalist religions like Orthodox Judaism really ring true to them on that level?<br /><br />I guess I don't really have any answers. I just thought the concept might be worth thinking about.<br /><br /><br /><font size="2">*For those who still suffer from this malady, software developer and blogger Miguel de Icaza gets into it in <a href="http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2011/Feb-17.html">Why you are not getting laid</a></font>.Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.com23tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-12242597083411053162011-03-19T15:45:00.004-04:002011-03-19T17:05:51.824-04:00Advice for a Teenaged Modern Orthodox Skeptic<blockquote>I am a 16 year old boy who goes to a modern orthodox high school. I have been religious my whole life but am very skeptical about Judaism and God's existence as a whole. A few months ago, I hit the breaking point and for a few weeks I did not keep kosher or shabbos. I spoke with my parents about it and they were heartbroken. <br /><br />I thought about it for a while and I decided that I will finish up high school and go to my Israel year and then if I am still not satisfied with Judaism I will just live my life free of overbearing laws that make no sense and just go crazy in college. <br /><br />This leads to my question. When i learn gemara and chumash and what not I have a hard time taking it seriously. So my question is that what in Judaism is actually real and what is just made up, from an atheist perspective at least. For instance, were the Jews actually ever in the desert? Did the forefathers really exist? What about more modern things like the Channukah and Purim story and the wars in the times of navi'im?<br /><br />The 2nd part of my question is, so lets say there is no god, were the prophets and rabbis like rashi and rambam just delusional old men?<br /><br />thank you for taking time to read and i eagerly await your response by email or maybe a post on the blog.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br />biding my time</blockquote><br /><br />Hi "biding",<br /><br />I'll respond by blog so that other people can contribute answers as well and so that other kids in your situation might be able to read it.<br /><br />I sympathize with your situation -- that sounds hard. I personally didn't start being really skeptical until college, when I was already out of the house. My parents were also heartbroken, but since I wasn't living under their roof, there were fewer complications. We do have a pretty good relationship to this day, though. I'm sure they'd still prefer I be religious, but it's not really an issue between us anymore. We just don't really talk about it.<br /><br />It sounds reasonable to finish up high school where you are if that's what you want to do. As for Israel, I'd do some thinking about what you're trying to get out of it. Some yeshivas are intellectual, some are for partying, and some specialize in making people frum out. It can be pretty tough I think if you go to one that doesn't fit. A lot of people end up just hanging out with friends or partying, so if that's what you're into it might not matter that much. I was kind of introverted and not so into partying, so even though my yeshiva wasn't a good fit for me (too right-wing) I mostly just kept to myself and read books all year. It kind of sucked. Something I wish I'd considered more seriously was doing some kind of joint program like the one at Bar-Ilan, which is coed. You can still do some Orthodox stuff for your own sake or your parents', and you get the experience of living in Israel (based in secular Tel Aviv instead of Jerusalem) but you also get more of a college-like experience. Or, of course, you could just head straight to college.<br /><br />As for "going crazy" in college, if that's what you decide to do, try to be smart about it. :-) Just because you don't believe in Orthodoxy's rules doesn't mean that you have to be some kind of crazy hedonist. Just look at Charlie Sheen to see where that gets you -- it looks fun, but it's probably not the best way to lasting happiness and healthiness. I think some level of experimentation is probably a good idea for most people, but just be smart about it. If you go that route, educate yourself about safe sex, try to have some real relationships, don't kill yourself with alcohol, and try to use other drugs responsibly if you choose to use them.<br /><br />Onto the questions. I don't think there's a singular "atheist perspective," so I just try to go with what the actual experts on a subject believe. You can usually just look something up on Wikipedia for some pointers.<br /><br />For example, on the "Were the Jews ever in the desert?" question, Wikipedia offers:<br /><blockquote>While a Moses-like figure may have existed in Transjordan in the mid-late 13th century BCE, archaeology cannot prove or disprove his existence, and the "overwhelming" archaeological evidence of the largely indigenous origins of Israel "leaves no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness."[20] For this reason, most archaeologists have abandoned the archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit."[21] A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus narrative of an Egyptian captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness,[16] and it has become increasingly clear that Iron Age Israel - the kingdoms of Judah and Israel - has its origins in Canaan, not Egypt:[22][23]</blockquote><br /><br />If you're really interested, of course, you won't stop at Wikipedia but will follow the references to primary sources.<br /><br />It's really not possible to rule out the existence of, for example, the forefathers, but suffice it to say there doesn't seem to be a good secular reason to believe that they are anything more than literary/mythical creations. The important thing to realize is that the majority of secular scholars believe the chumash was written by multiple authors over a long period of time and put together somewhere around 600-450 BCE, over 500 years after Moses would have existed. So the validity of the text as a historical document has to be understood in that context.<br /><br />The story of Chanukkah seems to be at least "based on a true story" in that the Temple obviously existed and there was a war, etc. There is some scholarly disagreement on the nature of that war. See Wikipedia for more information. As for Purim, secular scholars seem to think that Megillat Esther is basically a historical novella and point to various historical inaccuracies in the text.<br /><br />I think it's possible to continue to study and even enjoy chumash and gemarah on an intellectual level even if you don't think that they represent the truth, but I'm sure it's not for everybody, so I'd just treat it like any other subject I didn't really care about as far as school goes.<br /><br />The second part of your question asks about the prophets and rabbis. With regard to prophets, some scholars hypothesize that Ezekial, for example, may have suffered from a form of epilepsy, but that's really just guesswork as far as I'm concerned. There are of course many mental illnesses or drug-induced states that we know cause people to act the way the prophets are said to have acted. I have a neighbor, for example, who can talk for hours in a very manic state about all kinds of visions and wild experiences she has had. I'm not a doctor, but she appears to me to be schizophrenic. It could also be that prophets were normal people like Martin Luther King, Jr. and that the stories about them were just exaggerated and embellished.<br /><br />I don't think it's fair to call rabbis like Rashi or the Rambam delusional, in the sense of the word that implies mental illness. Orthodox Rabbis today aren't delusional, they just believe things that I don't think are true. I assume that the same is true of Rashi and the Rambam, although they at least have the excuse that they lived before the scientific revolution. It's fun to think about if the Rambam, who was obviously a brilliant man interested in philosophy, would have become an atheist if he were born in the last couple of centuries, but there's really no way to know. <br /><br />Anyway, I hope I've been helpful. Good luck in getting through the next few years and making some big decisions. It might be helpful to see a psychologist to help you think through everything. I advise even adults who become skeptics to consider seeking therapy just because leaving Orthodoxy and all the things that go with that (family issues, big changes in personal philosophy and the meaning of life, etc.) can sometimes be hard to work through on your own. I've found it helpful myself.<br /><br />Feel free to write to me again if you have any questions, etc.Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.com38tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-22748450071839803122011-03-04T07:04:00.012-05:002011-03-04T09:15:50.623-05:00Load-bearing Beliefs vs. Cosmetic BeliefsI've been arguing a lot recently on various <a href="http://www.pseudopolymath.com/">other</a> <a href="http://serandez.blogspot.com/">blogs</a>, mostly about the standoff in Wisconsin between the governor and the teachers' union. (I'm for the union, obviously.) Like an idiot, I went in thinking that since my position makes a lot of sense, at least to me, I'd be able to convince the people I was arguing with to if not change their minds than at least see that there was another reasonable point of view.<br /><br />Instead, I found myself responding to not to just a couple of counterpoints, but to a number of arguments multiplying so fast that I couldn't possibly keep up. I'd attack the first six, and not only would I not have convinced my opponents, but there would suddenly be six more arguments on top. If I attacked those, there would be six more. No arguments were ever conceded, either, so they could cheerfully go right back to the first six arguments if they ever ran out of new ones. This is a not a new insight -- people have compared arguing with certain people to playing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whac-A-Mole">Whac-a-mole</a>.<br /><br />I was thinking about how frustrating this situation is, though, and I realized that not all of the arguments are equally important. Some arguments reflect the genuine reasons the person believes in their position, while others are arguments they just think will help their case. I'd like to call these <span style="font-weight: bold;">load-bearing arguments</span> and <span style="font-weight: bold;">cosmetic arguments</span>.<br /><br /><h2>Load-bearing arguments</h2>These are the only arguments that matter. If you can convince someone that a load-bearing argument is false, then it will rock their belief. It won't necessarily convince them, because if their belief is psychologically important to them, they'll quickly shove a bunch of other arguments under there and hope they hold, but you're not wasting your time. If you could convince them that the load-bearing argument is false, it's going to at least temporarily shake their confidence.<br /><br /><h2>Cosmetic Arguments</h2>These arguments are just for show. They exist to create the appearance that the belief is supported by a vast and ever-multiplying array of arguments, but they are just decoys. Upon examination, not only do they not hold up, but you realize even this particular believer isn't convinced by them.<br /><br />It's important to realize that an argument is load-bearing or cosmetic for a particular person -- it's not an objective categorization. One person's load-bearing argument might be another's cosmetic one and vice-versa. There are some arguments, though, that are always cosmetic.<br /><br /><h2>Some examples</h2>Let's take abortion. I think "God says it's wrong" is a load-bearing argument. If (obviously a big "if") you could convince a person who uses this argument either that God does not exist or that He does not say it's wrong, it would shake their belief. Again, it's possible that they would hold onto it by putting other arguments under it, but there would have been a moment when the belief was actually at risk.<br /><br />"Abortion is murder," on the other hand, is a cosmetic argument for most people. If you could convince someone who says this that abortion and murder aren't exactly the same, they would likely still oppose abortion without ever wavering. That's because they don't really believe this argument in the first place -- their belief rests on a different argument entirely. (As evidence that they don't really believe abortion is murder, they would send a woman who killed a baby to jail, but would never send a woman who has an abortion to jail.)<br /><br />How about our old favorite, the existence of God. I think some version of the Argument from Design is often a load-bearing argument. I'm not talking about the formal argument -- I don't think formal arguments are good representations of how people actually think -- but the genuine intuition that some intelligent being must be responsible for the dazzling complexity of the universe. If you can convince a believer that the universe *could* have come about without a designer, you will often have genuinely shaken their belief. Again, they might not be convinced, they can shove other arguments under their belief, but there will be that moment of panic. I think that's what <a href="http://jewishatheist.blogspot.com/2010/03/books-which-have-influenced-me-most.html">happened</a> to my belief in God. Hawking shook it with <span style="font-style: italic;">A Brief History of Time</span> and Dawkins sealed the deal with <span style="font-style: italic;">The Blind Watchmaker</span>.<br /><br />That's why Darwin was so revolutionary and why he is still so reviled by many religious people -- he didn't just disprove a literal reading of Genesis, he demolished the Argument from Design as it applies to biology and human beings. Even though he didn't explain why the universe exists, how the planets formed, or even how life began, it was enough of a blow to the idea of a Designer that it convinced a lot of people, himself (probably?) included, that God does not exist.<br /><br />Note that the Argument from Design is not load-bearing for all believers. Some believe that they have personally witnessed God or that they can see him in everyday life. For them, the Argument from Design is a cosmetic argument and this other thing is the load-bearing one. Convince them that the universe could have come about without God and it won't shake them. But if (huge if) you could convince them that what they experienced was a hallucination, for example, or that what they took to be God's influence was really a series of coincidences, then their belief would be rocked.<br /><br />I think the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument">Ontological Argument</a> is a rare argument that is *always* cosmetic in all its forms:<br /><blockquote>When we hear the words "that than which a greater cannot be thought", we understand what the words convey, and what we understand exists in our thoughts. This then exists either only in our thoughts or both in thought and reality. But it cannot exist only in our thoughts, because if it existed only in our thoughts, then we could think of something greater than it, since we could think of something than which a greater cannot be thought that exists both in thought and in reality, and it is a contradiction to suppose we could think of something greater than that than which nothing greater can be thought. Hence, that than which a greater cannot be thought exists both in thought and in reality. Therefore, that than which a greater cannot be thought really does exist, and in later chapters of the Proslogion Anselm argues that this being has the traditional attributes of God like being the omnipotent creator.</blockquote><br />I can't imagine anybody's belief rests on such an obvious gimmick.<br /><br /><h2>How to Tell the Difference</h2>Again, most arguments can be either load-bearing or cosmetic, depending on the believer. It's all about the genuine reason the believer believes, and that might be ultimately unknowable. However, I think there are some clues.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cleverness</span><br /><br />Some arguments are clever, and the believer might be proud of them. This is usually an indication that it came after the belief already existed and is used simply to score points -- that's why the believer is proud of it. The Ontological Argument, discussed above, is a prime example.<br /><br />When I was in yeshiva, we were talking with our rabbi about the "apparent" contradiction between an omniscient God and free will. (In Orthodox Judaism, playing Resolve that Contradiction! is a popular pastime, both in casual conversation and in Torah study.) I came up with an analogy. I said we people living in this century can look back at people living in the last century and know that they chose X instead of Y and yet they still had free will. So, since God exists outside of time, it's pretty much the same thing.<br /><br />The rabbi was delighted and the other students smiled and nodded and I was really proud of myself for coming up with such a clever argument. The argument, though, now that I don't believe, is obviously bullshit. Even if we allow for a God that exists "outside of time," he also must be "inside of time," because he allegedly interacted with the universe in the past. Therefore, he knew about people's choices before they made them and the contradiction still stands.<br /><br />If someone had pointed out the flaw in my argument to me then, I would have shrugged and been like, "Oh yeah, good point" but my underlying belief in God (and free will) wouldn't have been shaken for even an instant. That's what makes it a cosmetic argument.<br /><br /><b>Tentativeness</b><br /><br />Oftentimes, a believer will offer up an argument or several tentatively. Now, obviously, there's nothing wrong with offering an argument tentatively rather than confidently, especially if it's a bad one or one not yet investigated or challenged, but it's on obvious indicator that it's not load-bearing. Either the person does not yet believe the conclusion of the argument (hence the tentativeness) or the person already believes the conclusion and the argument is just cosmetic.<br /><br />For example, in <a href="http://modernorthoprax.blogspot.com/2011/02/are-there-any-real-true-believers.html">this thread</a> at the great XGH's, commenter Thanbo offers four "solutions" to the same problem - the conflict between the Documentary Hypothesis and the belief that God dictated the Five Books to Moses - and adds "I'm sure there are others I haven't thought of." Clearly, regardless of the merits of the individual arguments, they are all cosmetic because if you knocked them down, it won't affect Thanbo's belief. He's sure there are others.<br /><br />I find that a lot of believers who think of themselves as more open-minded (<a href="http://jewishatheist.blogspot.com/2005/06/orthodoxy-of-whatever-color-seems-to.html#open">but not so open-minded that their brains fall out!</a>) do this. They see a contradiction in their beliefs and are too "open-minded" to either pretend it doesn't exist or to pretend that any particular argument resolves it, so they'll say well this could be a solution or that could be a solution, etc. Ultimately, if you destroy every "solution" they offer, they'll just shrug and concede that it's an issue, but it won't shake their faith in the slightest.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Arguments that don't directly support the belief</span><br /><br />Some "arguments" don't really support the belief in question. For example, <a href="http://jewishatheist.blogspot.com/2006/03/bad-religious-arguments-pascals-wager.html">Pascal's Wager</a> is more of an attempt to convince the audience that it's in their self-interest to believe than it is an argument that the belief in question is true. Arguments that not believing would have adverse effects (religion makes me happy and healthy or it keeps me behaving) might point to explanations for a person's belief, but they aren't load-bearing because knocking them down would not directly affect the person's belief.<br /><br /><h2>Conclusion<br /></h2>Engaging with cosmetic arguments is a waste of time if you're trying to convince a believer (in anything) that they are wrong. In the best case, defeating a cosmetic argument might cause the believer to start questioning the source of that argument, but in no case will it directly lead to a change in belief. It's probably still a waste of time to engage with a load-bearing argument since it's so hard to convince anybody of anything, but that is where you should direct your efforts if you decide to argue. It's the only one that matters.Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.com25tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-33691537031254341552010-10-22T10:18:00.006-04:002010-10-22T10:38:20.237-04:00Getting Over the Joy of Believing?A reader writes:<br /><blockquote>For about three years I was in the baal teshuva world, spending about two of those years in yeshiva. I came to be religious because of "spiritual" experiences, which may have been prompted by unmet emotional needs. When I was in yeshiva, I was told that you could rationally demonstrate (not "prove", sort of) that Judaism is true (and so, I reasoned, that there is a God). After working hard on these pseudoproofs for a while, I became convinced of one. I then believed very strongly that God exists, that He loves me, and that the religion was true.<br /><br />For some time (days, a week?) after arriving at this conclusion, I felt incredible. More in love than I ever felt about a girl. When they say you should have a passionate love for HaShem, that's what I had. I couldn't sleep - I woke up ecstatic - overjoyed that there's a good, caring God who is looking out for me, helping, etc. One thing I always wanted from a woman was flowers. I've given lots of people flowers, but no one has ever given me flowers. I guess that's just how it is in society. But when I felt this way, I walked the streets and viscerally saw all the flowers as being from HaShem. Not in an intellectual way - it was as emotionally real and believed as if it was from another person. Trees upon trees full of beautiful flowers. I also really love singing. And in this state, I could sing more deeply and passionately, moving the people around me to tears, than I ever have.<br /><br />About a year after this experience, I left yeshiva and the religious world. I'm still not exactly sure how it happened. I think I realized that I'd come to the religion for emotional reasons, but it really wasn't going to help me with them (in many ways it made my problems worse). That peak experience seemed to be the extent of the love, safety, and acceptance that I was going to get. My doubts about the truth of the religion - scientific issues, immoral behavior of the rabbis, and the whole thing just looking as fake as any other religion, came together. Intellectually it's pretty clear to me now that Judaism is made up and that there is no God.<br /><br />But I find it hard to let go... at least partly because of the experience that I had of feeling so in love and loved. Even if it was fake, I can't see how I could ever feel that way again. A woman would have to fill a football stadium full of flowers to top that experience. "Maybe one flower from someone real who loves you would be better than a million fake ones," you might say. But I believed that it was real when it happened, so the enormous love felt completely real then. How can I go on in life knowing that I'll never feel that way again? Has anyone else experienced this? How have you moved on?<br /></blockquote><br /><br />I never really felt that way to begin with, perhaps because I was born and raised frum. I know that I admired and was drawn to various BTs I knew because I sensed that joy in them, but I never really felt it myself. <br /><br />I'm not sure what advice I can offer except that I suspect such feelings are always temporary, like the infatuation period early in a human relationship. You don't need to be infatuated with (the idea of) God any more than you have to be infatuated with a human being to be happy. Maybe you can love the universe like you can love a human being after the honeymoon period wears off.<br /><br />I think most people need to go through some kind of grieving process after they leave religion. Some miss the perceived connection with God, some miss the community, some miss the rituals, and some miss the sense of purpose, but we all have something to grieve.<br /><br />I suggest psychotherapy for anybody leaving Orthodoxy. It's a traumatic experience even if it's the right decision for you. This is doubly true if you have other emotional/psychological issues.Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-81889659505388791992010-09-28T09:09:00.006-04:002010-09-28T09:14:49.188-04:00Atheists, Agnostics Most Knowledgeable About Religion<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-religion-survey,0,7375137.story"><span style="font-size:130%;">Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion, survey says</span></a><blockquote>If you want to know about God, you might want to talk to an atheist.<br /><br />Heresy? Perhaps. But a survey that measured Americans' knowledge of religion found that atheists and agnostics knew more, on average, than followers of most major faiths. In fact, the gaps in knowledge among some of the faithful may give new meaning to the term "blind faith."<br /><br />A majority of Protestants, for instance, couldn't identify Martin Luther as the driving force behind the Protestant Reformation, according to the survey, released Tuesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Four in 10 Catholics misunderstood the meaning of their church's central ritual, incorrectly saying that the bread and wine used in Holy Communion are intended to merely symbolize the body and blood of Christ, not actually become them.<br /><br />Atheists and agnostics -- those who believe there is no God or who aren't sure -- were more likely to answer the survey's questions correctly. Jews and Mormons ranked just below them in the survey's measurement of religious knowledge -- so close as to be statistically tied.<br /><br />So why would an atheist know more about religion than a Christian?<br /><br />American atheists and agnostics tend to be people who grew up in a religious tradition and consciously gave it up, often after a great deal of reflection and study, said Alan Cooperman, associate director for research at the Pew Forum.<br /><br />"These are people who thought a lot about religion," he said. "They're not indifferent. They care about it."<br /><br />Atheists and agnostics also tend to be relatively well educated, and the survey found, not surprisingly, that the most knowledgeable people were also the best educated. However, it said that atheists and agnostics also outperformed believers who had a similar level of education.</blockquote><br />Nothing really new here, but it's always fun to see.<br /><br />(Hat tip: <a href="http://www.halfsigma.com/2010/09/blind-faith.html">Half Sigma</a>)Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-24139488339798170792010-09-02T09:21:00.006-04:002010-09-02T10:05:11.424-04:00Stephen Hawking Enters the FrayI read <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168">A Brief History of Time</a> some time after my year in Israel and it made me question God's existence for the first time in my life. It never came out and said God didn't exist, and in fact he threw in bits about "understanding the mind of God" (c.f. Einstein's "God does not play dice") but I was pretty sure he was an atheist.<br /><br />In his new book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Design-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553805371/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1">The Grand Design</a>, he's apparently <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/02/stephen-hawking-picks-physics-god-big-bang/">more explicit</a>:<br /><blockquote>Physics was the reason for the Big Bang, not God, according to scientist Stephen Hawking.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_y4Ew36TkjKE/TH-uvXqlMxI/AAAAAAAAAM0/7ujO40iRao4/s1600/hawking.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 300px; height: 300px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_y4Ew36TkjKE/TH-uvXqlMxI/AAAAAAAAAM0/7ujO40iRao4/s400/hawking.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5512316597754475282" border="0" /></a><br />"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," the professor said in his new book, in a challenge to traditional religious beliefs.<br /><br />"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going," he wrote in his book "The Grand Design," extracts of which are printed in London newspaper The Times.<br /><br />The book, co-written by American physicist Leonard Mlodinow and published next week, sets out to contest Sir Isaac Newton's belief that the universe must have been designed by God as it could not have created out of chaos.</blockquote><br />Newton, genius that he was, was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies">crazy</a> for religion.<br /><br />I wonder if <span style="font-style: italic;">A Brief History</span> was more effective for me as an invitation towards atheism than it would have been if it were more explicit. I wasn't looking to challenge my religious beliefs, just to learn something about cosmology. And maybe my religious defense mechanisms weren't activated in the same way they would have been if I'd picked up, say, a Dawkins book first. <span style="font-style: italic;">A Brief History</span> opened my mind to atheism and Dawkins<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703"></a> sealed the deal a year or two later. But would I have even read Dawkins if Hawking hadn't opened my mind first?Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-68927572846520484752010-08-06T11:02:00.004-04:002010-08-06T12:45:17.886-04:00Short Thoughts: Prop 8, The Orthodox Statement on Gays, and Cordoba HouseI haven't been blogging as much as I'd like, so I thought I'd throw out some quick thoughts on various current events:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional</span><br /><br />Congratulations to California gays and lesbians, their children, and all who care about them! Congratulations to America for taking another step in the right direction. I wish this issue were over and done so millions of people could move on with their lives, but it's great to watch America continue to overcome the small-mindedness of social conservatives.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Statement of Principles</span><br /><br />Some of the Jblogs and various news outlets are praising the Orthodox rabbis who signed a <a href="http://statementofprinciplesnya.blogspot.com/">Statement of Principles</a> on the Place of Jews with a Homosexual Orientation in Our Community for preaching a message of tolerance and inclusion and patting themselves on the back for being tolerant Orthodox Jews. While I agree it would be far better if Orthodox people followed these principles rather than continuing to shun, mock, and abuse gay people, I don't think you can be genuinely tolerant as long as you support Orthodox Judaism.<br /><br />What good is it to preach tolerance when you maintain that God himself wrote that men who have sex with men should be killed? When you stand against not only gay sex, but gay marriage and even commitment ceremonies?<br /><br />It's not enough to send mixed signals. You can't convince your gay son that you fully love and accept him if you also tell him he can never marry or even have sex. You can't convince the bullies that they should stop bullying gay teens into mental illness and suicide when you also teach that God thinks gay sex is an abomination worthy of death. You can't teach your children that gays and lesbians are people to be loved and accepted and also that halakha is a good thing. It just doesn't compute, not at a gut level, no matter how clever your apologetics are.<br /><br />Looking down the list of signatories, I recognize some of the most liberal Orthodox rabbis in America, people whose natural inclination would be -- if they were not Orthodox -- to recognize and accept gays and lesbians as equals and embrace gay marriage as wholeheartedly as they do straight marriage. But they are Orthodox. And so we get half-measures and mixed signals.<br /><br />If you're genuinely for tolerance, you cannot continue to support the tenets of Orthodox Judaism. The two are mutually exclusive. Still, something is better than nothing, and I commend the rabbis for going as far as they have to reduce harm. I hope it helps.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cordoba House</span><br /><br />Various Republicans including most famously Sarah Palin but also lesser luminaries like Rudoph Giuliani and demi-Republican Joe Lieberman have been ranting and raving about plans for a Muslim cultural center to be built several blocks from Ground Zero on the grounds that Muslims perpetrated the 9/11 attacks and therefore it's insensitive to allow the center to be built nearby. Or something.<br /><br />They disgust me. They do not get what makes America great. They're small-minded and hateful and eager to exploit the average American's fear for political gain. They think the difference between America and (e.g.) Afghanistan is that we are (Judeo-) Christian and they are Muslim. It's not. There were Christian countries for centuries that engaged in slaughters much larger than 9/11. What makes America great is not that so many citizens are Christian or Jewish but that in spite of that religiosity, we are a pluralistic and tolerant country. <br /><br />I have no illusions about Islam. Traditional Islam is without a doubt worse than Orthodox Judaism or any of today's mainstream Christian denominations. Worse for women, worse for gays, worse for nonbelievers, worse for intellectuals, worse even for the pious -- pretty much worse in every way. But it doesn't have to stay that way. <br /><br />Ancient Judaism was much like modern Islam -- just open the Torah and you'll find exhortations to execute gay people and those who don't keep the Sabbath, condoning of child marriage and slavery and treating women as property -- pretty much everything we rightly revile Islam for today. And yet Judaism changed. The largest denomination of Judaism today allows for and encourages total equality between the sexes, full rights and tolerance for homosexuality, and total engagement with secular scholarship. Even the Orthodox holdouts have long since jettisoned the implementation of most of the Torah's horrible rules and mostly restrict their bigotry to words and social ostracization.<br /><br />Christianity for centuries engaged in the kind of mass slaughter and forced conversion that the pathetic al-Qaeda could only dream of, and even they reformed. (I'm not speaking of Luther's Reformation -- Luther was probably as bigoted a man as ever existed -- but rather the reformation that occurred as Christians absorbed the secular ideas of modern humanism and modern science. The Catholic Church today can't even convince a majority of American Catholics to oppose legal abortion.)<br /><br />The Cordoba House, rather than helping the likes of al-Qaeda, is instead part of the solution to al-Qaeda. We can't beat radical Islam by killing people. Every radical we kill has children and siblings and cousins and friends who now hate us more than they did before, if they did hate us before. Every civilian we kill or maim has loved ones who hate us perhaps even more passionately.<br /><br />But every Muslim we welcome and influence for the better just by our example (not by Palin's or Lieberman's but by everyday Americans') takes a piece of Islam away from the fanatics and turns Islam into a less dangerous ideology. It demonstrates that modernity and Islam can coexist and that you don't have to hate America to be a good Muslim.<br /><br />But that's not even the point. The point is, this is America. We're supposed to stand for freedom, regardless of religion or ideology. Palin, Giuliani, and Lieberman are a disgrace to the country they so ostentatiously claim to love.Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.com37tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-63412319586473504012010-07-19T12:46:00.007-04:002010-07-19T16:36:03.770-04:00How Often Are You Wrong?<blockquote>Many people have said kids should learn how to program. They usually bring up how this helps them think logically. They don't point out that it also helps them fail over and over and over. The failure is unambiguous, and you can't argue with it. Your program doesn't compile. And that's clearly because you were wrong about something. No matter how sure you were that you were right, you were wrong. Day after day after day.<br /><br />But the thing is, the goals are usually simple and achievable, so you get it right in the end. So it's not soul-crushing failure.<br /><br />And when I fail, it's not like, "Ho-hum. I failed again. Whatever." Often, my whole world turns upside-down, at least briefly. "I KNOW I did that right! There MUST be something wrong with the compiler!" But, no, I'm wrong again, today. Just like I was yesterday. Just like I will be tomorrow, even though I will think I'm right. --grumblebee, on <a href="http://www.metafilter.com/93664/How-Facts-Backfire#3180569">MetaFilter</a><br /></blockquote><br /><br />One of the reasons I haven't been posting much lately is that I finally started to realize how futile it is to try to convince non-skeptical people they are wrong.<br /><br />The above quote resonates with me because I am a computer programmer, although my skepticism predates my ability to write code. I've been skeptical as long as I can remember. Maybe it's innate or maybe I picked it up early on.<br /><br />Either way, I forget that most people aren't skeptical when I'm arguing and it can be frustrating. My opponent will make an argument that's so bad the conclusion isn't even relevant to the argument. The conclusion might be right or it might be wrong, but the argument is so bad it doesn't matter. I think he must be arguing in bad faith and I get angry.<br /><br />But the truth is most people don't take seriously the possibility that they are wrong, so they don't bother to examine the arguments they make. Whenever I write a post or even just a comment, I pause before submitting it to look at it from my opponent's point of view. Sometimes I see immediately that it's a weak argument that wouldn't have convinced me if I didn't already agree with the conclusion and I don't post it. Most people don't seem to do that.<br /><br />It's obvious if you think about it that there is a substantial possibility we're wrong any time we disagree with anybody. Even if you're very smart, there are almost always very smart people on the other side of the debate, whatever it is. Popular subjects of debate like religion and politics usually have books and books written by people smarter than all of us arguing all sides.<br /><br />And yet most people assume they're right most of the time even when there are millions of reasons they should be skeptical. For example, everybody agrees that the overwhelming majority of people born into exclusive religions must be seriously wrong about their religious beliefs, since in general only one (at the most!) of the religions can be true. And yet how many Orthodox Jews have given serious thought to the idea that if they were raised Muslim, they would believe in Islam with the same strength that they currently believe in Orthodox Judaism? That their beliefs are more likely due to an accident of birth than they are true?<br /><br />They wouldn't be stupider or less educated or less honest, but they would believe something completely incompatible with what they now believe. So, knowing that, how can they have so much confidence in their beliefs? It's crazy!<br /><br />If you care about being right, then it means you have to think differently than most people. So what do you do to minimize the odds of being wrong?<br /><br />Many people turn to reason, because when you reason well you feel like you are moving productively towards the truth. And yet it's easy to see that reason alone is insufficient because very smart people on all sides of almost all debates are able to reason in a way that is utterly convincing to themselves and to their allies. Search the web and you'll find very long, reasoned arguments for a 6,000 year-old universe, for 9/11 being an inside job, and for every religion under the sun.<br /><br />Now you'll just come back and say that those are examples of bad reasoning and that your reasoning is good. But I'll come back and ask, how do you know? Everybody thinks that their reasoning is good. Psychological denial is insidious: by definition you don't know when you're doing it.<br /><br />Computer programming is one of a few disciplines that force you to test your reasoning against reality constantly. And even in that field, many, many mistakes sneak through because not every line of code can be tested against every possible configuration of variables. It's actually amazingly hard to write code that can stand up against even casual use without turning up bugs. Just imagine how many bugs must be in your reasoning that is never tested even a little bit against reality!<br /><br />This is why I'll trust a scientist over a theologian any day. Both scientists and theologians make errors in their reasoning, but scientists run experiments. No experiment is perfect, just as no amount of testing can find all the bugs in a significant computer program, but the theologian is like a computer programmer who just writes his code on the blackboard and never even tries to run it. Or worse -- he's like a programmer who writes code on the blackboard that references other code written by older programmers going back generations and generations for thousands of years even though no compiler even exists for the language they're using. There's just no chance that program could be even close to accurate.<br /><br />Even worse, we know for a fact that theologians in the past were wrong about the issues they touched on that turned out to be testable. Before science, theologians made all sorts of claims about the material world that turned out to be false. The rabbis of the Talmud made all sorts of ridiculous claims about spontaneous generation of maggots in meat. (The proto-scientists of the day made some of the same mistakes, of course, but compare the way today's scientists treat those proto-scientists' ideas to the way today's Orthodox rabbis treat those rabbis' ideas.) Even undisputed geniuses like Plato and Aristotle who relied on reason rather than experimentation made some whoppers about reality. If even Aristotle can be laughably wrong, how stupid for us to think we can reason in a vacuum!<br /><br />Always remember that you are wrong about a lot of things. In matters like religion that lie far outside of the world of experimentation and empiricism, you're almost certainly wrong about pretty much everything. Not a little wrong, but a LOT wrong. Like Aristotle and his five elements wrong.<br /><br />In more mundane matters, at least spend some time trying to prove yourself wrong. Never argue one side of an issue only. Read every argument you write before you submit it and try to think about what a smart opponent would make of it. Think of what YOU would make of it, if you happened to have been born in a different country or to a different family or religion. Be especially skeptical of beliefs that are convenient, beliefs that support your lifestyle or your people or your country or your side of anything.<br /><br />For practice, find a popular argument that is irrelevant to you. For example, some land dispute in a country far away between people who don't share your ethnicity or your religion. Note how fervently each side is sure they are right and the other side is not just wrong, but OBVIOUSLY wrong. Then go back to an argument that is very much relevant to you and try to look at it from the other side, and ask yourself how you can really, really know that you're the one who's not in denial.<br /><br />The truth of the matter is, unless you're very unusually skeptical and very unusually open to empirical reality, you're almost certainly one of the people in deep denial.<br /><br />What differentiates you from the great mass of deluded wishful thinkers? What steps are you taking to make sure you aren't deceiving yourself?Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.com40tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-28266158960477951282010-07-14T18:26:00.003-04:002010-07-14T18:34:17.705-04:00Biblical Conception of the Universe<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_y4Ew36TkjKE/TD454rzHENI/AAAAAAAAAMs/lv_9O2Kl8ig/s1600/4077736695_6474d6ac79_o.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 283px; height: 400px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_y4Ew36TkjKE/TD454rzHENI/AAAAAAAAAMs/lv_9O2Kl8ig/s400/4077736695_6474d6ac79_o.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5493892241431138514" border="0" /></a><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelpaukner/4077736695/sizes/z/">This</a> is pretty cool. I remember it blew my mind in high school when I started thinking about how the Torah describes rain as coming from above the firmament, where the stars are.<br /><br />(This one's for you, Tigerboy!)Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-73008516616027318762010-03-23T09:41:00.006-04:002010-03-23T12:26:01.468-04:00Books Which Have Influenced Me the Most(This meme which nobody is calling a meme was started by <a href="http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/03/books-which-have-influenced-me-most.html">Tyler Cowen</a>.)<br /><br />These are the books, off the top of my head, that influenced me the most. No particular order.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Enders-Game-Ender-Book-1/dp/0812550706/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269360387&sr=1-1">Ender's Game</a> and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Speaker-Dead-Ender-Book-2/dp/0812550757/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b">Speaker for the Dead</a>, Orson Scott Card.</span><br /><br />Ender's Game is the story of a nerdy kid who uses his strategic and tactical genius to defeat the schoolyard bullies and then save the human race. In space. The perfect escapist fantasy for a nerdy kid, in other words. It also introduced me to the idea of blogging. In the 1980s.<br /><br />Speaker for the Dead is a much different book, less action and more philosophy. The title refers to a priest-like figure, who is invited to learn about and tell the whole truth of someone who has died, as a memorial. I was blown away by the idea of telling the whole truth about someone, the good parts and the bad parts, the parts parents would be proud of and the ones that they would be ashamed of. The idea was that it's impossible to really know somebody, even a horrible somebody, without loving them. That made a big impression on me.<br /><br />When I grew up, having read all of Card's books, I found out that he is a Mormon and a homophobic bigot. That was an important lesson, too, in that it conflicted so much with the spirit of empathy (and, as an interesting side note, the homoeroticism) that pervades his fiction. I also grew to become horrified by the ruthless and simplistic ideas about fighting and war that are featured in Ender's Game and that I heard Card himself relate to American foreign policy when I attended a book signing as a young adult.<br /><br /><br /><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269360476&sr=1-1">The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design</a><span style="font-weight: bold;">, Richard Dawkins.</span><br /><br />I'm pretty sure I was headed in that direction already, but I believe that I picked up The Blind Watchmaker a believer and put it down an atheist. It takes on the famed watchmaker argument for God's existence (a.k.a. the argument from design) and not only defeats it but demonstrates the elegant beauty of Darwinian evolution.<br /><br /><br /><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.amazon.com/Contact-Carl-Sagan/dp/0671004107/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269354347&sr=1-1">Contact</a><span style="font-weight: bold;">, Carl Sagan.</span><br /><br />I found Sagan's secular sense of awe exhilarating. Contact introduced me to the idea that science could provide the same sense of transcendence that religion can at its very best without requiring you to believe in the obviously untrue. It also has a great part about what a message from a real Intelligent Designer might look like.<br /><br /><br /><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.amazon.com/Another-Roadside-Attraction-Tom-Robbins/dp/0553349481/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269354941&sr=1-4">Another Roadside Attraction</a><span style="font-weight: bold;">, Tom Robbins.</span><br /><br />A friend turned me on to <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Still-Life-Woodpecker-Tom-Robbins/dp/0553348973/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269354941&sr=1-3">Still Life with Woodpecker</a> while I was at yeshiva in Israel. When I returned home, I quickly found all of Robbins's other books and read them, too. Collectively, they blew up everything I thought I knew about writing and fiction. <span style="font-style: italic;">Another Roadside Attraction</span> introduced this still-sheltered young man to a host of characters and ideas about society and religion that just about blew my mind. From mocking the Catholic Church's vast stores of obscene wealth at the Vatican to introducing radical hippie ideas like just enjoying the rain to basically advocating psychedelics, it provided a lot of thought-fodder for an Orthodox Jew raised by squares.<br /><br /><br /><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.amazon.com/Still-Life-Woodpecker-Tom-Robbins/dp/0553348973/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269354941&sr=1-3">A Brief History of Time</a><span style="font-weight: bold;">, Stephen Hawking.</span><br /><br />I read this a couple of years before <span style="font-style: italic;">The Blind Watchmaker</span> and I think it laid the groundwork for my future atheism. Hawking doesn't come out and say that there's no God, but he does argue that there doesn't need to be a God to explain the universe. The cosmology he lays out in the book is so much vaster and more awe inspiring than the one laid out in the Torah that it makes Genesis look like a fairy tale for children.<br /><br /><br /><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061673730/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0553277472&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0H83YXDA46GDCW8CNG79">Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance</a><span style="font-weight: bold;">, Robert M. Pirsig.</span><br /><br />This book introduced me to Eastern philosophy. It suffers from not being as good as the author thinks it is, but it introduced me to mindfulness and inspired me to learn about the Eastern religions. I don't think I got anything worthwhile from Pirsig's philosophy itself, though.<br /><br /><br /><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.amazon.com/Feeling-Good-Therapy-Revised-Updated/dp/0380810336/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269356633&sr=1-1">Feeling Good</a><span style="font-weight: bold;">, David D. Burns.</span><br /><br />Having suffered from a chronic, low-grade depression for a few years, I read scores of self-help books. Most make you feel motivated and optimistic for a day or two but don't change your life. <span style="font-style: italic;">Feeling Good</span> is a miracle. Dr. Burns explains the theory behind cognitive-behavioral therapy in a very accessible way and it made me aware for the first time of all the automatic thoughts I had which had until that moment gone completely unexamined. The self-help exercises in this book had immediate, dramatic effects for me in an extremely positive way. It also changed the way I thought about the human mind and the human brain.<br /><br /><br /><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.amazon.com/Name-Asher-Lev-Chaim-Potok/dp/1400031044/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_c">My Name is Asher Lev</a><span style="font-weight: bold;">, Chaim Potok.</span><br /><br />All of Potok's novels are fantastic, but I think this one had the most effect on me. The story of a young hasid torn between his religion and family on the one hand and his artistic integrity and expression -- one might say his soul -- on the other, it brings the reader into the Asher Lev's turmoil. Although I am not an artist, I too felt the conflict between family and religion on the one side and my own integrity and perhaps my soul on the other. This book made me feel less alone while I was going through that.Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.com22tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-31614527722722884102010-02-22T17:19:00.002-05:002010-02-22T17:21:43.836-05:00A Modern Bookburning<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-7A6nKuvuk0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-7A6nKuvuk0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />Via <a href="http://modernorthoprax.blogspot.com/2010/02/you-tube-video-of-rosh-yeshivah.html">XGH</a>.Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-15893901044355431832010-01-22T09:50:00.003-05:002010-01-22T09:57:05.780-05:00Why We Need Health Care Reform<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_y4Ew36TkjKE/S1m7js4sbvI/AAAAAAAAAMc/M9ImOhCbC38/s1600-h/4253810476_5751ac7ed6_o.jpg"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 283px; height: 400px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_y4Ew36TkjKE/S1m7js4sbvI/AAAAAAAAAMc/M9ImOhCbC38/s400/4253810476_5751ac7ed6_o.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5429577047790612210" /></a><br />Just a reminder.<br /><br />(Image from <a href="http://schuhlelewis.blogspot.com/">Schuhle Lewis</a>. Some other cool ones there as well, on various topics.)Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-51373816573172093772009-12-25T17:30:00.005-05:002009-12-25T18:00:46.631-05:00The Bind of Orthodoxy: Tolerance and Toevah*On Tuesday, four gay Orthodox men spoke at Yeshiva University, sharing their stories and answering questions. (<a href="http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2009/12/being-gay-in-orthodox-world.html">Unofficial transcript</a>, with names changed.) <br /><br />That this event took place is a step in the right direction, of course. Some elements within modern Orthodoxy are pushing hard to spread a message of tolerance and sensitivity. I commend them for that. But they've already stretched the limits of Orthodoxy to the breaking point. They can go no further, and it's not clear that they can sustain the expansion of tolerance that they have achieved.<br /><br />This is a letter signed by 5-7 (versions vary) roshei yeshiva**:<br /><br /><blockquote>The Torah requires that we relate with sensitivity to a discreet individual who feels that he/she has a homosexual orientation, but abstains from any and all homosexual activity. Such sensitivity, however, cannot be allowed to erode the Torah’s unequivocal condemnation of homosexual activity. The Torah’s mitzvos and judgments are eternally true and binding. Homosexual activity constitutes an abomination. As such, publicizing or seeking legitimization even for the homosexual orientation one feels runs contrary to Torah. In any forum or on any occasion when appropriate sympathy for such discreet individuals is being discussed, these basic truths regarding homosexual feelings and activity must be emphatically re-affirmed.</blockquote><br /><br />And this is a message from the president and principal of RIETS, the rabbinical seminary of YU:<br /><br /><blockquote>In light of recent events, we want to reiterate the absolute prohibition of homosexual relationships according to Jewish law. Of course, as was indicated in a message issued by our Roshei Yeshiva, those struggling with this issue require due sensitivity, although such sensitivity cannot be allowed to erode the Torah's unequivocal condemnation of such activity. Sadly, as we have discovered, public gatherings addressing these issues, even when well-intentioned, could send the wrong message and obscure the Torah's requirements of halakhic behavior and due modesty. Yeshiva has an obligation to ensure that its activities and events promote the primacy and sacredness of Torah in our lives and communities. We are committed to providing halakhic guidance and sensitivity with respect to all challenges confronted by individuals within our broader community, including homosexual inclinations, in a discreet, dignified and appropriate fashion.</blockquote><br /><br />We must be sensitive, but homosexuality is an abomination. We regret that Orthodox Judaism's rules and stigmas against homosexuality cause untold suffering and sometimes suicide, but we must be terribly careful not to send the message (chas v'shalom!) that homosexual behavior is okay. It's *more* important to avoid sending that message than it is to promote understanding and sensitivity.<br /><br />The Torah says that (male) homosexuality is an abomination, and that those who engage in homosexual behavior deserve to be killed. Orthodox Judaism says that the Torah is true and is the foundation for all that is good. This cannot ultimately be reconciled with what every decent person living in a modern society in the 21st century knows to be true: that love is love.<br /><br />The Torah is the problem, and as long as Orthodox Judaism maintains that the Torah is the word of God, Orthodox Judaism is the problem. If you are an Orthodox Jew, *you* are part of the problem.<br /><br />People wrote the Torah. That this is controversial to anybody at this point is frankly insane. There's no magical sky god that dictated this scroll to a great man named Moses at the top of a mountain for 40 days and 40 nights thousands of years ago. Are you all children? This is a story for children, or perhaps primitive illiterates like the ones who were the original audience for this story.<br /><br />That was then and this is now, and you need to step up and start being honest with yourselves and each other. You can't be tolerant or sensitive as long as you believe that the Creator of the Universe thinks that homosexuality is an abomination and you willingly worship him.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />*Toevah: abomination.<br />**Roshei yeshiva: heads of religious instruction.Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.com47tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-15183544642030849202009-12-08T10:25:00.010-05:002009-12-08T10:54:53.366-05:00Mazel Tov To Chelsea Clinton!<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_y4Ew36TkjKE/Sx50ePmw8YI/AAAAAAAAAMM/reLDXgblG9g/s1600-h/clinton_mezvinsky_033109_c.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 209px; height: 300px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_y4Ew36TkjKE/Sx50ePmw8YI/AAAAAAAAAMM/reLDXgblG9g/s400/clinton_mezvinsky_033109_c.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5412891865079935362" border="0" /></a>Cross-Currents, representing the warmth and love of right-wing religious people everywhere, wishes <a href="http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2009/12/01/no-hearty-mazal-tov-for-chelsea/">No Hearty Mazal Tov For Chelsea</a>. Why? She's marrying a Jew. And she's not one.<br /><br />That reminded me of a dream I had when I was first going OTD. I was, in this dream, engaged to Chelsea Clinton! And my parents were fuming that I wanted to marry a non-Jew.<br /><br />It's not that I was ever particularly interested in Chelsea Clinton, romantically. I think the role she played in my dream was like the role Sidney Portier played in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guess_Who%27s_Coming_to_Dinner">Guess Who's Coming To Dinner</a>: a perfect catch who had no flaws a parent could complain about, forcing the parent to oppose the marriage on explicitly racial (religious) grounds or not at all.<br /><br />I think it's a damn shame when the response to the engagement of two people in love is anything but celebration. If your religion (or prejudice) causes you to feel something else just because the couple are Jewish and gentile or black and white or members of the same sex, well, your religion (or prejudice) just kinda sucks.<br /><br />(Previously: Intermarriage and Interdating, Part <a href="http://jewishatheist.blogspot.com/2006/05/on-intermarriage-and-interdating.html">I</a> and <a href="http://jewishatheist.blogspot.com/2006/05/intermarriage-and-interdating-part-ii.html">II</a>.)Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.com62tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-27567773053881359502009-11-03T11:28:00.003-05:002009-11-03T11:49:33.555-05:00America Is Insane: War vs. Health CarePresident Obama just signed a 680 billion dollar "defense" appropriations bill. That does not include the cost of either war!<br /><br />But we're having an enormous debate about spending 90 billion dollars a year for health care (which will probably end up being deficit neutral anyway!)<br /><br />America is insane. There's all the money in the world for wars and guns and planes and bombs and soldiers stationed all over the world (we have 50,000 military personnel in Germany alone!) but spending a tiny fraction of that on health care is somehow deemed irresponsible socialism.<br /><br />Hat tip: Chris Hayes via <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/budget_context.html">Ezra Klein</a>.Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-21203982364621968092009-10-27T11:40:00.004-04:002009-10-27T11:44:44.443-04:00My Message For A Gay Orthodox JewChana <a href="http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2009/10/to-be-orthodox-homosexual-jew.html">writes</a> about a gay Orthodox YU student with a <a href="http://anotherfrumgayjew.blogspot.com/">blog</a>.<br /><br />Here is my message for him and anyone else in a similar position:<br /><blockquote>Just read about you on Chana's blog. My heart goes out to people like you who suffer unnecessarily. I grew up Orthodox and it is my honest belief that it is 100% untrue. There is no God and he did not write or dictate or inspire the Torah. The words of Leviticus were written by mere mortals a couple thousand years ago and should no more keep you from finding and experiencing love (and/or sex) than the Book of Mormon should.<br /><br />I've been around Orthodoxy and Orthodox Jews long enough to know I'm never going to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced (unless they're unusually intellectually honest AND curious) but I really, truly believe that the case is a slam dunk if you are willing to consider it.<br /><br />There's just no good reason for you to live a life of suffering and deprivation. I hope you realize that sooner rather than later.<br /><br />Feel free to email me, and good luck.</blockquote>Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-53340907761473685882009-10-20T13:05:00.004-04:002009-10-20T13:12:55.644-04:00Life's Origin -- A New Hypothesis<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427306.200-was-our-oldest-ancestor-a-protonpowered-rock.html?full=true">Awesome</a>:<br /><blockquote>The <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro1991" target="nsarticle">picture painted</a> by Russell and Martin is striking indeed. The last common ancestor of all life was not a free-living cell at all, but a porous rock riddled with bubbly iron-sulphur membranes that catalysed primordial biochemical reactions. Powered by hydrogen and proton gradients, this natural flow reactor filled up with organic chemicals, giving rise to proto-life that eventually broke out as the first living cells - not once but twice, giving rise to the bacteria and the archaea.<br /><br />Many details have yet to be filled in, and it may never be possible to prove beyond any doubt that life evolved by this mechanism. The evidence, however, is growing. This scenario matches the known properties of all life on Earth, is energetically plausible - and returns Mitchell's great theory to its rightful place at the very centre of biology.</blockquote><br />See also <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17987-how-life-evolved-10-steps-to-the-first-cells.html">Ten Steps To The First Cells</a>.Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-6748739931126791772009-10-09T11:09:00.005-04:002009-10-09T11:33:10.081-04:00WTF: Obama Wins The Nobel Peace Prize?I thought it was an article from the Onion at first. And then... "What?!"<br /><blockquote>The Norwegian Nobel Committee said it gave the prize to Obama for his "efforts to strengthen international diplomacy," his "vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons" and for inspiring hope and creating "a new climate in international politics."</blockquote><br />Emphasizing diplomacy ahead of force is a big improvement, but at this point it's mostly just rhetoric. He's only just started to accomplish something in Iran with diplomacy. Elsewhere, we're still fighting TWO wars and he's considering escalating one of them. He's effectively covered up and excused much of the previous administrations' torture and gross human rights violations and Guantanamo Bay remains open and running. He increased the size of the "defense" budget. He has spoken about ridding the world of nuclear weapons but not indicated how that could happen nor done anything about it. He has made no appreciable progress in Israel and Palestine.<br /><br />Obama does not deserve this award. I hope that knowing he doesn't deserve it makes him feel obligated to earn it retroactively.Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.com22