tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post1717089797128473925..comments2024-03-28T02:08:17.990+02:00Comments on Daas Torah - Issues of Jewish Identity: Do frum self-help books contain ancient Torah wisdom - or pop psychology?Daas Torahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07252904288544083215noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-46391291405702040222014-02-10T20:18:36.552+02:002014-02-10T20:18:36.552+02:00"Confused" would be less confused if he ..."Confused" would be less confused if he realised that "Comfortably Numb" is Eddie.Chaimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05331877663627621320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-5614024977221094792013-09-12T02:23:42.351+03:002013-09-12T02:23:42.351+03:00'When I was an undergraduate student, I asked ...'When I was an undergraduate student, I asked Rabbi Dr Sacks, who recently retired as Chief rabbi of England, whether, as a philosopher, he had any proofs of the veracity of the Torah. he said he didn't.'<br /><br />The word 'proofs' is misleading. The real question is whether there are rational grounds for belief. No-one is asking for 'proof' and very few claim to have it. <br /><br />But aside from that I'm not sure I understand the gist of your point: is it that if someone like R.Sacks cannot provide reasonable grounds, then reasonable grounds cannot exist? Or that if he thinks there is no 'proof', then there can't be 'proof'?<br /><br />That sounds awfully close to the worship of idols!<br />Gollumnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-83226972318347382552013-09-11T20:03:20.229+03:002013-09-11T20:03:20.229+03:00Gollum, thanks for that link, I was about to post ...Gollum, thanks for that link, I was about to post it myself, but then saw you already did.<br /><br />Note also the comments of the very brave Chatam Sofer. <br /><br />Regarding the alleged qualifications of RLK, this is not credible evidence, and it contradicts what the other claims make.<br /><br />It is very easy to play Chinese whispers. The person who wrote on that very unprofessional website, probably misunderstood what was claimed about him elsewhere, assuming he is a Harvard graduate. <br /><br />This raises a further question - is it "apikorsus" to disprove an argument brought by a Rabbi, whether a kiruv one or otherwise? I think not. I think it is important to strive for Emet regardless of who you upset - in the yeshiva world. <br /><br />Now, I wish to make a claim which may upset people, but I do it l'shem Shamayaim. Religiosity is not always concurrent with truth or even the pursuit of truth. Religiosity can be based on personal experience, emotion, guilt, ego etc etc. <br /><br />An example is the Messianism of Habad. This was an exemplary Orthodox group, until this mystical messianism broke out. I had a discussion with R' Becher at the time, since a few years earlier I refused to accept his, and R' Shach's criticism of Habad (before the Messianic campaign came out in the open). So being close to a group, an having emotional ties can also blind us to logical thought. What R' Becher said was that all false messianic movements followed a similar pattern, the leader dies or converts, and the followers are in denial. <br /><br />Another issue is that some academics who become BTs and Rabbis, they lose their critical ability - so they use tricks, and dishonest methods, to prove and justify their beliefs, whereas in their former profession, they would not be able to get away with it.<br /><br />When I was an undergraduate student, I asked Rabbi Dr Sacks, who recently retired as Chief rabbi of England, whether, as a philosopher, he had any proofs of the veracity of the Torah. he said he didn't. <br /><br />there is also considerable problems in the Dogma of talmud and orthodoxy. For example, The Talmud (and Rambam) state that anyone who says that Moses wrote even one word or line of the Torah from his own mind, is an apikores (heretic). However, Abbaye, in Mesechet megillah, makes this very claim!<br /><br />R' Weinberg who was Rosh Yeshiva at Ner Yisroel, also wrote a book on faith, and pointed out that Maimonides claimed that the Torah hasn't changed, knowing full well that it has.<br /><br />So all these various "proofs" and dogmas, you have to take with a pinch of salt.<br /><br />Ben MIkrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07122937371918515052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-80661727273447236672013-09-11T18:38:10.062+03:002013-09-11T18:38:10.062+03:00Re-reading your comment I see I didn't quite g...Re-reading your comment I see I didn't quite grasp your point. You mean that were the codes found to be scientifically meaningful in the very same text that Rabbinic decision has made halakhic, that it would not only give reason to believe in the divine authorship of the written torah but also in the divine operations involved in the making of halakhic decisions.<br /><br />The argument, though interesting does sound a little suspect to me. It would have to, at the very least, be formulated more carefully! If there were more reason to believe in the statistical significance of the codes then further work in this direction would indeed be warranted. Gollumnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-71369930203084224822013-09-11T18:30:18.771+03:002013-09-11T18:30:18.771+03:00As to your first point, the petition very clearly ...As to your first point, the petition very clearly states:<br /><br />'Among the signatories below are some who believe that the Torah was divinely written. We see no conflict between that belief and the opinion we have expressed above.'<br /><br />It says this right above the actual signatures.<br /><br />Furthermore, the piece that you quote from Dr Aumann:<br /><br />'the data is too complex and ambiguous, and its analysis involves too many judgment calls, to allow reaching meaningful scientific conclusions.'<br /><br />is, in all relevant ways, the same conclusion as the others reached. <br /><br />The force of the codes inhered in them carrying scientifically meaningful conclusions; and it is certainly conveyed that they have such meaning when they are used for kiruv purposes. If they are merely a gematria-like phenomenon, let them be taught that way to those who find significance in such things rather than to manipulate skeptical people into believing in divine authorship.<br /><br />I find it strange that you think that mathematics, statistics and archaeology can only confirm the hypothesis with which the professional starts out with. The academic sciences use various mechanisms to try prevent bias distortion and other such problems. This is the whole point of control groups, peer reviews and what-not.The orthodox world seems to often use scientific research when it serves their purpose and to become radical skeptics of it when it does not.<br /><br />Let me see if I understand your last point. You agree (its not controversial) that the current Koren text is not identical with what tradition claims to having been given by God at Sinai. But, given that halakha is said to be the voice of the living god, that codes found in the text that is considered halakhic now, are still relevant. (Is the Koren text the only one considered Halakhic?)<br /><br />Its an interesting idea I would have to think about but it is worth noticing that if the codes were statistically relevant, the non-historicity of the text would still make the argument less clear-cut. And, its significance still ultimately rests on the statistics being scientifically significant in the first place.. <br /><br /><br /><br />Gollumnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-69248902829197289392013-09-11T16:19:59.435+03:002013-09-11T16:19:59.435+03:00One further resource, written by a Professor of Bi...One further resource, written by a Professor of Bible at Bar Ilan University:<br /><br />http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/opinions/cohen_codes_1.html<br /><br />Of relevance here is the section on the 'the opinion of the Torah greats throughout the generations on the historical accuracy of the Torah text',<br /><br />And also, of 'Means of persuasion aimed at the Charedi-religious community'.<br /><br /><br />Gollumnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-69270885248314917142013-09-11T16:19:02.031+03:002013-09-11T16:19:02.031+03:00Actually, a statistician who came into the fray be...Actually, a statistician who came into the fray believing, Prof Aumann (the frum Nobel Laureate game theoretician) does not share that opinion. As I said, he concludes that it's not a verifiable piece of statistics, and therefore "convincing" ends up translating to "fits with what I already believed". Dr Aumann's words: "During the years of the committee’s work, I became convinced that the data is too complex and ambiguous, and its analysis involves too many judgment calls, to allow reaching meaningful scientific conclusions." So all the Cal Tech petition shows is that you can find statisticians who do not believe in Torah miSinai to sign a paper.<br /><br />Much the way you can predict the results of a biblical archeology dig based on the religious stance of the researcher when he is placed in charge of it. The history of digs at Yericho alone proves that point.<br /><br />In any case, we're overly belaboring the details of an example neither of us think is significant. So I'll move on to another point you made...<br /><br />"[T]here were questions, in any case about whether the Torah had remained letter for letter unchanged for so long." That wouldn't really be relevant either, unless we were Tzeduqim, Xians or Qaraim. It would be more amazing if we validated the results of the halachic process atop the original text than the original text alone. Picture if Bible Codes proved that Hashem intended us in the days of computation to have a version of the Torah decided by majority vote of found copies!micha bergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11612144735431285113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-18878246004808043262013-09-11T15:27:59.030+03:002013-09-11T15:27:59.030+03:00Not to leave things in the air, here are the sourc...Not to leave things in the air, here are the sources for anyone interested: <br /><br />http://math.caltech.edu/code/petition.html<br /><br />'There is a common belief in the general community to the effect that many mathematicians, statisticians, and other scientists consider the claims to be credible. This belief is incorrect. On the contrary, the almost unanimous opinion of those in the scientific world who have studied the question is that the theory is without foundation. <br />The signatories to this letter have themselves examined the evidence and found it entirely unconvincing.' <br /><br />And, further info, at:<br /><br />http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/torah.htmlGollumnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-43460040465087919112013-09-11T15:19:02.322+03:002013-09-11T15:19:02.322+03:00This line of conversation is off-topic with the or...This line of conversation is off-topic with the original post so I am not going to pursue it much further.<br /><br />You are right: I did not follow on to Witzum and Rips response. As far as I understood it was not shown that there were 'errors' in the original list, but rather that the list had been very deliberately formulated in order to show what seemed (to someone unaware of the deliberate manipulation) to be statistically remarkable results. I am not sure then what you mean by a 'corrected list'. With the same amount of wiggle room Witzum and Rips had given themselves, similar results could be found using other, more mundane texts. <br /><br />Witzum and Rips were not open about the way that they formulated the list, and to those who do not know the various conventions of names and monikers in Judaism, nor Hebrew, the results seemed impressive. <br /><br />'the Torah isn't a random variable to begin with.'<br /><br />I'm not trained in statistics, so I'm not sure what this means, but there were questions, in any case about whether the Torah had remained letter for letter unchanged for so long. Apparently there are discussions in the talmud itself in which Rabbis claim that there have been variances. If you like I can find not the essays detailing all this. <br /><br />Again, apologies to Daat Torah for taking the discussion so off track. I was searching for information about R. Kelemen's academic background when I arrived at this article wondering whether anyone would have more info! TKS<br /><br />Gollumnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-74378446210163208162013-09-11T13:03:37.695+03:002013-09-11T13:03:37.695+03:00Gollum, yes... Someone did show that there were er...Gollum, yes... Someone did show that there were errors in the list of names and yahrzeits. But you must have missed the part where Witztum and Rips redid the the experiment with the corrected list and the results were <b>further</b> from the statistical model. The problem is more in the impossibility of validating or invalidating the statistical model, particularly since the letter sequence of the Torah isn't a random variable to begin with.<br /><br />I think that while I might be agreeing with your intent in "there is no rational basis for faith", I disagree with the actual statement. There is no philosophical argument upon which one can base their religious beliefs. That idea is as old as the Kuzari (1:!3, 63), older than the Rambam's attempt to do just that in the majority of the 2nd section of the Moreh Nevuchim. However, there are other rational bases than philosophical proof.micha bergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11612144735431285113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-57791873987738829232013-09-11T05:36:47.397+03:002013-09-11T05:36:47.397+03:00Daas Torah, I did see The Wikipedia article but it...Daas Torah, I did see The Wikipedia article but it leaves most of my questions unanswered.<br /><br />Eddie, thanks for clearing up the 'professor' confusion. I was unaware of the American use.<br /><br />The Kuzari argument does not have all that much weight and is not original to him which is why I am puzzled by the way he is characterized as an academic in the first place.<br /><br />Rabbi Gottlieb's arguments do not stand up to scrutiny either but there is no confusion or obfuscation about his credentials.<br /><br />I agree that there is no rational basis for faith.<br /><br />Gollumnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-40002724506296496642013-09-11T05:25:49.209+03:002013-09-11T05:25:49.209+03:00The original journal that published the statistica...The original journal that published the statistical research, published a 'solution' a few years later when some statisticians decided to replicate the experiment and realised that the original methodology had been flawed. The names of the 'Great Rabbis' chosen had been selected based on what would give statistically significant results. All these Rabbis went by a variety of monikers, acronyms etc, so there was plenty of wiggle room.Gollumnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-50513050128237467962013-09-11T00:42:14.507+03:002013-09-11T00:42:14.507+03:00Belief based on codes has its flaws, but no -- the...Belief based on codes has its flaws, but no -- they were NOT found in other books nor was the model invalidated. In fact, the problem is the model is insufficiently well defined to be invalidated. Or validated.<br /><br />The disproofs based on other books are (in every case I saw) finding interesting word pairs in those books. Not pre-selecting a list of such pairs and then seeing how many are found. It's the same difference as between flipping a coin 50 times and getting 48 heads (statiscally weird) and flipping a coin 100 times and pointing to the 48 times you got heads (unsurprising) -- and then saying the two are the same.<br /><br />As I said, it's not clearly defined math being paraded in front of people who can't keep up with the discussion either way, and "blinding them with science".micha bergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11612144735431285113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-75250825098444008002013-09-11T00:30:11.347+03:002013-09-11T00:30:11.347+03:00Wikipedia asserts that he has an undergraduate deg...Wikipedia asserts that he has an undergraduate degree<br /><br />"Kelemen was awarded his undergraduate degree at U.C.L.A. and did graduate studies at Harvard. He began his professional career as a downhill skiing instructor, served as the news director and anchorman for a California radio station, and then traveled to the Middle East to conduct 12 years of post graduate field research. For the past 5 years his weekend seminars have electrified parents, teachers, and university students across North and South America, Europe and the Middle East."Daas Torahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07252904288544083215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-7104727187052972632013-09-11T00:25:40.656+03:002013-09-11T00:25:40.656+03:00If he has no degree from Harvard, then it means he...If he has no degree from Harvard, then it means he sat in, in a few classes or was a ski instructor there.<br /><br />He may be a "professor" in a Sem, but that means he was appointed as a lecturer there, and that's it. A Professor has different meaning in the USA than it does in UK and Europe.<br />In America, a regular professor is a lecturer. A full professor is head of a department or has a Chair. In UK, only a full Professor has that title. So it can be misleading. <br /><br />As for the so-called Kuzari argument, and various other proofs, these are problematic. What if a real Philosopher (as opposed to someone who read a few haskofo books) shows these arguments to false? Then what, do we lose our emunah?<br /><br />The Torah codes, for example, were touted as proofs, until they were pointed out to be flawed, eg statistically, and that similar codes can be found in secular or treif books eg koran, NT). <br /><br />Our emunah is that we were brought out of Mitzrayim by Divine Miracle, and that the Torah was given on Sinai. Unfortunately, there have not been Neviim or open miracles for us for a few thousand years, so we have to look for philosophical type proofs - it is like a tonic to keep us going, until Nevuah is restored. I once suggested that the restoration of the Jewish people in Israel is a miracle, and a Rav said that even this , chas v'shalom, could be reversible. <br /><br />The problem with teaching philosophy is also prominent in Yeshivas. For example, R Cardozo was teaching real philosophy in a Yeshiva, and was kicked out for this reason. Reminds me of the woody allen joke, where he was employed as a token Jew in a goyisher law firm, and was kicked out because he took off too many Jewish holidays.<br />Ben MIkrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07122937371918515052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-88536325024772311342013-09-10T23:59:04.528+03:002013-09-10T23:59:04.528+03:00Oh, and I also see this description of him:
'...Oh, and I also see this description of him:<br /><br />'Harvard graduate, Rabbi Kelemen is a world expert on comparative religion...'<br /><br />on the following site:<br />http://www.israelunseen.com/tag/lawrence-keleman/<br /><br />Education, psychology, philosophy and comparative religion are significantly different disciplines in academia though they do have some overlap. gollumnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-2351713439966838392013-09-10T23:43:03.221+03:002013-09-10T23:43:03.221+03:00'It does not appear that R. Kelemen has any pr...'It does not appear that R. Kelemen has any professional credentials or accredidation as a "therapist." Check out his time at Harvard. It was in a seminar/independent study framework, with no degree involved.'<br /><br />I wonder if you could provide a source for this? I am a little confused about what his secular educational background actually is. I have read of an undergrad degree in literature and more than a decade's worth of 'research in the Middle East'. It is said (or suggested) that his post-grad studies were through Harvard. I can't find any information as to what this research was about. I assume that studying Torah at an Israeli yeshiva does not count as 'research in the Middle East'.<br /><br />In his argument about how we can know the torah is true, he mentions academic research he did concerning the revelation traditions of different cults and religions. His argument is essentially the same as the famous Kuzari argument, buffed up with additional info (or misinfo - ?). Did he co-incidentally fall into this line of reasoning and thus arrive at orthodox Judaism??<br /><br />I have also seen him referred to as a 'Professor of Education' and as teaching Medieval and Modern philosophy at Neve Yerushalayim. I was at Neve in 1997 (took his mechina 'course' more than once and some of his other classes) and remember nothing that was at all commensurate with philosophy as taught as an academic subject. He does teach what they call Hashkafah - philosophy as a general outlook. I also see references to him as a therapist, but can find no actual qualifications.<br /><br />I do know that he is a very popular and influential speaker, but i am confused about all this and hope someone can please clarify!gollumnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-5149440055681712822013-08-21T03:27:10.090+03:002013-08-21T03:27:10.090+03:00For those who are interested, Rav Shalom Arush has...For those who are interested, Rav Shalom Arush has an interested book out (in English and Hebrew) on childrearing, which is worth reading. yeshayanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-47746163284374730852013-08-19T10:09:50.097+03:002013-08-19T10:09:50.097+03:00It does not appear that R. Kelemen has any profess...It does not appear that R. Kelemen has any professional credentials or accredidation as a "therapist." Check out his time at Harvard. It was in a seminar/independent study framework, with no degree involved.One needs to decide if people providing "therapy based on (their understanding of) Torah," with no "professional" training or affiliations is good for the Jews of bad for the Jews. And there doesn't seem to be a consensus among Rav Volbe's closest talmidim about R. Kelemen's understanding of the mesorah. <br />observernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-78893539924588665942013-08-19T07:12:41.453+03:002013-08-19T07:12:41.453+03:00The book actually explains that modern American ps...<br /><br />The book actually explains that modern American psychology is becoming more like the traditional approaches we find mi Sinai. That is Rabbi Kelemen's point in To Kindle a Soul! To say there isn't a comprehensive educational system within Torah because it isn't codified is a misnomer - that itself is the style of the Gemora, and can't be used as an argument to say that therefore Chazal had no framework for education, and that it was something assumed to be endemic. There are many gemoras that have clear educational goals, with deep explanations that are not at first glance clear. Listen to Rabbi Kelemen's shiurim on education - he nukes the claim that chazal "assumed that knowing how to parent was an intuitive or natural thing." The gemara doesn't tell me what I would naturally know - and so why does it say, I believe in Tainas, that the teacher who is blessed is the one who would bring his students to the fish pond until they could receive from him. Excuse me - where do you find such a model in modern education? It isn't the Resource Room. Such behavior was out of the box then, and it's out of the box now. Contrarynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-2531436644974694942013-08-18T06:06:05.689+03:002013-08-18T06:06:05.689+03:00I don't think Comfortably Numb understood my q...I don't think Comfortably Numb understood my question. I'm asking that we use RELIGIOUS therapies - not secular ones!confusednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-62878971373343613582013-08-16T19:06:31.997+03:002013-08-16T19:06:31.997+03:00Excellent question from Confused. This is based on...Excellent question from Confused. This is based on the overall struggle against secular knowledge. There is a certain ideology that secular studies are treif, and that Rabbonim should be consulted for everything. The famous comments of Maimonides "accept the truth from wherever it comes" thus contradicts the anti-secularists view. As a matter of fact, Maimonides adapted a lot of Aristotelian ideas, including the Golden mean, into Jewish thought. Kuzari, however, claimed there was Jewish science going back all the way to Biblical era. So the same debate perhaps is valid today.Comfortably Numbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-13857961172091808222013-08-16T17:32:13.256+03:002013-08-16T17:32:13.256+03:00What's the big deal if "A psychology or t...What's the big deal if "A psychology or therapy based primarily or exclusive on Torah sources might be desirable - but it doesn't exist at present"?<br /><br />Why can't we just adapt the good parts of the religious therapies that non-Jewish theologians use?Confusednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-42724227369745259522013-08-16T17:32:05.692+03:002013-08-16T17:32:05.692+03:00Mr Plony,
I did not claim to a a Psy undergrad, ...Mr Plony,<br /><br />I did not claim to a a Psy undergrad, but I have taken some Psy courses at under, and post-Grad levels. <br /><br />Still waiting for evidence of a TBP - is there and TBP DMS for example? Or is that just yetzer tov vs yetzer hara?Comfortably Numbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-55478396474771326252013-08-16T13:37:28.981+03:002013-08-16T13:37:28.981+03:00DT writes: Conclusion - It is apparent from the co...DT writes: Conclusion - It is apparent from the comments to this post is that there is no such thing as Torah Psychology or Torah Therapy that was given at Sinai...<br /><br />DT: Please excuse my insolence, but for the life of me I can't seem to figure out either exactly WHAT your conclusion is or which blog comments made your conclusion so "apparent".<br /><br />Are you trying to differentiate between Torah "given at Sinai" vs. "our Tradition" – alluding that the Hashkafic texts of the Rishonim are not "given at Sinai"? I think that would be a rash statement to make – even in MO circles. They just fell into misuse, perhaps analogous to the Mitzvoh of Tefillin in the times of the Sma"g.<br /><br />Are you trying to differentiate between "insights…which can be used" vs. "a program of therapy"? I tried to figure out which comments address that, and only found Yoel on Aug 15 at 7:20? Is that all? If so, how about looking at SUCCESS RATES rather than splitting hairs? <br /><br />Back to the comments: Comfortably Numb – a self proclaimed psychology undergraduate – at August 14, 2013 at 2:12 AM admits that "nobody is claiming … even 50% cure rate in psychology", and as Observer at August 15, 2013 at 2:09 AM points out " how do you know that Torah can't work at least as often"? So whether we're dealing with "insights" or "programs of therapy" – our INSIGHTS could very well be working as well, or better, than secular PROGRAMS OF THERAPY.<br /><br />Another "elephant in the room" is the well researched issue of OVERDIAGNOSIS. The fellow IN CHARGE of writing the DSM IV – Allen Frances – wrote a best seller "Saving Normal" decrying this problem. The guy who WOTE THE BOOK FOR DIAGNOSIS is basically saying that's his book is being GROSSLY misused, and that many perfectly normal people are being misdiagnosed as mentally ill. I would think that this not insignificant number of clients SURELY have a good chance of responding to Torah "insights".<br /><br />Please don't let your conditioning get in the way of your intellect. Don't draw brash conclusions based on non-existent comments.<br />Ploninoreply@blogger.com