My new favorite band

This song in particular just speaks to me.

Letters

Two letters I enjoyed from last week's New Scientist:

I don't believe it
Roy Sablosky Takoma Park, Maryland, US

The first four letters you printed on the "Beyond belief" conference (9 December 2006, p 24) invoke the "brilliant insight" that atheism is itself a belief. This is rubbish, and New Scientist should not be promulgating it.

An atheist simply does not believe in any gods. By definition, this is not a belief. Just as nakedness is not a way of getting dressed; sleep is not a technique for paying attention; sunlight is not a kind of shade (nor even its opposite): atheism simply means that one has no religious beliefs.

Even to call it "non-belief" is perhaps misleading. After all, when you're feeling comfortable you don't call it "non-pain".

Many believers literally cannot imagine that atheism is possible. But millions of us enjoy it - all day, every day.
From issue 2586 of New Scientist magazine, 13 January 2007, page 19

And

Investigating design
Henry Law Brighton, East Sussex, UK

Creationism is indeed worthy of serious investigation - as an exercise in social anthropology (16 December 2006, p 8). Adherents of Christianity and Judaism are not required to believe in the literal truth of scripture. [BJ: Wonder who he's been talking to? Not charedim, that's for sure.] In order to do so, creationists must first accept that these texts came directly from God, which raises the immediate question of how they came into existence. Were they encapsulated in a rock, perhaps a meteorite? Did they arrive in the form of a celestial email, perhaps via a modem connected to the numinal realm - to the mind of the supreme creator who conjured a material cosmos into being from eternity?

If indeed they imagine they can know the divine mind in this way, then they are claiming an authority which exceeds that which their humanity allows them. Only the numinal can fully comprehend itself; as Saint Paul points out, "we see through a glass darkly".

We must ask, then, why groups of people are taking up such a position, especially in the light of two centuries of philology that has demonstrated the fluidity of language. One reason could be that it espouses a form of totalitarianism. In the light of the last century's examples of totalitarianism, study of the present creationist revival could well be rewarding.
From issue 2586 of New Scientist magazine, 13 January 2007, page 18

To know or not to know

My friend Baal Habos's tagline, "Ignorance is bliss" got me thinking recently, as it has in the past. I have never quite been able to work out the answer to this question: If I could go back in time and prevent myself from becoming a skeptic (stopping myself from reading certain books, for example), would I do it?

Earlier on in this process, I would have done anything to go back to how I was. There's so much security in religion, and casting oneself adrift is frightening. And I guess I still had the niggling feelings that OJ could still be correct.

When I asked TO this question a while ago, his answer was instant: he'd rather know the truth, even though it's harder. At the time I didn't agree with him, but I think I have finally arrived at that point. I'm pretty sure that the more I read (about documentary hypothesis, comparative religion, or even traditional Jewish sources), the surer I'll be that I've gone down the right path.

The future is a little more uncertain than it was, but I've dropped so much guilt. I am optimistic that we'll find a place (theologically as well as physically). That we'll strike a balance between freedom of thought and cherishing our heritage.

In retrospect, I look down on the old me, just a little. She prided herself on her analytical skills, but she never put it all together. And now all the pieces are in place, I wouldn't have it any other way. Ignorance might be bliss, but knowledge is real.

What I've dropped

For the people to whom this is actually important, or for those who are just nosy, I thought I'd list the commandments I've dropped over my course to becoming a skeptic. I'll go in chronological order (earliest first). For the record, I think I'm 80-90% orthoprax. The remaining 10-20% is generally only in private, or where I wouldn't be seen by anyone I know. This will change as I feel like it.

1. Chalav yisrael was the first to go. That was ages ago.
2. I've always been a bit slack with brachot and birkat hamazon. I still say things out of habit but I always forgot half the time and still do. I'm just too absent-minded.
3. I started wearing pants and short sleeves after I got married. But I still cover my hair (most of the time anyway) which is fun, because it confuses people.
4. I haven't davened regularly for a long time now. But I still say a bit when I'm in shule on Shabbat. I quite like it.
5. I haven't learned for a while either.
6. I drink "non-kosher" wine.
7. I eat non-kosher vegetarian food. And packaged food... somehow it seems less treif. (Well, it's probably only gelatin and we always held that it was OK anyway.) I will probably eat treif meat at some stage, but our kitchen is 100% kosher. Well, as kosher as it ever was. Some people wouldn't eat in it.
   
8. I don't wait very long between meat and milk, although I don't eat them together.
   
9. On Shabbat I will turn lights on and off if I need to. And I push the button at the crosswalk if I've got my baby with me. And turn the "blech" off after we're finished with it.

That's about it. My husband, who initially suggested I go through all 613 commandments, made an excellent point as he read this post over my shoulder. He said that many of these things depend on where you're coming from. To some, nothing I've done is a big deal at all. To others, I was an apikores all along, I just didn't know it. Certainly many of the things I've done can be justified one way or another. But that's not really the point. The point is that I've made a mindshift. I used to justify the things I was lax in. Now, I keep what I want to and don't keep what I don't want to keep. I used to defend the modern Orthodox viewpoint until I was blue in the face. Now, I still see it as preferable to the Charedi viewpoint, which I believe is more flawed than MO. But at the end of the day, I don't believe in either. So my only real justification is this: the god I don't believe in lets me.

A marriage made in... ?

Apparently if you make three shidduchim, you have automatic entry to Gan Eden. So maybe I have an ulterior motive here... could be easier than Pascal's wager. I could get in and still eat pork one day. ;)

Anyway, here's the deal.

As should be evident from the husband-wife team running this blog, I am happily in a marriage that would be made in heaven ... if I believed in heaven. Unfortunately, I've also seen relationships break down because one partner has become skeptical and the other is still a believer. Then there are the single skeptics. Some are divorced, some never married, some looking, some not ready yet. But for many I'm sure, you're in a difficult situation. You're might be secretly skeptical, or you may have cut ties with the community and thus the matchmaking services that being in an Orthodox community provides (professional or casual). What's a girl/guy to do?

Well, here's the solution. A fellow skeptic, henceforth known as the Skeptoshadchan, has started a skeptic "dating service". What a brilliant idea (IMO, at least).

At present, the Skeptoshadchan wishes to remain anonymous. Consider me an agent for the Skeptoshadchan. BTA is another. If you'd like to get on the file, send an email to bilbulatsiaATgmailDOTcom with your profile. You don't have to have a blog or even read blogs: you might mention this to a friend who you think might be interested.

It's hard to write a definitive list of items to include without knowing what's important to you. But as a minimum:
1. Basic stats: Name (full or internet nickname, whatever you like), age, sex, location, divorced/never married, an idea of what you look like (need I mention that lying will lead to ultimate disappointment?) or a photo.
2. Skeptic status: how long have you been doubting? What do you doubt? Have you "come out" about your skepticism to your family?
3. Observance: what do you keep or want to keep in future? Do you want to be fully orthoprax, traditional, or never step foot in a shul again?
4. Any other characteristics that are important to you in a mate.

I'd like to especially ask women to speak up. The skeptic world is male-dominated, but I believe that this is because women tend to be less vocal and are more likely to "just go along with it", not because there are less female skeptics around.

As a final note, I'd like to discourage time-wasters. This service is for genuine skeptics who genuinely want to meet someone to marry. Not for hooking up or for kiruv clowns. Complete unknowns may be asked for someone to vouch for them.

UPDATE: The Skeptoshadchan now has a blog.
Another reference to this project.

Movin' out

I can't remember where I got the link to this article, so I owe someone a hat-tip. It might have been on TFSG but it's been open on my desktop for so long, I can't remember.

Anyway, it got me thinking. I don't want to judge anyone, but this guy's process of "freying out" has me confused. He says that is was a really quick process, suddenly he just started breaking Shabbat, went to India and smoked pot. What's with that?

I guess it just confuses me because it's the exact opposite of my process. He dropped Orthopraxis first. I've dropped Orthodoxy, and some parts of Orthopraxis but not the whole package.


Maybe it just all means different things in Israel. I don't know. I just feel that if your actions don't flow from your world view, there's soimething a little awry there. I mean, if you believe, you should do what you believe. If you don't believe -- well, it gets much more complex. But I can't respect a person who leaves his religion so that he can have sex with lots of women is a bit sad. (Not as sad as someone who stays in it and molests children, though.)