[Avodah] how do you teach emuna?

[Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah]

Reuvain Meir Caplan's comment on Slifkin on FB:

> It's funny how Rabbi Slifkin writes in such a fundamentalist way in 
> lack of nuance, yet criticizes such fundamentalism. He describes the 
> two approaches as being the ONLY approaches available besides his own. 
> I agree that both approaches described are bad, but I also think it is 
> wrong to assume that the third option mentioned is the only other way 
> to go. After all, if a Mormon experience filled someone with religious 
> inspiration/beauty, is Rabbi Slifkin saying one should be Mormon???! 
> (obviously not). I think that a better approach is to actually deal 
> with the issues. If we truly believe that Torah is from HaShem, than 
> there has to be an answer to these problems in either the 
> interpretation of Scientific evidence (or lack thereof), or in 
> understanding the Torah itself (including such things as the idea that 
> Chazal used the science of their day). This is what I was hoping this 
> group could assist in. We need orthodox Jewish scientists who are 
> expert in the field under discussion to be able to objectively say 
> what is a matter of interpretation of results versus indisputable 
> observed fact. Some of (and I emphasize some) the so called 
> "pseudo-science" approaches are not that bad as they show an 
> alternative interpretation of the scientific findings which does not 
> contradict the Torah. No one should ever claim that such arguments 
> "prove" anything, only that they show that the "science" does not 
> dis-prove the Torah. This removes a "barrier of belief" and allows 
> rational modern individuals to be able to approach Torah seriously. If 
> the schools do not have OJ scientists on hand (which they don't) than 
> they should teach these issues a'la RYGB and describe every opinion, 
> why that opinion thinks they are right, where to go to find more info, 
> and who to talk to. No hiding anything and no making things up.

Craig Winchell's comment there:

> I found it tragic that he took 2 laughable books and felt the need to 
> argue against them. He should fight those deserving of the fight. Let 
> those who still have standing fight the good fight against these books 
> and the philosophies behind them. By making it his fight, when he 
> himself has been discredited (improperly or properly), he is 
> guaranteeing that his argument will not be taken seriously among those 
> who have the power to change the Jewish world. As it is, there are 
> plenty who would pooh-pooh these books and those who believe they 
> represent a legitimate view of the world.

My comment there:

> He picked two strawmen and skewered them. Big deal.
> Don Quixote tilting at the windmills.

KT,

YGB



On 8/1/2016 12:32 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote:
> r slifkin here
>
>  [ 
> http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2016/07/strengthening-emunah-via-denying.html?utm_content=buffer35a29&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer 
>  ]
>
> argues essentially that the teachers of emunah  are using invalid 
> arguments.
>
> is anybody writing / teaching with methods that are not assailable?
> or is it that in a hermetically sealed environment these types of 
> arguably flawed posits are sufficient?
>  is it even possible to teach in an irrefutable way , or will there 
> always be a 'ta shma'  on any type of proofs one tries to bring?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avodah at lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160801/4b17fd1e/attachment-0004.htm>