Sunday, May 14, 2006


Godol Hador said:

* "Chareidi Judaism no longer stands for emmes"
* "Chareidi Judaism is sheker incarnate"
* "any commitment based on sheker is sheker itself, and cannot be accepted. It has to be rejected COMPLETELY and ABSOLUTELY by every decent minded person"
* "Likewise any ideology which insists on certain beliefs no matter what the evidence CANNOT
and MUST NOT be accepted, it is sheker through and through."

I emailed to GH and asked:

Your recent posts have taken the direction that being that you consider science to be Emes (based on the evidence and rationality of it), you therefore conclude that if Charedism oppose the findings of science, then Charedism must be sheker.

Obviously, that disturbs me.

A) The feeling that my whole upbringing and Derech Hachaim is a lie.

B) Its even harder for me think, that so many true Gedolei Yisroel from all the generations, all lived a life of Sheker.

Your position that Charedism is Sheker, is based on that Science is Emes. But is science indeed truly "Emes"?

When I see someone driving a car, I don't use my reasoning to conclude that someone drove a car. I saw it! But when I see a Jew driving on Shabbos, I don't "see'' Chilul Shabbos. He could have been driving to the hospital. But if I do use the "evidence" and then use my reasoning to conclude that he was Mechalel Shabbos (the guy is a known mechalel shabbos etc), could that conclusion be considered as Emes?

I know that this analogy isn't the best. But is my argument here correct? When you reach a conclusion via rationality and evidence, and you prove that your conclusion works, being that you never "saw it", just rather its a proven conclusion, does that classify it as Emes? Meaning, since your conclusion is based on evidence and reason, perhaps new evidence might be found.

To quote you in your last Mussar Shmooz "Any fundamental which requires absolute belief no matter what is bull, because you can never know what the evidence will bring". There are constant new discoveries. Now we are being told that Ants are 40 million years older than previously thought. Yes, you claim that science is proven and we can rely on it. And it works.

But can you stamp it as "Emes"?

If science is proven conclusions, but not "Emes" per se, then you can't label Charedism as Sheker.

Sure enough in his next post, he wrote:

"This does not mean that any arguments or theories advanced by these people are necessarily false"

I asked him:

Have you retracted those statements (the ones quoted above that charedism is sheker)?
If you are intellectualy honest, then it is incumbent that you publicly apologize for labeling a significant sector of Judaism as Sheker incarnate.

And here it came. GH's admission. That Charedism is NOT sheker:

"OK, that was maybe a little harsh. However by refusing to recognize the full scope of evidence from Science & History, Chareidi Judaism cannot claim to be intellectually honest, so theirs is a very shekker style approach. But I agree to categorically state it is sheker is hard, since absolute truth & falsehood is beyond our grasp"

But GH can't leave it that Charedim are right. If they aren't Sheker incarnate (whatever that means), then its a "very shekker style approach" because they cannot claim to be intellectually honest.

And that will IY"H be the topic on another post.


Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Free Site Counter
Get a Free Site Counter