Stepping Away From Orthodoxy

Status
Not open for further replies.

semilargeintestine

BassGirl 5000
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
4,763
Reaction score
1,034
I am starting this thread at the suggestion of Ruv in the Present Time Awareness thread. It came up in that thread that I used to be a fairly Orthodox Jew up until recently. Anyone who has seen my posts in this forum and even in others is probably aware of that. I walked away from it not too long ago, and Ruv thought it would be interesting if I explained why and maybe fostered some discussion about it. So if this is uninteresting or otherwise stupid, blame him. :D

The best place to start would be what propelled me into orthodoxy, because I didn't grow up that way. I decided to become orthodox several years ago during a free trip to Israel. Before the trip, I didn't really know how to classify myself, but I definitely thought orthodoxy was a bunch of bologna. During the trip, however, I experienced some stuff that I couldn't explain, and the feeling in that country is a very spiritual one. Surrounded by all those people who seemed to know very clearly what the answer was, I was taken in and caught up in it all. I came home 100% orthodox.

I think that my experiences are pretty well represented in this graph, which I present courtesy of Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, a great web comic:

20100117.gif


So, fast forward to why I walked away. I guess it's a combination of things. My belief in God never really jibed with Orthodox belief. I always viewed "God" simply as being the universe and nature at large--maybe not necessarily a conscious, free-willed being, but more of a collective consciousness made up of everything in the universe. Science and mathematics seemed to me the language of "God" and our feeble attempts to understand how the universe works as getting closer to that from which we ultimately come.

Orthodox Judaism essentially requires one to believe in a separate, non-physical entity that not only is capable of thought, but does think and acts deliberately in the world. It is a philosophical problem in most religions of course why there is suffering, and the answer is simply that our concept of justice does not equate to God's vision of all the universe and all time.

This never made sense to me. Viewing God as some sort of a person who is screwing around with people to teach them lessons or otherwise amuse himself just seemed like an immature understanding of how things work. The more I started to question this and couldn't find answers that made sense, the less faith I had in the God portrayed by Western religions. The Pantheistic view of "God" made far more sense to me, so it wasn't long before I started to view the daily routine of an Orthodox Jew as pointless. I went down to praying twice a day instead of three times, then to not praying at all. I stopped keeping the super strict kosher laws and eventually ate out at a non-kosher restaurant. I took back up meditation to replace praying, and funny enough, I feel closer to "God" now than I did when I was Orthodox.

I still think that Jews have a certain level of spirituality, but I think that it is based on how we are raised as opposed to a difference in our "soul" or something like that. We are raised to believe in a Higher Power, whether we follow the commandments or not, so we just are more in tune with our spiritual side. This may or may not be something natural, I don't know. I also still believe in God, but I don't really like that word. The word implies certain things that do not match my beliefs, but I don't have another word to use.

I just realised how long this is, and I hope it wasn't too boring. I'm totally open to discussing it or answer questions, friendly or not. So if you're curious, just ask. :)
 

AMCrenshaw

...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
4,671
Reaction score
620
Website
dfnovellas.wordpress.com
what is the difference, to you, between naturalistic pantheism and atheism?

i personally can see no difference and this is how i identify myself as well. the pan- or a-is really determined by my mood. so i simply say 'nontheist.' when i realized this, that all- and no- are the same to me, the question of the being's existence became irrelevant.
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
The Pantheistic view of "God" made far more sense to me, so it wasn't long before I started to view the daily routine of an Orthodox Jew as pointless. I went down to praying twice a day instead of three times, then to not praying at all. I stopped keeping the super strict kosher laws and eventually ate out at a non-kosher restaurant. I took back up meditation to replace praying, and funny enough, I feel closer to "God" now than I did when I was Orthodox.
Thanks for these thoughts, Semi.

It's hardly comparable, but a few days back I was listening to a BBC interview with Egyptian Khalid al-Berry, a former member of the Islamist movement Jama’a Islamiya who was jailed for belonging to a terrorist organisation. Al-Berry authored the book Life is More Beautiful than Paradise: A Jihadist's Own Story. A former medical student and later a Jihadist, al-Berry is now a writer living in London. He writes:
I was not attracted to the radicals’ brand of religion; I was attracted to them as people. I was 14 and the first time I knew one of them, we were playing football and he was a very decent person who took care of people around him. We built up a relationship as human beings. Then we started talking about religion and going to the mosque. This was 1986 and Egyptian society was not religious. We created a new way of looking at life which stated that this life is very short and real life is after death. They taught us that Islam means you can't argue about text because the text is what God said.

[...]

I used to think there was only one way to know truth – the divine way, the infallible way. But now I believe that the most dangerous thing in life is to let people become convinced that truth has just one face. At the root of forgiveness and tolerance is the belief that truth has MANY different faces and that the face you see of truth is not in any way of better value than the faces others see.

I don’t believe you can have forgiveness without justice, but justice doesn’t mean revenge. A lot of people radicalised in the Islamist movement are locked into this primitive thinking that revenge is justice. [...]

When I was a victim I thought protection meant violence. I thought, why should I be tight-handed when others are hitting at me? I don’t believe that now, but equally I feel guilty if I talk in a humanist way about the lives of people who don’t have the basic right to live safe in peace. There needs to be transparency before forgiveness.

Semi again said:
I just realised how long this is, and I hope it wasn't too boring. I'm totally open to discussing it or answer questions, friendly or not. So if you're curious, just ask.
It wasn't too long or boring. But the change of view seems huge to me; almost a redefinition of self, but certainly a reshaping of what is important in the world and why. Perhaps that's why I connect it with al-Berry's interview. Does it seem huge to you?
 

bigb

Gun in Mouth Blues
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Messages
517
Reaction score
72
Location
Baltimore MD
Thank you for posting Semi.

I'm always curious to why people change points of view where god is concerned.

We all truly change so much simply with aging, and what we find important now, as to what we found important 10 years ago.

It certainly wasn't too short, or boring.
 

semilargeintestine

BassGirl 5000
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
4,763
Reaction score
1,034
what is the difference, to you, between naturalistic pantheism and atheism?

i personally can see no difference and this is how i identify myself as well. the pan- or a-is really determined by my mood. so i simply say 'nontheist.' when i realized this, that all- and no- are the same to me, the question of the being's existence became irrelevant.

As far as having the belief that there is no Creator or higher realms or anything, pantheism and atheism are identical. Additionally, they both have the same respect for evidence-based science, logic, and the progression of knowledge. To me, the major difference is that atheism is the starting point while pantheism takes it further.

Atheism answers the question of whether or not there is a Creator. But that's all it does. Atheism is nothing more than the belief that there are no deities or gods. Any additional view of our purpose here or the meaning of life, etc. goes beyond atheism. To me, pantheism offers an approach for answering those questions (though the major difference between pantheism and religion is that pantheism doesn't profess to have any answers--it simply encourages asking the questions and exploring them using a combination of logic and feeling).

Pantheism--or more specifically, World (or natural) Pantheism--essentially brings a form of spirituality and connectedness to the world and nature without forcing supernatural forces into the equation. It is perfectly okay to feel connected to the universe at large without attributing it to some form of higher being.

So, I would say I am an atheist because I do not believe in a supernatural being, but I would say I'm a pantheist because I believe it is possible to feel as part of a bigger entity that is this world.

Thanks for these thoughts, Semi.

It's hardly comparable, but a few days back I was listening to a BBC interview with Egyptian Khalid al-Berry, a former member of the Islamist movement Jama’a Islamiya who was jailed for belonging to a terrorist organisation. Al-Berry authored the book Life is More Beautiful than Paradise: A Jihadist's Own Story. A former medical student and later a Jihadist, al-Berry is now a writer living in London. He writes:

While it's not comparable because of the extremes our two experiences were on, the way we found them is pretty similar. It's amazing how being around people you admire can influence even your core beliefs.

It wasn't too long or boring. But the change of view seems huge to me; almost a redefinition of self, but certainly a reshaping of what is important in the world and why. Perhaps that's why I connect it with al-Berry's interview. Does it seem huge to you?

It seemed more of a change to me when I became Orthodox. It seems like less of a change to me now and more like a weight has been lifted off my shoulders. Realising that there is no sentient individual up there watching my every move has allowed me to enjoy life so much more. I think of it not as a test, but as a chance to explore this huge place and learn as much as possible about myself and the universe. So yes, it feels huge, but in a good way.

Thank you for posting Semi.

I'm always curious to why people change points of view where god is concerned.

We all truly change so much simply with aging, and what we find important now, as to what we found important 10 years ago.

It certainly wasn't too short, or boring.

Thanks. :) I'm fascinated by religion and peoples' beliefs, especially how they evolve over time.
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
what is the difference, to you, between naturalistic pantheism and atheism?
Naturalistic pantheism looks to me like mystical atheism. I'm an unmystical atheist. I can admire nature but I don't see it as a unity. The aesthetics that people use to make it look coherent and harmonious seem to ignore the violence, chaos and entropy. Moreover, such aesthetics ofen end up in moral pronouncements, so I'm suspicious that they may be an excuse for moral preference anyway.
 

semilargeintestine

BassGirl 5000
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
4,763
Reaction score
1,034
I think I'd be careful using the term mystical. The word implies something supernatural, and pantheism definitely rejects that. It's more what you said about connectedness--that it's possible to feel connected to the world as a whole and everything in it.
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
I think I'd be careful using the term mystical. The word implies something supernatural, and pantheism definitely rejects that.
Mysticism doesn't necessarily mean supernatural, but it does mean mystery -- especially, secret connectivity.

Nature to me is fascinating, complex, wondrous, but from a human perspective it isn't especially benign, directed, purposeful, predestined or harmonious, and while there are unknowns I don't think that there are secret veils to be pierced.
 

semilargeintestine

BassGirl 5000
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
4,763
Reaction score
1,034
Neither do I, and that's why I don't think mystical is a good term. I don't think many pantheists believe there are hidden layers of nature to be explored. I do, however, think nature is harmonious. I think that when it is viewed in parts out of complex, it can appear to be otherwise, but harmonious means to have inner components working pleasingly or appropriately combined. I think that the universe as a whole is ordered in a pretty harmonious way, otherwise we wouldn't be here.
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
I think that the universe as a whole is ordered in a pretty harmonious way, otherwise we wouldn't be here.
That's what I mean, though. We happen to be tucked into a remote pocket that however briefly, supports human life, and from that we assume that everything is ordered for the good. It feels like a kind of mystical entitlement to me. I can accept that nature is big and awesome, but I don't accept that it has any special fondness for life, or for humanity. We can choose to love nature all we like, but I don't believe that nature loves us back.
 

bigb

Gun in Mouth Blues
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Messages
517
Reaction score
72
Location
Baltimore MD
I don't think appropriately combined means for the good. Nor does harmonious always mean good. It works together because otherwise, it couldn't exist.

So, it doesn't seem all that mysterious to feel apart of that.
 

AMCrenshaw

...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
4,671
Reaction score
620
Website
dfnovellas.wordpress.com
That's what I mean, though. We happen to be tucked into a remote pocket that however briefly, supports human life, and from that we assume that everything is ordered for the good. It feels like a kind of mystical entitlement to me. I can accept that nature is big and awesome, but I don't accept that it has any special fondness for life, or for humanity. We can choose to love nature all we like, but I don't believe that nature loves us back.

That is, until we learn to love ourselves.
 

semilargeintestine

BassGirl 5000
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
4,763
Reaction score
1,034
That's what I mean, though. We happen to be tucked into a remote pocket that however briefly, supports human life, and from that we assume that everything is ordered for the good. It feels like a kind of mystical entitlement to me. I can accept that nature is big and awesome, but I don't accept that it has any special fondness for life, or for humanity. We can choose to love nature all we like, but I don't believe that nature loves us back.

I think we're having a communication breakdown. I don't mean that nature is necessarily in a zen-like state with us, or that it's always good to us. By harmonious, I simply mean that everything is working the way it should, and we are just part of that. If a tornado kills my house, well that is just how nature works, and a lot of things had to be appropriately combined for that twister to happen.

I don't think appropriately combined means for the good. Nor does harmonious always mean good. It works together because otherwise, it couldn't exist.

So, it doesn't seem all that mysterious to feel apart of that.

Exactly. We see harmonious as being a good thing, but that isn't the definition of the word. Auschwitz ran harmoniously for years, but I don't think any sane person would say it was a good thing. Harmonious just means that all the cogs are turning in the right direction.
 

AMCrenshaw

...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
4,671
Reaction score
620
Website
dfnovellas.wordpress.com
Naturalistic pantheism looks to me like mystical atheism. I'm an unmystical atheist.

Yep. And I'm moody.

I can admire nature but I don't see it as a unity.

I don't think nature exists per se, but the being in discussion I'd refer to as a multiplicity. A manyness. If the manyness is all interconnected, what do you call the being the connectedness creates?

The aesthetics that people use to make it look coherent and harmonious seem to ignore the violence, chaos and entropy.

I disagree with that generalization.

Moreover, such aesthetics ofen end up in moral pronouncements, so I'm suspicious that they may be an excuse for moral preference anyway.

I worship the god of peace and love so I may make peace and love; I worship the god of judgment and punishment so I may judge and punish; I worship the god of reason so I may always claim the truth!
 

semilargeintestine

BassGirl 5000
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
4,763
Reaction score
1,034
How - without a conscious creator - does there come to be a "right direction" ?

How are you defining a "right direction"?


I don't think nature exists per se, but the being in discussion I'd refer to as a multiplicity. A manyness. If the manyness is all interconnected, what do you call the being the connectedness creates?

If nature doesn't exist, than neither do we, since we're part of nature, unless you are defining nature in a more mystical way--which I am not.

I call it god right now, but that's only because I don't have a better word for it yet. We see this kind of thing in nature all the time. A group of cells becomes a tissue, tissues become organs, etc. All the parts do their thing, but the greater whole is working as a single unit, conscious or not.

I disagree with that generalization.

So do I, above.

I worship the god of peace and love so I may make peace and love; I worship the god of judgment and punishment so I may judge and punish; I worship the god of reason so I may always claim the truth!

That reminds me of a Jim Gaffigan bit where he talks about the wars of religion between Protestants and Catholics. He says, "See that guy over there with the almost identical beliefs to mine? I want to kill him--because my god is all about loooooove."
 

AMCrenshaw

...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
4,671
Reaction score
620
Website
dfnovellas.wordpress.com
How are you defining a "right direction"?

I hadn't used the term originally. I don't believe in such a thing on a scale so large, and only in a particular way as it concerns the direction of human history or individual history or something like that.

If nature doesn't exist, than neither do we, since we're part of nature, unless you are defining nature in a more mystical way--which I am not.

I simply don't think we ever truly encounter 'nature' itself, but our own constructions, models, and maps. I think most people discuss 'nature' on a practical-level only. It'd be interesting to know what images play through people's minds when they hear the word.

Often I get nothing at all, like a strange emptiness...

I call it god right now, but that's only because I don't have a better word for it yet.

Very interesting. Try these from time to time, at least for fun: "existence" "nature" "the universe" "the way" or "being" ? The "laying that gathers"?

We see this kind of thing in nature all the time. A group of cells becomes a tissue, tissues become organs, etc. All the parts do their thing, but the greater whole is working as a single unit, conscious or not.

I think there's a lot of comfort and also responsibility to be had in the idea of a greater whole working as a single unit. I don't see it that way, but am content to say I have no clue nor care over-much.

But allow me to ask another question: does sentience mean the god you believe in is sentient? Does our collective consciousness 'add up' to something?
 

semilargeintestine

BassGirl 5000
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
4,763
Reaction score
1,034
I hadn't used the term originally. I don't believe in such a thing on a scale so large, and only in a particular way as it concerns the direction of human history or individual history or something like that.

Oh, I think I used it first. I simply meant I was closer to reality, not on a predetermined path set up by a higher power.

I simply don't think we ever truly encounter 'nature' itself, but our own constructions, models, and maps. I think most people discuss 'nature' on a practical-level only. It'd be interesting to know what images play through people's minds when they hear the word.

Often I get nothing at all, like a strange emptiness...

When I hear the word nature, the first image I get is the milky way.

Very interesting. Try these from time to time, at least for fun: "existence" "nature" "the universe" "the way" or "being" ? The "laying that gathers"?

How about Quan?

I think there's a lot of comfort and also responsibility to be had in the idea of a greater whole working as a single unit. I don't see it that way, but am content to say I have no clue nor care over-much.

Well, it is scientific fact that groups of individuals function as a larger individual. It only makes sense to expand that.

But allow me to ask another question: does sentience mean the god you believe in is sentient? Does our collective consciousness 'add up' to something?

I don't think it adds up to living, breathing thing that thinks and acts consciously. I think it just adds up to a larger thing that, if you could view it from outside the universe, would look like a single unit--much in the same way that a liver looks like a single unit even though it is comprised of millions of cells.
 

bigb

Gun in Mouth Blues
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Messages
517
Reaction score
72
Location
Baltimore MD
When I hear the word nature, I think natural.
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
Yep. And I'm moody.
Pleased to meetcher! :)

If the manyness is all interconnected, what do you call the being the connectedness creates?
I'm not sure that I can accept the premise long enough to speculate on the conclusion. There are lots of reasons why, but to begin with, the only connection I understand is causal, and I only recognise it if it's verified empirically. Theoretically, it may be that a lot of the matter once causally connected in our universe is now causally disconnected due to space expanding faster than the speed of light. I'm not sure how we'd verify that, but if our causal ("observable") universe is losing matter (e.g. to event horizons) then I think that would be evidence against eternal connectedness.

Secondly, I'm not sure what "being" means in this context. I don't think it has the same meaning as "human being", but I'm not sure what else it might mean.

I disagree with that generalization.
It's not a generalisation but an observation, albeit a personal one. How is there harmony in an entropic universe, other than transiently? My answer: by imagining that everything is cyclic, or that entropy is reversible, or ignoring entropy entirely.

I worship the god of peace and love so I may make peace and love; I worship the god of judgment and punishment so I may judge and punish; I worship the god of reason so I may always claim the truth!
I don't worship any of those things. To me, peace is practical though not always achievable. Judgement is necessary, though not always benign. Reason isn't especially worthy of worship, but it is useful and hard to come by, so it's worth protecting and defending.
 

bigb

Gun in Mouth Blues
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Messages
517
Reaction score
72
Location
Baltimore MD
It's not a generalisation but an observation, albeit a personal one. How is there harmony in an entropic universe, other than transiently? My answer: by imagining that everything is cyclic, or that entropy is reversible, or ignoring entropy entirely..

I don't think chaos, or randomness equals mystical.


My god is half Clint Eastwood(Josey Wales style) and Santa Claus.
Incase anybody wanted to know
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
I don't think chaos, or randomness equals mystical.
Nor do I, but I think that ignoring entropy to impute harmony is practically indistinguishable from mysticism -- or at least, I can't distinguish it.

But more broadly, it seems to me that concerns of harmony are teleological -- describing observation in terms of some imputed end, e.g. 'The purpose of nature is to generate and preserve life'; 'The purpose of life is to evolve and improve'; 'The purpose of volcanoes is to erupt'; 'The purpose of Gaia is to Maintain Balance'.

I get suspicious when we do that, because I think it creates subjectivity, biases and circular arguments. When we start imputing purpose to fact we end up reaching a point of Secret Plans, Grand Designs and Sacred Ways, and that's mystery and hence mysticism, illustrated by Taoism, for example.
 
Last edited:

bigb

Gun in Mouth Blues
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Messages
517
Reaction score
72
Location
Baltimore MD
But when I think of entropy,
I think if energy leaves one place it has to go some place else, which could be harmonious.
 

semilargeintestine

BassGirl 5000
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
4,763
Reaction score
1,034
But more broadly, it seems to me that concerns of harmony are teleological -- describing observation in terms of some imputed end, e.g. 'The purpose of nature is to generate and preserve life'; 'The purpose of life is to evolve and improve'; 'The purpose of volcanoes is to erupt'; 'The purpose of Gaia is to Maintain Balance'.

That's a take on harmony, but it is not the absolute definition of harmony. When discussing harmony in context with the universe, I am using its absolute definition--that things work the way they are supposed to. There is no implication of a higher power or a mystical component unless you project one, which I am not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.