Do we have Neshomehs?

A conversation I once had.

Said the man:
When you remove a body part, a finger, a hand, chas vesholem, do you change? Does your perception of yourself or your personality change? No! What better proof that one has a neshomeh!

My response:
You just proved that consciousness lies not in your finger or hand. Try substituting one’s brain with another and you might see a huge change in perception of oneself and in personality. I hope you have other proof to the existence of a neshomeh.

Said the man:
Ooh, I have to think of it.

Said I:
Wow, so right now you think you have no neshomeh?

Said he:
No. No way. I just have to think about it.

Thought I:
He believes that he has a neshomeh, he needs no rationalizing. He has no use for rationalizing for he believes in it anyway. Sigh.

Creation

When one questions the origins of creation, there are certain truths, or logical propositions that one has to consider before coming to conclusions. The following is how I made up my own mind; feel free to poke as many holes as you can – as long as you can have an intelligible discourse free of hell-threats and ad-hominem attacks.

What can we infer logically?

Both the theist and the atheist use logical subtractions to reach their conclusions. The calculations are reasonably sound, yet the inference isn’t necessary.

1. Looking around us - from the watch and the watchmaker to the cat and her biological makers – all matter is here as a result of cause and effect. In our experience, nothing just creates itself.

2. Logic dictates that there must be a start to this cause and effect, that we can’t go back in time ad infinitum claiming that EVERYTHING was caused by something else. It has to have started somewhere.

3. That something that has started it all, and was itself not a cause of anything, could be one of two things: a) a creation of itself, it just happened, or b) this something was always around.

This is a just a simple exercise of logic. The only hole I can see in this argument is with the definitiveness of a single occurrence, for it is as logical to presume that if a single matter could have potentially created itself, or has been around indefinitely, then there could be 10 such things or a million. But since it doesn’t contribute to this argument I’ll let it slip.

Where do we take this argument further?       

The theist calls this logically induced first cause of matter God. What this stuff is or what it is made of we simply do not know, we don’t even know if we’ll ever know.

But it doesn’t end with the name. Next they attribute to this first casue many unverifiable claims. This cause is, according to them, capable of EVERYTHING, including, but not limited to, creating other things consciously. It also keeps tabs on everything, is in total control of everything and what else? Oh, it does not have to conform to logic – as a creator of logic.

It is possible, but unverifiable, and so far I have yet to see a reason to believe that this is the case.

On the other hand: people look to science, the study of matter and physics to see what careful methodological insight can tell us about the nature of this original matter. Can we ever know more about it? Can we understand it? Is it an intelligent being that perhaps controls our wellbeing?

So far science has no answers. Other answers are mere speculation.    

Why We Should Examine

The Default Belief of the Orthodox 

The default setting of each and every one of us Orthodox Jews is prearranged before we were born. The Mishne in Avos (5:21) is quite specific; at five start learning, at ten progress to Mishne, at thirteen celebrate your Bar Mitzvah, at fifteen Talmud, at eighteen get married, and so on*. We get married, have kids and continue the cycle. Continuing the cycle is the objective.

Orthodoxy has set up, to greater extremes or less, a network of insularity designed to keep us in the fold thus procuring the continuance, with excellent results so far. We know that we are right, (and superior) and that the rest of the world is mistaken, and with good reason. For it is plainly obvious that humans have the ability to deceive themselves that the world is old, was always there, or had created itself on its own. The reason why they tend to mislead their conscience is apparent too, for otherwise they would have to believe in a creator, and believing in God would obviously lead them to Judaism, or at least they will know that we Jews are right. Now, no one (who is not Orthodox Jewish) would want that, would they? Therefore the scientists come up with theories from under the earth, literally, theories that have been debunked by their own scientists time and time again, yet it is the accepted dogma in most of the so-called enlightened world.

Could it be Wrong?

Quite fine and dandy. Sound reasoning, I thought, however, at one point the knowledge that humans are capable to deceive themselves dribbles into the brain and one must acknowledge that he himself might be illusory too, which then begs the question how does one know that he is right anyway? We will get back to that hopefully later, but for now I want to focus on what we were taught and what I found to be irreconcilable. I should add, and here is the right place to do so, that nothing I write to you should be taken at face value; I might be mightily mistaken by virtue of my own failings or a satanic impulse, as Judaism teaches us that one only disbelieves in God so that he can be sexually immoral, or both. Naturally, if you can refute a point I make, or all of them, by all means share them with me. Spare my soul, if I may. Also, I urge you not to keep these questions to yourself, but ask your rabbinical authorities for answers too. (You would be surprised at the answer most of them might give you; they will send you on to a specialist in the field. Many times I have asked them “you mean, you do not have answers? These questions never even bothered you?” Yeah, true story. Try it yourself.)

Let’s face it, not only is your religion - and mine was too - based on the assumption that out there someone has all the answers, or that the Vilne Gaon, the Rambam, and a host of others have already contemplated these questions and still remained true to the Torah, but your local rabbi’s religion might be based on that too!

There is another agenda that keeps, even the learned, away from allowing one to reach slightly deeper into his brain matter that might allow him to philosophize on issues he takes for granted: the forbiddance, by the great sages of dwelling on “what is above, what is below, what was before and what will happen after”. What we get here is a perfect example of circular logic, which induces many fellows to remain committed to Judaism by thwarting bad thoughts:

I believe because I believe that I’m not allowed not to believe.

A requirement like this must set up a red flag to any thinking person. Why would a religion put that much an emphasis on not thinking, on not reading books that don't pass scrutiny? The whole community is set up so that there is almost no contact with the outside until it is too late, from the Yiddish language, through our own schools, books, newspapers, and rituals we have almost no contact with the schmutzige goyim. Why? What are they so afraid of?

To be honest, the whole issue of not thinking is murky, even in Rabbinical literature. You get kind of a double standard as the official doctrine. On the one hand we are raised knowing that Judaism encourages questioning – just learn the Talmud, they say. The Rambam wrote a whole book called “Guide for the Perplexed” where he leaves no question (he knew of) mute. So did other Rishonim, so do some rabbis nowadays. Yet, on the other hand, questioning the fundamentals are seriously frowned upon, the questions allowed (and encouraged) are within limits of exegesis or commentary, one is never allowed to take a logical conclusion concerning a question and negating a halachic verdict because of that. And even the books that were written about it are not readily available and are actively discouraged from being read. In my Yeshiva, for example, we had a few versions of the חובת הלבבות, all with a variety of commentaries but none of them on the chapter dealing with the fundamentals. We were set up not to question, but mainly, not to care.

Conclusion

We were clearly not educated about our religion, about the veracity of its claims. There is a possibility that we are wrong, that what we think of all the other religions is in fact true of us too. Isn’t it worth examining it? Wouldn’t you advise a Christian to examine his beliefs? How are we different?     

-------------------
*A friend once described the following, paraphrasing the Mishne with a little tweak: “at the age of twenty you start running away, at thirty you are shit out of energy, forty is when you get your brains – alas, way too late, at fifty you’re lecturing your children who are now running away themselves, at sixty your kids consider you too old, at seventy you realize they might be on to something, at eighty you think that pissing in a tube is some sort of strength, at ninety you’re hell bent, and at a hundred you wish you were dead”.

About me

Who am I?

A Cheder/Yeshiva graduate. The Hasidic kind. The kind that disdains critical thinking, the scientific method, formal logic, grammar, non rabbinical studies, nonconformity, diversity, independence and a host of other things natural to progressive societies.

More details?

No. Firstly, I want these ideas discussed for their own merit and not become a source of speculation how someone like me came to posses these ideas. Giving more information about myself is going to defy the purpose of this blog.

Secondly, as a person tied to the community for the good or the better it will be counter productive to try to put myself out there. Counter productive is perhaps a weak definition of what could really happen. There is no need to explain. You either live in this community and know the repercussions or you don’t, in which case take my word for it. (If you don’t want to take my word then take my word that I fear repercussions.)

What happened?

The system almost succeeded with me as they did with most of classmates but something happened that made me an anomaly. I cannot identify the singular incident, if it exists, that made me different – it could be a host of incidents, moments of insanity leading to sanity. Perhaps many lucky moments caused by observation and failure to mold to shape.

Since realizing that things as I have been taught aren’t necessarily representative of the truth I went on my own search, a quest to quench the empty void of uncertainty. I’m not sure if I’m any more certain than I was the day my belief was shattered. What I am sure though, is that I can make sense of the uncertainty, that shattered beliefs don’t necessarily invite a new set of beliefs. There is a certain humility in uncertainty, in the unknown. A humility that can lead one to discover the now unknown.

And now what?

Openly I chose to remain loyal to the Hasidic lifestyle. While not automatically a poster boy for the community I still dress accordingly, act accordingly, eat accordingly, talk accordingly, and in general avoid raising too many eyebrows or clashing with the wrong set of people.

In private, or when I have a chance to get away from the restrictive eyes I can act according to my beliefs, but that shall remain private.

Future?

Am I a true biological mutant with a beneficial trait or a dying malformed strain? That remains the open question.