Kollel (draft)

Read this quote:

"...which imposes upon women the burdens of life meant to be borne by men... Opinions vary, but the general trend today is to burden women with a constantly increasing share of what hitherto was an exclusively male concern. And we? We see to our amazement, from our ancient history, that the world today is voluntarily plunging itself into that confusion through which the ancient Egyptians tried to shatter our life force shemachlifin meleches anashim l'nashim and we are warned! The sign of the times speak loud and clear against this new manifestation and bear witness to the truth that this perversity corrodes the forces of life... "

Q: What is the above quote attacking?

A) The Woman's Lib Movement

B) The Kollel Movement

A: This quote, from the Lehman Hagadah (Published _), compares the woman's lib movement to shibud mitzrayim. But How exactly is the Kollel movement different? Haredi society somehow has the contradictory position of both wanting women to keep their traditional roles and support their families while their husbands learn in kollel.

It's a weird idea, that the father shouldn't support his family. The Mishna and the Rambam use strong language against those who take money for learning torah. Fine, it was decided by the achronim that we can no longer keep to such a high standard, and rabbis can earn a salary for their community position. But how did it start that all of the masses go straight to kollel without anyone to support them, many just relying on tzedakah?

See this article in the Jewish Press which discusses this issue more.

The People Have Spoken!

Nebach! has won the Silver Award (2nd place) as best student blog, beating #3 by a single vote! Every single vote was crucial! The final score was 43-42. Thank You to all voters!

(Jewish & Israeli Blogosphere Awards - Best In Class! - Voting Results, Winners)

Slifkin & Science

R' Slifkin is a firm beliver in the indisputable truth of science. To prove how valid science is, he quotes (p.95) the atheist Steven weinberg:

One can imagine a category of experiments that refute well-accepted scientific theories that have become part of the standard consensus of physicists. Under this category, there are no examples whatsoever in the past hundred years.
[Dreams of a Final Theory, 1993]

Let's see. In 1893, scientists believed in a deterministic universe which had always existed with absolute space and time. Pierre Laplace's view was widespread:

An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed... for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.

One of the greatest scientists of the time had called the existence of the Ether the best-established theory in all of science.

Then along came the Theory of Relativity, which revolutionized ideas about light, gravity, time and space; Quantum Mechanics, which killed determinism and certainty; and Big-Bang Theory which proved the universe had a beginning!

So there's no example of a refuted scientific theory!

Slifkin's statement that only "'minor' facts of modern science... will be overturned" is completely baseless. Just as there have been revolutionary scientific theories in the past, there will continue to be major changes in science. If Slifkin had been around in the late 1800's he would have considered determinism and steady-state theory factual! Slifkin says "not everyone may be qualified to distinguish between those aspests of science that can be considered adequately proven beyond reasonable doubt, and those aspects that may well be overturned in a few years' time. " How is he qualified to judge Intelligent Design?

Slifkin puts too much faith in the 'Scientific Consensus'. Just because scientists believe random, unguided evolution could turn mud into life into humans, doesn't mean it can. To quote slifkin on religious issues (p. 91) "there are questions and there are Questions" on Neo-Darwinism too. Life on Earth shows design, and there are way too many difficulties with the neo-darwinistic worship of randomness.

Not to say there's no difference between the science of today and the 'science' of medieval times. And Evolutionary Theory, although not comparable to the experimental sciences, helps explain the existence of all living things. But not without believing in Intelligent Design. Nothing else could turn nothingness into the amazing complexity of the simplest DNA and the amazing brain.

As for the conclusions drawn by the scientists, Slifkin disagrees. But gently. He says the "religious perspective" is different, or "a religious person would view it differently". It is as if there are two valid ways of viewing creation - the atheistic way and the religious way. Only for ID can he use more emphatic language, (p.288) saying ID is a "danger to religion" and that people who believe Neo-Darwinism is by definition atheistic are "simply wrong" (p.294).

To his credit, Slifkin does point out that many scientists are disingenuous [lying Koferim]. They claim to believe religion is compatible with science, while really believing science has replaced religion. But he considers current scientific consensus more exalted than it truly is.

Creation - Like Purim?

I'm continuing my discussion of The Challenge of Creation. Please read the posts Slifkin on ID and Slifkin&Klinghoffer first (though there is some repetition here).

R' Slifkin seems to side with the view that evolution was a series of apparently random events with incredibly fortuitous results, which he compares to the Purim story. Everything was natural though, therefor ID is wrong. I find this view problematic for many reasons.

If everything just happened on its own, how was it created by G-d? We don't know exactly what "ma'aseh B'raishis" was, but when the Torah says "and G-d created" could it really mean (like slifkin says) 'G-d built into the laws of nature the ability for life to exist"? Slifkin feels this is more elegant than any 'Divine Interference'. Since G-d could have created the world with one act, He must have. But the Mishna in Avos speaks of 10 creation utterances with which G-d created the world, and it deals with Slifkin's very issue (see post Ma'maros and Miracles). From a Jewish point of view, Slifkin seems wrong.

From a non-textual viewpoint, science has not removed the necessity of a Designer to explain the existence and perfection of life on Earth. ID proponents argue that nature shows design in a way that would be recognized in any other circumstance. No one can explain how the DNA of even the simplest life form could have in any way evolved or randomly formed. Slifkin admits this fact in his book. Its unclear why he feels science will eventually have a perfectly materialistic explanation of all of life's origins.

But even if Creation was 'like the Purim story', that wouldn't make ID wrong. If someone teaches the Purim story as pointing to a Guiding Hand, would Slifkin be against it? How else do all the unlikely events make sense? The same thing goes for the development of life on Earth. ID is necessary to explain how a series of fortuitous events could have occurred.

Vote for Nebach!

The final round of voting has begun! I'm a finalist in the student blog category. Please vote for me by clicking here.

Q: Why should I vote for Nebach! over the other 5 student blogs?
A: Because Nebach! is a high-quality blog that discusses fundamental topics in Torah and Judaism. The other blogs discuss boring things like college news or themselves.

P.S.
This is Nebach!'s 50th post!