The double life of Hasidic atheists
aeon.co
aeon.co
Perhaps somebody could start an "atheist church", but the concept is unpalatable to me. I don't want atheism to define my life in the same way belief defines the life of religious adherents. I don't want to attend atheist classes or listen to an atheist preacher or be around evangelical atheists. I just want a large community of people who stick together, follow a common moral code, support each other, and have regular social events.
Churches aren't the only way to meet people. Festivals are great if you're in California; there's basically at least one a month if you're looking. If that's not your scene, there are tons of various meet-ups around. Not quite the same as religion, but some are really organized and dedicated.
Group exercise was my thing for a few years; cycling groups are great because you get to spend lots of time outside getting in [better] shape, and the people are generally friendly / interesting in my experience. Sailing is really fun too if you find the right club. "Yacht club" might not immediately sound like something you want to be involved in, but Cal Sailing Club at Berkeley marina, for example, is different. It's a co-op ($100 per quarter for membership, they have their own boats) with a really friendly and community-oriented atmosphere.
Considering the decline in church attendance in young adulthood, and the fact that you don't attend grade school anymore, small wonder strong friendship is harder to come by.
As a devout religious person, let me say there are plenty of religious folks who don't believe in God, and who do not see a contradiction in this (whether or not they say so). There are those who reject the traditional doctrine of Christianity (God included) and who those who focus so keenly on the traditions that they care little for the concept of God.
On the reverse side of the coin, there are plenty of people who I know who claim to be Rational Atheists but who are barely able to reason. I have also met people who claim to be Atheists but who are at "best" Agnostic, or "worst" they are, deep down, Thiests.
Hearing someone "I am a Christian/Muslim" means very little. Hearing them say "I am Atheist" might mean a little more (as in it is not the default choice) but also says very little about what they really believe deep down.
It comes down to who you wish to associate with. It is easier to be a Christian politician in the USA than an Atheist politician, and, if my college days were anything to go by, easier to be an Atheist student or professor than a devout religious student/professor.
Sounds like the Unitarian Universalists to me.
In France, a lot of atheist Jews joined Freemasonry at the beginning of the 20th century for this very reason: they were highly educated, atheists, and felt that they were missing something because they did not gather anymore for religious reasons.
But rather than flocking to pray uselessly (yes, this is a bit provocative), they used their time to think about and improve society - it would be called a "think tank" today I presume.
This led to major improvements in the french society at that time, and especially a law that separated church and state, leading to a fully secular society (so the "1905" law in France)
(And this is one of the reason why Freemasons were persecuted by the nazi-friendly governments in France during the WW2 - they were hated by far rights religious people for being atheists AND for accepting Jews, and because of previous secular laws)
It's easy to see why it appeals so well -- every candidate you examine is looking for a predictable thing, which assuming you're doing your search properly, is roughly the same as what you're looking for. There's still a significant risk that any given match won't care for you or vice versa, but it eliminates an entire layer of annoyance -- that is, that the person you're approaching is not looking for a relationship, or not looking for the kind that you are.
I've also wrestled with these thoughts growing up. Atheists don't have the same sense of community that religious people do. Sure, I've done the meet up thing, sports, music, etc. but they all fizzle out. Nothing keeps people coming back day after day. Music festivals happen once a year, church happens every week with more than just a handful of people.
And reading all the suggestions below, I don't understand why people are recommending alternative religions. He stated he wanted the community, without the belief.
This is why I miss school. It was something that got a bunch of people together on a regular basis. You didn't personally meet, hang out with or like every individual person, but I think it had what the OP is asking for.
I know of someone who was studying neuroscience in England, and when he thought through the ramifications of his atheist beliefs he was depressed at where it was leading for his life. He wondered if perhaps there was not something of the truth which he might have missed and I think it made him less hostile to considering the points of views of others.
Fellowship means loyalty, faithfulness, partnership, a sense of belonging, love for one another, very much like Tolkien's Fellowship of the Ring. And fellowship in Christ's church can't be had outside of fellowship with the eye witness historical accounts of Jesus. John Zebedee writing from the 1st century puts it like this:
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched - this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. We write this to make our joy complete."
If we believe that people like John, who suffered tremendously for what they considered to be the truth, were actually telling the truth about historical events, then we can have fellowship with the apostles, and we can have fellowship with God himself.
This is at least the second time that people have done so:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_movement
I don't have any experience with either movement, so I don't know whether they would be very similar to or very different from what you would like.
My impression is that some of these initiatives emulate the 'wrong' parts of church. While I'm not certain of this, I suspect that this has something to do with the fact that many churches in more recent times have made the same mistake, and these initiatives often involve people with a background in these kinds of churches. My background is Evangelical, and in my opinion they do 'community' extremely well. Perhaps they're the best 'form' to emulate, and since the 'content' is often relatively... flimsy, it is easily replaced with other things.
That said, the initiatives I've experienced were still very worthwhile and enjoyable!
Let me elaborate. Via meetup.com a friend of mine organized meetings every two weeks. Rather than follow the 'Sunday service' model, it was closer to the 'weekday small-group' model that is part of most churches, and particularly important Evangelical ones (to the point of using the Sunday as little more than evangelism).
We'd meet in a group of around 8-14 people and after some initial conversation, we'd split up into groups with a piece of text chosen by the conversation leader. This could be a bible passage, but also something else entirely. Then, we'd start talking about the topic, following a few basic rules. Most crucially, we were strongly encouraged to not primarily debate or discuss our viewpoints, but to try and keep things personal and focused on experience. This, of course, created bonds through the (forced) openness and the resulting recognition and empathy.
Afterwards, we'd go to a bar and just mingle and talk about whatever. Usually much of that would be spending more time talking about the topic we'd discussed earlier.
Many people came because they were tired of 'empty' conversations in the typical social events, often because they had a desire to discuss 'higher' things with 'smart people'. Some ended up disappointed that they had little room to espouse their views and belittle the 'superficial people' with an in-group, but most came to appreciate and value the personal, meaningful conversations. And, of course, inevitably the 'intellectuals' would end up discussing philosophy or religion and the like anyways, but now with a foundation of empathy and friendship.
It was also extremely valuable to see a mixed group of individuals that would often not associate or even avoid each other. One of my favorite regulars was a guy who owned a printing-press in a neighboring city and just came by because his adopted 16-year old daughter wanted to attend. He had a lot of trouble with the 'level' of conversation initially, and clearly was not used to talking about intellectual things or sharing personal-ish stuff. But over time he came to enjoy the thoughtful conversation and the free-form 'pub time' afterwards and many of us, in turn, came to appreciate that he was not just some 'simpleton' and often contributed immensely to the conversation by virtue of having a very different, more experiential outlook on life (and a very different past).
Some of the most valuable things that I had as a church member and that I always missed were the community, the personal interaction within such groups, the encouragement to show at least some vulnerability, and the mix of wildly different people exchanging views and experiences. And those were the best things that these 'sunday assembly' type initiatives offered, in my opinion.
And at least their object of praise provably exists.
I've never believed in god, but since my dad was President of the congregation I sort of went along for the ride. I still play piano for the church (and thank the church for starting the spark for it), even though I don't really believe in all that. It's just a nice and caring community. When I'm older, I'm absolutely going to try joining some sort of church.
That rather strongly depends on the church (and you; communities aren't objectively fantastic, the same community can be fantastic for one person and a nightmare for another; this is definitely as true of church communities as communities in general.)
Already been done, see, e.g., the "Sunday Assembly" phenomenon.
> I don't want atheism to define my life in the same way belief defines the life of religious adherents. I don't want to attend atheist classes or listen to an atheist preacher or be around evangelical atheists. I just want a large community of people who stick together, follow a common moral code, support each other, and have regular social events.
From what I've heard, most Sunday Assembly groups are a lot like what you describe wanting, and less like what you describe not wanting.
It's called Humanist - see if there's a community in your area. It has a common moral code based on the rejection of the supernatural and it's actually voted on every few years. I would define Humanism as pragmatic atheism which steals the best parts of religion - community, charity work, choirs, regular meetups etc.
They would not be shunned or anything.
Judaism is much more concerned with actions than thought, it's also more concerned with this world than with heaven.
There is a saying from the Talmud that "a person who acts without belief will eventually come to believe". Meaning that's it's perfectly fine to do the action without the intent, even for years, even for their whole life. Not just OK, but actually encouraged.
(They saying applies also to smaller things than belief, for example someone who gives charity not to help someone, but because they like being praised is still lauded for their action. Eventually they will come to give charity to help someone, rather than for what they get from it.)
That's disputable. For example there were those who claimed that observing commandments mechanically, without intending to have the spiritual effect is actually worse than not observing while intending to have it.
This idea was expressed by R' Shmuel Alexandrov[1] when he was defending non observant Jews who intend to act righteously, vs. "observant" ones who don't do it out of spiritual reasons.
This is at best an out of context understanding and at worst a complete distortion of the Jewish faith.
"Service of the heart" is the core obligation of Judaism. Every single morning and evening Jews say the Shma which states the primary commandment of Judaism is to "Love G-d with all your heart, all your soul(personality), and all your resources..."
Maimonides has his twelve tenants of faith, which are all about belief and not at all about action.
Love and Faith are about connecting with and understanding G-d.
All the actions and commandments are tools for reaching spiritual connection and understand G-d with more clarity.
It is almost entirely a spiritual based faith...
The quote you reference, which for the life of me, I cannot recall as being accurate...certainly only means that behavior can influence belief.
We can form habits by behaving a certain way and we can come to believe certain things that are consistent with our behavior...The idea that Judaism is more concerned with action over thought is patently FALSE!
That being said, you can make the argument that some Jews today are more concerned with aesthetics than with true belief...but that is a shortcoming in their faith, and hardly a representation of what Judaism or the Torah teaches.
All that being said, a well rounded, Torah observant Jew, regardless of their denomination will have a healthy balance of faith, moral compass, and action that leads to living an optimal, healthy, happy, meaningful life to the fullest.
Conversely, if you believe in God and want to serve him, but are not that interested in Sabbath Observance for example, then strictly speaking you would be sentenced to death if there was a Sanhedrin (old high court of Jewish law, non existent since destruction of the Second Temple).
Of course if you declare your apostasy that's a separate issue.
Your claims are more how you feel about the religion then what it strictly requires. Also the Rambam's tenants are 13, not 12.
Ars used a dishonest argument that follows the following logic. "Since we would rather someone do the mitzvos without faith than not do them at all, then it must be that the actions are more important than faith." In fact, the only reason to act a certain way without the belief and intention behind it is "mitoch shelo lishma, bah lishmah" since actions can influence their faith.
Still, the fundamental point of Torah Observance is about hisbonenus, emunah, bitachon, and tikun olam. Almost entirely around understanding G-d and connecting spiritually. This is not just how I feel, this is black and white fundamentals. Sure, the mitzvos and halacha are crucial...but lets not distort that to mean that one shouldn't focus on the faith as long as he does the bare minimum action...
I stand corrected about the 13 maimonides tenants of faith. -----------------------------------
A compromising approach is accessible. A hard-line "nothing less than absolute and total devotion is even worth considering, and therefore fundamentally not worth your time" is not. Where is the unsure, dubious, or curious individual to even begin, if all that is even acceptable is absolutely unwavering, unshaking, unhesitating prostration?
I realize teachings don't care what is accessible and what is not. I'm not trying to tell you what should be taught. But, just, if you ever wonder why it is shrinking instead of growing- FYI.
Striving towards being the key terms.as long as you are trying, you are serving your purpose on your own level. This is actually what ars was talking about...it's better to act without belief than to not act...my only point was not to lose focus on the end goal.
If I had to explain it without religion from the simple perspective of seeking truth. I would say," since intellect is driven by will(we only learn something if we want to, we only seek the answer to a question we care about, etc...)how can we seperate out our personal bias and desires and subjective needs from the absolute truth we all so desperately seek?"
Almost all the mitzvos in the Torah and ritual activities Jews partake in are about selflessness and finding ways to root out personal bias so you can see the truth. If you have to pray before biting into an Apple, you are essentially putting G-ds will ahead of your own desire to eat.
By nurturing this sensitivity and willingness to seek truth from outside yourself and your own research, you can be more objective and find absolute truth.
Think about a science experiment where you start with only one hypothesis. You can easily find evidence to confirm your hypothesis, but it won't prove anything scientifically because you didn't compare hypothesis to see if the evidence can support other hypothesis as well.
In order to maximize on personal relationships, life, etc... You need to root out your personal emotions and bias as much as possible...
That's all Judaism is about... rooting out subjective bias to seek truth in an effort to achieve personal growth.
This requires a willingness to trust others before you and recognize that if you only behave based on what you fully understand you will be acting on bias. So, we do lots of things we don't quite understand trusting our parents, grandparents, etc...as we seek to understand more and more.
Judaism is about how to have a relationship with God. How can a human hope to do that? By doing what God asked. But also by arguing over what God wants.
It's like how do you have a relationship with a person you never met? By reading his writings.
The atheists in the story probably spend more time thinking about God than a regular member. By doing what God wants (the actions), and by thinking about him constantly, they probably have a deeper relationship with God than others do.
> But, just, if you ever wonder why it is shrinking instead of growing- FYI.
Judaism is not looking for converts. If you want to convert you can, but Judaism isn't going to try to convince you, or tell you your path in life is wrong. Non-Jews can live perfectly meaningful lives.
> All the actions and commandments are tools for reaching spiritual connection and understand G-d with more clarity.
And if you do that, and skip the action because you feel you have the spiritual connection you failed. But if you did the action, but did not have any special spiritual feeling, you still did what God wants, and that's what counts.
> The quote you reference, which for the life of me, I cannot recall as being accurate...certainly only means that behavior can influence belief.
It's from Pesachim 50b (among other places) if you want to look it up.
> The idea that Judaism is more concerned with action over thought is patently FALSE!
No. It's not. Thought it important, but action is what matters.
Why can't I say the same about hardline atheists modulo the stuff about the Torah and faith?
In an ideal world, yes. In the real world, humans are pretty much tribal as hell, and people want others to hold the same worldview as they do, and it hurts when someone rejects something that you consider part of the core of your being.
Jews are human too.
Yes Hasidim would say exactly the same thing. Perhaps with some pressure to increase learning. As long as he assured people that he performed the actions, they would only have a problem if he tried to "convert" as it were others.
Also I doubt they are as firm in their disbelief as the article makes them out to be. They are probably constantly searching and yearning to believe again, so why would they declare themself a certain way, when they are not sure of it themself?
That is pretty brutal. "Mental health" was often used by opressive regimes to discredit and punish dissidents. In the Soviet Union they would do that to religious figures (Orthodox Christian priests and political dissidents). The card then was flipped. The religious figures were basically considered "mentally ill" for believing that God exists, and they would be subjected to heavy doses of medications in order to "snap them out of it" in hopes they would see the truth. Of course, the true underlying reason was to remove them from public life so they don't spread those ideas, and as a side-effect torture to punish them so others may learn their lesson from it..
It sounds rediculous to us today but sending someone to be medicated because they don't adhere to your particular belief system seems right in line with that kind of thinking. (To say nothing of religions that practice exorcism, Rebirthing and eschewing gluten. )
Personally I wonder what beliefs we hold today will be absolutely appalling to our descendants 400 years from now. Probably eating meat (and I say this as someone that is in now way pro-veg, and I eat meat all the time - I just suspect we will find that our current working theories of animal behavior will prove that we are morally responsible for great pain in other sentient beings.) because our society keeps it acceptable in our perceived (or imposed) reality.
http://www.amazon.com/Caught-The-Pulpit-Leaving-Belief/dp/06...
That's basically their entire lives—with that much at stake, it's no wonder people just pretend. And (most) Mormons aren't nearly as orthodox as Hassidim (anecdotally it seems the friends and family cutting off contact thing is mostly Utah Mormons—places where the Mormon population is lower don't appear to have as many of those types of issues, though there are definitely outliers in both cases)
From what I've heard, Jehovah's Witnesses also have a very hard time—even family members are encouraged to shun a person who has been disfellowshipped.
Peer pressure can really suck.
In Russia, in sociological surveys there's this recurring result that 20-30% of those who say they are Orthodox Christian also say they don't believe in God. Another 20-30% don't believe in Heaven or Hell.
Go figure what's in those people's heads.
It doesn't have to make sense.
Interesting, I wonder why that would be? Is it because American courts are biased towards religious people in general? But in that case, wouldn't a liberal state like New York be less biased? Could it possibly be because of bias of courts in New York towards the Jewish community?
In this case it's the more religious parent, but it can be the reverse in other cases.
Why?
If a family was mostly happy, healthy, and stable, and one parent decided to leave the family and make drastic changes (to a new religion/community/city/whatever), the safe thing would probably be to leave the kids with the piece of the family that hasn't drastically changed. Most of the time, anyway.