The worldview of rabbi Manis Friedman

[alan_wattsify]

I wonder if anyone is familiar with rabbi Manis Friedman, I came to his videos accidentally. I don't think he is famous, so I'll try to briefly describe what were his ideas (not that I fully understood his worldview).

I want to emphasize that I'm not religious person, I'm not going to preach, I just find that if something is interesting, I shouldn't reject it because it comes from religion. I mainly write this because I want to share, and also I'm curious.

One talk isn't enough, he is consistent within talks, but is becoming more and more absurd when you watch more.

1. Initially he looked good. The first talk was about the dogma that we need to do this and that, we have to do this and that... which causes anxiety. And his message was that we didn't even ask for being born, why do we have to do this and that. He joked that a boy sued his parents to give him birth without his consent, but both of the parents were lawyers, so he lost the case.

Since God created us, then he needed us. We aren't needy, we are needed, which feels much better. He created us with the need of eating, we don't need it, he needs us to eat. That way we are serving God (not that I agree, but somewhat explains what religions mean by serving God). This has two features, God is lovable, and it feels better that we aren't needy.

What he says isn't wrong. It's up to you how to define your self, if one thinks that that way of thinking is beneficial, I see no problems. I don't consider it self-deception also, if you think that being pessimistic, for example, is beneficial in life, no problem.

2. Next talk was also good. He says Judaism isn't religion. Gives shame to some rabbis. He says Religion is dogmatic, Judaism isn't (I don't think so, although not familiar with Judaism much). He blames religions for starting wars. 10 commandments are horrible, he attributes that to awful translation. There should be no commandments. He gave the definition of God, pretty good one. Whatever there was in the beginning, before the creation, is God. Basically some atoms. Since it had choice (wants), we think of it as personal, so uses he not it (trying to adjust to the religion I think). Whether it was big bang or little bang or two bangs doesn't matter, it created the universe. Do you believe in God question is nonsense, with this definition. The real question is - was there a purpose. His answer - we should hope so, otherwise we are hopeless, we are here for nothing. Evolution was totally acceptable for him. God was the initial state of universe.

Sounds like an atheist who adjusts definitions to be entitled to call himself religious. Defining God as some physical thing and claiming it exists doesn't make you any religious.

3. Here is when he become absurd. I don't know which was the order of talks, but his age was the same.

He started to bash science. Talked some abstract things, like if in the right was good, in the left was bad, then who created left and right? So God must have created left and right first. He created concepts first, opposition etc. Thought provoking ideas about universe, fine. Then claims that science became current dogma, but dogma is acceptable only in religion. Explanation? When your wife says I want this! You don't object, you just do it, because you are serving her. The same with religion, where you serve God. Dogma is açceptavle only if you are serving. He says genetically we are 89% monkeys (it's 98 actually), but who says genetics decide everything? There are only atoms, we consist of atoms and plants consist of atoms, so what? plants are our ancestors? (although not completely absurd at first sight, but seems like a cheap try of perplexing).

About evolution he says something else. The theory of evolution says how could have the world developed. The religion says what happened. There is no contradiction! He repeated it zillion times. No contradiction, one is theory, another is dogma. Life isn't science, so science doesn't apply to life.



Could this be the new religion? He was humorous, and positive. I could imagine that one would feel better and relaxed if he was stressed. Many people are so stressed because of 'have to's, one wouldn't want to commit suicide if he didn't think that he has to survive. When positive disposition is there, it's time to bash science and adjust somewhat reasonable facts under the religious thoughts.

The era of religion is coming to end (he also mentioned that) and this can be the tendency of the new one. People object when you command, so let's say - do whatever you want... Explain that life is pointless, so what we can do is to serve God. Don't eat for yourself, you don't need it, eat for God. Everyone is tired of God, blaming for wars and so on, so let's make him lovable at least and then ask people to worship him.

[Felix]

alan_wattsify: The first talk was about the dogma that we need to do this and that, we have to do this and that... which causes anxiety.

That's not dogma, it's social conditioning, and it's true that one must overcome it to be free.

alan_wattsify: Could this be the new religion?

You'll need more logical consistency than that, he seems to contradict himself right and left.

Since God created us, then he needed us.

Presumably a god would not have needs and thus would have no need to create. All of this is predicated on the idea that God is a necessary being. If one doesn't accept that, the rest is irrelevant.

[Sculptor1]

I wonder if anyone is familiar with rabbi Manis Friedman, I came to his videos accidentally. I don't think he is famous, so I'll try to briefly describe what were his ideas (not that I fully understood his worldview).

I want to emphasize that I'm not religious person, I'm not going to preach, I just find that if something is interesting, I shouldn't reject it because it comes from religion. I mainly write this because I want to share, and also I'm curious.

One talk isn't enough, he is consistent within talks, but is becoming more and more absurd when you watch more.

1. Initially he looked good. The first talk was about the dogma that we need to do this and that, we have to do this and that... which causes anxiety. And his message was that we didn't even ask for being born, why do we have to do this and that. He joked that a boy sued his parents to give him birth without his consent, but both of the parents were lawyers, so he lost the case.

Since God created us, then he needed us. We aren't needy, we are needed, which feels much better. He created us with the need of eating, we don't need it, he needs us to eat. That way we are serving God (not that I agree, but somewhat explains what religions mean by serving God). This has two features, God is lovable, and it feels better that we aren't needy.

What he says isn't wrong. It's up to you how to define your self, if one thinks that that way of thinking is beneficial, I see no problems. I don't consider it self-deception also, if you think that being pessimistic, for example, is beneficial in life, no problem.

2. Next talk was also good. He says Judaism isn't religion. Gives shame to some rabbis. He says Religion is dogmatic, Judaism isn't (I don't think so, although not familiar with Judaism much). He blames religions for starting wars. 10 commandments are horrible, he attributes that to awful translation. There should be no commandments. He gave the definition of God, pretty good one. Whatever there was in the beginning, before the creation, is God. Basically some atoms. Since it had choice (wants), we think of it as personal, so uses he not it (trying to adjust to the religion I think). Whether it was big bang or little bang or two bangs doesn't matter, it created the universe. Do you believe in God question is nonsense, with this definition. The real question is - was there a purpose. His answer - we should hope so, otherwise we are hopeless, we are here for nothing. Evolution was totally acceptable for him. God was the initial state of universe.

Sounds like an atheist who adjusts definitions to be entitled to call himself religious. Defining God as some physical thing and claiming it exists doesn't make you any religious.

3. Here is when he become absurd. I don't know which was the order of talks, but his age was the same.

He started to bash science. Talked some abstract things, like if in the right was good, in the left was bad, then who created left and right? So God must have created left and right first. He created concepts first, opposition etc. Thought provoking ideas about universe, fine. Then claims that science became current dogma, but dogma is acceptable only in religion. Explanation? When your wife says I want this! You don't object, you just do it, because you are serving her. The same with religion, where you serve God. Dogma is açceptavle only if you are serving. He says genetically we are 89% monkeys (it's 98 actually), but who says genetics decide everything? There are only atoms, we consist of atoms and plants consist of atoms, so what? plants are our ancestors? (although not completely absurd at first sight, but seems like a cheap try of perplexing).

About evolution he says something else. The theory of evolution says how could have the world developed. The religion says what happened. There is no contradiction! He repeated it zillion times. No contradiction, one is theory, another is dogma. Life isn't science, so science doesn't apply to life.



Could this be the new religion? He was humorous, and positive. I could imagine that one would feel better and relaxed if he was stressed. Many people are so stressed because of 'have to's, one wouldn't want to commit suicide if he didn't think that he has to survive. When positive disposition is there, it's time to bash science and adjust somewhat reasonable facts under the religious thoughts.

The era of religion is coming to end (he also mentioned that) and this can be the tendency of the new one. People object when you command, so let's say - do whatever you want... Explain that life is pointless, so what we can do is to serve God. Don't eat for yourself, you don't need it, eat for God. Everyone is tired of God, blaming for wars and so on, so let's make him lovable at least and then ask people to worship him.

Rabbis seem to be about to rant about **** they can't possibly have knowledge of, especially when it suits a political purpose; like Tory supporting, Chief Rabbi Mirvis who has jut lashed out at the Labour party over what is in fact a rather minor case of antisemitism.

With 500,000 members one can expect a handful of people who exchange tittle-tattle about the myth of the Rothschilds and international finance, as well as Israel trying to influence the outcome of the election as well as valid criticism of Israel's policy against Palestine (defined as antisemitism in some quarters).

But the Rabbi has spun this as "institutional racism" in a party that is possibly the least racist of all major parties in the UK, has done more that any other party to combat bigotry and racism; is the only party in the UK never to have made a racist policy and is the only party in the UK that never will make a racist policy; and has a leader who has fought his entire life against racism.

[Steve3007]

Then claims that science became current dogma, but dogma is acceptable only in religion.

It is very, very common to claim that science is dogma and that scientists see themselves as high priests with privileged access to knowledge. It has been claimed many times by many posters on this site. Very frequently those posters have a personal theory about some particular area of science which they are absolutely certain has solved a problem that has evaded armies of specialists in the field for generations and the reason why it has not been taken seriously by "the establishment" is that they have closed ranks to exclude the genius outsider.

[Mark1955]

It is very, very common to claim that science is dogma and that scientists see themselves as high priests with privileged access to knowledge. It has been claimed many times by many posters on this site. Very frequently those posters have a personal theory about some particular area of science which they are absolutely certain has solved a problem that has evaded armies of specialists in the field for generations and the reason why it has not been taken seriously by "the establishment" is that they have closed ranks to exclude the genius outsider.

I have no pet theories that have been excluded but you only have to watch people getting promoted in an academic science department to know there are dogmas, usually the Professors, that are pretty nearly untouchable. Scientists are as human as others and are thus as arrogant and dogmatic as the rest of us. The idea they are some sort of special group of people immune to normal human vices can only be regarded as an example of a belief in some sort of privileged status.

[Steve3007]

Scientists are as human as others and are thus as arrogant and dogmatic as the rest of us.

A central reason why the scientific method has to exist is precisely because of the recognition that scientists are human and are subject to the same kinds of biases as other humans.

The idea they are some sort of special group of people immune to normal human vices can only be regarded as an example of a belief in some sort of privileged status.

In your view, who holds the idea that there is a special group of people who are immune to normal human vices? I certainly don't.

[Mark1955]

In your view, who holds the idea that there is a special group of people who are immune to normal human vices? I certainly don't.

I think the list is endless, starting with politicians and religious leaders, but then moving on to include 'senior' scientists, doctors, the military; pretty much anyone who tells you they 'know'.

[Gonald92]

Scientists are as human as others and are thus as arrogant and dogmatic as the rest of us.

A central reason why the scientific method has to exist is precisely because of the recognition that scientists are human and are subject to the same kinds of biases as other humans.[

The idea they are some sort of special group of people immune to normal human vices can only be regarded as an example of a belief in some sort of privileged status.

In your view, who holds the idea that there is a special group of people who are immune to normal human vices? I certainly don't.

Sometimes I wonder about this too

[Bluemist]

... you only have to watch people getting promoted in an academic science department to know there are dogmas, usually the Professors, that are pretty nearly untouchable. Scientists are as human as others and are thus as arrogant and dogmatic as the rest of us. The idea they are some sort of special group of people immune to normal human vices can only be regarded as an example of a belief in some sort of privileged status.

I don't think it's fair to single out science and scientists for such harsh criticism.

If you replace science and scientists with any other academic profession and its practitioners that would be more correct. Jobs, careers, egos, provincialism, differences in specialized thinking, concepts, and language all contribute to deliberate creation of academic dogmatic subject matter, called curriculum, that must be taught to undergraduates. What undergraduates are subjected to in lecture style courses must inevitably be some dogma or another. What is practiced cannot be properly taught in a classroom -- it must be shown by practice.

[Mark1955]

I don't think it's fair to single out science and scientists for such harsh criticism.

If you replace science and scientists with any other academic profession and its practitioners that would be more correct. Jobs, careers, egos, provincialism, differences in specialized thinking, concepts, and language all contribute to deliberate creation of academic dogmatic subject matter, called curriculum, that must be taught to undergraduates. What undergraduates are subjected to in lecture style courses must inevitably be some dogma or another. What is practiced cannot be properly taught in a classroom -- it must be shown by practice.

I didn't say scientists were the only ones, I merely pointed out that they are not exempt from the problem. In theory science should be immune to dogma with all new evidence being assessed discompassionately. It can therefore, in theory, be held up to contrast with other philosophical methods, in particular most religious ones. I would suggest however that this a theory more observed in the breach than in actual practice.

[Steve3007]

Sometimes I wonder about this too

After you've wondered about it for a while, do you come to any interesting conclusions that you'd like to share?

[Bluemist]

I didn't say scientists were the only ones, I merely pointed out that they are not exempt from the problem. In theory science should be immune to dogma with all new evidence being assessed discompassionately. It can therefore, in theory, be held up to contrast with other philosophical methods, in particular most religious ones. I would suggest however that this a theory more observed in the breach than in actual practice.

In my strange way of putting it, I agreed with you. The other problem is that all science is placed on a high pedestal by public opinion, with theoretical physics being the exemplar. Scientific facts, even when evolving or revolving are treated as dogma. I suppose compared to what we hear in the media it's close enough, but not close enough when we need to rely on all current scientific facts.

[Mark1955]

The other problem is that all science is placed on a high pedestal by public opinion, with theoretical physics being the exemplar. Scientific facts, even when evolving or revolving are treated as dogma. I suppose compared to what we hear in the media it's close enough, but not close enough when we need to rely on all current scientific facts.

I think the problem is that people want simple, enduring 'truths' and they'll find them wherever they can. The problem with science's truths is that if they turn out not be true the scientist shrugs his shoulders and moves on, whereas the seeker after the 'truth' gets upset and some then start to deride science.