The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

The worldview of rabbi Manis Friedman

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Post Reply
User avatar
alan_wattsify
New Trial Member
Posts: 6
Joined: October 28th, 2019, 3:04 pm

The worldview of rabbi Manis Friedman

Post by alan_wattsify » November 26th, 2019, 6:51 pm

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.

User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3062
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: The worldview of rabbi Manis Friedman

Post by Felix » November 27th, 2019, 5:16 pm

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.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 946
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The worldview of rabbi Manis Friedman

Post by Sculptor1 » November 28th, 2019, 6:20 am

alan_wattsify wrote:
November 26th, 2019, 6:51 pm
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
Posts: 6053
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: The worldview of rabbi Manis Friedman

Post by Steve3007 » November 29th, 2019, 11:41 am

alan_wattsify wrote: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.

User avatar
Mark1955
Posts: 728
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 4:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: David Hume
Location: Nottingham, England.

Re: The worldview of rabbi Manis Friedman

Post by Mark1955 » December 1st, 2019, 4:02 am

Steve3007 wrote:
November 29th, 2019, 11:41 am
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.
If you think you know the answer you probably don't understand the question.

Steve3007
Posts: 6053
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: The worldview of rabbi Manis Friedman

Post by Steve3007 » December 1st, 2019, 10:20 am

Mark1955 wrote: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.

User avatar
Mark1955
Posts: 728
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 4:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: David Hume
Location: Nottingham, England.

Re: The worldview of rabbi Manis Friedman

Post by Mark1955 » December 5th, 2019, 7:03 am

Steve3007 wrote:
December 1st, 2019, 10:20 am
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'.
If you think you know the answer you probably don't understand the question.

Post Reply