Dov Ber, I've been grappling with similar things for a while now, and I'm not quite ready to let go of everything I've been brought up with. However, I find a lot of things on the other side really compelling. Maybe one day soon.
The main thing that's holding me back right now is the feeling that there might be something important that I'm missing. I know I can make mistakes, and sometimes ideas that seem really strange can actually be right. Case in point, I used to think atheists were crazy, but now I'm not so sure anymore. So, even though I really value logic and reasoning (logos), I'm aware of my own limitations as a human in finding absolute truths. Maybe I need to trust other people's perspectives (ethos) too.
I know some really smart and logical people who are proudly Jewish and religious. You say they're trapped, but I'm not so sure. I've had many conversations with them, and their answers were actually pretty satisfying to me.
I understand that if I were raised Christian and had different mentors, I may then be Christian, and if you don't have people like this in your life I wouldn't expect you to think differently, but my ethos is pretty strong. And it follows a tradition of ethos which is pretty strong.
Yeah sorry nevermind we don't know each other (the Charlie I know could've just sent a text).
To answer your question:
1) When you say that "I know I can make mistakes, and sometimes ideas that seem really strange can actually be right", and "I'm aware of my own limitations as a human in finding absolute truths" you're implying that we should presuppose that Judaism is right (i.e. faith). What did Judaism ever do to *earn* this presupposition, and why can't a Christian or a Muslim say the same thing?
2) There are also lots of really smart and logical people who don't believe in Judaism. In fact, the vast, vast majority of really smart and logical people throughout history didn't believe in Judaism. Einstein was a pantheist, Russell an atheist, Aquinas a Catholic, and so on. John von Neumann, who was quite possibly the smartest person who ever lived, was an agnostic for almost his entire life, until he converted to Catholicism on his deathbed because of Pascal's wager (he was ethnically Jewish).
These are really good questions. I have a lot more to say about this, I might write a post (or maybe even 2 posts) on it in the future
I think I agree that if I were a Christian or whatever, I may very well be a Christian making these very arguments to a Christian atheist. But I am a Jew and I am making these arguments instead. At the end of the day I just don't think things are as simple as you make them out be, that's all. Maybe you are right, but equally maybe you aren't. I'm probably being stubborn with my upbringing and all, but my point is that if things make sense, I don't see a reason to question. Things make little sense in your world view as well, as well as in a Christian world view. Why should I assume mine is wrong? (You ask what Judaism did to deserve this presumption, but what did any other theory do to deserve its?)
I know this may sound silly and almost thoughtless, but is it though?
I suspect maybe yes, but I'll need some more info about you to confirm. If you don't want to give yourself away here, you can email (presumably you know my email address from that question; don't share my name please). But in case I don't end up knowing you, you may not want to that either, and in that case we'll have to just leave it to speculation.
A few questions: a) is there no thought too sacred? Would a progenocide thought be OK? (I am thinking about the comments on Blekofskys famous Less Wrong post defending Orthodox Judaism where outright atheists said defending genocide is wrong. Or your post bashing HGLP about Amelekite babies). A true freethinker would be find with such debates.
B) there is a fourth option: clinging to Faith as an emotional decision (sort of like a marriage), not a logical one. This is Rav Shagars mahalach. Such a possibility ignores dogma and dismisses intellectual questions because they are irrelevant to the true reason of the belief, while acknowledging the questions are there.
A) Freethought simply means that you have no mandatory beliefs. It doesn't guarantee that your beliefs are correct.
B) Yeah I think this is the approach of most people. The average normie churchgoer is not devouring all of C.S. Lewis' and William Lane Craig's books.
The problem with this approach, from my perspective, is that it's impossible to decouple religion from intellectual questions. Religion is not just an emotional decision, it involves making a set of claims about the universe, and every one of those claims is either true or false. You cannot (I cannot, at least) dismiss the fact that religious claims are true or false but not both or neither. This is utterly inescapable.
Pro tip - think the thoughts that hurt the most. Consider defending Nazis or sadists. (That's sarcastic).
My point is this - we all have arbitrary limits to our thinking, based on what feels good or right to us. If the Torah makes me happy and fulfilled - I'll believe it, despite having no proof.
DB, the important takeaway from this post is that you think that any religious person is obviously so indoctrinated that they are forced to stay in their comfortable corner. If they disagree with you, you can dismiss them immediately because they are living in the pre-atheist-DB world. It was so difficult for you to finally, painstakingly be liberated that anyone in the other camp is obviously a non-entity in your discussion. They are automatically dishonest and inherently contradictory.
I would offer an alternative. But I wouldn't want to waste your precious time because I am obviously a kook.
ACJA writes regarding Rabbi Slifkin Creation book "The first page of the book (actually is page 10) begins “This book was written for those who are committed to the tenets of Judaism,...”; this gave me pause and a chuckle.
Since I probably do not qualify as ‘committed to the tenets of Judaism’ perhaps I should not be reading the book.
Here in the USA there was/is a saying ‘He ought to be committed’ which means to an insane asylum. I can not help but begin to think religions are a sort virus damaging intellectual honesty, free inquiry, and critical thinking skills.
What does committed mean ? Intellectually honest, rational people and truth seekers should not be committed to any particular religion or for that matter any belief. Rather, they should examine the data and as new data comes in they should be willing to update their beliefs if needed." MY THOUGHTS ARE FREE.
Very well written. I'm sure you did well on your finals, you seem bright enough.
According to your definition, I am a 'freethinking Jew' as well. As someone who gave up his beliefs, you think it's impossible for a person who is religious to be so, and you'll assume I am self deluded, while only you, with your immense willpower and struggles have been able to break free from such frightening indoctrination and oppression which takes over the very minds of those in the cult - but you are simply incorrect, my friend. I am as freethinking as you; I only accept what I myself think it makes sense to accept. I am not bound by any 'shackles' except those same shackles you are bound to: the shackles of truth. For example, you believe the earth is round (I presume) because the truth in its scientific form dictates such, and you are bound by it. Those are the truths I am bound to; no other.
One is not a 'kofer' if he distrusts science; he is just wrong. But in regards to religion, being wrong has obvious consequences (if the religion is true), so the dogmatism is necessary and the labels are necessary. But we can shed those for the purposes of this conversation, being that we are opened to both sides.
A lot of what you said at the end applies equally to yourself, and I am concerned about the time moving on with us getting nowhere, but I still hope.
I'm not sure if you could ever count as a "freethinker" even according to your understanding of that term. In this post (https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/reheating-the-bath) you give the impression of someone who was never seriously open to the possibility that you could be wrong. The outcome of all your inquiry was strategically planned in advance, just like Aquinas in Russell's description.
"According to your definition, I am a 'freethinking Jew' as well." No you aren't. A freethinker is someone who has no mandatory beliefs -- I don't know how much clearer I could have been on this. If you said "I believe Judaism is true, but it's mutar to hold other views" then you would be a freethinker.
About this – doesn't a 'freethinker' by your definition also have mandatory beliefs? He has to believe that no beliefs are mandatory, or else he's not a freethinker (just like a Jew must have certain beliefs, or else he's a kofer). Unless by 'mandatory' you mean strictly religious beliefs, in which case you're kind of intentionally defining religious people out of the category.
“A freethinker has to believe that no beliefs are mandatory” is the same thing as saying “a freethinker has to be a freethinker.” Which is trivially true in one sense, but it’s not true in the more important sense. (You don’t have to be a freethinker; it isn’t mandatory. You can be whatever kind of thinker you want).
This is why I can’t understand why Reb Dovid can’t just admit the obvious that he really believes his beliefs but didn’t arrive at them as the result of a free and openminded inquiry.
I really don't get your issue. If a freethinker thinks that the sky is blue and rules out any other possibility because that's where the data leads, is he no longer a freethinker? And if a freethinker thinks that we should lock up criminals and rules out any other possibility because that's where his freethinking thoughts lead, is he no longer a freethinker?
Am I missing something here, or is it you? Maybe you just cannot fathom that someone could have been brought to believing in God by pure freethinking that is just *obvious* that anyone who does is not a freethinker?
You are not listening. Does it make you not freethinking because you think the sky is blue? If it is reasonable that God gave us the Torah and that creates dogmatism, no freethinker should be denying that. For arguments sake, if God appeared to YOU as clear as the sky is blue and told you, DB personally, that He exists - in a way that is as clear as anything else you know - would your freethinking make you ignore the obvious conclusion because it leads to dogmatism? Of course not!
Back to me, I accept religion from a freethinking perspective. I am perfectly willing to question my beliefs. There is nothing forcing me to believe what I do. If Judaism is wrong, no hell will burn me. But unlike you, my freethinking has 'unbelievably' led me to conclude that God gave Moshe the Torah to the Jews some 3,300 years ago. If that includes dogmatism, so be it.
The fact that you responded such shows that to you cannot accept that a religious person could also possibly be freethinking and yet come to a different conclusion, because you have come out different. Maybe there are things about Judaism that you don't know about?
Again you miss the point. The point is that you aren't obligated to believe anything. If you think that believing the sky is blue is *mandatory*, you're right about the color of the sky, but you're not a freethinker.
In practice, we don't have any official dogmas saying that you must believe the sky is blue or you go to hell. That isn't necessary because the sky is obviously blue. If something is obviously true, you don't need to threaten people with hellfire for not believing it.
Similarly, if God appeared to everyone and told them "Yeah, it's all true", then no dogmas would be necessary. Dogma is only necessary for beliefs that aren't obviously true.
K I get where I misspoke. So don't call it dogma; my point still stands. I don't come into Judaism thinking that if I don't I go to hell and so I believe it. Rather I believe it for the same reason I believe that man went to the moon. It is not a mandatory belief, but it is reasonable, and that is the basis of my belief. Such a belief may end up with dire consequences but if that's not dogmatic, no problem, I am not dogmatic. I am freethinking.
One more time. A freethinker is someone who has no mandatory beliefs. If you say “I believe Judaism is true, but it’s mutar to hold other views” you’re a free thinker. Otherwise, you’re not a freethinker (at least under my definition).
Also, you keep asserting that your beliefs are true and compelling and reasonable, boldly comparing it to things like the blueness of the sky and the Moon landings. I’m looking forward to your future post outlining the evidence for your beliefs.
"boldly comparing it to things like the blueness of the sky and the Moon landings" - I'd probably compare it more to moon landings than sky being blue but ultimately both are true. Sorry for the boldness, we'll get there soon hopefully. And if I turn out to be wrong, I'm wrong.
If you don't mind not stopping at one more time, and to try to figure out where we are not seeing eye to eye...
Is thinking that the sky is blue, and that it can't be green, not a freethinker? No. Same way, if the facts are that one who gets close to God reaps eternal bliss and if he doesn't it's very, very painful (if not eternally, the pin is overwhelming) - if these could possibly be conclusive facts about the world - is one who believes these things not a freethinker?
We can ignore אסור מותר for the sake of this conversation. Your usage of that word may be telling. What does that even mean? We have free will, how can something be 'prohibited' or 'permitted?' In essence, there is no assur or muttar; there is just being smart and doing what's best for yourself and society, and what is stupid, i.e., harming yourself and society. Even from a completely atheistic perspective, you would have no issue locking up a criminal who is destroying society. Not to punish but simply to save society.
Similarly, if you believe in God, (we also care if you harm yourself, your soul, because you are clouded by your bodily inclinations), not following Him is extremely detrimental for society. If the facts are that following the Torah will bring the greatest happiness and not following it will bring the most depressing sadness you've ever felt, punishments will be given to those who mess up themselves and society, which may appear 'dogmatic.' Nothing is technically 'assur' for anyone to do. It comes off that way, and we treat it as such as we should if the risks are as we say they are, but at its core, all that means is that one who is a 'kofer' is harming society and we'll take measures to keep such people away. It's not actually 'assur' in any real sense. 'Assur' is meaningless in any real sense; we have free will. Going against God is awful and frowned upon and we should feel 'tied down (assur)' to go against His will, but if we choose not to, that's on us. Beis din can intervene and will because (again from our perspective) they know better; Hashem knows better. But that isn't dogmatism in the same way locking up a criminal isn't.
Of course, this only makes sense if our claims are true and if not we are promoting caged thinkers as you so aptly describe. But if the truth is as we say, forget assur muttar, forget words like mandatory, there are actual facts being discussed. It is not a contradiction for a freethinker to accept such facts if the evidence leads him there. Am I wrong?
I wrote that in a hurry, sorry if it wasn't clear, I'll try again tomorrow if not.
I meant the whole religion is made up. I never accused Rambam of not having sources for his system (I explicitly said I wanted to avoid that discussion).
Yudkowsky is a flaming hypocrite. He has a problem with God murdering Egyptian babies for a purpose, yet has no problem with murdering babies up to 18 months for no reason other than its convenient.
I'll take my God based morality any day over that.
Dov Ber, I've been grappling with similar things for a while now, and I'm not quite ready to let go of everything I've been brought up with. However, I find a lot of things on the other side really compelling. Maybe one day soon.
The main thing that's holding me back right now is the feeling that there might be something important that I'm missing. I know I can make mistakes, and sometimes ideas that seem really strange can actually be right. Case in point, I used to think atheists were crazy, but now I'm not so sure anymore. So, even though I really value logic and reasoning (logos), I'm aware of my own limitations as a human in finding absolute truths. Maybe I need to trust other people's perspectives (ethos) too.
I know some really smart and logical people who are proudly Jewish and religious. You say they're trapped, but I'm not so sure. I've had many conversations with them, and their answers were actually pretty satisfying to me.
I understand that if I were raised Christian and had different mentors, I may then be Christian, and if you don't have people like this in your life I wouldn't expect you to think differently, but my ethos is pretty strong. And it follows a tradition of ethos which is pretty strong.
Yeah sorry nevermind we don't know each other (the Charlie I know could've just sent a text).
To answer your question:
1) When you say that "I know I can make mistakes, and sometimes ideas that seem really strange can actually be right", and "I'm aware of my own limitations as a human in finding absolute truths" you're implying that we should presuppose that Judaism is right (i.e. faith). What did Judaism ever do to *earn* this presupposition, and why can't a Christian or a Muslim say the same thing?
2) There are also lots of really smart and logical people who don't believe in Judaism. In fact, the vast, vast majority of really smart and logical people throughout history didn't believe in Judaism. Einstein was a pantheist, Russell an atheist, Aquinas a Catholic, and so on. John von Neumann, who was quite possibly the smartest person who ever lived, was an agnostic for almost his entire life, until he converted to Catholicism on his deathbed because of Pascal's wager (he was ethnically Jewish).
These are really good questions. I have a lot more to say about this, I might write a post (or maybe even 2 posts) on it in the future
Looking forward!
I think I agree that if I were a Christian or whatever, I may very well be a Christian making these very arguments to a Christian atheist. But I am a Jew and I am making these arguments instead. At the end of the day I just don't think things are as simple as you make them out be, that's all. Maybe you are right, but equally maybe you aren't. I'm probably being stubborn with my upbringing and all, but my point is that if things make sense, I don't see a reason to question. Things make little sense in your world view as well, as well as in a Christian world view. Why should I assume mine is wrong? (You ask what Judaism did to deserve this presumption, but what did any other theory do to deserve its?)
I know this may sound silly and almost thoughtless, but is it though?
... do we know each other IRL?
I suspect maybe yes, but I'll need some more info about you to confirm. If you don't want to give yourself away here, you can email (presumably you know my email address from that question; don't share my name please). But in case I don't end up knowing you, you may not want to that either, and in that case we'll have to just leave it to speculation.
Welcome back!
A few questions: a) is there no thought too sacred? Would a progenocide thought be OK? (I am thinking about the comments on Blekofskys famous Less Wrong post defending Orthodox Judaism where outright atheists said defending genocide is wrong. Or your post bashing HGLP about Amelekite babies). A true freethinker would be find with such debates.
B) there is a fourth option: clinging to Faith as an emotional decision (sort of like a marriage), not a logical one. This is Rav Shagars mahalach. Such a possibility ignores dogma and dismisses intellectual questions because they are irrelevant to the true reason of the belief, while acknowledging the questions are there.
A) Freethought simply means that you have no mandatory beliefs. It doesn't guarantee that your beliefs are correct.
B) Yeah I think this is the approach of most people. The average normie churchgoer is not devouring all of C.S. Lewis' and William Lane Craig's books.
The problem with this approach, from my perspective, is that it's impossible to decouple religion from intellectual questions. Religion is not just an emotional decision, it involves making a set of claims about the universe, and every one of those claims is either true or false. You cannot (I cannot, at least) dismiss the fact that religious claims are true or false but not both or neither. This is utterly inescapable.
I'm curious how you know genocide isn't "correct".
If we can agree on the axiom that suffering is bad, then genocide is bad. I admittedly don't have any comeback for a sadist who is pro-suffering.
I don't believe suffering is inherently bad.
Pro tip - think the thoughts that hurt the most. Consider defending Nazis or sadists. (That's sarcastic).
My point is this - we all have arbitrary limits to our thinking, based on what feels good or right to us. If the Torah makes me happy and fulfilled - I'll believe it, despite having no proof.
I can agree that my suffering is bad. Others may not be.
Are you vegan?
Yes.
Do you support the murder of babies under 18 months?
I can. It's called postmodernism.
DB, the important takeaway from this post is that you think that any religious person is obviously so indoctrinated that they are forced to stay in their comfortable corner. If they disagree with you, you can dismiss them immediately because they are living in the pre-atheist-DB world. It was so difficult for you to finally, painstakingly be liberated that anyone in the other camp is obviously a non-entity in your discussion. They are automatically dishonest and inherently contradictory.
I would offer an alternative. But I wouldn't want to waste your precious time because I am obviously a kook.
https://daastorah.substack.com/p/read-the-torah/comment/16381674 - will you be addressing these points?
ACJA writes regarding Rabbi Slifkin Creation book "The first page of the book (actually is page 10) begins “This book was written for those who are committed to the tenets of Judaism,...”; this gave me pause and a chuckle.
Since I probably do not qualify as ‘committed to the tenets of Judaism’ perhaps I should not be reading the book.
Here in the USA there was/is a saying ‘He ought to be committed’ which means to an insane asylum. I can not help but begin to think religions are a sort virus damaging intellectual honesty, free inquiry, and critical thinking skills.
What does committed mean ? Intellectually honest, rational people and truth seekers should not be committed to any particular religion or for that matter any belief. Rather, they should examine the data and as new data comes in they should be willing to update their beliefs if needed." MY THOUGHTS ARE FREE.
Very well written. I'm sure you did well on your finals, you seem bright enough.
According to your definition, I am a 'freethinking Jew' as well. As someone who gave up his beliefs, you think it's impossible for a person who is religious to be so, and you'll assume I am self deluded, while only you, with your immense willpower and struggles have been able to break free from such frightening indoctrination and oppression which takes over the very minds of those in the cult - but you are simply incorrect, my friend. I am as freethinking as you; I only accept what I myself think it makes sense to accept. I am not bound by any 'shackles' except those same shackles you are bound to: the shackles of truth. For example, you believe the earth is round (I presume) because the truth in its scientific form dictates such, and you are bound by it. Those are the truths I am bound to; no other.
One is not a 'kofer' if he distrusts science; he is just wrong. But in regards to religion, being wrong has obvious consequences (if the religion is true), so the dogmatism is necessary and the labels are necessary. But we can shed those for the purposes of this conversation, being that we are opened to both sides.
A lot of what you said at the end applies equally to yourself, and I am concerned about the time moving on with us getting nowhere, but I still hope.
I'm not sure if you could ever count as a "freethinker" even according to your understanding of that term. In this post (https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/reheating-the-bath) you give the impression of someone who was never seriously open to the possibility that you could be wrong. The outcome of all your inquiry was strategically planned in advance, just like Aquinas in Russell's description.
I think you care about the truth, but you have a very different conception of what it means to care about the truth. You are a Guardian of the Truth, not a seeker of truth. (Reb Yud explains the distinction here https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/etBrzxdfNop3DqJvA/guardians-of-the-truth)
"According to your definition, I am a 'freethinking Jew' as well." No you aren't. A freethinker is someone who has no mandatory beliefs -- I don't know how much clearer I could have been on this. If you said "I believe Judaism is true, but it's mutar to hold other views" then you would be a freethinker.
About this – doesn't a 'freethinker' by your definition also have mandatory beliefs? He has to believe that no beliefs are mandatory, or else he's not a freethinker (just like a Jew must have certain beliefs, or else he's a kofer). Unless by 'mandatory' you mean strictly religious beliefs, in which case you're kind of intentionally defining religious people out of the category.
“A freethinker has to believe that no beliefs are mandatory” is the same thing as saying “a freethinker has to be a freethinker.” Which is trivially true in one sense, but it’s not true in the more important sense. (You don’t have to be a freethinker; it isn’t mandatory. You can be whatever kind of thinker you want).
This is why I can’t understand why Reb Dovid can’t just admit the obvious that he really believes his beliefs but didn’t arrive at them as the result of a free and openminded inquiry.
I mean, I can understand, but whatever
I really don't get your issue. If a freethinker thinks that the sky is blue and rules out any other possibility because that's where the data leads, is he no longer a freethinker? And if a freethinker thinks that we should lock up criminals and rules out any other possibility because that's where his freethinking thoughts lead, is he no longer a freethinker?
Am I missing something here, or is it you? Maybe you just cannot fathom that someone could have been brought to believing in God by pure freethinking that is just *obvious* that anyone who does is not a freethinker?
You are not listening. Does it make you not freethinking because you think the sky is blue? If it is reasonable that God gave us the Torah and that creates dogmatism, no freethinker should be denying that. For arguments sake, if God appeared to YOU as clear as the sky is blue and told you, DB personally, that He exists - in a way that is as clear as anything else you know - would your freethinking make you ignore the obvious conclusion because it leads to dogmatism? Of course not!
Back to me, I accept religion from a freethinking perspective. I am perfectly willing to question my beliefs. There is nothing forcing me to believe what I do. If Judaism is wrong, no hell will burn me. But unlike you, my freethinking has 'unbelievably' led me to conclude that God gave Moshe the Torah to the Jews some 3,300 years ago. If that includes dogmatism, so be it.
The fact that you responded such shows that to you cannot accept that a religious person could also possibly be freethinking and yet come to a different conclusion, because you have come out different. Maybe there are things about Judaism that you don't know about?
Again you miss the point. The point is that you aren't obligated to believe anything. If you think that believing the sky is blue is *mandatory*, you're right about the color of the sky, but you're not a freethinker.
In practice, we don't have any official dogmas saying that you must believe the sky is blue or you go to hell. That isn't necessary because the sky is obviously blue. If something is obviously true, you don't need to threaten people with hellfire for not believing it.
Similarly, if God appeared to everyone and told them "Yeah, it's all true", then no dogmas would be necessary. Dogma is only necessary for beliefs that aren't obviously true.
K I get where I misspoke. So don't call it dogma; my point still stands. I don't come into Judaism thinking that if I don't I go to hell and so I believe it. Rather I believe it for the same reason I believe that man went to the moon. It is not a mandatory belief, but it is reasonable, and that is the basis of my belief. Such a belief may end up with dire consequences but if that's not dogmatic, no problem, I am not dogmatic. I am freethinking.
One more time. A freethinker is someone who has no mandatory beliefs. If you say “I believe Judaism is true, but it’s mutar to hold other views” you’re a free thinker. Otherwise, you’re not a freethinker (at least under my definition).
Also, you keep asserting that your beliefs are true and compelling and reasonable, boldly comparing it to things like the blueness of the sky and the Moon landings. I’m looking forward to your future post outlining the evidence for your beliefs.
"boldly comparing it to things like the blueness of the sky and the Moon landings" - I'd probably compare it more to moon landings than sky being blue but ultimately both are true. Sorry for the boldness, we'll get there soon hopefully. And if I turn out to be wrong, I'm wrong.
If you don't mind not stopping at one more time, and to try to figure out where we are not seeing eye to eye...
Is thinking that the sky is blue, and that it can't be green, not a freethinker? No. Same way, if the facts are that one who gets close to God reaps eternal bliss and if he doesn't it's very, very painful (if not eternally, the pin is overwhelming) - if these could possibly be conclusive facts about the world - is one who believes these things not a freethinker?
We can ignore אסור מותר for the sake of this conversation. Your usage of that word may be telling. What does that even mean? We have free will, how can something be 'prohibited' or 'permitted?' In essence, there is no assur or muttar; there is just being smart and doing what's best for yourself and society, and what is stupid, i.e., harming yourself and society. Even from a completely atheistic perspective, you would have no issue locking up a criminal who is destroying society. Not to punish but simply to save society.
Similarly, if you believe in God, (we also care if you harm yourself, your soul, because you are clouded by your bodily inclinations), not following Him is extremely detrimental for society. If the facts are that following the Torah will bring the greatest happiness and not following it will bring the most depressing sadness you've ever felt, punishments will be given to those who mess up themselves and society, which may appear 'dogmatic.' Nothing is technically 'assur' for anyone to do. It comes off that way, and we treat it as such as we should if the risks are as we say they are, but at its core, all that means is that one who is a 'kofer' is harming society and we'll take measures to keep such people away. It's not actually 'assur' in any real sense. 'Assur' is meaningless in any real sense; we have free will. Going against God is awful and frowned upon and we should feel 'tied down (assur)' to go against His will, but if we choose not to, that's on us. Beis din can intervene and will because (again from our perspective) they know better; Hashem knows better. But that isn't dogmatism in the same way locking up a criminal isn't.
Of course, this only makes sense if our claims are true and if not we are promoting caged thinkers as you so aptly describe. But if the truth is as we say, forget assur muttar, forget words like mandatory, there are actual facts being discussed. It is not a contradiction for a freethinker to accept such facts if the evidence leads him there. Am I wrong?
I wrote that in a hurry, sorry if it wasn't clear, I'll try again tomorrow if not.
I meant the whole religion is made up. I never accused Rambam of not having sources for his system (I explicitly said I wanted to avoid that discussion).
Pro tip: Try to think the thoughts that hurt the most. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dHQkDNMhj692ayx78/avoiding-your-belief-s-real-weak-points
Yudkowsky is a flaming hypocrite. He has a problem with God murdering Egyptian babies for a purpose, yet has no problem with murdering babies up to 18 months for no reason other than its convenient.
I'll take my God based morality any day over that.
Which book?