Thank for commenting. My point was not to really deal with Maher but to suggest that the ?’s he raises are important and that even if he may not interested in honest debate, there are many peopel with similare question who are really interested in serious religious dialouge.
All the best,
RBG

http://www.yctorah.org/component/option,com_docman/task,cat_view/gid,164/Itemid,13/

Just as Rabbi Slifkin’s books on “science” and Torah carefully dodge the vast and complex challenges “softer” sciences, unrelenting reiteration of the compatibility of one aspect of science (evolution), leaves an open door to those who believe (reasonably) about science that it should be “systematic” – but who would consider philological evidence for Bib Crit to be a science “compatible” with Torah and rote/Leibowitzian orthopraxy (some orthodox-smicha’ed rabbis I know), or archaeology and the evidence against mechitzot, etc, etc. Evolution is not stand alone. Feeling free to embrace evolution includes butting heads with the reigning theories of biological basis for “how we should behave”, the neurological basis for belief, “freewill” – all within science are treated as systematic. We can’t simply pluck one or two theories without leaving ourselves open to HAVING to address ALL of these issues, anymore than picking and choosing foundational ikkarim that even Kellner considers necessary to hold other kosher views. And thus far I have only found piecemeal, unsystematic, bracketed attempts from within relatively-safe, academic niches within niches, whispered allusions by rabbis to their acceptance of what could only be gene-altering viruses to the Jewish Torah systems. They speak of a seemingly-prophesied time when Torah Jewry will be religiously “MATURE” enough to blanketly accept BibCrit, Finkelstein & Silberman, Pinker & Dennett, et al…

Maher’s agenda was to ridicule religion. Period. Had he chosen to interview a Modern Orthodox contestant, he would have picked an academic who holds unacceptable views like the Documentary hypothesis and other narishkeit. Had he met a well balanced MO who believes in the truth of Torah and the revelation at Sinai yet is rational in his approach to matters, he would have dismissed him as a hypocrite for either not being a genuine religious fanatic or for deluding himself and not being non-religious.

Folks like Maher are best ignored.

I have not read Rabbi Berkovitz’s book, but I plan to get a hold of it soon. What if someone were to come along and disprove Rabbi Berkovitz’s theory that miracles are rational? Is there anything about Judaism that is irrational and relies on faith alone?

I wish Maher could also acknowledge that the spiritual and physical homelessness of the cosmopolitan agnostic he admires and aspires to be, does not actually produce the kind of commitment to stewardship of the land that homeland-based religion does.

Of course, he’s stuck with mainly thinking of ‘religion’ as the non-location-specific universalist faiths– Christianity and Islam and Buddhism– and is clearly uncomfortable (as are many American Jews) with the inconvenient truth that Judaism is really a tribal homeland wisdom tradition, meant to be in a particular place.

Regarding the age of the universe- some rishonim take the bible literary and some do not. Again, they are equally important Jewish views on the subject and should not be considered inconsistent with our modern sensibilities and therefore invalid. I understand we have to make Judaism more palatable for people, but to be honest there are aspects of Judaism that are not and we should accept them as they are equally important.

I know many MO people love to pick and choose only the rational elements of Judaism, but I think that approach only takes away from the beauty of a religion that can teach you more than you can rationally realize on your own. Believing in miracles is a great thing Judaism has to offer.

Very important points for the education of our children. I would also recommend the following lecture on yutorah.org which explores the (Modern Orthodox?) rishonim that took large sections of Birashit as metaphor:

http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/716561/Rabbi_Jeremy_Wieder/Non_Literal_Interpretation_of_Scripture_in_Jewish_Tradition

Rav Bigman’s article in the past Journal of Ideas and Ideals is also pertinent, showing the damage that can result when we teach children about God with out being clear that the Torah, the medieval rationalists and the kabalists all had very different and mutually exclusive conceptions of God.