September 7, 2026
In daily life, I have the opportunity to interact with a wide array of curious people, mostly those who work with STEM (or law) in some capacity. As it happens, I do too (there are many nights in which I hallucinate AutoCAD drawings as I sleep). Those with this background also tend toward skepticism of that which cannot be proven via their logical frameworks. Thus, they often find themselves at odds with religion. In the United States, this is an easy target as a competing framework to logic, worsened by the general American tendency toward lay-religion even in those that otherwise have a rich history of debate and theology. Given that much of what these belief systems enact cause great harm (more so if questioned), I would not fault this tendency. To these ends, I am fairly open regarding religion, though it helps that my religion is not one which dictates that I convert others. As a result, I do contend with a fair amount of questions which range from genuine interest to offensive opposition. My goal is not to convert the reader; this is not my job or desire - but to open one’s mind to the idea that an individual may participate in multiple frameworks.
A central issue is the existence of other frameworks. One who wholeheartedly believes in a framework will likely believe that it is the only true one and that all others are false. To this - how much do we know of logic? It may be useful, but its veracity is not absolute. We have various rules which dictate what the most logical action under a given circumstance may be, but so many of rationality’s predictions may not have evaluated the whole of its domains. There exist points where statistics break down, meaning that any system cannot prove all of its claims. The closest example here is Gödel, though this citation does not prove religion but rather just opens one’s eyes that there are limits to all frameworks such that another must be adopted to prove certain claims.
The above is an argument against totalizing rationalism. Now, why Judaism? Proving any miracle is a rather high bar, though I do believe that I’ve experienced supernatural events. Rather, rationalism and logic do not lend themselves to dictating the way we should live. If this were true, we would see many more successful rationalists than we do now insofar as their end goal is winning. Rather, I see a group whose enjoyment of life largely looks like most people’s with fairly unique failure modes. As well, those who struggle with logic often contend with the same unanswerable questions and anxieties which plague everyone. In contrast, I find those who immersed themselves in religion are fairly better-adjusted in this regard, and with significantly fewer anxieties than those without. This is a general pro-tradition argument and not specific to Judaism.
For my religion specifically, it is compatible with the lens of logic while simultaneously answering these more difficult questions. And those who practice it often seem easier to get along with (though this may be nature or nurture). It also does not require me to convince others, which mitigates much of the harm of religion. That it provides the needs of meaning, community, and frameworks is good. This does not mean that I do not wonder what it would be like had I not been so religiously lucky. In another universe, am I writing the same about Catholicism? I do not think so. To struggle with faith is natural, so I did for a while, and found my way back to Judaism of my own accord. This suggests that it hits a particular note in me in a way that other frameworks do not.
Finally, I am often asked to defend particular beliefs or practices. Many fail to understand severability; that my religion is adaptable to its time. This is different from other religions & alien to those who believe only in logic and feel that severability cannot exist in many domains. There exists only an obligation to action, not belief.