I was a bit torn if I should post a response to this, and in general I don’t get involved in social discussions and try to keep an objective tone about the theological discussions themselves. However, I want to respond to one point about the reverse gaslighting presented in this post, and I can’t refrain from a short comment.

My response to the substance of this post should in no way take away from the harm, nay evil, which exists in this form of fundementalist religion, the isolationism this creates for the communities harboring these sentiments, and the suffering this causes for people. If your beliefs say the actions people with different theological positions from you are categorically evil, I have nothing to respond to prove your position wrong (aside from maybe some maamrei chazal or other sources which can be marshalled to support either side of the question), but I sincerely hope that your form of religion dissappears very quickly from the face of the earth. I appreciate religous people who value their traiditions and beliefs, and they can even be sad when they observe others not adhering to them, but I can’t in good conscience approve of someone labeling anyone else as a bad person because of their religous beliefs.

When nonbelievers say that they find defenses of Judaism to be weak apologetics, this doesn’t mean that they are dismissing the apologists out of hand. Rather, they are dismissing the arguments as not being convincing, and therefore they will not subscribe to the conclusions of the arguments. Nobody changes their worldview because of a wikipedia article they read. It is an accumulation of many small chips which cause the edifice of faith to crumble. Once that edifice is gone, the arguments are often seen as insufficient. Indeed, the entire field of apologetics is designed to defend the faith, not to present it as the obvious conclusion. Obviously for some the arguments may be convincing, but for many it isn’t, including many renowned apologists. One of the famous kiruv-style books is titled permission to believe, indicating the modest ambitions of the author, and the acclaimed academic-style book Ani Maamin makes it clear that it is not claiming that Judaism needn’t rely on faith, merely that modern biblical scholarship needn’t be seen as an obstacle.

There are obviously quacks who claim that their beliefs are obvious truths, and there are also such quacks on the skeptical side who dismiss the great theologians with nary a glance. Both these approaches are not critical, and should not be employed by someone who truly seeks the truth. And yes, when I am confronted with such people on either side, I tend to dismiss them as overconfident, misinformed, or having clouded thinking. But when a serious thinker from anywhere on the spectrum comes along and addresses the relevant questions, I respect him for his treatment of the topic regardless if I agree with his conclusions. (And yes, in general I think Modern Orthodox thinkers tend to approach the questions with greater seriousness, as the isolationism in more right-wing communities allows them to simply continue to carry on with their prior faith and not really confront the challenges. But, like any generalization, there are myriads of conceptions, and some of the people I know in this field that I have the greatest respect for are Chareidi.)

That’s for someone trying to seriously research the relevant topics. What about someone who hasn’t? Should he be condemned for not giving more weight to people who disagree with him? Well, if you want to say so, you have to treat the naive believer in the same fashion. Is every religous person responsible to study the works of all those who disagree with the tenets of his faith? I think we can all agree that life is too short, and nobody can afford put their life on hold until after the work of a lifetime, and we cannot expect that of anyone.

I got a little off topic, but I don’t know what gas-lighting you’re talking about. You spend half the article gas-lighting your dissenters, and you complain that we think many apologists are biased. While I sypmathize with anyone turned off by what’s called ‘angry atheists’ (although at times I understand why the atheist might act that way), people who were raised frum and stopped believing are doing so based on strong internal convictions, and deserve respect for that at least.

Edit: I got a bit sidetracked with this, but there were two main takeaways of this post that I want to call out. #1 Non-believers opinions aren’t deserving of respect, which is highly condescending and offensive judging the reality on the ground, but far more importantly #2 That OTD people are simply bad. Enough have suffered from this kind of religous exclusionism in all directions. When will these people learn? I can’t argue with you from a fundementalist perspective, but doesn’t fundementalism suck? Like really, really suck?