It's a difficult thing in philosophy to keep the same opinions that you began with until the end of the discussion. The topics are often complex and there are lots of different views to consider. Anyway, I first came into the whole philosophical whirlwind as your typical Modern Orthodox teenager. Well, maybe not your typical one, but not so far off from the average either.
I wasn’t limited in my studies, I could take out whatever I wanted from the library, science and Torah were equally valid truths, could not contradict each other and both came from God. Basic Torah U’Maddah in a nutshell. My views as a child consisted of the Big Bang, deep time, theistic evolution, Adam as a real evolved person but with a qualitatively different soul, a global flood, exodus, revelation at Sinai and other miracles were real events, etc.
Then I began discussing politics and theology online with other people. Christians, agnostics, atheists, Muslims, Pagans, you name it. We discussed everything under the sun but the basic underlying theme in all these theological discussions that could not be denied was that I had no way of justifying my own positions over these others. It was easiest with devout Christians and Muslims, though, because they, for the most part, agreed with the same basic legendary history as Jews. But when debating with the doubters of Abrahamic religions, there really was little to stand on and I was left posturing with empty assertions.
I was then lead naturally to skepticism and eventually to the safety of positivism which says that one doesn’t believe in anything unless the evidence leads one to believe it is true. That’s a good hard basis for your beliefs and generally you’ll win the arguments. Debates turn into solid "show me the evidence" and not endless assertions of dogma or even weak apologetics of dogma.
However, after some time as I read more deeply into philosophy with guys like Kant making it clear that metaphysics isn’t something that we can ignore just because we cannot empirically analyze it, and William James showing me that one is justified in making some decision on these questions even though the physical evidence doesn’t suggest one over the other since in many ways it can determine how we think and how we act in life, I began to rethink my adherence to positivism.
Positivism is very limiting. It may tell us what is, but it can easily fail to include other things that are true as well. Sure it can protect us from falsehood, but by its very nature, it can never supply the whole truth. To thus be a student in the pursuit of truth, one should leave the safety of the positivist nest and face the possibility of accepting some falsehood while gaining all the potentiality of more truth. And I should remind myself, there is nothing so bad in being wrong.
So I’ve faced all the common arguments for the existence of God. Sure, there are none which are free from criticism, but still take the cosmological argument for example. The fact remains that we have no good answers for how the universe got to be here. That the universe spontaneously came into existence is absurd, that the universe has existed for "all time" is a linguistic trick and the many universes hypothesis is as groundless as any other metaphysical view. One can be justified in taking the opinion that there was something (some may call it God) that brought the world into being. Perhaps it was a choice made or perhaps it was an inevitable extension of whatever that "thing" is, but I do think that there was something.
But besides from that, the most convincing evidence of there being something beyond our universe is the fact that our world makes so much sense. As Einstein observed, it follows rational principles and it follows certain laws of logic that our minds can comprehend. While atheism doesn’t necessarily imply a randomly beginning universe, many atheists will say so, and I don’t believe that the rational nature of our universe lends to the belief that it has a merely random origin.
One can defend belief in a purely random, unpurposed universe, but where is the evidence for that belief? Humanity exists in an environment which it can comprehend, shape, and explore. We are intelligent, inventive, imaginative, capable of morality, capable of advanced communication, amazingly dexterous, creative: we produce art, music, poetry, fashion etc., and we have an incredible capacity for abstract thinking. That all these characteristics came together at once in our species by accident, is hard to imagine. There are scores of variables necessary for a universe to admit the possibility of the existence of a civilization and for that civilization to develop that can explore and understand the universe that it boggles the mind to say that it happened by accident.
I don’t know if I am arguing for God’s existence or just against the assertion that the universe and our existence is just the result of some cosmic accident.
So does God exist? I still don’t know. I can’t say. But am I an atheist? I don’t think I’m willing to say that I am. An author, Chet Raymo, had said that there are two types of people in the world: skeptics and true believers. I don’t think I’ll ever be a true believer in either theism or atheism, but how can I not be a skeptic? I don’t think the material world is all that there is - things seem way too neat for that to be - but I cannot make any claims for what that something outside of the material world may be. I don’t even know where to start.
Do I think this "thing" cares about human behavior? That it sits in judgement of our thoughts and actions? No. Is there such a thing as a soul and immortality? I don’t think so. Was it this thing which spoke to Moses in the desert and proclaimed a set of laws and regulations for a special kind of human to follow? Sounds kinda silly doesn’t it?
But what Judaism is and has been through the ages (along with other religions) is an attempt to connect with this thing, to understand it, to become a part of it, perhaps. It is a human construct, of course, but with a noble goal. With this view, Judaism isn’t a pointless burden, but it speaks of a determination to join in this goal. Judaism is also the cultural bond which connects all Jews to one another, but it is not just that. Perhaps one day, as in the Rambam’s view, we will be able to commit to an intellectual pursuit of this transcendent thing without the rest of the common rituals, but we must admit that they give us opportunities to set our minds and to reflect on what the world might be. Perhaps we are not a nation of priests, but a nation of philosophers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
WHY BELABOR these minor points unless you are really plagued with guilt. The problem as I see it is we are not orthodox yet we have chosen to remain living in their world. so it's when in Rome....If they want me to remove my shoes in a Japanese restaurent, I will. I will go to shul tonight and tomorrow for a while anyway. I have decided that this year I will not wear a kittle
Paul,
I'm not sure what the connection is to Jacobs. What does he mean when he says it is meshivat nefesh?
prince imrahil,
"What is the value of attaching exterior significance to a theoretical fact..."
I give value to a lot of things which exist in the world. If God exists, I would think there's a good chance of me giving value to it.
"What people unfortunately call God, is the source and ground of all Being...What passes nowadays for God-talk and belief is nonsense and has no origin whatsoever in the authentic Torah."
Maybe, so what do you think about the idea of a judging god and a command-giving god? Is that not part of Torah-true Judaism?
"Study Maimonides Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah."
I may just do that.
Anon,
"WHY BELABOR these minor points unless you are really plagued with guilt."
I can't help it. It's not about guilt, but it's about the unending existential wonder of it all. Why are we here, where did we come from, is there something more to life but food and sex? These are questions our own reason drive us to ask. I cannot ignore them.
"The problem as I see it is we are not orthodox yet we have chosen to remain living in their world."
That's one way of looking at things. A better way, which I think I am trying to do, is to take it away from "them" and make it my world as well.
Orthoprax,
I am tempted to refute your arguments for a quasi-God by pasting some of the arguments you have written against me in the past. :)
Daniel,
"is there something more to life but food and sex"
After you finish with hilchot yesodei hatorah, flip through hilchot deiot ... those are the two Rambam focuses on as well ... according to him, both are only there in order to enable us to fulfill our higher, godly purpose (ie. learning Torah and/or avodat Hashem and/or however you choose to interpret that portion and procreation so your kids can continue to do the same thing ...) ;)
Comforting post ...
Orthoprax
You seem at least to put yourself in a permanent position of not knowing something as a position like agnosticism but this doesn't mean there is no answer then. So your lack of an answer doesn't tell you the same thing as arguing that something is a meaningless question. A meaningless question is something that is equivalent in practical terms to saying something does not exist except verbally. Also if you don't believe and yet practice out of some conviction you are still in the same position as before where you are saying you believe to whatever extent in Judaism. You are back to square one. You want Judaism to be continued. The question is still basically to be asked of you why continue to believe in Judaism.
Yisrael Asper
Orthoprax
You seem at least to put yourself in a permanent position of not knowing something as a position like agnosticism but this doesn't mean there is no answer then. So your lack of an answer doesn't tell you the same thing as arguing that something is a meaningless question. A meaningless question is something that is equivalent in practical terms to saying something does not exist except verbally. Also if you don't believe and yet practice out of some conviction you are still in the same position as before where you are saying you believe to whatever extent in Judaism. You are back to square one. You want Judaism to be continued. The question is still basically to be asked of you why continue to believe in Judaism.
Yisrael Asper
sounds to me like you're a Spinozian
B. Spinoza
"And I should remind myself, there is nothing so bad in being wrong.
"
Unless this world operates a la Pascal's wager.
Avian,
"I am tempted to refute your arguments for a quasi-God by pasting some of the arguments you have written against me in the past. :)"
Ah, well, yes. But the difference here is opposed to arguments for fact I am supplying arguments by which one may believe. I'm not saying "God exists and I prove it thusly," but more like "I don't know how to explain this stuff and some transcendent thing (that some may call God) could be the culprit."
Sarah,
"...flip through hilchot deiot ... those are the two Rambam focuses on as well ... according to him, both are only there in order to enable us to fulfill our higher, godly purpose..."
What always comes to mind with all these proposed divine purposes is to what end? Learn Torah? To what end? Some might say as an end in itself - but one could say that about anything really. I guess we must find (or create) value in whatever we can in life.
"Comforting post ... "
Was it? In a sense, perhaps.
Yisrael,
"So your lack of an answer doesn't tell you the same thing as arguing that something is a meaningless question."
Did I say it was? I actually thought I said the opposite.
"Also if you don't believe and yet practice out of some conviction you are still in the same position as before where you are saying you believe to whatever extent in Judaism. You are back to square one."
In a sense, yes. But it is a Hegelian square one. I've seen the other and have come to understand myself all the better.
"You want Judaism to be continued. The question is still basically to be asked of you why continue to believe in Judaism."
That's easy. Because I'm Jewish. It's important to me because it is part of who I am.
Spinoza,
"sounds to me like you're a Spinozian"
Ha, yeah. Sometimes. ;-)
Alex,
"Unless this world operates a la Pascal's wager."
Well then we're all screwed except for a very select few, likely.
Daniel,
I agree ... but that's the kind of thing you never really find an answer to. If I'm not mistaken, learning Torah being an end in itself would be comparable to the Greek's philosophy being an end in itself. I actually think it seems like a personal thing, but I would say that part of that purpose has to be making some sort of contribution to the world, and to the extent that we can say morals really do exist, being a moral person. To me, it's the only satisfying answer.
As for being comforting, I guess I should explain that I've found myself feeling quite lost lately. I've said before how uncomfortable I get when people think I learn because I'm super shtark with this perfect faith. There are certain (perhaps subversive) reasons why I do certain, more concrete halachot, and none of them have to do with faith. As for learning (something I'm not even officially commanded to do), I learn hoping with every source that maybe it'll be the one to enlighten me or show me something that I've been looking for, something to elucidate this confusion that I've been carrying around with me. While I'm not naive enough to think it'll ever actually come, I feel like I can't give up until I've exhausted my options, until I really understand Judaism and the position I've taken in it.
Sometimes it seems like others are so sure about God not existing, and that honestly scares me to some extent. Because whatever God means (and I have no idea what that is), the idea is somewhat comforting. Thus, your post, which instead of stating the reasons why it's impossible, stated reasons why it's possible (even if improbable), was somewhat comforting. Don't know how much sense that made, but there it is.
Orthoprax,
Ah, well, yes. But the difference here is opposed to arguments for fact I am supplying arguments by which one may believe. I'm not saying "God exists and I prove it thusly," but more like "I don't know how to explain this stuff and some transcendent thing (that some may call God) could be the culprit."
In our discussions I argued basically the same. I never argued that God's existence can be proven, but rather that the existence of some sort of God is a plausible explanation for some aspects of the universe.
"Well then we're all screwed except for a very select few, likely."
Many, actually. (I said "a la" Pascal's Wager to indicate that I'm referring to his TYPE of wager, not the exact wager itself.)
Orthoprax,
These are the relevant discussions:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thefrumskepticsgroup/message/4243
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thefrumskepticsgroup/message/9034
Sarah,
"...but I would say that part of that purpose has to be making some sort of contribution to the world, and to the extent that we can say morals really do exist, being a moral person."
That's pretty much the answer you'll get from anyone who isn't overended by religion. I've taken informal polls. One can justify their life by showing that the world became a better place with them than without them.
"I've said before how uncomfortable I get when people think I learn because I'm super shtark with this perfect faith."
I can understand that, but I avoid those kinds of misunderstandings by not (for example) reading a gemara in public. Most of the people who know me suspect that I am knowledgeable about a great deal, but that I don't think as they do. The tend to chock it up to my Flatbush education, but that's just the tip of the iceberg.
"I feel like I can't give up until I've exhausted my options, until I really understand Judaism and the position I've taken in it."
I can certainly appreciate that.
Alex,
"Many, actually. (I said "a la" Pascal's Wager to indicate that I'm referring to his TYPE of wager, not the exact wager itself.)"
It doesn't matter. Pick just about any form of the wager and the wide majority of humankind is screwed.
Avian,
I know. I can see the arguments of both sides. Sometimes I'm more sympathetic to one side of things over the other. Nothing is conclusive.
Prince,
If I get it, I'll read it. Care to give me some fascinating points that it contains to pique my interest?
"You proved my point, you said exists in the world. Hashem doesn't exist in any world."
Eh, exists in existence. The "world" is all that exists. That's what I meant.
"Of course there are Mitzvot that are the organs of connection to the Source."
How's that?
"The judgement issue is more complex and requires more focus. Rest assured, its much deeper and meaningful than the way it is portrayed on the street."
How so? Is this good philosophy that makes sense or endless sophistry going nowhere? I've seen the "spiritual" gobbledegook arguments before and found them very disagreeable.
Prince,
Re: Maimonides, that sounds almost Kantian with a twist and I have read as much about Maimonides in that respect already. How does he deal with prayers and brachot that are supplications to a false impression of this Prime Existence?
Re: Patterns in Time, I read that it's basically an exposition based on Midrash. Is that accurate?
Honarable Prince
I'm trying to set aside a few minutes in these hectic days to better explain myself.
On a different note, you surly realize that we are basically having a one on one discussion on someones blog. A discussuion not necessarily of interest even to the 'Baal Ha'blog'. We are slowly relegated lower and lower on the blog page, shotly we can fly off the page completely. What with the chance of our host going 'Bederech Kol Ha'aretz and closing down the blog complely a la Misnaged Koton Hador and now A Hasid and Heretic. I therefore suggest that we continue our discusion on the English Atzor Kaan Choshvim. The above is said only if our host Ortho is ok with it, and obviously only if you are ok with it too.
I happen to know a few writers there and I think they may contribute to the discussion.
In any event, unless instrcted otherwise by you I will paste our discussion on that forum and we may be pleasntly surprised by some enlightening input.
Thanks
Adam,
Can you explain where our very convenient physical laws of our universe came from which makes anything and everything in our universe possible? You can't play the odds game with that one. As far as anyone knows, there is only one universe.
You can argue that we are all the luckiest of lucky recipients of the winning lottery ticket in terms of the size of the universe, but we have in fact only one universe and only one set of laws in it (as far as we know). That such a singularity was able to bring about our existence accidentally boggles the mind.
Adam,
I'm really not offering anything new. This is the classical Fine-Tuning and Anthropological Principle argument. The point is that we don't know what the odds are. Do other universes exist? Maybe, but we'll probably never know.
Scientists, however, are suspicious of coincidences since it often means that they're missing a causal principle. And I find the universe and our place in it to be very very suspicious.
So, Adam, what brought you from Orthodoxy?
Shterenzeyer,
It occurs to me that consciousness is a process and not something that an unchanging object can have. To change, to grow, is to be in flux and to be alive and to be conscious.
God, which is argued to be perfect and unchangeable then defies consciousness. And defies normative definitions of life as well.
You guys were getting a little too mystical for my tastes though...
Do You Have Any Information Regarding The Jewish
Whistle Blower?
Please assist at www.persuasion-university.com
[url=http://www.ganpatizone.biz]SEO USA[/url]
[url=http://www.mysefer.com]Seforim[/url]
[url=http://www.mysefer.com]Sofrim[/url]
[url=http://www.mysefer.com]Jewish books[/url]
[url=http://www.mysefer.com]Judaism[/url]
Post a Comment