Reading the skeptic blogs I've seen some approaches to Judaism I hadn't been exposed to before. Growing up in Lubavitch the Torah was presented to me in black and white. I was taught the Torah and everything in it is absolutely true. I was told everything the Sages tell us is absolutely true. My Rebbeim said Rambam understood science and didn't make any mistakes, etc. etc. etc. On the blogs I don't find too many Orthodox people arguing for these truths. (Though there are notable exceptions). Actually, I'm happy to see that there are many MOs arguing that there are flaws in the Torah/mesorah/the Rabbis but that despite knowing this they still believe the Torah/mesorah retains a fundamental truth. It's a nice change of pace.
Unfortunately, they haven't changed my mind. I have been searching for answers for quite some time. I am always open to hearing arguments. Perhaps if I had heard some of these points of view a couple of years back I may have been satisfied enough and would not believe what I believe today. On the other hand I think it is more likely it just would have pushed off my inevitable atheism. I appreciate the people who argue that actual halacha is reasonable and that many of the practices and minhagim presented as halacha are not required. But even if they are right in theory Orthodox society seems to have a different take. But this isn't where my issues with religion lie.
I believe that if there was an omnipotent supernatural being (God), who also gave us commandments to follow, and those commandments were faithfully preserved then I damn well better follow His laws! On the other hand, if god doesn't exist, or he didn't give us commandments, or the commandments he gave were not faithfully preserved then I can't justify following them to myself. This is where I'm at. First, I don't see any proof to the existence of god. Second, the Torah was clearly written by man so it seems unlikely that it is the dictated orders of a god. Finally, if god existed, and he gave us the Torah, it and the rest of "Torah from Moshe at Sinai" has clearly been distorted. If the commandments and rules we have today are not the orders of a god then I have an issue with following them. If you tell me interpretations of the mesorah are governed by rules and that if the interpreters follow this system then their interpretations carry the weight of god's laws (Torah lo b'shamim he) then I will respond that I believe that Rabbis are capable of making mistakes and that mistakes have been made.
I believe that if the Torah came from god it would, by definition, be absolutely true. Unfortunately, it appears to be a flawed, human, document. I'm pretty sure my desire for a perfect Torah originates in my black and white upbringing. I suppose my view of religion is somewhat fundamentalist. But even so, it may be that fundamentalism is the logical conclusion for a true believer. Charedi don't spend all day jumping through intellectual proofs to believe in god. They simply believe. Contrast this with a noble guy like Rabbi Slifkin who's brilliant efforts to reconcile Torah and science require accepting a certain amount of fallibility of our Sages in some areas but asserting infallibility in others. Absolute truth isn't so complicated. Real life and humanity is.
32 comments:
why should absolute truth not be complicated? why do you assume that it must be simple?
This is my argument: Stating, for the purposes of discussion, the supposed existence of a G-d; and supposing Him to be "perfect", i.e. infinite, all-powerful, omnipotent, omniscient, unlimited, etc etc; in short, everything, all-inclusive. If He is as i have just defined Him, why would you assume that His truth would be simple and easy and clear? If He modeled us in His image, and people are complicated, why should G-d not be ten times more so?
That said; i agree that today's Torah is the product of human error, mistakes and misinterpretation. But: 1)I kind of think He wanted it that way. if it were clear and easy there would be no room for argument, and I kind of think G-d enjoys a good fight. and 2)Practically speaking, what difference does it make?
That's just me though.
The way God is often described is designedly so simple that a child can understand it. And, like most fields of knowledge, simplification is good for handing over important ideas but not for an in depth study. Oversimplification leads to blurring of the complexities which lead to apparent contradiction.
As a case in point - does water conduct electricity? You probably learned in kindergarten that yes, it does very much! and you need to be very careful when around water and a live current.
But actually that's misleading. I mean it's practically true, but if you then study some chemistry you'd question how H2O passes current - it shouldn't by itself since it's an uncharged molecule. Contradiction! What is actually passing current are the _impurities_ in the water. The salts, the minerals, etc. The charge bounces off of them.
So then you may be happy with that level of understanding, but then you learn that even pure water conducts electricity a little bit. How can that be? That contradicts the last explanation! What is actually happening in water is that the molecules don't just sit around quietly but they are somewhat unstable. Some portion of them are constantly breaking apart into H+ and OH- and then reassembling themselves. So it is those transient ions on which charge flows.
See the kindergarten-level understanding of water and electricity isn't wrong per se, it's just oversimplified. The lesson is very important to pass along without all of that other complication even though you miss a great deal of further understanding in the process.
Now that was just about water. Maybe (kal v'chomer) the same kind of process applies to the God you were taught about in kindergarten too, hmm?
Miri, I never said that absolute truth can't be complicated. It often is. Take mathematics for example. Math is absolutely true. AND it can be simple or complicated. At the same time new mathematical proofs and solutions are being discovered regularly. Mathematics continues to grow. Absolute truth doesn't have to be simple, but it does have to be consistent. Truth by definition means indisputable fact. By your own admission the Torah does not meet this criteria.
You say that god didn't want the Torah to be "clear and easy" and that he wants argument. If that were true and he wants us to follow his commandments why would he complicate his message with contradictions? I don't insist that Judaism be easy. But it does have to be consistent. The way you describe god it sounds like he would prefer to watch us fight instead of obeying his laws.
Orthoprax, are you saying that the description of god taught in kindergarten, that he is an omnipotent all-powerfull being, is an oversimplification? Please clarify.
LBN,
Sure. I'm confident that most things anyone says about God is an oversimplification.
"Truth by definition means indisputable fact. By your own admission the Torah does not meet this criteria."
I do not recall stating a definition of truth. What I implied about truth does not contradict any of the definitions mentioned in this link.
"If...that were true and he wants us to follow his commandments why would he complicate his message with contradictions? I don't insist that Judaism be easy. But it does have to be consistent. The way you describe god it sounds like he would prefer to watch us fight instead of obeying his laws."
1)G-d really isn't the one responsible for the contradictions; as far as I can tell, that was all man.
2)Why should Judaism be consistent? No other religion is?
3)Maybe us fighting is how He wants us to serve Him.. After all, it's 'delving into the depths" of Torah isn't it? Plus, we're really not that good at anything else, so expecting anything else from us is kind of setting us up for failure.
Miri, I was referring to your definition of today's Torah as "the product of human error, mistakes and misinterpretation". If the Torah contains human error, mistakes and misinterpretation then it does not fit the definition of truth that was defined.
As to your other points:
1)G-d really isn't the one responsible for the contradictions; as far as I can tell, that was all man.
If the Torah contains contradictions inserted by man I can't in good faith follow the Torah. Why would I trust those men to be moral and righteous?
2)Why should Judaism be consistent? No other religion is?
Logically, a true religion should be different from false religions.
3)Maybe us fighting is how He wants us to serve Him.. After all, it's 'delving into the depths" of Torah isn't it?
Maybe. But then why all the focus on commandments?
LBN-
"If the Torah contains human error, mistakes and misinterpretation then it does not fit the definition of truth that was defined."
Aaah. so what we really need to be defining here is not truth, but "errors, mistakes and misinterpretations." Once G-d put the Torah in our hands (I know you said not to, but I had to anyway)it seemed like he was greenlighting it for just that purpose. Which maybe says something about there being more truth in human error and interpretation than in actual plain statements.
"Why would I trust those men to be moral and righteous?"
Why not? Insofar as you trust anyone to be moral and rightous.
"Logically, a true religion should be different from false religions.
"
Sure. in some way. Perhaps consistency is not that necessary trait though. Why should you think it would be, neccessarily?
"Maybe. But then why all the focus on commandments?
"
gotta give us omething to fight about, right?
"why all the focus on commandments?"
gotta give us omething to fight about, right?
One perspective perhaps, but this would be a change from how Judaism was allegedly practiced at the time of Moshe when all Torah was supposedly known and Moshe settled all disputes.
"his would be a change from how Judaism was allegedly practiced at the time of Moshe when all Torah was supposedly known and Moshe settled all disputes."
Ok but they wouldn't have needed Moshe had there been no disputes, right? i know you're using this argument to prove there was a one absolute truth, at least it was considered so in those times; but after had G-d not wanted there to be disputes, He might have found a way for the Torah to be clear and present to everyone, not just Moshe.
And yes, of course it was different then. So what?
Hi LNM
You can't find Truth with a capital T (the proclaimed purpose of all skeptical blogs), so what seems the most true?
Not less important, what seems the most useful to leading a life in a way that is meaningful? "What are you leaving behind" is a question not less important than "What are you seeking".
Exploring this, the critical difference between a "Jewish" perspective, and the athiest view is the same difference that exists between the word "mitzvah" and the word "volunteerism".
For example, a person can give tzedaka to somebody. That person gives the money because it's an obligation he's taken upon himself. The Rambam believes that he has to ascede to this being an obligation G-d gives, but not all meforshim feel that way. Nevertheless, he does it because the person needs the money, and there is an _obligation_ to help him.
That sense of obligation exists uniquely, I think, in religion. It especially exists in Judaism. It frankly doesn't make a damn bit of difference whether the giver feels good about giving the money, or not.
That's very frequently a major difference between good deeds that are mitzvot, and good deeds that aren't. This seems to me to be a significant point because it contrasts the theist and athiestic world views clearly. The choice you make flavors not just your life, but your interactions with others and their interactions with you (community).
Volunteerism, an example of a good deed that is not an obligation (that is why we say we "volunteer, right?), offers personal meaning. We do it because we profit from it. It makes us feel good, and our motivation for doing it is it makes us feel good.
Though it's unwise to assume that all people who perform mitzvot actualy do so from a sense of obligation, the idea of the mitzvah is that it is an order (tzav), which is why halachists are always so busy measuring when they should do it rather than allowing the matter to flow from the heart.
So, the very same deed has different motivations. The mitzvah is from a sense of obligation. The second is from a sense of rights (I have a right to pursue happiness).
There are many other examples, but the point I'm trying to make is that as soon as we ask the question about what the concept of "G-d" "does for us", or "what good mitzvot are to us", we've already forfeited to atheism without really admitting it, because we make "us" the measure, not our deeds.
So to make it a fair fight, it's time to back up and carefully examine what we've surrendered.
There are clear trends within halachic literature that prove that our rights flow from the obligations we take on within our community. A person who takes on no obligations receives less rights (for example, the right to be a witness or to participate in a minyan). The tendency of communal religions like Judaism is to see ourselves in the context of something bigger than ourselves.
Then the whole question of whether G-d exists is integral to whether a sense of obligation is possible when we believe G-d doesn't exist. If that sense survives, who is it directed to? Is a world without obligation survivable? Is it better? Should we desire it? Are we being responsible when we advocate for a world without G-d?
Then, we come to the question of whether the G-d concept is merely a focus for "obligation" (orthopraxy), but not actually real. If the G-d concept is needed for deed-focused communal stability, it's not relevant that G-d really exists. He is a Noble Lie. This is why for me Orthopraxy doesn't work - I find Noble Lies a bit too bare-faced to maintain my enthusiasm.
The lie is why it must be especially wrenching to be a Lubav who believes as you. Few communities have stronger identities and obligation based institutions than Lubav, but they demand belief in the impossible to gain access to it. If only they were more reasonable!
So after applying what I think is reason, I've come to conclude that it's better to believe that G-d exists, actually (nobody can prove He doesn't exist, and as we need a source of obligation, it works for me). And, as I cannot any longer accept (because I feel it's amply disproven) that idea of Torah shbealpeh or shbiktav literally is from G-d, I choose to believe that the concepts behind them are from G-d and the halacha has a "rabbinic" status, meaning they are subject to kulot, and any halacha that is superfluous or does not strengthen the concepts is a candidate for being ignored. I can't get anybody in my family to live this way (my personal community) but this is how I live. It seems to be working for me thusfar, but that may be because I live in Israel and it is easier to maintain a Jewish identity here without every single ritual trapping.
So my recommendation to you is to rethink G-d and your place in the universe of obligation from the perspective of the universe, as well as from your own perspective, for your own good and for that of your community.
Anyway, food for thought. Eat it in your sukkah :-)
Moadim l'simcha
Shai
I believe that if there was an omnipotent supernatural being (God), who also gave us commandments to follow, and those commandments were faithfully preserved then I damn well better follow His laws!
Not to push you further off the derech, but why? Fear of punishment? Trust that His interests and yours coincide? Or some other reason?
it is absolutely true, it's just not *literally* true.
and i've seen no reliable archeological evidence that contradicts the Torah. lo rainu eino raya - just because archeology hasn't found evidence of Bnei Yisrael in the desert, doesn't mean it didn't happen in some non-literal way. For God's sake, the whole thing is surrounded by miracles - is another miracle of "leaving the campsite cleaner than you found it" so incredible?
and an omnipotent supernatural being - how do you define omnipotence? Rambam, for instance, limits omnipotence by logical contradiction - God cannot make an object so heavy that He cannot move it, because the question is itself a contradiction. IOW, it's a stupid question, and if you let stupid questions drive you away from Judaism, well, there's probably something else going on that isn't related to intellectual rejection.
Shai,
The question "What are you leaving behind [by leaving Orthodoxy]?" is an important one to me. My answer is that I feel that living a life where I try to be as honest with myself as possible is more important and fulfilling to me than following the hodge-podge of laws and traditions known as Judaism that are allegedly based on the word of god.
As far as obligation, I feel a sense of obligation to take care of my baby. It feels good to care for the babe too, but when I am woken by cries at 4:00 in the morning I get up out out of a sense of obligation not because of altruism.
I feel a sense of purpose in life in spite of (not because of) Judaism.
Larry,
>Not to push you further off the derech, but why? Fear of punishment? Trust that His interests and yours coincide? Or some other reason?
If an omnipotent supernatural being existed, and it told me what to do, I would probably serve it mostly out of fear.
I think the short story "I have no mouth and I must scream" by Harlan Ellison gives a sense of what life would be like if there were a god and he were vengeful (a term often used to describe the Jewish god.)
Read the story at this link:
II have no mouth and I must scream
thanbo,
why should "lo rainu eino raya" apply to God and not to the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is designed to be a ridicules example but had I been brought up believing in Him why should I question it anymore than the god I was raised to believe in?
" My answer is that I feel that living a life where I try to be as honest with myself as possible is more important and fulfilling to me than following the hodge-podge of laws and traditions known as Judaism that are allegedly based on the word of god."
First of all, don't presume that only people who are athiests are honest and truthful. That's not so. A thiest and an athiest may both be honest if they each admit that they are espousing theories and not facts. There is plenty of room at the table of honesty for people who believe G-d exists, not just deists, but also thiests.
All I'm saying is that even if Torah is not literally the word of G-d, conceptually the ideas behind the laws are still operative in Judaism and most other religions, and there is a lot to be gained by all humanity, and by yourself, from living by the concepts.
I think the concepts can be expressed in many ways. The very idea of "Judeo-Christian" anything shows that there are two religions at least who express the same ideologies differently.
If you ask me whether the ikkar is the "hodgepodge" of ritual or the good deeds we do, I'd claim that it's the deeds so you're preaching to the choir regarding the "hodgepodge". I see the "hodgepodge" at best as a utilitarian means for keeping a community identity strong enough to undergird its ability to achieve the ikkar. It's certainly not stranger than Scotts in kilts or Bushmen with bones in their nostrils. Everybody's got their "hodgepodge". I venture that in a way, so do athiests and humanists.
Unlike you, I don't conclude G-d doesn't exist once I abandon the claim that the Torah is not word for word written by him. That's what you're doing, and I'm asking you why you've done that if it's not necessary.
"I get up out out of a sense of obligation not because of altruism."
Good. I wasn't espousing altruism, I was espousing obligation. The point I think you're making is that it's possible to have obligations to others than G-d. It's instructive that you chose a family member and defenseless baby, though, to illustrate your point. How obligated are you to me, and me to you, in your new athiest vision?
If all our communities would be today is the sum of family loyalties, you'd have something much less than the "vision" Judaism sees for humankind. Even when you take an anthropologists view and assert that religion is a group survival mechanism, it's to Judaism's credit that it has a vision that includes within the group all humanity. That's a vision that I think should be supported.
When I referred to the sense of 'obligation' that Judaism demands, it was on the level of the ties that don't bind (as family ties do), the level of all humanity (see story of Adam Harishon and Yonah at Nineveh and Avraham at Sdom). So, the obligations we're referring to are not the same obligations, and I don't think your example is an adequate rebuttal.
"I feel a sense of purpose in life in spite of (not because of) Judaism."
I think that's an emotional response, and I respect that, but see it for what it is. Rather, I think what spites you is not Judaism, but your either/or sense that it's either Lubab Judaism or athiesm.
Your logic seems to be Torah's not from G-d, therefore there's no G-d. What sense does that make? All I was suggesting you do in my post was reassess that. If Torah is not literally from G-d, yet for whatever reason you intuit G-d exists and that the Torah offers messages on life that a Creator, if He's at all concerned about the world, would want disbursed, then there's still a lot of room to be a Jew in every sense of the meaning without having taken the path you are choosing. My own view is that religion doesn't have a greater burden of proof that G-d exists than athiesm does to prove G-d doesn't. If you don't accept that assertion, I'd like to hear why.
I've gone through what you're going through. I'm still going through it. But I feel there are other paths you haven't fully explored. Athiesm is not a better answer than what you left.
Shai,
don't presume that only people who are athiests are honest and truthful.
I never said I presume that only atheists are honest and truthful. They are as fallible as anyone else. My goal is to be honest with myself. That may or may not involve atheism.
All I'm saying is that even if Torah is not literally the word of G-d, conceptually the ideas behind the laws are still operative in Judaism and most other religions, and there is a lot to be gained by all humanity, and by yourself, from living by the concepts.
There is what to be gained from the Jewish tradition. I don't reject my Jewish values just because I recognize they come from man. Rather, I reject beliefs, and increasingly, observance.
I see the "hodgepodge" at best as a utilitarian means for keeping a community identity strong enough to undergird its ability to achieve the ikkar. It's certainly not stranger than Scotts in kilts or Bushmen with bones in their nostrils. Everybody's got their "hodgepodge".
There is an important difference between cultural tradition and religious law. Knowingly following a tradition invented by man (for example performing the Tomahawk Chop at a Braves game) is different from following a religious law passed down as the word of God (don't eat milk and meat). Scotts are not required to wear kilts, but on occasion, they do. My issue is with following religious laws that are not the word of god.
Unlike you, I don't conclude G-d doesn't exist once I abandon the claim that the Torah is not word for word written by him.
That's not what I said. Here's what my post actually says:
[I]f god doesn't exist, or he didn't give us commandments, or the commandments he gave were not faithfully preserved then I can't justify following them to myself. This is where I'm at. First, I don't see any proof to the existence of god. Second, the Torah was clearly written by man so it seems unlikely that it is the dictated orders of a god. Finally, if god existed, and he gave us the Torah, it and the rest of "Torah from Moshe at Sinai" has clearly been distorted. If the commandments and rules we have today are not the orders of a god then I have an issue with following them.
I don't believe in god because I have no reason to believe in it. I used to believe in god because my parents told me god exists and then years of schooling reinforced the idea. Had I been raised Muslim or to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster I would probably believed in allah or Him.
How obligated are you to me, and me to you, in your new athiest vision?
I am as obligated to you as I am to any member of the human race. I believe in being a part of a community and having obligations to its members but I don't believe in basing that community on race or religiosity, something Orthodox Judaism does.
it's to Judaism's credit that it has a vision that includes within the group all humanity
I don't think Orthodox Judaism feels an obligation to help all humanity.
When I referred to the sense of 'obligation' that Judaism demands, it was on the level of the ties that don't bind (as family ties do)... I don't think your example is an adequate rebuttal.
We will not agree on this issue as I don't believe that obligations are godly or inherently beneficial to humanity. Any example I give will not be a religious obligation and will therefore not meet your criteria. However, with that in mind here is another example anyway:
I don't cheat on my taxes out of a sense of obligation to my country. (I've chosen "cheat" instead of "pay" to take "fear of the IRS" out of the equation. One can easily cheat and not get caught. Ask anyone at shul). I know that my money will go to help the poor and I probably would not have given the same amount of cash without the obligation put upon me. I accept the obligation to pay my taxes in full and that obligation has an impact on society at large.
I think what spites you is not Judaism, but your either/or sense that it's either Lubab Judaism or athiesm.
Lubab Judaism is not the product of a straight line of tradition from Moshe-at-Sinai. Even Chabadniks will tell you that. (They'll tell you Chabad brought the true traditions back)! But you have touched upon something true. I do feel an either/or sense with regard to at least three concepts:
-The existence of god
-The giving of the commandments
-The faithful preservation of the commandments
In my mind if any one of these three do not hold true I have a serious issue with following the resulting obligations. I recognize that this isn't how everyone feels. It does hold true for me however. If any part of this chain is broken then there is no way to know that the obligations one does keep are moral, just or godly.
Your logic seems to be Torah's not from G-d, therefore there's no G-d.
Again, please read my post. That argument is illogical. I said I don't believe in god because I don't see any reason to believe in him.
All I was suggesting you do in my post was reassess that. If Torah is not literally from G-d, yet for whatever reason you intuit G-d exists and that the Torah offers messages on life that a Creator, if He's at all concerned about the world, would want disbursed, then there's still a lot of room to be a Jew in every sense of the meaning without having taken the path you are choosing.
There are a lot of IFs in that sentence. I don't intuit that god exists nor do I assume that the Torah is, at its root, a godly work.
My own view is that religion doesn't have a greater burden of proof that G-d exists than athiesm does to prove G-d doesn't. If you don't accept that assertion, I'd like to hear why.
I don't accept that assertion because by your logic the Flying Spaghetti Monster has as much validity as your unproven god does.
My atheism isn't a philosophy, it is simply a statement on my disbelief in god. Nothing more, nothing less.
My challenge to you distills to your point, following:
"I don't accept that assertion because by your logic the Flying Spaghetti Monster has as much validity as your unproven god does."
and regarding the either/or of:
"-The existence of god"
This is a teiku. You can't disprove it and I can't prove it. This leaves you with a choice, and I've been challenging why you chose athiesm.
"-The giving of the commandments"
I think there's room to accept, even according to Traditional sources, that we received concepts and not the words we have in the Torah today, or any words at all. Thus, you shouldn't have a problem with ideas such as "G-d commanded that I not tell a lie" as a concept without feeling like you can learn out anything from spelling, trop, crowns, or the 13 hermaneutic principles.
"-The faithful preservation of the commandments"
Here we might find common ground if you'd define your terms. If you mean everything Rabbis say is a commandment, I agree with you wholeheartedly, but with a broken heart. I also learned that much of what passes for Judaism is really leader-worship. I believe in G-d, and accept leaders as guides, not replacements for G-d. This is especially a problem within Lubavitch, who deify the LATE R. Menachem Shneerson.
On the other hand, I believe that there are concepts that very well could have come from G-d if G-d is sentient and has the will Jews ascribe to Him. Many of the innovations of the Jews that appear in the Torah and in its further development contain a lot we should be proud of, whether they came from G-d or not, and thus I believe it's to ours and the world's benefit that we continue to observe them (though I think we don't have to all do it exactly the way our rabbis say we should).
An example: Do not Lie. I profit from the discussion of when lies are appropriate, but I feel free to decide for myself within that discussion whether a lie is appropriate without feeling myself condemned for making a different choice than my leader would have made for me.
Moving on:
Since the belief in G-d is a teiku, I believe our choices to be a theist or athiest can be best explained by other motivations that are served by choosing to be a theist or athiest. There's profit in exploring those motivations, and little profit arguing about whether G-d exists.
You FSM argument is just logical chaff and goes nowhere. It's purpose is ridicule. I'm not arguing about the nature of G-d when I assert G-d exists as First Cause and as a sentient Being with a sense of will we experience as providence. The FSM argument merely asserts that G-d looking like a bowl of spaghetti proves we can't know the nature of G-d, or anything about him. On this you're preaching to the choir, but there are lots of things we don't know a lot about and act based on assumptions (whether our spouse loves us, whether our business partners are cheating, etc.) and a belief in G-d certainly doesn't harm and offers a lot of benefits. So I don't see what the great big deal is regarding G-d for a man who seeks truth. You can't know whether G-d exists, so your efforts are better spent on seeing whether a belief in G-d or not squares with the world as you'd like to see it.
To show why I believe FSM is not a legitimate challenge and that it's meant to redicule, with all the theories about how the universe "looks", would anybody take it seriously if I said that it looks like a bowl of spaghetti? Obviously we can only theorize about what the universe looks like as we can't step outside and take a picture, but nobody feels the need to ridicule scientific theories. I think the discussion of G-d deserves more respect than the FSM argument is offering.
Because I can't prove or disprove G-d, I make the choice to believe in G-d on utilitarian reasons (based on what I think is needed to achieve a better world). The belief that G-d does exist offers me, and the society of which I'm part, two improvements over the athiestic view.
1) It gives me a sense of obligation to my fellow human being that I feel is stronger and more durable than an athiests view (I dont' follow your assertion that obligations aren't inherently beneficial to humanity and trust you'll explain yourself) and
2) It resolves the problem of First Cause.
If the deists view of G-d were true, the second benefit accrues to athiesm, but the first doesn't. I imagine that there may be athiests who are deists. Therefore the primary difference between theists and athiests is the belief that G-d is sentient and "cares" about what we do. That's where you problem lays. You don't have proof that G-d cares about what you do, you don't find proof in Torah, which you consider man-made, and you feel now that you are allowed to drift to other shores. I feel the same way, but have no desire to drift.
At best we can say that the Torah, especially as it's been interpreted in the Gmarah, represents the work of human beings who assume a sentient G-d who wishes good for humanity, humans that were inspired by this belief to develop societal innovations that influence and improved human-kind for the better. I think we have an obligation of hakarat hatov in this regard, irrespective of whether G-d wrote it literally or not. For me the issue is how far that hakarat hatov obligates me to retain tradition and ritual, and the answer for that for me is to the degree that the tradition and ritual supports the higher values that Judaism espouses. To the degree it undermines those concepts, I feel free to divert my actions in a way I think is more consistent with how I imagine G-d would want me to behave.
Now, regarding one specific "higher value", I admit that there are Jews (especially hareidim) who can't grasp the idea of all humanity falling under the rubric of 'reicha". But that's the pshat, and the Meiri made at very clear, showing conclusively that our tradition to honor the G-dliness of all humans is not based on the religion of those humans. You can't understand the views that oppose Meiri without understanding the historical period in which they were made. Of all people, a man who believes these were man-made thoughts should be able to accept that, and separate the wheat from the chaff. It is libelous to equate Judaism with racism.
Lubab No More, I think on my blog you WILL find the simple absolute truth.
OK Lubab No More Prove to me there's no G-d.
RG, I'll take your question one step further. Why would I think there is a god to question in the first place?
The only reason I ever believed in God was because my parents told me he exists. In all seriousness they also told me that the tooth fairy left cash for me under my pillow in exchange for my tooth. Why should I keep one belief but reject the other?
Because there's evidence for G-d.
Not really.
If you've seen something I haven't please share.
A tooth fairy isn't the issue. We don't need a tooth fairy to explain reality.
Where did you get the idea there is no evidence for G-d?
What makes you convinced there is no G-d?
We don't see other universes. Do you disbelieve in other universes for sure?
Science can't prove itself or prove freewill or morality. Are all these illusions?
I like this discussion so much I made a post out of it.
http://lubabnomore.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-i-dont-believe-in-god.html
Here are my responses to your last few questions. Feel free to move the discussion to the new post.
> A tooth fairy isn't the issue. We don't need a tooth fairy to explain reality.
Says who? At the very least it explains why I have two sets of teeth! (Don't trust the ADA. Those scientists just want to take your money!!!)
> We don't see other universes. Do you disbelieve in other universes for sure?
I have no reason to absolutely believe that other universes exist. Until I am presented proof of their existence I don't believe in them.
> Science can't prove itself or prove freewill or morality. Are all these illusions?
We may indeed not have any free will. However on this point the existence of god would probably solidify a lack of free will.
Define morality. I believe there are certain behaviors preprogrammed into our DNA. Religion and the police are not the reasons that I don't kill people.
Did I respond to you here? Did you delete it?
RG, You did not respond to me here.
Post a Comment