I had a long discussion about religion with my father tonight.
I didn't tell him what I don't believe in, but I made it clear I have doubts. He's a BT who has seen religion as both a believer and an atheist. I thought his perspective might be enlightening. I asked him about his religious awakening. It was the first time I had ever directly asked him about his faith. We spoke for about two hours.
His story is intriguing. He was raised an atheist and didn't believe in spirituality. Without telling all the details of his story (that's for his theoretical anonymous blog, not mine) in college he had a spiritual experience that made him believe in a higher power. The way he described it it sounded like something out of Navi (Prophets). He then explored different religions but ultimately came back to his native Judaism.
I found his story fascinating, but I didn't find it personally inspiring. Though, he did give me some suggestions about ways to try connecting with god. So that was helpful.
While I'm not convinced by his experience I don't think him a fool for believing. In fact, I think he has the best reason for faith! He actually had a personal religious experience. What better reason could there be for faith?! He felt something at one moment in time. He will always have that memory at times that he has doubt.
While others struggle to find an answer though books and prayer he is sure of what he believes in and struggles to connect with it again.
37 comments:
Reminds me of Rosenzweig. His Judaism wasn't transferable, and he clearly was convinced of Christianity's truth at some point. Then POW! God shows up and tells him who's boss and he's Jewish again.
Lubabnomore Your atheism is in a very weak position. Orthoprax and I have fired our missles at your ship. http://lubabnomore.blogspot.com/2007/10/its-all-relative.html
Respond to us or prepare to have your ships hull taken as a trophy to our home planet. :-)
Your father's experience is a very good demonstration of the emotional nature of religion. For some it can be an intellectual exercise, but very few come to religion as a result of an independent intellectual journey. Religion speaks to our fears, anxieties, hopes and dreams, and family relationships.
This is separate from the "truth" question. In the world of acquisition of knowledge, it is the person who asserts a theory who has the burden of "proof", not the skeptic. In my view, atheism is not a theory, it is just the position of rejecting a theory based on lack of proof. So, R Gamliel, Lubav's atheism cannot be "weak".
>I think he has the best reason for faith! He actually had a personal religious experience. What better reason could there be for faith?!
I have to agree with you on that one
It certainly makes sense that, if you have a spiritual experience, to turn to your own heritage (rather than someone else's) for fulfillment and inspiration. Judaism gives you a rich history and tradition from which to draw.
The aspect that always gives me the problem is that if you take Judaism to its logical conclusion, you MUST follow all the minutae of halacha--including lots of silly things that we know were the invention of man, in a particular situation and time, and for which rabbis now are powerless to change. Perhaps if we had the equivalent of a papal court or sanhedrin, with real authority to change things, Judaism would have been able to roll with the punches of enlightement and remain relevant for most of the world's Jews. (this is somewhat of a Yeshayahu Leibovitz approach--given that it doesn not really depend on God or what he did or does or will do, and whether the Torah was really written by god.)
At the risk of making an experience I had open to attack...
I went to Banff, Alberta in '92 seeking a summer of sex and debauchery while working as a chamber maid. One day, my roommate brings back some bones from an elk carcass that he found on the railway tracks out of town. I wanted some, so I travelled along these rails for a few hours looking for a similar find. What I found was a moment of peace, of incredible beauty that brought me to tears. An unshakable moment of perfection that has stayed with me to this day. To date, I've never had a similar experience. I've come to accept that, whether God, dopamine and/or a comming-of-age moment, this experience will color much of what I choose to do, believe, etc.
Like your father, I reflect on this experience during times of doubt. It doesn't prove anything, but it does demonstrate that transcedent moments can happen at any time, in any place, regardless of what you're seeking.
Or perhaps we should all be searching for elk carcasses.
" my view, atheism is not a theory, it is just the position of rejecting a theory based on lack of proof."
I agree. How atheists conduct themselves in the public arena is another discussion.
AJ Heschel has written extensively on transcendent religious experiences and how they are self-validating due to the feelings/emotions they produce.
I read Heschel post-Banff. If I had read him before, I would've scoffed at this notion. I'd rationalize his explanation as nothing more than a rabbi finding a way to avoid the skeptic "I want proof" arguement.
Avrum,
>Or perhaps we should all be searching for elk carcasses.
if only it were that easy
>What I found was a moment of peace, of incredible beauty that brought me to tears.
did you continue with the "sex and debauchery"? How did it change your life?
I spent 30 years davening, some days with real Kavanah, every morning with a minyan. . I never had any experience or any inkling of any feeling of spirituality. Now I look back at it as a wasted effort . If God really exists ( maybe yes maybe no ) My davening to him for the past 30 years was in my opinion of no avail . Could have just as easily slept late and would have accomplished the same thing.
"This is separate from the "truth" question. In the world of acquisition of knowledge, it is the person who asserts a theory who has the burden of "proof", not the skeptic."
If the skeptic for sure denies he has the burden of proof as to why he is for sure denying.
"In my view, atheism is not a theory, it is just the position of rejecting a theory based on lack of proof."
You can't avoid coming up with your own ideas of what constitutes proof. If there is only randomness how can you make an argument about anything one way or the other?
SPEAKING of sons & fathers an episode of almost 40 years past comes to mind. It is as clear today day as it was in 1967 My dad was a great guy. He cried real tears when the IDF took Jerulsalem. He placed a hatpin in tefellin. When it was still in place 3 days later he exploded. When I told I didn't beleive in god he cried. We never spoke about religion again
"If the skeptic for sure denies he has the burden of proof as to why he is for sure denying."
If I assert (as some do) that rain is caused by the rain dance, and I either demand proof or reject this, do I have the burden of proof as to why I am "for sure denying"?
Rejecting an assertion is not an assertion in itself. The skeptic does not "for sure" deny anything- he simply rejects the assertion of the God of Israel as described in the Bible, as he rejects Zeuss, the Buddha, Jesus the Savior or any of many other explanations for the universe. Does the skeptic allow for the fact that God or Zeuss might in fact exist, but might be inert and not manifest? Perhaps, but then He is of no relavance.
"You can't avoid coming up with your own ideas of what constitutes proof. If there is only randomness how can you make an argument about anything one way or the other?"
Straw man argument. No skeptic holds that "there is only randomness". (Order does not require a god). Proof, as commonly understand, is logical or empirical information that supports a theory. Of course, the value of evidence can be debated, but to argue that a skeptic or atheist "believe only in randomness" and therefor nothing can be proven-- essentially negates the validity of all modern scientific thinking...
When it was still in place 3 days later he exploded. When I told I didn't beleive in god he cried. We never spoke about religion again
He didn't bother you any more at all in all the tears that you were growing up?
DrJ
> if you take Judaism to its logical conclusion, you MUST follow all the minutae of halacha--including lots of silly things that we know were the invention of man
My father has a pretty cool attitude toward this issue. He said that he doesn't agree with "The Rabbis" or THE Rebbe on everything. He thinks they are simply wrong at times. He sees religion as a method of connecting with God. A means to an ends, not an end in and of itself. I think the power of his experience allows him the freedom to think this way while still maintaining his connection to Judaism.
“DrJ said...
"If the skeptic for sure denies he has the burden of proof as to why he is for sure denying."
If I assert (as some do) that rain is caused by the rain dance, and I either demand proof or reject this, do I have the burden of proof as to why I am "for sure denying"?”
No but that’s only because there’s no argument that could be made for the necsesty of a rain dance over any other trivial cause.
“Rejecting an assertion is not an assertion in itself. The skeptic does not "for sure" deny anything- he simply rejects the assertion of the God of Israel as described in the Bible, as he rejects Zeuss, the Buddha, Jesus the Savior or any of many other explanations for the universe. Does the skeptic allow for the fact that God or Zeuss might in fact exist, but might be inert and not manifest? Perhaps, but then He is of no relavance.”
Rejecting an assertion is not the same as accepting it however open minded you might be to future evidence. G-d however is unlike Zeus in that with Zeus only one learning about him could come up with him. G-d anyone can come up with. As a result all the examples such as a rain dance and Zeus are weak.
“"You can't avoid coming up with your own ideas of what constitutes proof. If there is only randomness how can you make an argument about anything one way or the other?"
Straw man argument. No skeptic holds that "there is only randomness"."
Sure you have and that supposedly order comes out of disorder by chance.
“(Order does not require a god).”
How do you know? If you are going to say because science shows laws of nature all you’re saying is science shows that order is produced by order which is really a good argument for G-d.
“Proof, as commonly understand, is logical or empirical information that supports a theory.”
But if you’re dealing with things beyond the five senses like how we believe in science to begin with, then what you consider the data will involve what you sense beyond the five senses.
“Of course, the value of evidence can be debated, but to argue that a skeptic or atheist "believe only in randomness" and therefor nothing can be proven-- essentially negates the validity of all modern scientific thinking...”
No what I said was that if a skeptic or atheist believes only in randomness as some do then nothing can be proven if they are right.
Avrum68,
> An unshakable moment of perfection that has stayed with me to this day. To date, I've never had a similar experience.
My father talked about trying to find new religious experiences. He said he had some success. He brought up farbrengens as a place where he has, on a few very rare occasions, found a spiritual peace.
Anon,
> If God really exists ( maybe yes maybe no ) My davening to him for the past 30 years was in my opinion of no avail .
I hear that. When I bring up this issue with faithful I'm often told: "Prayer isn't for God's benefit, it's for your benefit." I find this argument lacking.
One Rabbi told me that "prayer is difficult". The response was surprisingly refreshing. At least the faithful sometimes admit the inherent difficulty in mouthing words at the wall.
Jay,
> When it was still in place 3 days later he exploded.
Sorry to hear your Dad wasn't able to discuss this issue with you. When I was talking to my father last night I was surprised at how comfortable he was when talking about his faith. There are a number of issues I just don't talk about with him so I think I'm lucky that we can talk about this one.
"I hear that. When I bring up this issue with faithful I'm often told: "Prayer isn't for God's benefit, it's for your benefit." I find this argument lacking."
Is it? Is the idea for prayer that you pray and G-d gives like some candy machine?
Rabban Gamliel,
> Is the idea for prayer that you pray and G-d gives like some candy machine?
According to the faithful I spoke with? No. But then why do we pray to god? Why don't we meditate and try to find inner peace like the Buddhists?
"Lubab No More said...
Rabban Gamliel,
> Is the idea for prayer that you pray and G-d gives like some candy machine?
According to the faithful I spoke with? No. But then why do we pray to god?"
Because it affects us. G-d already knows what should be for us. If we are praying we introduce new factors that affect the situation.
"Why don't we meditate and try to find inner peace like the Buddhists?"
Because life is in the struggle.
"I hear that. When I bring up this issue with faithful I'm often told: "Prayer isn't for God's benefit, it's for your benefit." I find this argument lacking"
I agree. Thought that's my shortcoming. I've dropped the ball SO many times it's frightening...whether meditation, exercise...anything that doesn't bring me instant pleasure (orgasm, sugar rush, shopping), I get bored of. This is MY problem, not the rabbis, meditation teachers, etc.
Perhaps one day I'll take prayer seriously. Until then, I'm left with a grade 3 expectation that I'll say certain words, and abracadabra, the cancer will disappear...the debt will be paid, on and on.
"did you continue with the "sex and debauchery"? How did it change your life?"
Ha! Funny you should ask. I did, in spades. As a guitarist in a few punk/alt-rock bands, I had plenty o' opportunities (though drummers/singers do much better than bass/guitar players).
Alas, 2 years after my Banff experience, I met a cool, hip Conservative rabbi with a PhD in philosophy who modeled for me how Judaism can be intellectuly stimulating and spiritualy rewarding. He used my Banff experience as a metaphor to appreciate how God reaches out to us (I'm being very anthropomorphic, but as frail humans, this is all we have).
And how did it change my life? Well, I married a very cool, religious doctor. Her father and uncles, all religious math and science profs - provide me with a model whereby there's no contradiction between belief in God and an admiration for science. As my wife reminds me time and again, they answer different questions. She reinforces the rational, practical aspects of Judaism, while I'm a catalyst for increasing kavanah. I'm a lucky yid, it works quite well.
If I assert (as some do) that rain is caused by the rain dance, and I either demand proof or reject this, do I have the burden of proof as to why I am "for sure denying"?”
What are you talking about ? Everyone knows that rain comes from carrying a fruit and waving a palm frond in all directions.
Rabban Gamliel,
>Because life is in the struggle.
Says who?
"Lubab No More said...
Rabban Gamliel,
>Because life is in the struggle.
Says who?"
Mussar.
What is the goal of life not to do good deeds but to sleep?
"Mussar.
What is the goal of life not to do good deeds but to sleep?"
Dear Lord...truer words have never been spoken. Actually, they have, but nice to hear 'em again.
"avrum68 said...
"Mussar.
What is the goal of life not to do good deeds but to sleep?"
Dear Lord...truer words have never been spoken. Actually, they have, but nice to hear 'em again."
Thanks. I wish I could say they were my brilliant insight but it is the Mussar master's insight.
So to recap, davening feels like a meaningless chore, but life is a struggle and davening should reflect that, according to mussar.
Somehow I'm not inspired.
> What is the goal of life not to do good deeds but to sleep?
That doesn't sound like struggling. That sounds like accomplishing meaningful things instead of wasting time.
"Lubab No More said...
So to recap, davening feels like a meaningless chore, but life is a struggle and davening should reflect that, according to mussar."
Life is what it is. Mussar doesn't make life the struggle it is. Nor does davening feel like a meaninglingless chore. It does to you but you are not everybody.
"Somehow I'm not inspired."
Your reasons for not being inspired are not inspiring.
> What is the goal of life not to do good deeds but to sleep?
That doesn't sound like struggling. That sounds like accomplishing meaningful things instead of wasting time. If you don't see becoming a better person as a constant struggle what is life to you. Just eating, drinking, and dying?
Whoops reformating on the last paragraph:"> What is the goal of life not to do good deeds but to sleep?
That doesn't sound like struggling. That sounds like accomplishing meaningful things instead of wasting time."
If you don't see becoming a better person as a constant struggle what is life to you. Just eating, drinking, and dying?
Koheles (Ecclesiastes)
3:13
"And also, every man who eats and drinks and enjoys what is good in all his toil, it is a gift from God."
Koheles (Ecclesiastes) 13. And also that it is the gift of God that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labor.
Labor is what you work for in this world. Not toiling for nothing.
Koheles (Ecclesiastes) Chapter 12...
13. The end of the matter, all has been heard. Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man.
14. For God shall bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it is good, or whether it is evil.
The last few lines of Koheles are a blatant reinterpretation by the narrator who was clearly added later.
"Lubab No More said...
The last few lines of Koheles are a blatant reinterpretation by the narrator who was clearly added later."
On what basis do you make that claim?
Koheles makes the point to "eat, drink and take satisfaction in your work" over and over and over again in this work. The narrator pops in at the end and does little more than reinterpret this very point. Koheles uses similar language many times through the piece. (see this post for an incomplete list of examples: http://lubabnomore.blogspot.com/2007/10/koheles-this-buds-for-you.html) We know he meant what he said because he keeps repeating it over and over. He never uses the language of the narrator or indicates he means anything but what he says. Further, he keeps coming back to the idea that all is vanity. If all is vanity, his suggestion to "eat, drink and enjoy your work" makes perfect sense.
Chapter 2...
24. There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labor. This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God.
25. For who can eat, or who can enjoy pleasure more than I?
26. For God gives to a man who is good in his sight; wisdom, and knowledge, and joy; but to the sinner he gives the task of gathering and heaping up, that he may give it to one who is good before God. This also is vanity and striving after wind.
He clearly considers reward and punishment and judgment Lubabnomore.
Post a Comment