Two weeks ago I made a commitment to my wife to try and find a path back to Orthodoxy. I've stepped up my search. I'm reading new things and talking to new people. But, I don't think I'm open to any of the kinds of Othrodoxy I once believed in.
Perhaps there is another Orthodox Jewish philosophy that I a) haven't yet encountered; and b) will find intellectually satisfying. The problem is I already believe that the Orthodox perspective on God and Torah is false. Obviously, this is incompatible with trying to find a reason to believe that they are true. Further, I don't want to claim to be on a search if I have already made up my mind.
I've been trying to figure out what I am open to. I know I am open to changing my mind, provided there is a strong enough reason to do so. For example, when a peer-reviewed study comes out and challenges accepted scientific theory XYZ I am willing to consider changing my beliefs about XYZ. I know, I know, evidence of that kind regarding God and Torah doesn't exist. But, cold hard science isn't the only way to make reasonable judgments about the world around us.
To get through the day I have to make assumptions about the world around me. I don't require scientific proof that my boss isn't an sentient cyborg from the future, I assume - and believe - he's human. (This should be pashut but some of the folks who comment around here argue that if you make one assumption about anything then you can make the assumption that god exists. And if you can assume that god exists then *abra-cadabra* you're a believer again.) I'm OK with making reasonable assumptions. It's the unreasonable assumptions that I have an issue with.
It seems to me assuming god exists is an unreasonable assumption.
35 comments:
I don't think that you'll find any new convincing evidence for god or torah, which as been debated by philosophers and theologions for the past 1000 years, so there's no reinventing the wheel.
You and others have to accept your beliefs-- since beliefs can't be "forced". (This doesn't mean one goes around parading their atheism, any more than other matters that are personal)
At the same time I think that it is easy to understand that Judaism, as did other religions, develop to give a social structure to an ethnic/national group, and the accumulated wisdom of the centuries has something to teach us. So it is neither difficult nor illogical to CHOOSE to indentify with your particular group by participating in their rituals.
I personally know many people who come to shul who are essentially atheists (albeit discreetly), and have no problem with it-- they are showing solidarity with, and gaining the benefits from, this community life. Perhaps this kind of orthopraxy is more difficult in the Lubavitch community, given the emphasis on mysticism, etc, but in modern orthodoxy it is completely possible to integrate. (although I woudn't say that it is philosophically compatible). Also, perhaps agnosticism is more comfortable for you, rather than atheism, in that you don't have to assert that there's no god while, while at the same time participating in rituals...
"It seems to me assuming god exists is an unreasonable assumption."
I'd love to read a detailed, plausible explaination for the origin of life without an intelligent designer involved. Perhaps you can help us.
Jewish Philosopher-
You have a fascinating and beautiful history and I don't in any way wish to offend you or your beliefs--but I shall try to respond to your comment:
I think that discussions about god and judaism aften confuse the amorphous concept of god as prime mover or force of nature, on one hand, and the idea of "God of Israel" as expounded in our traditional biblical and extra-biblical sources.
The first amorphous concept is much more difficult to prove or disprove, because one can always say that all natural phenomena which science measures are manifestations of god. Then the discussion can go no further. Either you call natural law "natural law" or you call it "god". This understanding of God could be compatible with evolutionary biology, nuclear physics, psychology and modern cosmology. (although one could claim that you are adding an unnecessary layer of complexity to the explanation by adding god ("intelligent designer") to the process). In this view all previous development of life, formation of the universe, and currently observable biological processes, which seem to proceed without any intervention, are in fact god driven. It must be stated that no serious biologist at this point questions the basic truth of evolution, which occured in the past and now and very much observable (e.g. antibiotic resistant bacteria, loss of eyes in scorpions in caves, etc). What started it all? Evolutionary theory can explain it without a god simply with the laws of nature and probability. If saying that it was god (who always existed and is extremely complex-- which is harder to understand than the godless explanation, in my view) makes it easier to understand-- I won't take that away from you.
On the other hand, the "God of Israel" as described in Judaism (or any other religion's god, for that matter) makes very specific, if not testable assertions about God's "intervention" in the world. Of course, many of these assertions stem from conflicting opinions and from concepts that have evolved over time with the development of civilization (prayer, evil, free will,etc). It is in this concept of god where we see many contradictions with awkward attempts at reconciliation, anachronisms and errors in what is supposed to be god's word, and conflicts between the Torah ethic and that of our own intellect ("why can't I neuter a cat?").
As others have stated, the benefits and presumed higher morality of religious communities does not reflect on the truth/falsehood of the religious claims. It simply reflects on belief's usefulness as a social tool.
"It seems to me assuming god exists is an unreasonable assumption."
Based on what? Let's hear?
Dr J said:
"Evolutionary theory can explain it without a god simply with the laws of nature and probability."
I respect as always your sincerity but I do have to disagree. Assuming you are right still laws of nature and probability don't strictly explain things. They describe. Of course in ordinary language it can be somewhat synomymous to a point. If they simply explained by existing why would scientists try to see if they can use science to "explain" further?
In other words trying to see what started it all. There are more questions than answers. Not that answers negate G-d but that arguing that we know so much and don't see G-d is very off.
>It seems to me assuming god exists is an unreasonable assumption.
Well thats it then right? That was the starting point no? So how do you want to look for another OJ philosophy if you are not only not only have an active belief in god, but you are saying God is simply an unreasonable assumption. Sounds like strong atheisim to me.
Holy Hyrax,
> Sounds like strong atheisim to me.
I agree. This is my dilemma.
Why not just assume that God exists and leave it at that. That requires no specific belief or rituals. In reality I am an agnostic but if I call myself a diest that seems to do the job. For some reason people want you to believe in a God. Not nedessarily to practice any rituals but just to believe. I guess it's the herding instinct.
"(This should be pashut but some of the folks who comment around here argue that if you make one assumption about anything then you can make the assumption that god exists. And if you can assume that god exists then *abra-cadabra* you're a believer again.)"
I have failed to notice a commentator here saying that all. That you should be open on the basis of the fact that you make assumptions beyond the strict reach of science was argued by me as a starting point. Go online and type in sentences like "Science shows God" "Science doesn't show God." "Bible proven correct" "Bible proven false." Any proposition and its opposite. You can lay your findings on the table and we will join in offering our humble opinions in all directions but we can't make you want to go above what you want. If you really are serious about rethinking fine if not then we can't help you.
"It seems to me assuming god exists is an unreasonable assumption."
Explain why? Also look how you phrase it "Assumption." Who's talking assumptions. We are talking what is true or not. You seem to not want to consider it.
"For example, when a peer-reviewed study comes out and challenges accepted scientific theory XYZ I am willing to consider changing my beliefs about XYZ."
This isn't open enough. What makes the peer review people review? They see arguments that make sense to them. If a scientist publishes something it is not to be discounted if it hasn't yet been peer reviewed.
I am still waiting for my detailed, plausible explaination for the origin of life without an intelligent designer involved.
The fact is, however, that one might as well wait for a detailed, plausible explaination for this blog without an intelligent author involved.
read all three of rav avigdor millers hashkafa books and you will stop visiting me.
Jewish Philosopher, what happened to the debate you and I were going to have. Did I frighten you off already.
Frumbabe, I have no desire to visit you. I already read Rav Millers books. He is a fundementalsit. Fundementalists dont think.
I was at this point once. You can try reading "Judaism Beyond God" by Sherwin Wine, founder of Humanistic Judaism. It didn't help me personally as far as helping me stay interested in Judasim but maybe you'll have a different reaction. In any case, it was an enjoyable read.
Read www.rabbangamliel.blogspot.com
Jewish Philosopher said:
"I am still waiting for my detailed, plausible explaination for the origin of life without an intelligent designer involved.
The fact is, however, that one might as well wait for a detailed, plausible explaination for this blog without an intelligent author involved."
Your question regarding the origin of life assumes intelligent design by the well-known watchmaker analogy, which has been shown to be false for many reasons, see
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/watchmak.htm. The biggest argument against it is that a plausible alternative to god to explain life really exists, just read basic texts physics and biology. Rejecting these hypotheses means rejecting the scientific method. (Sorry, I won't go into a long treatise in a blog comment...you'll have to read for yourself, if you really want to...)
Then again, if you want to all natural law "God", go ahead..
R Gamliel said:
"In other words trying to see what started it all. There are more questions than answers. Not that answers negate G-d but that arguing that we know so much and don't see G-d is very off."
Science doesn't and can't disprove god: as you said, it explains things, the "how". God addresses the "why" although strictly speaking this isn't necessary. There doesn't have to be a "why", even though it makes us feel better to believe there is.
"R Gamliel said:
"In other words trying to see what started it all. There are more questions than answers. Not that answers negate G-d but that arguing that we know so much and don't see G-d is very off."
Science doesn't and can't disprove god: as you said, it explains things, the "how". God addresses the "why" although strictly speaking this isn't necessary. There doesn't have to be a "why", even though it makes us feel better to believe there is."
If there is no “why” things don't make sense. Science is limited in how much of what it says can be helpful as a "why" since science describes and only to the extent it's description helps as an answer is it a "why". Still why is a legitimate question that underlies the legitimacy of science. If we don't feel that scientific laws are laws because things need a cause then we are arguing that there is chaos that just happens to be giving the appearance of law. By affirming otherwise our belief constitutes one part of a "why" answer.
Dr J I'm confused about your profile. Are you a believer in G-d or not?
"Dr J I'm confused about your profile. Are you a believer in G-d or not?"
Agnostic.
LNM,
I think what you need is a healthy skepticism of skepticism itself. Science does not define reality, it is only our approximation of reality as perceived through limited human reason. Not that I'm putting it down, but you need to understand its limits.
Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" is a good (if not heavy) place to start.
Drj, I believe I've already seen http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/watchmak.htm, it looks familiar.
However, in my humble opinion, all rhetorical smokescreens aside, the only way to falsify the watchmaker analogy is to produce a watch which has no maker. In other words, show me a device, which is made from many moving parts working together for a common purpose, which we have seen was created spontaneously.
There is none.
Therefore I must assume that every organelle in every cell is was created by God.
DrJ,
> ...in modern orthodoxy [orthopraxy] is completely possible to integrate. (although I wouldn't say that it is philosophically compatible).
Ay, there's the rub.
frumbabe,
> read all three of rav avigdor millers hashkafa books and you will stop visiting me.
Now why would I want to do something that would make me stop visiting your blog? :) Thanks for the recommendations.
MushroomJew,
Thanks for the reading suggestion.
Orthoprax
> Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" is a good (if not heavy) place to start.
Thanks for the suggestion. I downloaded a copy.
(BTW, 600 pages?!?! Holy crap!)
JP said "I am still waiting for my detailed, plausible explanation for the origin of life without an intelligent designer involved.
But why does that intelligent designer have to be God and why does the design have to follow the way the torah says?
I agree that nature & life are very complex, but that in itself does not prove the existence of God.
Why is it more plausible to say that God just created the world out of nothing?
"JP said "I am still waiting for my detailed, plausible explanation for the origin of life without an intelligent designer involved.
But why does that intelligent designer have to be God"
G-d fits the bill unless your idea of G-d is an old man or something.
"and why does the design have to follow the way the torah says?"
The design follows what you see how it fits in the Torah is something else.
"I agree that nature & life are very complex, but that in itself does not prove the existence of God
Why is it more plausible to say that God just created the world out of nothing?"
The universe had a begining. There was nothing before. There wasn't even a before or after. Time began for us with the creation. It never began for G-d. He had no first instant to reckon from it from. He is outside of time. He is beyond being and nonbeing even.
RG said "He had no first instant to reckon from it from. He is outside of time. He is beyond being and nonbeing even.
Adn this is what you BELIEVE through FAITH.
To call this a FACT is a leap.
I am not saying that God does not exist, but you and JP seem to think that it is a given fact that God exists. I am not sure about you, but JP wants proof for the fact that there is no God. Yet he refuses to admit that there is no hard proof FOR a God either.
Explain why? Also look how you phrase it "Assumption." Who's talking assumptions. We are talking what is true or not. You seem to not want to consider it.
Rabban Gamliel. I dont know what really is true, as you dont. Assume it is true what difference does it make. God exists 100% for sure. Now what ? Avi
"Rich Perkins" said...
RG said "He had no first instant to reckon from it from. He is outside of time. He is beyond being and nonbeing even.
Adn this is what you BELIEVE through FAITH.
To call this a FACT is a leap."
No this I don't believe through faith. If you are not concentrated in one spot in spacetime, no moment for you is your moment. Before and after exist simultaneously. It's called relativistic mechanics.
"I am not saying that God does not exist, but you and JP seem to think that it is a given fact that God exists. I am not sure about you, but JP wants proof for the fact that there is no God. Yet he refuses to admit that there is no hard proof FOR a God either."
What hard proof do you have of anything if you mean scientific? The science of the day offers tentative ideas and if one finds something that makes sense to him he can accept them as what he calls facts. Science though tests it constantly not caring how convinced any scientist is. If we are not allowed to say what we feel is a fact than how do we get to believe anything? I'm not claiming to have discovered G-d in science. Science is not set up to go beyond itself stricly speaking but it can hint beyond itself.
"God exists 100% for sure. Now what ? Avi"
Depends what kind of a G-d but the universe is never the same for you. Essentially it's talking back to you.
Have you read "Meta-Halakhah: Logic, Intuition, and the Unfolding of Jewish Law", by Moshe Koppel?
It's a fascinating read regarding TSBP and emuna as perspective. We worth it, and may give you some food for thought. The author is a frum comp science/math prof at Bar Ilan.
"(BTW, 600 pages?!?! Holy crap!)"
Well, you know the Enlightenment. They were short on editors.
JP said:
"the only way to falsify the watchmaker analogy is to produce a watch which has no maker."
The watchmaker analogy is an ANALOGY, not an argument. Therefore, logically, the truth or falsehood of the first part of the analogy cannot prove the second. The analogy is the equivalent of saying "Hey, we can identify things that must have intelligent designers just by looking at them, and here is an example (the watch)". The watch is just an example to support the main assertion (that ordered things must have creators). The assertion has to be argued on its own merit, given the evidence or alternative explanations, regardless of the example. A self-assembling watch is a logical impossibility because by definition it is a man-made object, so you can't require me to come up with one, whereas for a life form I can indeed come up with a plausable explanation, much less complicated than a complex god.
"A self-assembling watch is a logical impossibility because by definition it is a man-made object, so you can't require me to come up with one, whereas for a life form I can indeed come up with a plausable explanation, much less complicated than a complex god."
That's not a good enough argument. Suppose man could invent a species. Would that prevent that species from arising naturally in the galaxy? From what cause? Atoms don't know if they are being gathered together to form a watch or a tree. It's still a gathering. The mechanics is the same. There would be no scientific reason to distinguish between the two. The analogy with a watch is perfect. Once you can have order arising from no cause more complicated if not as complicated as a watch you could have a watch arising by itself. Once the laws of nature are overthrown chaos reigns and like with an area of total squashesness of spacetime a singularity unless it is blocked off anything could come out of it from the scientists equations, a watch your car, a galaxy, anything.
G-d only has complexity in the universal sense. Is reality complex? It looks unpicturable at its base. Still it has a simplicity that it all boils down too.
DRJ "whereas for a life form I can indeed come up with a plausable explanation, much less complicated than a complex god."
Which is what?
Post a Comment