At my in-laws' Shabbos table this past week an interesting topic came up. My sister-in-law told us she was recently subjected to a speech where she was informed that by being more tznius (modest) she could stop terror attacks in Israel. I'm happy to say she was fairly put off by the suggestion that her hem line has something to do with bombs half way across the world. (OnionSoupMix also happened to post on this very same topic this weekend. Click here. DHS must have put out a press release.) Her topic got a discussion going on the topic of "Cause and Effect Judaism" (my father-in-law's eloquent term). Someone mentioned that when teachers from an ultra orthodox community teach at the local modern orthodox school they are instructed not to tell stories that imply a cause and effect. For example: The son of Mr. and Mrs. Flatbush got very ill, the Flatbush family had their mezuzahs checked and a mistake was found! Once the typographical error was corrected the son had a quick and miraculous recovery.
Reactions to the discussion were mixed. Mostly the "frummier" family members didn't want to have the discussion. I was raised on "cause and effect Judaism" (C&EJ) and was surprised to hear that some schools go out of their way to avoid these kinds of stories.
If you don't believe in C&EJ do you believe that your actions in this world make a difference in the next? Related question, if you don't believe in C&EJ then why be frum?
21 comments:
An excellent, excellent question. Personally, I've accepted the notion that the halachot, prayer...all of it is for ME. As such, if the system (Judaism) affects my core, then others will benefit (or not, according to Dawkins et al) by the changes that take place.
But do I believe that there are other folks who are better "tuned" to understand "cause and effect" Judaism. Yes, yes I do. I feel the same way about musicians (a few have gifts that other musicians envy), psychotherapists (a few have an uncanny ability to understand/interpret dreams that others' would deem silly), the list goes on...
The danger of cause and effect Judaism isn't theology. Rather the problems emerge when people try to connect specific events to each other.
Skeptodox,
> The danger of cause and effect Judaism isn't theology. Rather the problems emerge when people try to connect specific events to each other.
If one doesn't connect specific events then from a practical standpoint they don't practice C&EJ. For example: someone may change their mezuzahs but they don't believe it is for personal security. They just do it because it may have some effect somewhere.
I'm not sure I agree with you there, Lubab. I know plenty of people who don't believe that pritzut led to their grandmother's heart attack, yet believe that their actions have significant effects on God's relationship with and actions vis-a-vis the world.
I think the whole point of atheism is to deny any consequences, at least any supernatural ones.
Belief in actually unrelated cause-and-effect is known as superstition. But there is plenty of stuff in Judaism that has real cause and effect that is not superstitious, so your (or your father-in-law's) terminology is problematic.
There are good reasons to put up, say, mezuzas that have nothing to do with mystical protective powers. Declarative, symbolic and self-transformative effects are real effects too.
Just for the record, my Dad's terminology for that kind of superstitious stuff is "Voodoo Judaism."
"if you don't believe in C&EJ then why be frum?"
You setup a straw man Judaism and then say "what can it offer me?"
I find that narcissistic. I've read better posts. If that makes you upset with me well I would think you could take a contrary opinion or are you looking for yes men? If you don't mind my critique then good for you after all. Here's to better posts (G-d willing).
I will just say that I love this post and I love all the comments. My Holocaust survivor parents would still make innuendos about the car accidents of Jews who drove on Shabbos, for example. I'm not religious any more, and it still occurs to me as a kind of superstitious thinking. I was raised with it and I can't shake it. Superstitions are very primal.
I'm the same way. I'm not superstitous in my head but...
JP said:
"I think the whole point of atheism is to deny any consequences, at least any supernatural ones."
Quite the opposite. We don't call it "denying consequences" but taking responsibility for man's acts and their effects, intentional or otherwise. We try to figure out scientifically or sociologically why something happens, and then try to affect it. Why try to figure out why the weather is changing (global warming) to figure out what to do (CO2), and not avoid responsibility by saying that it is God being angry for one reason or another (which we can't figure out anyhow)
This passage in the Torah is one of my favorites:
Exodus 22 22Ye shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child. 23If thou afflict them in any way, and they cry at all unto Me, I will surely hear their cry; 24and My wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.
In no uncertain terms, it tells us that God will come down and kill with a sword those who torment the orphans and the widows. This passage is one of my favorites because
1. It is compassionate
2. It is crystal clear in terms of action and consequence, ie., cause and effect Judaism
3. It is crystal clear that God never delivers literally on his promise
God says that he will kill the oppressors with a sword. Often we notice oppressors in fact getting away with their bad deeds. So we wonder, if God did not kill the bad guy with a sword, could he maybe
1. have caused the accident that injured the bad man? Or,
2. would he punish the bad man in the ‘after world’?
You see, the Torah promises that for a given cause, ie., the oppression of the meek, there will be a certain effect, ie., the killing of the oppressor with a sword. Can you blame the devout Jew, then, for practicing C&EJ? More importantly, what would be an appropriate course of action when C&EJ proves to be false?
Living with uncertainty is the hardest thing to wrap our human brains around. I think cause and effect is our natural fall-back position. It's why survivors feel guilty and why children of divorce think it's their fault. I thought of joining the Atheist Blogroll, but I can't honestly call myself one. I believe there is some ordering of the universe in a way our feeble human brains cannot grasp. We are bugs in the universe. That's why God manifests so differently to different religions. It's all just different aspects and wishful projections. Who can blame humans for wanting certainty? Even devout atheists are imposing a certainty that they are positive there is no God-force, when, how the heck can any human know one way or another? Just a rant. Sorry. I've avoided discussing religion on my blog and it's a relief to have a place to do so.
>But there is plenty of stuff in Judaism that has real cause and effect that is not superstitious
maybe non-local cause and effect would be a more correct way of putting it
Divine reward and punishment is one of the 13 principles of Jewish faith. It’s not cause and affect Judaism; it’s just Judaism.
The foundation of atheism is that there does not exist any omnipotent, omniscient judge and inescapable judgment. I wonder why atheists don’t like that idea?
Even devout atheists are imposing a certainty that they are positive there is no God-force, when, how the heck can any human know one way or another?
Virtually all the atheists that I know are more rational than what you describe. Even Dawkins, for example, admits that there is a vanishingly small chance that there is a God as described by traditional religions. You don't have to have a false sense of certainty in order to be an atheist: most don't.
"Even Dawkins, for example, admits that there is a vanishingly small chance that there is a God as described by traditional religions."
But look how certain he is that it is vanishingly small. If science involved certainties (and he is arguing that G-d is a scientific issue) he would have made it 100%. He is just being formal in allowing for G-d. But I reject his idea that at base reality is absurd so that a question of G-d is based on probabilities. Biologists certainly zoologists such as him can afford more to be so gross about reality as they are dealing with a science that involves objects that are either there or not. Physics can deal in the abstract Platonic realm more easily than Biology and cannot afford to be so crude as Dawkins is in his conception of the base of reality.
JP said:
"The foundation of atheism is that there does not exist any omnipotent, omniscient judge and inescapable judgment. I wonder why atheists don’t like that idea?"
Maybe because its false.
JP, you provide the ideal straw man.
Falsify this.
The term for what you coin "CEJ" is theodicy, finding the godly (though not necessarily good) in apparently malevolent acts.
Examples: Hurricane "Katrina" triggers flooding that destroys a major US city plus much of the coast.
Common theodicy: This was G-d's vengeance for giving away Gaza. Proof can be had since the Hebrew name "Katif" for the settled part of Gaza and the name of the hurricane "Katrina share the same initial sound.
But why punish apparently unrelated people. Answer: (HaRavHaGaonMuhaRARShlita O. Yosef) The city did not learn Torah. Who learns torah there, blacks? Blacks do not learn Torah!!! G-d said, bring a tzunami and drown them.
The great Sephardic light may have confused the tidal wave a few months earlier in Asia with the hurricane in New Orleans. Anyone could make that error. But since he is a tzadik with Ruach HaKodesh, mere mortals like us can not say that he erred. But see what happened. Katrina broke the levies that hold back the sea and the water rushed in uncontrollably, like a tzunami. So we, in our small minds, did not comprehend what the great tzadik already knew.
I also agree with JP somewhat, that this is an essential part of Judaism. However, relating specific A to specific B does not seem to be necessary. This would be just as well in theodicy.
To reward the Jews for trying to make peace by giving up Gush Katif, even though it was politically difficult, G-d allowed the people of New Orleans refuge in Houston. This was due to the Chabad shliach who worked there. And note that the hapless NO saints obtained a rookie sensation and went farther than ever into the Championship game of the playoffs. It is obviously miraculous, since the Saints have been helpless for 40 years before that. Only the willingly blind could not see the Divine in that. And is it just coincidence that it occurred right after the Jews, with great mesiras nefesh, left Gaza? There are no coincidences, of course ...
Etc.
JP
Your thesis is nonsense.
1) Your problems in your first point on the watchmaker principle are so prolific that I would have to re-educate you to answer. Leave that for now.
2) Your problems in anticonspiracy stem from a circular reasoning. The concept that something happened that would require a conspiracy to hide is itself part of what you claim as fact. Yet the only support source for it is the tradition that you are defending on the basis of anticonspiracy. Teh same works for Christianity or virtually anything else.
Example: Jesus dies for our sins. Millions of people believe it. It would be impossible to convince millions of people of something false. According one of the New Testament accounts, hundreds of people saw the original event and it would be impossible to convince them all of a mass delusion. Etc.
Post a Comment