Comments on Three Jews, Four Opinions: God - Part 2. Refocusing the Question, not Redefi...

Bruce writes: "...the issues involving God in...

2010-11-10T15:02:16.463-08:00

Bruce writes: "...the issues involving God in Judaism focus primarily (but not exclusively) on the manifestations of God rather than God himself. We can minimally think of God as the source of these manifestations without making any stronger claims about the nature of God. This provides much common grounds between theists and atheists. and this gets us most of the way there."

Bruce, from a social, sentimental, and "human" perspective I sympathize with your interest in finding a way to salvage Judaism and even to bridge the divide between theists and atheists. From a rational perspective, however, I'm finding it difficult to see its legitimacy.

A "religion" that posits its traditional sine qua non to be optional seems to me hollow. Even if Judaism hasn't focused primarily on analyzing the nature of God Himself, one thing was absolutely essential in Judaism: belief in One, Conscious, Supervising God, who gave the Torah. To make such beliefs optional is to cast aside its age-old foundation and justification. With such self-eviscerating victories, Judaism needs no defeats to spell its end.

I'm reminded of an anecdote my rabbi once told me (which he used to illustrate a different point). When technology was still a marvel in some parts of the world, two men began discussing some innovations of the near past. One said: "How can things like the telegraph and radio possibly work?" The other said, "It's no great mystery: Think of a dachshund, a long dog. If you pull the tail, the head will move. So, too, if you do something in one place, it registers far away. "Wait," said the first man, "that explanation may help for a telegraph, because it actually has a line that stretches from where the message is sent to where it's received. But how does that explanation help for the radio?" "Simple, said the other man, "it's the same explanation, only without the dog."

My friend, Judaism without positing the existence of God is "the same explanation, only without the dog."

If godliness is goodness, we are left with absurd ...

2010-11-10T15:02:15.429-08:00

If godliness is goodness, we are left with absurd statements like "that's a godly atheist."

I object to the idea of redefining words to mea...

2010-11-10T15:02:15.095-08:00
I object to the idea of redefining words to mean something different from what most people mean when they use them. It spreads confusion and causes sloppy thinking.

That objection might work with respect to "God" but it does not work with respect to "godliness." Godliness certainly means obeying God's commands or wishes, but it also means being good and virtuous.

Let's back up a step.

The Torah account is that God commanded the Jews to obey a bunch of laws. The traditional Jewish belief is that Moses wrote the Torah. If you accept this as an accurate historical event, things are pretty straightforward: you obey the divine commands that God commanded.

Suppose you don't accept this as an accurate historical account. The obvious question is what do you then make of Judaism? But an equally important question is what were the Biblical authors and early interpreters and Talmudic rabbis doing? Under these assumptions, they certainly were not doing history.

I think they were promoting godliness and goodness. They were telling a story as a story about God commanding the Jews to not steal and to honor parents and a bunch of other things. And the Jews at the time adopted the story as their own.

So the traditional explanation of Judaism is that God gave commandments to Jews in an earlier age. But the more moderate or liberal explanation of Judaism is that earlier Jews created and adopted stories about God giving commandments.

Under the assumption that the Torah account is not literally true, this description of moderate or liberal Judaism is an accurate descriptive of what really happened. It is difficult to say that recognizing this fact is not being true to authentic Judaism. It is recognizing Judaism for what it is: a community or religious civilization that has adopted certain stories as important.

We see this in Orthodoxy as well. In the year 1500 CE, virtually all Jews thought of Noah's flood as a real historical event. Science has demolished this claim. Some Orthodox Jews cling to the idea that the flood actually happened. Others Orthodox Jews have come up with a new understanding of the flood (allegory, etc.) in light of newly discovered facts. Some Orthodox Jews argue that this is illegitimate because everyone has always understood the flood as a real historical event. But most Orthodox Jews accept this move as legitimate. The story still has value as a story, even if it is not history.

Democracy and human rights used to mean, respectiv...

2010-11-10T15:02:14.046-08:00
Democracy and human rights used to mean, respectively, that the people get to vote on their own governance, and that the indvidual's rights to life and freedom, among others, were to be respected. Stalin once told me, however, that democracy and human rights are layered and complex things, that only the simplistic take literally. "After all," he argued, "what is a leader but the symbol of the people, and what is the leader's will, therefore, but the will of the people, and not only the discordant will of a divided, voting populace--but the unified, perfect will of a single-minded people!" "Furthermore," he said, "what are human rights but the right to be fully human, and what is more fully human than one who sacrifices for his people? Therefore, those who are sent to labor camps, or even executed, for the good of the nation, as determined by the leader, who embodies the nation's will--their fate epitomizes human rights!

Everything is anything, said the theologian, anything I want it to be--especially its opposite. If Judaism's essence has always been the belief in One supernatural, conscious, intervening God, what does this matter? Let us strip this essence from religion and claim that a non-supernatural belief system is Judaism, too--indeed, an evolving and more developed form of Judaism. Everything is anything, said the theologian, anything I want it to be.

Bruce, I don't mean to pile on, but I have to...

2010-11-10T15:02:13.017-08:00
Bruce,

I don't mean to pile on, but I have to agree with JA and FTU: I don't see the need to equate goodness with "godliness," and I'm not even an atheist--so I'd be surprised if (as your post indicates) most decent atheists would concede that "godliness" is good.

As has been pointed out, Moses and Joshua, the popes and Luther, Mohammad, and many, many others have killed or taught killing, or hated or taught hatred (and many other things "most decent people" today would consider "not good") in God's name.

And if you wish to discount--as not truly "godly"--the murder and slavery and war and oppresson committed by those who said they were fulfilling God's word, how do you know what's "godly" or good? Clearly from something outside religion. If so, why take the unnecessary step of seeking good inside "godliness" or religion? Why not simply admit that humans can well find notions of morality and goodness without recourse to religion?

Bruce, >Atheists argue that godliness is actin...

2010-11-10T15:02:12.795-08:00
Bruce,

>Atheists argue that godliness is acting as God Himself would act if He existed, but He doesn't exist.

I suppose I'm an agnostic in this regard. I have no clue as to how God would act, if it existed. Of course I'd like to believe that it would be loving, merciful and kind, but if Nature is God's handiwork and model, or even using the descriptions the Torah uses, I'm only left with confusion. Do I take the positive or the negative attributes that humans perceive in nature? Is social Darwinism godly? Is jealousy godly? What about racism? Perhaps the God of Isaiah is more accurate... But which Isaiah, the first or the second? ;)

I don't think that even this redirection is particularly helpful.

There may be good arguments for a serious Judaism, as you call it, but I don't see how a focus on godliness is one of them, because the term is still vague and perhaps unknowable. As of now I'm in support of casual Judaism. ;)