My earlier post which was inspired by a debate with JS has elicited the following exchange. I thought it worthwhile to post it as it touches on important issues that are always at the forefront of thinking people’s mind. I have edited a little for clarity and readability.
JS wrote:
You write-"JS claims that Torah min Hashamayim (TMS) is a necessary belief without which God’s existence is not provable. Thus if someone questions TMS, God’s existence falls to the wayside. My position however is quite different. I argue that we have to prove each issue separately and individually. First we have to prove that there is such an entity that we call God without describing Him or appending any attributes to Him."
That is not exactly what I said.I wrote that talking about God does not lead anywhere. God cannot be defined in any way. (Yes, according to the Rambam!) So how can you talk about 'something' that you do not (know) anything about it?Is this God male or female or both? (Yes, I too read the Moreh...) Is He transcendental or is He also part of the Universe, like in Kabbalah & Chasidism?What kind of God are you talking about? Or better still, what at all are you taking about?!
JS continues:
You wrote me: we can learn from His actions.
But the actions are violent, galaxies smashing into each other & in the living world, as I wrote you 'nature is red in tooth & claw'.Ah, there is beauty in all this-so you wrote (in different words).Well, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. A tiger is beautiful but very vicious. There were beautiful blond German women in concentration camps who delighted in torturing little Jewish children...
But, you say, the world could not have just popped out of nothing!Something must have caused it! & this 'something' we call God & is uncaused.This is the First Cause argument.But many have demolished it. Just because everything we experience in the 'set' (universe) has a cause does not necessarily mean that the set has a cause. Let me give you a simple example that comes to my mind: Let us imagine five people made Aliyah (I am at present in Israel) a) because he is a Zionist b) is an archeologist & came to dig c) is an Eskimo who can't stand the cold in Alaska & was 'megayer' In order to get some sun in the Holy Land d) is a Chareidi who had a lifelong dream of stoning police cars in Geulah or Bnei-Brak e) is a writer who came to write a book about the 4 above.Now you can say, there is specific cause for each one of the above making Aliyah but you can't find a cause for the group (=set=Universe) as whole.That is just an example for a set being without a cause!
It's very late here, so finally I want to point out that your long quote of the Rambam saying what Avraham was saying or thinking, is the Rambam speaking, NOT AVROHOM!It reminds me of the Greek historians who made up speeches that they thought it was proper for their heroes. Josephus did the same thing.To recap: absolutely nothing can be said about something which is unknowable.Let us assume that something caused it all & it is some kind of mathematical law or whatever, does that make you happy, if not personal, what good is it to you?That why I say: YOU HAVE TO START WITH TORAH MI HA'SHAMYIM.& PROVE IT!!!With regards to all the quotes from the Rambam etc. I can only quote:-ערביך ערבא צריך - סוכות כו
To which I responded:
>that is just an example for a set being without a cause!
I do not get the analogy. Each member of the set had a cause which in turn had a cause that caused it e.g. the cold in Alaska made him convert; the cold was caused by the sun being far from that location, and so on ad infinitum. The set has no cause but each individual has a cause until we reach the First Cause. (Read Chad Gadya)
>Is He wholly transcendental
Of course.
> But the actions are violent, galaxies smashing into each other & in the living world, as I wrote you 'nature is red in tooth & claw'.
They are but you are putting your value judgment to them without deeper research. Possibly it is viewed from a macro perspective as constructive. The female tarantula that gobbles up the male sees it as part of the reproductive cycle which is constructive and is probably seen the same way (it were sentient) by the male victim.
TMS may be or not be a fact. It is a value judgment that the Torah was revelatory to Moshe only. Some Maimonidean medieval scholars held that it was a belief required so that the masses kept the Torah. I do not necessarily agree with that and have my own take, but it clearly is not a foundation of Religion but rather a foundation of the law. (Note Rambam starts here with Yesod Hayesodos, while when he talks about revelation he starts Mi'yesodei Hadas le'idah...clearly there are different types of foundations)
>To recap: absolutely nothing can be said about something which is unknowable.
That is correct but much can be said about the results of His actions
To which JS responded:
>"I don't get the analogy. Each member of the set had a cause which in turn had a cause that caused it e.g. the cold in Alaska made him convert; the cold was caused by the sun being far from that location, and so on ad infinitum. The set has no cause but each individual has a cause until we reach the First Cause. (Read Chad Gadya)"
The analogy is simple. I am talking from a logical point of view.Here you have a reason- cause for each member of the set making Aliyah. I am talking ONLY ABOUT THE CAUSE FOR MAKING ALIYAH & not for the cause of his birth & his parents' birth ad infinitum going back to the first atom.Again, I am ONLY talking about the cause for making Aliyah of this group.Logically, each member of the set has a cause why he made Aliyah, but you cannot ask why did the group as a whole make Aliyah. Because you have to break up the group into its individual parts.Similarly, in the Universe, you can ask what is the cause of the sun, or the moon, or the Milky Way galaxy or about any INDIVIDUAL part of the universe. There is a cause, as far as we know, for each one. From this DOESN'T NECESSARLY follow that the WHOLE UNIVERSE has a cause, just as cannot ask what is the cause the whole group made Aliyah.We do not know of any other universes that are caused to be able to say: look, all the other universes are caused, so ours must be too.
In a further comment JS continued:
>"TMS may be or not be a fact. It is a value judgment that the Torah was revelatory to Moshe only"
Well, was it a fact or not?
THIS IS THE ISSUE & you are EVADING it! As you are evading my questions on how satisfying you find an impersonal God. If He does not relate to you, why should you care about Him?You avoid specific questions asked by me & that makes the all discussion go around in circles.
DG: We were overlapping so I was responding to JS earlier comment but I believe addressed both:
>We do not know of any other universes that are caused to be able to say: look, all the other universes are caused, so ours must be too.
True, but at some point it all started with one single universe which started with a single mass especially if you espouse the Big Bang theory, so ultimately there was a First Cause for that single and only matter and event.
I understand that we can argue for an eternal (static) state as is but it would be counterintuitive based on our perception that everything is a result of infinite sequences of events. I also understand that we do not have absolute empirical proof for the argument of causation and it is possible that we never will although as science advances it is probable that we will. I guess it is part of unknowability and transcendence that we talk about. Just the idea of an entity for whom the word “existence” is equivocal as is the word “entity”, must ultimately be unknowable.
That is why ultimately the only thing we humans can do is try to understand how this entity we can know, namely the universe or universes, which we assume was caused by this *** (God) that we cannot know, functions. As rational beings we will append moral judgments to it (the universe) but what we do know is that it has existed for a very long time without self-destructing. It is expected to do so for eternity. Therefore morally it is ultimately good. (Assuming existence is good and non-existence or destruction is bad). As part of that infinite chain of events we as rational and sentient beings have a choice to partake and be constructive, playing a minute part in that enormous enterprise. Rambam ends the Moreh with that idea calling it Chesed Mishpat Utzedakah as per Yirmyahu.
My addition now: that is my understanding of a personal God and the meaning thereof. It is legislated as Veholachto Bidrochov – emulating God is a Mitzvah. It also has a parallel Mitzvah and concept which is Avodas Hashem. They are similar though having different connotations – for another post and discussion.
It (understanding the universe) does not necessarily translate into a religious/observance necessity, that is why Torah is a choice and why non-religious people (of any culture) who look at things from a philosophical/ scientific point of view, are closer to god according to Rambam than religious (observant and Jewish is the better description) Halachik experts who have no insight about the why and how. However we as Jews have accepted the Torah way at Sinai, (acceptance was really the whole point of it, not the supposed miraculous events), it should work to foster thinking within a large population (although sometimes one wonders).
For the system to work a framework needs to be established so that the masses, children, adults, men and women all follow a set of rules and goals that will allow each, to his ability, to partake in this enterprise of contributing creatively and constructively creating a collective of committed individuals. Hence TMS and all the other beliefs that we work with.
As I said we were overlapping so I continued:
>Well, was it a fact or not?THIS IS THE ISSUE & you are EVADING it! As you are evading my questions on how satisfying you find an impersonal God. If He does not relate to you, why should you care about Him?You avoid specific questions asked by me & that makes the all discussion go around in circlesI think that I did not evade the question.
I think that my last comment should cover most of the things you discuss head on. Re TMS and Sinai the way I understand it, it is depicted as a physical happening "Kolot Uberakim etc..." Rambam indicates that every one of them is a metaphor and he focuses totally on the intellectual and the bond between the people, God and Moshe. RMS (Ohr Sameach) in his Meshech Chochma sees the "Kafah aleihem har kegigis" midrash as a metaphor for conviction. There was an experience, an intellectual one that convinced the people to commit to Torah forever. My view on Moshe's prophecy and its uniqueness you can see here http://hakirah.org/Vol%201%20Guttman.pdf .
If you assume that the order Rambam gives to Ikarim is by significance and importance TMS is further down then those that deal with God and His existence. It is a dogma that is expedient and necessary rather than one that has to be proven.
Edit: I want to add a few things. Re Moshe’s prophecy and TMS – I believe that a person through proper meditation and self-improvement can be inspired and acquire prophecy, a state that makes him say and do things that are supra rational. It is combining rationality with instinctive insights and imagination the latter being the sum total of a person's past experiences. That is regular prophecy.
To legislate imagination has to be eliminated. Moshe had the highest level of such an experience, without imagination coming into play, when he legislated. He was also unique both in the past and future - no one reached that level nor ever will. That made Torah divinely inspired and immutable.
Re God being personal: Of course it is a mind set. It is we who see Him as personal and therefore what that means depends on one’s values. However for the thinking person emulating Him is the only path to personalizing God.
No comments:
Post a Comment