The coming-into-existence of the human race depended on two things: That the Universe provided everything necessary for life to exist; and, that the Universe made survival difficult. Had conditions for life been unfailingly favorable, there would have been no survival advantage for the complex creature over protein soup. There would have been no engine for the process of evolution. The opposable thumb and a large brain would have provided no advantage over the worm or the cockroach. (It is still debatable whether the human species has a survival advantage over the cockroach.) Unfailingly favorable conditions would have blocked our emergence almost as surely as completely deadly conditions. It is the strange mixture of that which supports life and that which thwarts life that resulted in the human race coming into being.
In Kabbalah, that aspect of Reality that is favorable, gracious, and nurturing is called “Hesed.” Hesed is like G-d’s right arm, if one could say so. The opposite principle to “Hesed” is called “Gevurah” meaning “severity.” Gevurah is the principle that restrains the unlimited outflow of Hesed. It is a principle of judgement, definition, and limitation. If Hesed is the right arm, Gevurah is the left. Human beings enjoy the experience of Hesed much more, naturally, and so from our point of view Hesed is better. The Kabbalists are clear, however, that unrestrained Hesed would wash us away, making our existence as self-aware creatures impossible. Hesed alone cannot sustain human life, only the mixture of Hesed and Gevurah, with the balance tipping toward Hesed. Obstacles, dangers, scarcity, injury, illness and mortality are all extremely unpleasant to us, but without them we could not be and would not continue to develop.
I mention the interplay of Hesed and Gevurah, not as if I believe in it as a dogma, and certainly not just because it is mentioned in Kabbalah. I find meaning in the symbol because it is true to my experience of life. I experience life as gracious and harsh, as nurturing and threatening, and this symbol helps me make some sense of it. It helps me to endure some of the more gevuradik episodes of my life and the lives of those I love, to be able to put the Gevurah in perspective against the Hesed and against the ultimately beneficial result.
If G-d loves us, He has infinitely more patience than I do for the realization of His loving aims. He is willing to have innocent and tender people suffer and perish so that the human race can stumble toward fulfillment. Though I can somewhat put the gevuradik side of life in perspective and see its necessity, I really don’t have the stomach for it. It disturbs me about G-d that He does. (Of course I am being absurdly anthropomorphic.) I don’t know if there could be any other way to achieve life in all its fullness than with such immense suffering. I am going to have to admit that as far as I know, there isn’t any other way. Ours may well be the best of all possible universes. In any case, it’s the way things are. Yehi shem haShem mevorakh. (Job 1:21)
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Monday, August 29, 2011
Elijah and the Prophets of Ba'al (Rough Mix)
Monotheism is Atheism regarding 99.9% of gods. The habits of mind which gave our ancestors insight to doubt the existence of the pagan deities lead us, their descendants, to doubt the existence of any personal G-d however conceived. These doubts are not a betrayal of Monotheism but a logical extension of it. Monotheism was a step in the development of skepticism.
As illustration we might recall the legend of Elijah and the prophets of Ba’al as recounted in 1st Kings chapter 18. Elijah challenged the worshippers of Ba’al to a demonstration: “Let two bulls be given to us; and let them choose one bull for themselves, and cut it in pieces and lay it on the wood, but put no fire to it; and I will prepare the other bull and lay it on the wood, and put no fire to it. And you call on the name of your god and I will call on the name of the L-rd; and the G-d who answers by fire, he is G-d.”
The rest of the story is well known. The priests of Ba’al called to him “from morning until noon,” but “there was no voice, and no one answered.” In profound contrast, as soon as Elijah finished his prayer, “the fire of the L-rd fell, and consumed the burnt offering, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces; and they said, ‘The L-rd, he is G-d; the L-rd, he is G-d.’”
There is a glaring fact usually overlooked here, and I do not know how preachers treating this story manage to get around it. This is not the way things really happen in life. If this demonstration were actually attempted, true enough the worshippers of Ba’al would get no visible result for their prayers; but the worshippers of The One True G-d (whichever version you like) would also see no result at all. The fire from heaven never falls. I know this as surely as I know that when I look outside my window pigs will not be flying, and the Starship Enterprise will not be landing in my back yard. Centuries and millennia of unbroken human experience let us know that no amount of prayer or chanting results in fire from heaven, or any comparable result. I know this as a person who has prayed many prayers, and empathized with communities praying many earnest prayers to many versions of G-d for many important things.
The logic by which the author of 1st Kings teaches us to doubt Ba’al, therefore, must also lead us to doubt the L-rd (as 1st Kings portrays Him). The same insight that caused Abraham to smash the idols in his father’s shop also topples the altar erected by Elijah. Doubt, once unleashed, is not easily contained.
Perhaps I am being naïve in taking the story of Elijah as a basis for doubt, even more than others are naïve if they take the story of Elijah as a basis for faith. It is, after all, a legend, and perhaps no one was ever intended to take it at face value.
I am not concluding that prayer is without any value whatsoever. I do pray. Prayer has social and psychological benefits. But prayer, intended to bring about a change in the behavior of the universe, has never produced any measurable result, and no god has a better track record than any other in this regard. (Despite this I must admit that if one of my loved ones is in trouble, you may find me praying to affect the outcome, against my better judgement. It's a deeply human response and I am not immune to it.)
There are many possible concepts of G-d that are truly consistent with our experience of life. The supernatural remote-controlled G-d portrayed in 1st Kings, however, is contrary to human experience. By the Bible’s own logic, that sort of G-d must be rejected. Perhaps this is why so many Jews find themselves skeptics and Atheists while being very devoted to the heritage of Israel. This is the way of Abraham our father – to doubt and deny, not in a sterile and negative fashion, but to clear the way for us to focus our lives on that which truly deserves our attention.
[I revised and expanded the thoughts in this entry for a presentation to the British Association of Jewish Studies. You can read the published paper here or listen to me read it on YouTube, here.]
As illustration we might recall the legend of Elijah and the prophets of Ba’al as recounted in 1st Kings chapter 18. Elijah challenged the worshippers of Ba’al to a demonstration: “Let two bulls be given to us; and let them choose one bull for themselves, and cut it in pieces and lay it on the wood, but put no fire to it; and I will prepare the other bull and lay it on the wood, and put no fire to it. And you call on the name of your god and I will call on the name of the L-rd; and the G-d who answers by fire, he is G-d.”
The rest of the story is well known. The priests of Ba’al called to him “from morning until noon,” but “there was no voice, and no one answered.” In profound contrast, as soon as Elijah finished his prayer, “the fire of the L-rd fell, and consumed the burnt offering, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces; and they said, ‘The L-rd, he is G-d; the L-rd, he is G-d.’”
There is a glaring fact usually overlooked here, and I do not know how preachers treating this story manage to get around it. This is not the way things really happen in life. If this demonstration were actually attempted, true enough the worshippers of Ba’al would get no visible result for their prayers; but the worshippers of The One True G-d (whichever version you like) would also see no result at all. The fire from heaven never falls. I know this as surely as I know that when I look outside my window pigs will not be flying, and the Starship Enterprise will not be landing in my back yard. Centuries and millennia of unbroken human experience let us know that no amount of prayer or chanting results in fire from heaven, or any comparable result. I know this as a person who has prayed many prayers, and empathized with communities praying many earnest prayers to many versions of G-d for many important things.
The logic by which the author of 1st Kings teaches us to doubt Ba’al, therefore, must also lead us to doubt the L-rd (as 1st Kings portrays Him). The same insight that caused Abraham to smash the idols in his father’s shop also topples the altar erected by Elijah. Doubt, once unleashed, is not easily contained.
Perhaps I am being naïve in taking the story of Elijah as a basis for doubt, even more than others are naïve if they take the story of Elijah as a basis for faith. It is, after all, a legend, and perhaps no one was ever intended to take it at face value.
I am not concluding that prayer is without any value whatsoever. I do pray. Prayer has social and psychological benefits. But prayer, intended to bring about a change in the behavior of the universe, has never produced any measurable result, and no god has a better track record than any other in this regard. (Despite this I must admit that if one of my loved ones is in trouble, you may find me praying to affect the outcome, against my better judgement. It's a deeply human response and I am not immune to it.)
There are many possible concepts of G-d that are truly consistent with our experience of life. The supernatural remote-controlled G-d portrayed in 1st Kings, however, is contrary to human experience. By the Bible’s own logic, that sort of G-d must be rejected. Perhaps this is why so many Jews find themselves skeptics and Atheists while being very devoted to the heritage of Israel. This is the way of Abraham our father – to doubt and deny, not in a sterile and negative fashion, but to clear the way for us to focus our lives on that which truly deserves our attention.
[I revised and expanded the thoughts in this entry for a presentation to the British Association of Jewish Studies. You can read the published paper here or listen to me read it on YouTube, here.]
Sunday, August 14, 2011
What am I affirming when, if, I say the Sh'ma?
My religious practice and my theological conceptions are not in complete harmony, no doubt. When I say the Sh’ma my conception is probably quite different than the author intended. The extent of the transposition is so great that it would make perfect sense for me to abandon the Sh’ma in favor of a more personal affirmation that I could hold to without reservation, transposition, or explanation. And sometimes I do resort to such a personal affirmation rather than the Sh’ma on a given day. However, day after day, I choose to recite the time-honored words of the Sh’ma while giving them a meaning that resonates for me. Saying the Sh’ma unites me with Jews of all places and ages who reached toward the Ultimate. People were reciting it thousands of years before I was born and those words will still be recited long after my brief moment in history is through.
The author of Deuteronomy probably intended that people interpret the Sh’ma something like:
Sh’ma – Listen!
Yisrael – the intended audience of his book, the ethnic entity we now call the Jewish People.
A-donai – the Protagonist of the book: the divine Being who gave the laws of the book, performed the acts of redemption and judgment described in the book, and issued the promises and threats contained in the book.
E-loheynu – This is the only divine being we should worship. The One who claims our ultimate allegiance and Whose commandments we pledge to obey.
A-donai – The aforementioned only true Claimant to be the divine Being, as distinguished from all others claimants such as the Canaanite gods.
Echad – Only. We are to acknowledge and obey the Figure “A-donai” as G-d and reject all other candidates.
The Sh’ma as written is an affirmation about A-donai. Its message is that Jewish people must acknowledge only G-d as identified in Deuteronomy as a divine being and must obey his laws as given in the same revelation. That is precisely the part that troubles me. I am not prepared to say that an entity as portrayed by Deuteronomy really exists, and if it did exist, I am not prepared to say that it would be worthy of our worship and ultimate allegiance. (Another entry in this blog can discuss what specific elements of Deuteronomy’s portrayal of G-d I find troubling.)
I recognize that the author of Deuteronomy was attempting to offer the highest, most perfect, most spiritual, most just conception of G-d of which he was capable. He performed his task magnificently for his time, but not perfectly. If I had to affirm the existence and worthiness of A-donai exactly as portrayed by Deuteronomy, I don’t think I could do it. But I can affirm that, like my people throughout the centuries including the author of Deuteronomy, I am reaching toward the Ultimate. I can affirm what the author of Deuteronomy was reaching for, although I cannot freeze the quest at the level that he attained. He and Israel throughout the ages were reaching toward something ineffable, something greater than the ultimately limited literary character on whom the Torah centers. Therefore, when saying the Sh’ma, I perform something of a mental transposition. I say the words as if they meant:
Sh’ma – Become aware!
Yisrael – The Jewish people, and me in particular.
A-donai – Life Itself, the Ultimate.
E-loheynu – I commit myself to being a channel and vessel for that which is greater than myself – for Life Itself. I am a member of a servant-people that shares that commitment. We are the midwives of the world – we are here to help the world become what it is reaching to be.
A-donai – Life Itself – that Ocean in which I am a mere drop.
Echad – Life Itself, the Universe Itself, is the most fundamental reality. I locate myself in the greater scheme of things, and recognize that my ego is not the center and measure of reality. Our true Self is something greater.
I bend the ancient words to accommodate my beliefs because only the ancient words unite me with everyone who has recited them across the ages. Words of my own making would not be the same. My beliefs will evolve as my life progresses, and I may or may not pass any of my present beliefs on to the next generation, but the Sh’ma abides forever. I feel that its adaptability is part of what makes it such a great religious symbol. I am proud to be among those who find their lives in its words.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Welcome: Wonder and Faith
I had wanted to title my blog "Pious Agnostic," but I see that a couple of people on the Internet have beaten me to the use of that title. One writer uses the term to describe Jack Miles, who wrote God: A Biography. I would be happy to be in the company of Jack Miles.
Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel wrote that the essence of a religious person is "awe, wonder, and radical amazement." "Wonder" is what one does with one's "higher incomprehension." I would like to cultivate the attitude that Heschel points to. I think that "wonder," as Heschel describes it, is the very opposite of "faith" as people commonly use the term in contemporary America. People use the word "faith" to describe a system of reducing ultimate reality to a relatively small number of comprehensible statements. But Heschel says that "wonder" is "the state of maladjustment to words and notions." People want to have a faith that is true in that it describes the way things really are. But for Heschel, faith/wonder is the recognition that our statements and conceptions can never contain reality. Growth in faith is growth in the knowledge of the approximateness, inadequacy, and falseness of my own beliefs. Skepticism is not the opposite of faith, and it is not a cynical reduction of reality. It is a dynamic refusal to consider the provisional to be the ultimate.
In a later entry I would like to consider the term "Atheist" and figure out if I am one. I prefer the term "Agnostic." However, I would like to close with a famous quote from the philosopher George Santayana and he uses the term "Atheism."
"My atheism, like that of Spinoza, is true piety towards the universe and denies only gods fashioned by men in their own image, to be servants of their human interests." (George Santayana)
I think that Santayana’s "true piety towards the universe" is an expression of Heschel’s sense of "Wonder" and is a more wholesome religious impulse than what is commonly called "Faith."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)