Writing my last post left me thinking over Yom Kippur about how I relate to God, so I thought I would share a little about that.
When I started to become ba'al teshuva, I did not believe in God. I was open to the possibility, and that exploration was part of my motivation, but I was primarily driven by a desire to have a stronger and richer relationship to Jewish culture and history. In order to understand it on its own terms, I made three decisions: approach with an attitude of suspended disbelief, rather than criticism; take on some degree of observance, to understand experientially as well as intellectually; treat it as a living tradition and find teachers rather than relying solely on texts and internet that could easily be misinterpreted. These ended up being decisive. Initially, there was a steep learning curve, and everything felt uncomfortable. After that, I found that, every now and then, if I could really suspend my disbelief and put some kavana into what I was doing, I would have an experience that seemed to transcend the mundane. Could there be a materialistic explanation for these experiences? Yes, but I prefer to take them seriously in the absence of any reason not to.
There is another reason, as well. I have a strong intuition that there is such a thing as moral truth. The experience of learning that I was mistaken about a moral question seems distinct from the experience of changing my opinion. Moral truth makes much more sense, in my opinion, if God exists. Could I have these intuitions and be mistaken, and in fact all morality is subjective? Indeed, and that is what I believed for many years, but again, with no proof either way, I prefer the position that best reconciles my beliefs about the world to my intuitive experience of it. That seems to be the best way to judge postulates that I can see.
Anyone willing to share why you do or do not believe in God?
Yom Kippur was awesome, in the archaic sense of the word. I was worried that my regular fasting might diminish the impact of the day, and I didn't feel like I had used the aseret y'mei teshuva very well in preparation (slept through selichot almost every day, didn't ask mechila from most of my classmates and teachers), but in the end it was incredibly powerful. If it had had much more impact, I may well have passed out during Ne'ila. Pretty much did nothing but daven and sleep all day, except a few games of chess after ma'ariv on Friday. Kind of a surreal experience to sing and dance "l'shana haba birushalayim habnuya" in Jerusalem, but the argument could be made that it isn't mamash Jerusalem without the Mikdash, especially as relates to Yom Kippur. Had a rather weird hour after a quick snack, but before the break fast meal was ready. Does anyone have a customary way to spend that time, other than the cooks?
Glossary:
ReplyDeletekavana- intention
aseret y'mei teshuva- ten days of repentance, two Rosh Hashana, one Yom Kippur, and the week in between, which last is what I was specifically referring to
selichot- special prayers for mercy recited before and on Yom Kippur
mechila- forgiveness
Ne'ila- last service of Yom Kippur
ma'ariv- evening services
l'shana haba birushalayim habnuya- "next year in Jerusalem rebuilt!"
mamash- very much so, literally
mikdash- short for Beit haMikdash, the Temple
Ethan,
ReplyDeleteYour process of teshuva was actually pretty much parallel to mine - I spent 6 months in Israel and had developed a strong identity. In order to learn more about "Jewish culture" I decided to pick up the Tanakh that I had been given for my Bar Mitzvah but never opened. Although I read it as kind of a novel, with the same suspended disbelief you mentioned, it opened up doors to other subjects and I felt more comfortable reading about subjects in Judaism. Eventually I realized there was something in Judaism for me, something to connect to an learn from, and the notion of God was deeper than I thought. It's nice to hear someone who came to it so similarly!
Chag sameach!
Ross K
Mitokh shelo l'shma, ba l'shma! I hope all is well with you.
DeleteChad Sukkot sameach!
Fascinating post. Good stuff
ReplyDeleteThanks!
DeleteReally enjoying reading your posts Ethan. I look forward to discussing in depth with you in December.
ReplyDeleteI look forward to that as well. I don't know if you have been following the comments on the previous post, but my dad and I have been drawing heavily on one of your old sermons. Would you mind setting straight our doubtless misconstruances?
DeleteI think you know that I have always felt pretty comfortable with the notion of moral truth even absent the existence of God - given a few fundamental postulates that seem self-evident, the rest of morality can be deduced through reason. This doesn't mean that much of what we call morality isn't contingent and subjective, but I do think there are some fundamental givens. And this seems no different than the laws of physics, which also require the acceptance of certain postulates on which to build an armature of knowledge and understanding.
ReplyDeleteI think any discussion of a belief in God has to begin with a consideration of what we mean by God. You and I have had this discussion before, and I won't go into it now. Suffice it to say that I think we agree God is not an old man with a big beard living in the clouds. God, whatever he/she/it may be is pretty definitely incomprehensible to man, and can only be accessed imperfectly and through metaphor. But maybe in a future post you can talk a little about the nature of God in your view and in the eyes of the sages.
Your Loving Adversary
Are these self-evident postulates part of the nature of reality, or are they simply the greatest common denominator of each person's subjective moral perspective? If the former, I find it hard to accept without a creator. If the latter, then what does it mean to be wrong? Internally inconsistent, as in physics or math? Internally consistent, but with a different set of postulates? Also, how would you handle Goedel's incompleteness theorem?
DeleteImperfect and metaphorical access is better than nothing.
I think the self-evident postulates are part of the nature of reality, somehow derived from the nature of life itself, and thus a distant branch of evolutionary biology. And I find the laws of morality and the laws of physics both compelling evidence for the existence of a creator - I have always been partial to the enlightenment conception of God as "watchmaker" (as one among other metaphors). But I think one can still grapple with the nature of physical and moral reality even in the absence of a creator, searching for patterns and striving for internal consistency.
ReplyDeleteI'm not familiar with Goedel's incompletenesa theorem. I'll try to read up on it.
Indeed, imperfect and metaphorical access is better than nothing. I'm curious to hear which metaphors best reflect your personal views on the nature of God.
I think that if you start from the nature of life, you will have a very hard time deriving self-evident postulates. What do we know about life in general? It is characterized by self-replication, variation, response to stimuli, consumption and waste, and it is subject to death. Maybe there are some exceptions, or I am missing some basic characteristic, but that is the definition I remember. What is the ethical significance of these traits?
DeleteGoedel's incompleteness theorem states that there are true statements in any logical system that cannot be proven from the postulates. I can't explain the proof; I don't understand it. Still, I think that it implies that a scientific approach to morality will not be applicable in all situations. Hence why much of the study of Torah she'baal peh is meant to train the intuition.
I'll have to give more thought before attempting to answer your last question. Maybe a subject for a future post.
By the way, nice new profile photo, though I am a little troubled by the caption. Does this mean your post-Rosh Hashanah walk was in Gush Etzion? Alone and unarmed? Looking all Jewy wearing tzitzit, etc? and in a weakened state from fasting on Tzom Gedalia? Didn't Mom ever tell you not to eat the cyanide? Oh that's right, she only covered daisies. Then let me say it now: DON'T EAT THE CYANIDE!
ReplyDeleteI don't have a camera. I searched for a photo of the hills from the safety of a computer desk.
DeleteOK, but were you in Gush Etzion on Tzom Gedalia?
ReplyDeleteIf I was, I am unimpressed by the unnoticed security fence.
Delete