[Avodah] Does God Change His Mind?

[Michael Makovi]

> : I guess I don't see the problem. Rather, the negative attributes
> : approach seems to make Hashem into an automaton with no personality.
> Me

> Calling Him "an automaton" is a positive attribute. Negative attributes
> are based on the ideas that:
> - There is no way to understand what He is, therefore we can only discuss
>   what He isn't
> - Positive attributes imply divisibility -- Hashem's essence and the
>   attribute
> Micha

But also, describing what He isn't, makes absolutely no sense. If we
say that He is merciful only to say that He is not cruel (but in
truth, He is not merciful either), couldn't we just as well say that
He is cruel so as to deny that He is merciful? If He is neither
merciful nor cruel, just say that He has no character traits at all,
and leave Him as completely undefined. To ascribe to Him something He
is not, just to negate another thing that He is also not, when He is
just as much not the one as He is not the other, is completely
nonsensical.

> Thusk, He isn't emotionless; Hashem is such that emotion is simply not a
> relevant concept. Hashem has as much emotion as the Star Spangled Banner
> has mass, or the color of "1+1 = 2". The adjective isn't appropriate
> for the noun. Emotionless is saying it's appropriate, but the value is
> zero. A photon has no mass in a different way than the Star Spangled
> Banner has no mass.

So leave it at that. Say He has no traits, and zeo.

I recall that Rabbi Isidore Epstein in The Faith of Judaism says that
many think that by denying Hashem character traits and personality,
they're making Him higher, but really, all they're doing is making Him
meaningless for our lives.

I forget whether Rabbi Epstein takes this as far as Rabbi Berkovits,
but in any case, it is clear IMHO that Hashem does have some sort of
personality. The Tanach says He is merciful and that He punishes as
does a father to a son, and I see no reason to take this at anything
but face value.

I'll return to this topic shortly.

> : If Hashem really does get angry when we sin, nu? It's not a change in
> : His essence, it's merely a change in how He considers us...
>
> But, as I wrote, change itself is a nonsensical concept when speaking
> of the Creator of time. Without time separating these emotions, even
> if one said HQBH has emotions -- they would all have to be (for want of
> better language) "at once". Meaningless.

That's why I said that He does change with respect to us.

Let me make a comparison to calculus: If I have y = x^2 (squared),
then the equation does not change. It is constantly y=x^2. BUT, at any
given point, the rate of change of y changes. dy = d(x^2)dx --> dy =
2x. The rate of change at any given point is double what x is at that
point.

Similarly, Hashem in His essence or nature never changes. BUT, with
respect to us, Hashem changes His reaction. When we sin, He notices,
and He acts accordingly. Is this a change in Him? YES! And His being
angry at us is no less a change.

So if one is going to deny Him character traits and personality, you'd
better deny Him providence and activity in the world too, if you want
to be consistent. With good reason did Aristotle make an Unmoved
Mover. If Hashem has no character, why should He have behavior?

> : So I fail to see the theological problem with Rabbi Berkovits's
> : approach; adarabba, the negative attributes approach strips Hashem of
> : personality and moreover seems to be based on Aristotelian and
> : Muslim-Aristotelian philosophy, with no Torah basis that I know of.
> ...
>
> And yet EVERY seifer machashavim from a rishon that we till have agrees
> with this "Muslim-Aristotelian philosophy". Even the scraps we have
> left of Meqor Chaim (ibn Greirol) never mind more famous texts like
> RSG, the Rambam, the Ikkarim, Rashi on Chumash, the Kuzari.... WADR,
> that would make /me/ question my assumptions.

With the exception of Ikkarim and Kuzari, all of these texts are
heavily dependent on Aristotelian or Mutakkilistic philosophy. Both of
these are un-Jewish. Even Kuzari, however, still relies on much Greek
philosophy - for example, He merely modifies the Aristotelian Active
Intellect to be based on perfection of deed rather than intellect (and
also to apply to Jews only), but the basic concept is identical.
Ikkarim I don't know about.

And let's say that every single rishon in the world holds like this.
However, Chazal are silent on this issue - Chazal never seem (AFAIK)
to see a problem in ascribing Hashem traits. Therefore, we should
assume, IMHO, that Chazal took the Tanach at face value and indeed do
ascribe traits to Hashem. The rishonim did an okimta, but Chazal did
not.

So the rishonim based on Greek philosophy saw a problem, but Chazal
based on Jewish philosophy did not.

REB's approach in God Man and History seems to be that indeed, this
negative attributes business is a totally Greek-philosophy thing, and
from what I've seen, I see no grounds on which to disagree. Not that
this will hold water in anyone's eyes, but I think all the secular
scholars agree with REB on this.

> And does demonstrate how REB is willing to again step beyond the
> mainstream.

Rav Hirsch stepped beyond the mainstream too with TIDE and by
suggesting that the Torah is an anthropology and not concerned with
mysticism. But if you ask me, he got a lot closer to the Biblical
theology in this matter than the mainstream.

In any case, I've never been too concerned with what the majority
thinks. My social experiences in elementary and middle schools ensured
that only by ceasing to care what the majority think could I survive
mentally. I can elaborate on Areivim if anyone wishes.

Mikha'el Makovi