[Avodah] Skeptics

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, November 13, 2007 7:17 pm, T613K at aol.com wrote:
: In the end we are left with existential uncertainty and -- because we
: are human, and because we are Jews -- a profound yearning to know the
: Truth and an even more profound yearning to connect with the Almighty,
: the Master of the Universe, the Creator, the Father of all Humanity.

The side-issue of the fascination of the Jewish atheist (although I
can cite counter-examples, I believe the statement is true in general)
with his atheism reminds me with a comment of the Barditchiver Rebbe
on the Haggadah.

Bitechilah ovedei AZ hayu avoseinu: Before "qeirvanu haMaqom
la'avodaso", yes, we [Terach] were sinners. But think about it --
Terach wasn't a hedonist, an epicurean, etc... he was a *spiritual
sinner*. Even as sinners, the pintele yid was already there...

Now, to the main topic...

Perhaps it's causal. Aren't people more fascinated and more moved by a
topic they have to defend, than one that is open-and-shut true? How
many people went to war over "1 + 1 = 2"? (I know, the Pythagorians
had some people killed to hide the fact that the square-root of 2 is
irrational, but that was at a time when people still were arguing the
point.)

IOW, a well proven religion is less effective than one that relies on
evidence that can't be shared.

Which surreptitiously brought in another subject: There is a
difference between how sure I am of something, and how surely I can
prove it to others. I believe things because of my own experience,
whether or not that experience is easily or reliably shared.

So, 'twould seem to me the ideal religion is one that you could prove
very well, but only to yourself. Kind of like "na'aseh venishmah" --
unless you try living by it (and try in the right way), there is
nothing to hear. (Which I also believe is the point of using a
substance that looks like mortar but tastes sweet to symbolize our
avdus to Par'oh, and by extension -- to the RBSO, at the seder.)

This may be related to R' Carmy's (aforementioned in this iteration
to) observation about the difference between knowing G-d and proving
He exists. The latter is about knowing /about/ G-d, not knowing Him.
And thus lacks the motivational power.

On Wed, November 14, 2007 3:11 pm, Saul.Z.Newman at kp.org wrote:
: well , from the skeptic's perspective, there has to be a point where
: counter information is enough to negate the premise.

Let's put this another way: The skeptic is wrong on the basic
assumption of what he thinks is sound support for an idea. He is
therefore asking me to turn my experience into a philosophical proof.
It's a mistake to even enter that space, as that epistomology is
wrong.

To continue this idea...

On Wed, November 14, 2007 4:01 am, R David Guttmann wrote:
: The problem that I have with RMB approach and also even more RRW is
: how does one know that the  experience is not a figment of the
: imagination? ...

The problem is that the typical skeptic (thinking of the blogger
population) is using pre-Kantian epistomology. To translate that that
out of (probably abused) jargon: As the Rihal as the chaver tell the
Kuzari, proofs are not more certain than knowing first-hand.

I don't mean knowing G-d first-hand. I mean knowing the Torah
first-hand. I am not a navi, never lived through a blatant neis
nigleh, can't talk about first-hand experience of the Borei. But I can
speak of first hand experience of studying and trying to live
according to something that purports to be His Will for people to live
by.

: If one
: reads some of the skeptics, the more intelligent ones, that seems to
: be the core question. By telling them that it is an "experience" it
: is feeding into their skepticism. They have gone beyond the Aish
: touchy feely approach....

If they're asking about how can we be sure, how can we test the
evidence, then they're back in the Scholastic belief that proofs
outweigh experience, and they're already on the wrong path.

It's not that they "have gone beyond the ... touchy feely approach".
It's that they have lost touch with homo religiosis and expect
cognitive man to have a path to religion. Or, leaving RYBS speak: They
want science, not religion. Science is inherently suited for the
empirical, and you can't get from the empirical to the religious.
There is no way to prove "ought" from "is". (Search wikipedia for the
Is-Ought problem, the Natualistic fallacy, and related pages.)

There is a "beyond the touchy feely", but the path that will take them
there for modern man isn't classical philosophy. Philosophers moved on
for the same reason; it doesn't fit the way we think anymore.

(And frankly, Aish's superficiality has more to do with proofs based
on specious claims than reliance on the experience of a Shabbos.
Tzadiq vetov lo stories not just wouldn't, but shouldn't convince a
skeptic.)

They are seeking something that just can't be obtained. No proof is so
sound that you can prove to yourself you aren't being misled. In fact,
the odds of being misled about a multiple-postulate proof is greater
than the odds of being misled about repeated experiences.

Let's put it yet another way: What makes you so sure the sun will be
yellow when it comes up tomorrow? (Or even that it will come up?) Is
it the astronomy theory, or the fact that you have (hopefully) seen it
nearly every morning of your life, and made a generalization? Notice
that no one, even someone totally uninformed as to the physics of
stars, wonders how to prove that tomorrow it won't show up bright and
purple...

To my mind, the real problem is rampant orthopraxy. If people
experienced the religion rather than just doing it, the question
wouldn't cross their minds. Any more than the need to *prove* the sun
won't come up purple tomorrow. Now if only people would work to
putting some passionate fire to that rite (aish + das)....

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha at aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv