[Avodah] is religion relevant

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 06:54:19PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: is religion relevant
: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3935165,00.html

While I agree with RLBrackman, the author, that the answer is "yes",
I vehemently disagree with his definition of religion and he contradicts
himself in defining knowledge.

Subtitle:
    In essence, religion gives us options to believe where knowledge is
    no longer applicable

A bisl rachmanus on the Rambam!

Let's go back to Plato... He gave the classic definition of knowledge,
and while it has problems, I haven't heard of a better one. Knowledge
is justified true belief. Unpacking that:

If
    I have reason to believe something,
and
    that something happens to be true
then
    I know it.

Not that belief is something we do when we can't know -- knowing is a
subset of believing. The phrasing is to my mind a presentation nightmare,
as it makes it out like we're less sure of our religious postulates than
of our empirical ones.

And it's not even what he intends to say. From the article:
    One may be able to divide knowledge into three categories. The first
    is made up of the things that we know empirically -- the undeniable
    facts that we can see, feel and hear. Religion has very little to
    say to this category....
     
     The second category is the things that we are unable to
     actually experience empirically but evidence points in a certain
     direction. There are numerous examples for this. Many articles
     of faith are subject to competing arguments and each side brings
     evidence to support their view. The argument for the existence of
     God is one such example....

     Where religion is most helpful, however, is in the third category:
     the things that are unknowable using the regular methods of
     obtaining data and knowledge. ...

IOW, religion is about non-empirical knowledge. Nu, good. But then he
shifts back again:
    Granted that the veracity of the answers religion provides is
    impossible cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. But that is
    beside the point because religion is a belief system that by its
    very nature depends of the willingness of an individual to accept
    the proposition without the evidence. If there was solid evidence
    it would be considered fact rather than an article of faith.

RLB confuses the solidity of my ability to share my proof with the
solidity of the proof itself WRT my own knowledge.

I have no doubt that I love my wife. There are husbands who gave their
lives because they knew they loved their wives. (Or even more than
dying to save their wives: those who lived for decades caring for
an ill spouse.) That is also non-empirical knowledge. Known beyond
any doubt. Even though I can't prove my love in some philosophically
or scientifically solid way to anyone else. At most I can point to a
husband's sacrifice as an example of knowledge in the second category --
the evidence is indicative, but can be interpreted other ways.

We share the physical world. So, proofs about empirical world are easier
to demonstrate to others. But that doesn't make the physical more real,
its proofs more sound, or its knowledge more solid.

 ===

As for religion and knowledge... I think that religion's focus isn't on
answers, but on giving us a framework for asking the right questions.
Yes, belief in a Borei who is Yachid uMeyuchad, who gave us the Torah,
etc... is critical. But I think that if these known facts didn't help us
frame the questions of how to live our lives, they wouldn't be religion.

IOW, Yahadus is about asking oneself "How can I be an avda deQBH?"
That presumes knowing something about HQBH and how He revealed what He
wants of us. But the knowledge isn't what we face in our deepest religious
moments -- it is which questions we ask given that knowledge.

As RYBS put it in Qol Dodi Dofeiq: The Jewish question of tragedy is not
"Why?" but "How am I to respond?" Thus the difference between Yahadus
and Notzrus isn't only on the level of whether we believe we can redeem
ourselves, or whether the human being is hopeless and some kind of savior
is necessary. It's even a step before -- in the questions asked. We
not only get different answers, we focus on different problems.

This attitude toward religion helps avoid losing emunah when faced with
what an insurance company would call an "act of G-d". (Notice that the
more obviously good things He does never get this title...) Realizing
that we can't comprehend all the answers, and on the matters that really
shape our lives, and the moral questions that really provide difficult
dilemmas, the iqar is to know the right questions.

Admittedly, it would make qiruv far more difficult than if we pretend
that all of life's questions could be answered and tied up in a bow in
just one short series of classes. But life isn't easy.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's nice to be smart,
micha at aishdas.org        but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507