[Avodah] Strengthening Our Belief in Hashem and His Beautiful Torah

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:19:07AM -0400, I forwarded a link to a vort
by RCJachter. It said in part:
> It is important to clarify that I do not seek to "prove" Hashem's
> existence, because as modern philosophers have noted, this is not a
> productive exercise. Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik in his classic essay The
> Lonely Man of Faith cites Soren Kierkegaard's (a major mid-nineteenth
> century religious philosopher) reaction when hearing that the medieval
> philosopher Anselm of Canterbury engaged in prayer an entire evening
> beseeching God to help him formulate his celebrated Ontological Proof of
> God's Existence. Kierkegaard, in turn, asked, does a bride in the embrace
> of her beloved bridegroom require proof of his existence? Kierkegaard
> argues that Anselm's intense prayer constituted a more authentic "proof"
> of God than the Ontological Proof.

> Moreover, modern philosophers (such as Descartes and Kant) have
> demonstrated that one can "prove" very little, if anything. Descartes
> notes that one cannot prove that other people exist, as perhaps it is
> merely an evil demon that is painting a false image on one's brain to
> fool one into thinking that others exist. Despite the inability to prove
> the existence of others, I nevertheless am one hundred percent convinced
> of the existence of others. Similarly, I am thoroughly convinced of the
> Truth of Hashem and His Torah.

> Rav Elchanan Wasserman -- The Argument from Design

> Rav Elchanan Wasserman (in his Kovetz Maamarim) argues that it is
> obvious that there is a God from the fact that we see order in this
> world. Common sense teaches that this is impossible for this to happen by
> itself and thus it is obvious that the world has a Creator. Philosophers
> have traditionally referred to this type of proof as the argument from
> design. Many earlier Jewish philosophers such as Rabbeinu Bachya espoused
> this argument for Hashem's existence.

> Rav Elchanan takes this argument one step further arguing that it is
> also obvious that the Creator would provide a manual on how to function
> in the world He created. We may draw an analogy to a car manufacturer
> who provides a manual on how to operate the car he has created. So too,
> argues Rav Elchanan, common sense dictates that Hashem provided a manual,
> namely the Torah, for humans to know how to act.

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 02:03:02PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: And how does one respond to the question (especially on the R'EW approach),
: if it is so patently obvious, why does the vast majority of humanity
: reject your approach? AIUI R'EW's response was it's the yetzer hara.

Yes, as RCJ included in a later section, titled "Rav Yoel Bin Nun on
Megillat Esther":
> One may wonder why so many intelligent people are not convinced of the
> truth of Hashem and Torah. Rav Elchanan Wasserman (Kovetz Maamarim)
> ascribes such lack of belief to people's wish to justify engaging in
> inappropriate activities. He cites as proof the Pasuk in Tehillim (14:1)
> that states "a degenerate states in his heart that there is no God."

As per the intro... I agree with RCJ, Kant, Descartes, Kierkegaard, RYBS
et al... There are no real proofs. I believe that this is the Kuzari's
position, as written here in the past (but not recently).

RCJ describes the Kuzari Proof:
> For the Ramban (commentary to Shemot 13:16) and the Kuzari the most
> persuasive argument for faith in Torah is Tradition. As the Kuzari notes,
> the miracles associated with great events in Jewish history, Yetziat
> Mitzrayim and Maamad Har Sinai, were witnessed by millions of people who
> passed this information to their descendants year after year at their
> Seders. This is unlike the miracles claimed by other religions that are
> described as having occurred before a very limited number of people.

> One might argue that Bnei Yisrael accepted the Torah because they
> were a docile and gullible people who accepted anything and everything
> that Moshe Rabbeinu told them, because of his seductive and persuasive
> oratory. However, this is hardly true as Bnei Yisrael regrettably were
> constantly bickering and disobedient to Moshe Rabbeinu. Moreover, Moshe
> Rabbeinu was a very poor speaker. Virtually the only time we were unified
> was at Har Sinai (see Rashi Shemot 19:1). The reason we united at Sinai
> was that the authenticity of the Har Sinai experience was profoundly
> compelling and unquestionably persuasive.

> Similarly, we find in every generation that observant Jews are not
> passive and gullible people who are accepting of everything. Every
> significant Talmudic and Halachik issue is carefully examined and great
> experts and laypeople vigorously and rigorously analyze every new and
> old opinion. Yet observant Jews agree upon core values and beliefs such
> as the divine authorship of the torah. The Rambam (Hilchot Mamrim 1:3)
> indicates that if there is no dispute regarding a particular law then this
> law must originate as a tradition from Sinai. Examples of such laws are
> the Halacha that our Tefillin must be colored black and that our Mezuzot
> contain only the two Parshiot of Shema and Vihaya Im Shamoa. I have often
> surmised that these matters must be of heavenly origin; otherwise, we
> would be fighting rigorously about these laws in the manner we do about
> so many other Halachot.

> Incidentally, it seems that this is the reason why the Sefer HaChinuch
> (21) rules that women are obligated in the Mitzvah of Sippur Yetziat
> Mitzrayim...

I understood the Kuzari as denying the whole concept of philosophical
proof.
http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/yisro.pdf
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2004/12/kuzari-proof-part-i.shtml

I wrote back then an argument against "The Kuzari Proof": 
> The reason why I doubt that this is Rav Yehudah haLevi's intent is
> because he had the king already approach a philosopher as well as a
> Christian Scholast, and the king already rejected philosophical proof
> as unconvincing. The Rabbi provides as a counterpoint to his statement
> (Kuzari I, par 13), "The Rabbi: That which you describe is religion
> based on speculation and system, the research of thought, but open to
> many doubts. Now ask the philosophers, and you will find that they do
> not agree on one action or one principle, since some doctrines can be
> established by arguments, which are only partially satisfactory, and
> still much less capable of being proved."

> In other words, the Rabbi's basis for belief is not one based on
> "speculation and system". It's not philosophical proof. Reducing his
> words to an argument of the style described above defeats the whole
> point Rav Yehudah haLevi is trying to make! As he later writes (par 63),
> "There is an excuse for the Philosophers. Being Grecians, science and
> religion did not come to them as inheritances."

I later <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2004/12/kuzari-proof-part-ii.shtml>
argued that the flaw with any proof is that it's just a web of logic
connecting givens. Unless someone buys into the same givens (first
principles, postulates), the rigor of the proof won't mean anything
to them.

> The deeper faith is one in which the principles of Judaism are
> postulates, not theorems that require proving. If we can, after the fact,
> gain greater appreciation for them through proof, or understand their
> implications, connotations are less fundamental details by giving them
> philosophical treatment, great.

> This is what I meant when I wrote that while there is an obligation to
> engage in machashavah amuqah, emunah itself is a middah -- an attitude,
> not the product of that deliberation.

> Just as we rely on information from our senses and generalizations from
> them to produce postulates about which we reason, we can also rely on
> mental experience. Einstein's heavy use of thought-experiments is one
> example. So is our acceptance of Euclid's posulate about parallel lines
> -- despite the impossibility of parallel lines of infinite length ever
> really existing.
...
> Proofs have a role in deepening understanding -- after the basic
> principles have been accepted. This is why the Kuzari has much to
> say philosophically, as long as one's belief is not on philosophical
> foundations.

(BTW, speaking of problems with the Kuzari proof, see the Mexica / Aztec
myth about being lead from Atzslan by the god Huitzilopochtli. Or the
Theban origin myth.)

Returning to RJS:
> Rav Soloveitchik -- The Argument from Halacha

> Rav Soloveitchik writes in his classic essay, The Ish Halacha, that the
> Halacha is the most compelling proof for the truth of Torah. I understand
> this to mean that the scholar (or student guided by a competent teacher)
> who plumbs the depths of the Halachic system will be overwhelmed with
> its beauty and majesty to the point that he is left with no other option
> than to accept the divine origin of this system. It also might mean that
> one who spends a lifetime dedicated to abiding by the Halachic system
> will conclude that it is indeed the finest prescription for leading a
> fulfilling and content life. He will also comprehend why a recurring
> theme in Sefer Devarim that the Torah's rules are "Litov Lach," serve
> our best interest.

This, like belief based on shemiras Shabbos, relies on the distinction
between finding a math proof beautiful (an aesthetic judgment) and the
properties of the proof being judged.

I do not understand this argument as being "I believe because I like it"
or "... it works for me". Rather: I believe because I had a religious
experience whose attributes are compelling. I believe in the halachic
process and the Torah's claim of coming from Sinai and developing
through that process since because of the reality of the results as they
reached me.

Admittedly, it won't work for convincing anyone other than yourself; it's
a judgement of truth based on experiences that aren't easily shared. All
we can do is give others *opportunities* to experience it for themselves.

The certitude the Qalam, Scholasticists, R' Saadia and the Rambam went
for isn't believed to be possible anymore. REW is right that someone who
looks at the world in an unbiased way can't help but see the design
behind it. And thus failure must be bias. But isn't bias just another
word for being swayed by a different set of experiences, being convinced
of a different set of givens that those experiences conveyed?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Never must we think that the Jewish element
micha at aishdas.org        in us could exist without the human element
http://www.aishdas.org   or vice versa.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch