[Avodah] Source of Emunah

[Lisa Liel]

On 1/11/2018 12:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> My problem is that few philosophers since Kant believe that solid proofs
> of the sort the Rambam is talking about are even possible...
> And few psychologists would agree with your assertion that we could
> retain enough objectivity to identify a solid proof if we bumped into one.
...
> Yet, the result is still knowledge according to the classical definition
> -- justified, true, belief. Just that the justification for believing
> the something that is true is that it accords with experience.
>
> So yes, I feel comfortable saying that even people who think they are
> believing because of proof are really believing in the authenticity of
> the proof because they already believed in the conclusion...

I have to disagree again. Belief is emotional. Conviction is, at least
ideally, rational/intellectual. I would maintain that the latter is a much
better fit for the Hebrew emunah, derived as it is from emet, or truth.

Labeling something as Aristotelian doesn't mean it's wrong. Even a
broken Greek can be right twice a day. As far as knowledge vs character,
I think it's a false dichotomy. Both are vital. Neither one is enough
by itself. Whistling in shul instead of davening may indicate belief,
but I don't think it actually indicates emunah. You might guess that
Hassidut isn't exactly my cup of tea.

However, I recognize that there are those for whom Hassidut is precisely
their cup of tea. The fact that I feel otherwise doesn't mean I dismiss
them as not existing. You seem to be doing just that when you say that
kishkes are the real source of Judaism for everyone, and that everything
else comes later.

I also have a problem with most philosophers, so saying that they believe
(there's that word again) that solid proofs may not even be possible
is like saying that they question objective reality. Sure they do. Or
at least they claim to. I think that when push comes to shove, none of
them would step off the top of the Empire State Building because the
reality of what that would result in isn't objective enough for them.

And lest the social "sciences" get neglected, I find the idea that our
perceptions of reality are "our reality" to be laughable, and very, very
20th/21st century in their solipsism. Just because many psychologists
think that doesn't make it so. Rather than call psychology a "social
science" (implying that it's fundamentally a science, but of the social
sort), I'd call it a field of applied philosophy (implying that it is
fundamentally not a science, but only a kind of mental game).

To get more concrete and less theoretical, you know me. You must
know that I have no emotional draw to a Torah life. If anything, the
opposite is true. And yes, most people I know in similar situations
do come up with reasons for disbelieving in the Torah b'dieved, after
they're already OTD. Which is a data point in favor of your theory.
But as I said, it's not universal. If it was, I would have no emunah,
and that's clearly not the case.

Lisa