By William Berkson
So far I have argued that a God who gives meaning and unity to nature and humanity exists, but probably is not the interventionist God of the Torah.  The question is, how to we relate to that God, both individually and communally?

The key issue in theology is how we relate to the unknown and probably unknowable. Einstein wrote: "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science." (From 'The World as I See It.')  And, I would add, it is also the emotion that stands at the cradle of true religious belief.

The questions are, "Should we take anything from our experience of the awesome mysteriousness of life? And if so, what?"

First of all it is important to recognize that we can't really avoid the issue of what to make of the mystery of purpose. As the great American philosopher William James wrote in his essay "The Will to Believe," there are many issues on which we can use facts and evidence to make up our mind, in the scientific fashion. And when the facts exist, then we should follow them. However, many questions involve what purposes we should adopt, and what will be the long-term consequences of our actions. On these we don't have the facts and evidence, so faith of some kind must enter.

The point that we need some kind of faith to guide us was made in another way by Isaac Bashevis Singer. In one of his stories a young man has lost his faith in God, and eagerly comes to Warsaw to meet other unbelievers and read their views. He goes into a bookshop and is disappointed to see only a few old dusty books on atheism.  When he asks about this, the shop owner says, "Oh people have lost interest in that. They have all set up new idols and are serving them." The idols being, money, pleasure, fame, and so on.

In Judaism the core insight about the unknowable force behind our being is that It calls to us to do justice and love kindness to our fellow creatures. This intuition or conviction is reported from the beginning, when Abraham hears God tell him that He is willing to make a covenant with Abraham because Abraham will raise his children to "keep the way of YHVH, to do what is right and just." (Gen. 18:19, Fox translation.) And we have a continuation of this preoccupation with ethics in Moses, the later prophets, and the rabbinic sages.

In addition to this call to us to be ethical, there are two other fundamentals, it seems to me. One is the unity of God. This is appealing for two reasons. First, it resonates with the mystical experience that is at the root of all religion, and second many Gods can takes different sides in men's quarrels, violating the call to justice. Secondly, although God is even responsible for evil according Isaiah (Is. 45:7), our attitude to God and to our own lives should be of love and gratitude, as is said in the v'ahavtah (Deut. 6:5).

My point of writing these five little essays on theology is that this threefold web of call to an ethical life, appreciation of sacred unity, and commitment to gratitude is a very strong basis for liberal Judaism, even if we no longer accept an interventionist God. We don't have to apologize for our theology, but we can go forward, confident that it is a strong basis that will not be undermined by science or logic.

Now some who have written about the non-interventionist God have made further claims. Mordechai Kaplan has said that God is 'trans-natural' and not supernatural. Lawrence Kushner has said that God sympathizes with our suffering, but can't do much about it. Personally I don't know how much God is immanent or transcendent, trans-natural, super-natural or unnatural. And I don't think Kaplan or anyone else did or does now either. Also I don't know how much God sympathizes, and how much He can or does act in the world. To me this is all behind a veil of mystery, and we have a stronger theology when we just humbly admit our ignorance before the awesome mystery of being. 

Now a basic challenge to my argument here has been posed by fellow RJ blogger Dick Israel, who has questioned whether these basic attributes our tradition ascribes to God are all our own creation. He has written: "I still wrestle with the postulate that the god idea is a human invention or creation that our remarkable minds have developed to ease our discomfort with the unknowable..." And "Why does anyone worship an inexplicable concept like god? I know I do it because it pleases me. Why does anyone for any other reason?"

So in conclusion let me answer this serious challenge as best I can. Let me start with something very telling that the great agnostic and anti-religious philosopher Bertrand Russell once said. At the time Positivists were arguing that 'it is wrong' and 'I don't like it' mean essentially the same thing, except that the first is propaganda--a "persuasive definition" to get the other person to go along with what you want. Russell said that in spite of his not being able to controvert the Positivists' arguments (he was a kind of Positivist himself) he said, "I can't believe that the only thing wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it."

This powerful feeling that right and wrong transcend us is not, then, just "what pleases me." It at least pleases most of humanity. Now that admittedly may be a matter of mass delusion or projection. But we do have to consider that we are part of nature. That means that our purposes are natural, and purpose is a part of nature. And the fact is that ethical guidelines are functional in the survival of families and groups of people.

So it is still a leap of faith to say that ethical action is a call to us from God--a mitzvah--but it is not such a radical or ridiculous leap. And it is grounded in the experience of holiness that we have in relationships. We experience the loving kindness between husband and wife, parents and children as sacred. If these aren't sacred, then nothing is. And for me, my experience convinces me these are sacred.

Furthermore, there is a lot more mystery out there than the more unimaginative positivists are willing to admit. For example, my late teacher Karl Popper pointed out there is something he called 'downward causation'. When we learn that a grandchild is born, or that an old friend died, we change our feelings and actions. And it is ideas or information that has changed our actions, and not simply molecules. The whole seems to influence the parts, rather than the other way around. So the idea that a unifying force in nature--God--is influencing and sustaining the whole world is not so far fetched. And we have consciousness. Does consciousness exist from the smallest to the largest particle of nature, as Spinoza and Leibnitz believed? Is God somehow conscious of it all?

In sum, there is reason to believe in a unity in nature that calls us to goodness and gratitude. And that it is not just a whim of mine; it is reinforced by not only my experience of the sacred, but the experiences of millions of others in past ages and today.  That's not proof, but it ain't chopped liver either.

Print

Email

Comment

Comments

Post a comment