Philosophy of faith

Good morning Mikhi,

Thanks for the quick and detailed answer.
Your comment about peace being more of a psychological issue is correct and the emphasis on it in what I wrote is more mine and not necessarily the emphasis in the course. But still, there is something philosophical about it sometimes, like in Stoic or Buddhist philosophy, for example.
Regarding the test method – The lecturer did say that she tried to give it as homework but it didn't get approved.. Apparently there is some criterion for undergraduate courses that require a test in class. As far as I'm concerned, it's fine. And it's better than a regular test where you have to remember and be precise in your wording.
Regarding the questions – I think she intends to go from these questions to something broader and more personal, but to rely on thinkers and philosophers, both those we studied about and others.
I will write in a few sentences what I think about my answers to the questions before I develop it too much.
The first and third questions are a bit similar, so I'll write what I think about both:
A. For me, faith is a basic, axiomatic core that doesn't rely on proof. It can change over the course of a lifetime due to a significant event or even due to logical arguments and "apparent" proofs (like Uri Zohar, for example), but this rarely happens.
From this basic core and based on the decision to believe or not to believe, a broader and more comprehensive worldview is built. The broad picture of the world relies on the basic belief, and every phenomenon is explained and reconciled, and even strengthens this working assumption.
Even ontological or other proofs fall into this category in my opinion, and I'm aware that I'm on the border of psychology here.
(It's similar to me in political opinion and opinion on moral matters as well)
From what I understand, this is Yeshayahu Leibowitz's opinion, and I agree with him on this. It seems to me that you disagree with this, but I'm not sure..
B. On the subject of providence, I agree with you (and with Yeshayahu Leibowitz, I think) that such private providence over every person and deed does not exist. I am somewhat familiar with your arguments as to why this is indeed the case, but here too I think I am basing myself more on my own internal axiom.
C. As I wrote in the first email, the issue that is most central to my religious commitment is the social and moral human issue. For me, ‘The way of the land preceded the Torah’ is the founding sentence.
On this issue, I think that in a certain sense both Kierkegaard and Leibowitz saw it as central, even though it does not seem so. In Kierkegaard, the fervor of faith is ultimately expressed in the imperative of ‘Love your neighbor’ extremely extreme (that is why I do not write ‘Like you’ because he sacrifices himself).
And with Leibovitz, even though he doesn't link religious commitment to morality, the very fact that human morality was such a central essence in his life shows that it stems from his faith (perhaps).

Regarding the question about Job: I thought about taking it in the direction of asking what kind of faith he had and whether it was a desirable faith. Is innocent faith desirable and whether one should accept everything as ‘this too is for the good’. But I don't have a clear direction yet and I agree that this is a somewhat strange question.
By the way – Your joke reminded me that we always say that secular people in Israel are Orthodox secular people because when they do religious practices like a Bar Mitzvah or a wedding, it will usually be in the Orthodox way. Although it makes more sense to go in a Conservative or Reform direction.

I would be happy to continue the correspondence and talk later and maybe we will also be able to meet.

In any case, thank you very much and have a good day,

Good morning

A. I think the difference between naive faith and philosophical faith is not well defined. Suppose there is an argument that convinced me to believe in God. It is clear that faith is already in its premises. But if that is the case, then I am actually a naive believer, since I did not adopt the axioms by virtue of arguments.
Regarding the effects of psychology and events, there is no doubt that they exist, but this is true of all human activity. I often use the example of a person who questions and repents. A person questions, his religious friends explain that he wanted to allow himself to be immoral, which means they are psychologists. His new secular friends explain that he realized that he was living in error, which means they are philosophers. Now look at a person who repents. You see that the picture is reversed. So who is right? Everyone. Every step a person takes is based on motives and factors on the psychological level and at the same time has justifications on the philosophical level. In my opinion, there is no way to examine who came first or who is stronger. It is appropriate to focus on the philosophical discussion because it is the only one relevant to a substantive discussion. A person's psychological motives are their own business.
Of course, this analysis is true for any conclusion and position, religious, political, philosophical. It is a logical analysis that assumes nothing about the field in which one is engaged.
I will only comment that Leibowitz treated the starting point (the basic premise) as something arbitrary. In his opinion, as a positivist, everything that is not theoretically or observationally justified is arbitrary. But he is of course wrong. Intuition is the basis of our assumptions (in faith as well as in science or any other field), and the root of faith is in intuition. I have much to say about this.

B. Every argument is based on an internal axiom, and so on.
C. Here we differ greatly. In my opinion, there is indeed no morality without belief in God (theoretically. Of course, there are people who are moral atheists). I elaborated on this in column 456 on my website. But this has nothing to do with halakhic and religious commitment. Halakhic and morality are independent categories. Here I completely agree with Leibowitz (although in his view he claims that morality is atheistic, and probably also arbitrary. Again, his positivism misleads him). Religious commitment is not related to morality and does not contribute anything to it. It exists because it exists. I am committed because it is appropriate and right in my opinion and not as something instrumental that serves morality or society, etc. (again Leibowitz).

As for Kierkegaard, I think you are wrong. After all, the essence of his teaching is the dialectical relationship between the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious. You describe the ethical, which indeed prevails over the aesthetic (this is the next level of development), but in the end comes the religious, which prevails over the ethical and certainly does not serve it.
Regarding Leibovitz's moral obligation, these contradictions have already been addressed in his teaching (see, for example, in the book "Shilila Lishma" towards Yeshayahu Leibovitz). I remember an article by Eliezer Goldman that explains this. Morality is not related to halakha and faith, but it obligates every person, especially a religious person. Just because he is an atheist category does not mean that it is not obligate. In any case, it is clear that he did not see the covenant as the basis for morality. On the contrary, he spent his entire life trying to separate the two.

Regarding Job's faith, it is difficult for me to comment. I do not deal with the Bible and its interpretation. The field seems to me to be open and full of vortices, and everyone says something from the musings of his heart. We do not study Job, but rather insert ourselves into Job.
Regarding the secular Orthodox, you reminded me of a conversation with Michael Biton when Dal”ach and Revital returned to Yeruham. They wanted to establish a Conservative minyan and Michael and Ilana were completely in favor. But it turned out to them that the traditionalists of Yeruham are Orthodox traditionalists and they have no chance. Really amusing.

Hi Mikhi,

I apologize for taking me so long to answer. I'm just trying to think about things and I feel like I'm staying on the more superficial level of the arguments, so I'm taking my time to think.
And that's besides the pressure at work..

Anyway, regarding the arguments:
I see morality as something that is closely dependent on faith and also precedes faith (in the sense of a way of life that precedes the Torah).
Since, as mentioned, I don't believe in private providence and I don't think God needs my faith or religious worship, I'm mainly sticking with the social/moral side.
For me, the world is structured in such a way that the ethical side enables social and human existence, and in fact, human morality is the divine essence in the world.
Therefore, morality also proves the existence of God and is also the main significant thing that can be done in this world from a faith perspective.
I hope I managed to explain myself on this matter..
And regarding what I wrote about Leibowitz and Kierkegaard – You are of course right that they did not see it that way.. although I tried to point out that in this matter they are somewhat contradicting themselves.
The fact that although Kierkegaard saw the religious dimension as something beyond morality, he still remained with an extreme commitment to other people speaks volumes.
And the fact that Leibowitz is famous mainly for his moral perception, and his religious practice is merely something technical, also speaks volumes.

Regarding the connection between faith and morality, I am reminded of what Abraham Joshua Heschel said after walking with Martin Luther King: “I felt that my feet were praying” .

Thanks again,

We will probably remain in the debate. In my opinion, your view leaves us without halakha (only morality), and therefore essentially without Judaism. Morality is universal and also obligates all people in the world. So if Judaism is nothing but morality, how is the believing Jew different from the secular or gentile? This is exactly what made Leibowitz say that morality is an atheistic category.
Goodbye and good luck,