Q&A: Foundations of Faith
Foundations of Faith
Question
Hello Rabbi,
My name is Michael, I’m 20 years old, a graduate of Religious Zionist educational institutions, and I’m currently serving in the army.
After two years in one of the best and most highly regarded pre-army institutions in Religious Zionism, I enlisted in the reconnaissance battalion of one of the brigades. Toward the end of basic training I was injured, and I ended up at battalion headquarters.
As a result of the injury and my encounter with the kind of people who are here, I’ve had to deal with issues I didn’t have to deal with before. In my opinion, the reasons are that in the Torah institution where I studied, of course I didn’t have interaction with this kind of crowd, and I had the feeling that I was among the intellectual elite; without noticing it, I studied books of faith and Jewish thought that all operate “within Judaism,” but I didn’t work enough, in my opinion, on finding the reason to enter it in the first place. Maybe I should have mentioned earlier that during high school I was, at a certain stage, secular while maintaining a religious lifestyle, as was expected of someone living with his religious parents, and especially because I’m the eldest, I didn’t think it would be fair to my parents if by leaving religion in a defiant way I would pave the way for my younger siblings to leave the path of their parents. If I hadn’t gone to study Torah after high school, it’s clear to me that I’d be secular today.
The problem I’m facing now is that I’m not sure the rabbis—whom I truly respect and appreciate as genuine intellectuals—would look kindly on my questions. Maybe they would, but I’m not sure.
I’ll describe here the things that, for me, are the foundations of faith. I’d be glad if the Rabbi could comment, illuminate, add, or direct me to learning sources that I could benefit from in this area.
1. To me it seems very likely that there is a God, since reality, as far as I know, cannot create itself, and what we can clearly point to through science is that there are processes made up of causes and effects, and it can’t be that there were such processes and causes and effects infinitely many times backward, because then it would mean that up to today we’ve passed through an infinite number of such processes, and that makes no sense, because you can’t traverse an infinity (even though I can’t point to a starting point since it’s infinite, but half, a quarter, and an eighth of infinity is also infinity, and so on, and in fact you can choose any point within infinity and start counting from there). I’ve heard that atheists argue that you can’t use human reason to think about what was before the Big Bang because it’s simply irrelevant, since we have no idea what reality was then, but human reason, unfortunately, is all I have with which to determine my beliefs, and it seems funny to me that people who insist on using Occam’s razor need the additional assumption—which, as I understand it, has no logical necessity—that reality worked in a fundamentally different way (not by cause and effect) before the Big Bang.
In addition, regarding belief in God: I’m not a great scientist, not even a small one, and I don’t know the details of the development of life, biology, physics, etc., but from my impression it seems to me that in order to create reality as it is today, enormous numbers of conditions and states had to come into being, and the probability of all this is very, very low, to say the least. Adding the one detail—that there is a God who creates and directs reality—turns the probability of all those conditions into 1, and unlike the atheists’ method, this is not at all an unnecessary assumption; there is great gain in it. From this I understand that you have to be a very great believer to be an atheist, much more than a religious believer.
2. For me, the greatest test of a given system is its success, or in other words, its fit with reality. This is basically a circumstantial-historical proof in favor of Judaism, which has influenced humanity greatly and survived so many crises and exterminations that it really is astonishing. Similar, for example, to the Kuzari’s image of the person who enters fire and is not harmed by it, which I understand as a metaphor for the Jewish people and not for a specific person, not even a prophet. Since, to the best of my understanding, reality has a Creator, and in light of Judaism’s great success throughout history, this serves for me as proof of the truth of the Torah.
3. I want a life of values, and the public that, in my opinion, lives the most value-driven life in Israeli society is the Religious Zionist public, and I want to belong to that type of people (even though I don’t like defining myself, in the end you need to make decisions such as where to live and which educational institutions to send your children to). In addition, my parents derive a lot of satisfaction from my current path, and I really love the healthy Jewish family unit with all the family Jewish rituals. This is not a theological argument but a psychological state, which gives me another reason to want to remain religious.
I have no problems with claim no. 1, and I’m pretty confident in it. With no. 2 I do have a problem, because I demand substantive proof from myself and not only circumstantial proof for the truth of Judaism, and I currently have questions (and I assume I always will) that require substantive answers (I’d be happy to ask the Rabbi those questions). With the situation described in 3, I have a conflict because of the company I’m currently serving with as part of being a headquarters soldier, in many situations of conflict between an existential desire and Jewish law (women singing, mixed company, strictness in the laws of kashrut, and more). Since the situation I described in 3 is, in my opinion, quite existential—namely, my desire to belong to a group, to feel value-driven, and to maintain pleasant family life according to my subjective experience—there is a clash here with particular existential feelings that run against that. Of course, my problem with claim 2 works against loyalty to Jewish law, despite the strength of the argument in my eyes. Still, I’ll note that I do still keep Jewish law; I’m only describing my mental state, which so far hasn’t caused a major behavioral change on my part.
If in the past I thought I’d live near the Torah institution where I studied, then the situation I described at the beginning—that the Torah hothouse caused me not to ask fundamental questions—now makes me think exactly the opposite, out of a desire for an original faith of my own and loyalty to myself.
I admit that I haven’t yet read your notebooks; I’m new to the site (today was the first time I read a full article, and it was the excellent article about leaving religion), but I definitely want to read them, hoping to find there direction and a healthy, rational worldview.
Sorry for the length,
Michael
Answer
Hello Michael.
I didn’t completely understand what the question is.
As for faith itself, see Notebook 5 (the first four deal with belief in God on the philosophical level).
In my opinion, psychological motivations aren’t really important. You need to examine what you believe, not what it’s convenient for you to believe.
If there are concrete questions, please try to present them directly so I can understand how and in what way I can help.
Discussion on Answer
Hello.
In general, I wrote what I had to say in Notebook Five. See there.
1. Regarding the proofs, see the first four notebooks.
2. Creation was done in order to bring about a world defined by certain laws that the Holy One, blessed be He, thought would bring it to His purposes. It is not necessarily possible to do this in the way you called “moral” creation. There is no reason to assume the two things can be done in the same way. If there is a logical contradiction between them, then even the Holy One, blessed be He, cannot depart from that (just as He cannot make a square triangle).
3. Indeed, there is no guarantee that what various thinkers write is correct. I have rather limited confidence in everything they write (these are only their own conjectures). This will be elaborated in my trilogy.
Regarding 2 — what I meant to ask was why reality wasn’t physically created as described in Genesis. I’m starting from the assumption that God is omnipotent and could have created the world that way, and I don’t see a logical contradiction in the creation of such a world, since the creation of the world itself created the laws according to which we live and logic itself. Sorry if you answered exactly that and I didn’t understand. In any case, I’d be glad to know: how do you understand the creation story in Genesis?
3 — If so, do you not uphold Maimonides’ principles of faith? Isn’t there a clash here with the world of Jewish law (perhaps even that of the Sages and not only the current rabbinic world—I’m not knowledgeable enough), which might call a person who does not accept certainty on this subject a heretic and various similar labels?
Thank you, Rabbi.
With God’s help, 20 Tevet (the day of Maimonides’ passing), 5777
To Michael — greetings,
Regarding Maimonides’ principles of faith, there is wall-to-wall agreement in rabbinic Judaism. Even the Raavad, his great disputant, did not disagree with him regarding the essence of these principles. Recently Rabbi Shlomo Aviner’s book was published, in which he explains the Guide for the Perplexed, and one can contact the rabbi by email or SMS and he will gladly reply. Also recently published was the book Invitation to the Guide for the Perplexed by Rabbi Yohai Makbili. In my humble opinion, even after more than fifty years, Dr. Aharon Bart’s book Our Generation Facing the Eternal Questions is highly recommended.
Regarding the creation story in relation to views accepted in science, it is worthwhile to look at the book In the Beginning Created by the physicist Professor Nathan Aviezer. Whereas in earlier generations science believed the world was eternal, today scientists too believe the world had a beginning, just as Judaism insisted for thousands of years.
The regularity in nature testifies a thousandfold that there is “one ruler of the palace” who governs His world by the same laws, valid from the tiniest particle to the greatest galaxy.
As for your question why the Holy One, blessed be He, created His world in an incomplete way so that it would be built through development—“could it not have been created with one utterance?”—perhaps the Holy One, blessed be He, contracts His revelation in order to give us a kind of “personal example” that places before us the challenge of being “partners in the account of creation,” to develop and perfect the world so that we not eat “the bread of shame.” See Professor Benjamin Gross’s book An Imperfect World — Toward Responsible Freedom, which develops this direction based on the teachings of the Maharal of Prague.
Best regards,
S. Z. Levinger
Regarding women singing, mixed company, etc. — the problems you are facing in the army are preparing you for what you will have to deal with all your life, at university and in the workplace. It would be good to study carefully Rabbi Elikim Ellinson’s book Woman and the Commandments — Book Two: And Walk Humbly, which will help you in understanding and coping. And the rule, it seems to me, is to maintain a respectful and respect-giving coquette-ish attitude, and to reserve expressions of affection for “your beloved and wife of your covenant,” with whom, with God’s help, you will merit a faithful home in Israel that will continue the glorious chain of generations.
Hello Michael.
Regarding no. 2, I understood your intention, and I’ll explain more fully what I answered.
I already wrote here regarding the question of evil in the world, and the answer there will help in understanding the answer to your question. Human evil is the result of human choice, but natural evil (tsunamis, epidemics) is the work of the Holy One, blessed be He, and that raises the question of His goodness. My claim is that natural evil is a byproduct of the laws of nature, and since the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted His world to operate according to fixed natural laws, and He also wanted those laws of nature (because they are what create the world He wanted—for example, life would not have arisen if the laws of nature were different even by a tiny amount), then it may be that there was no possibility of creating a world without natural evil. Changing the laws of nature in order to prevent evil would also change the world from what the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted it to be. In other words, even the omnipotent cannot overcome the laws of logic (only the laws of physics). This can also be the answer to why the world was not physically created as described in Genesis (assuming that that is the moral creation but not the physical mode of creation). These are two different systems of laws, distinct from one another, and the Holy One, blessed be He, had to choose one of them.
People recoil from the statement that the Holy One, blessed be He, cannot do something. But one must understand that not being able to depart from the laws of logic is not lack of ability. Omnipotence is the ability to do everything that is possible and conceivable. But what contradicts logic (like a square triangle) is simply nonsense. It’s not that the Holy One, blessed be He, cannot do it; rather, there is simply nothing there to be done.
I have no position regarding principles of faith, neither those of Maimonides nor of others. But I do have a position that nobody has authority to determine principles of faith. Not even the agreement of all the sages of Israel in all generations is relevant, since principles of faith deal with facts. Does the Holy One, blessed be He, exercise providence or not? Will a messiah come or not? Do we have free choice or not? All these are factual questions. If the Holy One, blessed be He, had transmitted some fact to us, I would accept it, but I have no indication that principles of faith were passed down by tradition. Therefore I do not know whether they are true.
It is important to understand that authority has no meaning regarding factual claims. In Jewish law there can be authority, because I can be instructed to act in a certain way even if I think it is not correct (in order to preserve the framework, or because perhaps I’m mistaken, and so on). But you cannot instruct someone to think something that, in his opinion, is not true. If I think it is not true, then I do not think it, and no command will help. At most I can recite those claims without believing them, but of course that has no value. If they persuade me, then of course I’ll accept it, but then it isn’t a matter of submission to authority. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no authority in matters of fact. Authority exists only in Jewish law.
What people call me doesn’t interest me in the slightest. Even if all the sages of Israel declare me a heretic, good health to them. I am of course willing to consider any argument, certainly one from a wise person, but I’m not impressed by names and labels. That is not the way to formulate positions, and as stated, it is also impossible. Even if I adopt some thesis only because holding the opposite is heresy—then I haven’t really adopted it (only outwardly). At most, one can try to persuade me. That is the only way to change my position. Such a change will happen only if strong arguments are raised in favor of some position, or if they show me that it is a tradition from Sinai.
For dealing with the social, faith-related, and halakhic challenges of a religious soldier in an office unit—see the book The Front at Home — A Collection of Articles for the Soldier in the Rear of Israeli Society, published by Beit El Library (the book’s articles can be viewed through the Rambish website).
For dealing with questions of faith, the book Letters to Talia by Dov Indigo, of blessed memory, may also help. It contains correspondence between Dov and a young woman from a secular kibbutz, in which he responded thoroughly to her sharp questions about Judaism. Dov fell in the Yom Kippur War, and his letters were published by his friend Dr. Haggai Ben-Artzi.
Best regards,
S. Z. Levinger
With God’s help, 21 Tevet 5777
Maimonides, true to his way, built his system on the firm foundation of the sources of the Written Torah and the transmitted tradition. He gathered all the halakhic and faith-related material scattered throughout the sources, decided between competing approaches according to the rules of halakhic ruling in the Talmud and according to his own judgment, and presented the learner with the Mishneh Torah arranged by topics.
About the principles of faith, Maimonides says (in his Commentary on the Mishnah to tractate Berakhot): “It is more precious to me to explain one of them than everything else I may teach.” He explained them by way of direct presentation in the Book of Knowledge and in his introductions to the Mishnah, to Ethics of the Fathers, and to the chapter Helek in tractate Sanhedrin.
But Maimonides did not suffice with that. He explained and grounded the foundations of faith with proofs, both from verses and the words of the Sages and through philosophical proofs and arguments, in his Guide for the Perplexed, where he uses philosophical methods of the Greek sages, whose thought was considered the pinnacle of science in his time. He uses the method developed by the philosophers, but reaches conclusions opposite to theirs. Whereas the “God of the philosophers” does not intervene in the world of which He is the cause, Maimonides’ God created His world, guides His creatures through His Torah, His prophets, and His sages, exercises individual providence over human beings, and will in the future bring His world to complete repair in the future redemption.
The foundations of faith formulated by Maimonides are explained in the Bible:
The Torah opens with the statement that God created the world. Throughout the length of the Torah it is explained that God governs the palace, whether in a hidden way as in the days of the patriarchs, or in an open way, as at the Exodus from Egypt. The uniqueness of the Creator and the denial of His physicality are explained in the prohibition against worshipping other gods and against ascribing image and likeness to the Creator, as explained in the Ten Commandments and in many places in the Torah.
The Creator’s providence—“whose eyes are open upon all the ways of mankind, to give each according to his ways and according to the fruit of his deeds” (Jeremiah 32:19)—is explained in the Torah: “The Rock, His work is perfect, for all His ways are justice,” and it follows from the fact that it makes no sense for the Creator of the world in wisdom to let it run ownerless, as it is written: “He who planted the ear, shall He not hear? He who formed the eye, shall He not see? He who disciplines nations, shall He not rebuke? He who teaches man knowledge…” (Psalms 94).
The revelation of God to give Torah to His people through Moses is described in the Torah—in the revelation at Mount Sinai, where six hundred thousand Jews heard the word of God so that they would believe in the prophecy of Moses forever. The eternity of the Torah is explained in the Torah’s command not to add to or subtract from the Torah of Moses. Even Balaam learns that “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent,” and Samuel explains: “And also the Glory of Israel will not lie nor repent, for He is not a man, that He should repent.”
It is the Torah that tells that the Jewish people will be punished with exile, but even in exile “I did not despise them nor reject them to destroy them utterly, to break My covenant with them,” and at the end of the exile God will redeem His people and return them to their land, whether through the awakening of the people to repentance (as described in the portion of Nitzavim), or for the sake of God’s name that was desecrated among the nations (as described in the portion of Ha’azinu and in Ezekiel chapters 34–38). The redemption will come through “a shoot from the stump of Jesse,” who will gather the dispersed of Israel, build the Temple, and guide the whole world to walk in the light of God, as explained in the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel.
The soul’s continued existence is explained in Abigail’s words to David: “And my lord’s soul shall be bound in the bundle of life with the Lord your God…” (I Samuel 25:29). About the resurrection of the dead, the angel informs Daniel: “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to reproaches and everlasting abhorrence. And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament, and those who turn many to righteousness like the stars forever and ever” (Daniel 12:2–3).
Not for nothing did Maimonides instruct the students of his Mishneh Torah to precede it with reading the Bible, which is the foundation of beliefs, values, and commandments, explained and detailed in the Oral Torah summarized in his work.
Best regards,
S. Z. Levinger
Hello Rabbi.
Sorry if I didn’t explain myself well enough.
The goal of the post is not to ask a question, but to present the things that stand at the base of my religious faith in order to receive comments and additions, because right now I feel they aren’t solid enough. I presented the 3 things that in my opinion make me a religious person, namely belief in God, a circumstantial-historical proof for the truth of Judaism, and personal interests such as a sense of value and family life. The last two have disadvantages, since the above proof is only circumstantial, and since sometimes I have desires and feelings that run contrary to Jewish law (which in effect undermines the third foundation). So I’d be glad for comments, corrections, and additions in order to gain stronger foundations for my faith.
Regarding direct questions:
1. What is supposed to cause an ordinary person to believe in God and in the Torah? As I see it, there needs to be a basic rational proof for this, since all human beings see themselves as rational creatures, and yet there are people with greater or lesser intellectual abilities, and the Holy One, blessed be He, does not come with excessive demands upon His creatures. This is connected to what I wrote until now: what exactly is supposed to stand at the basis of every person’s faith?
2. I’ve often heard that Genesis describes the creation of the world in a value-based, moral way, and that it is full of secrets (“the account of creation”), and therefore there is no contradiction between the Torah’s description and the scientific description regarding the creation of the world, and that in general there shouldn’t be a contradiction between Torah and science because these are different domains. My question is: why is this value-based, moral creation of the world different from the physical creation of the world? God is omnipotent, after all, and He could just as well have created the world exactly as described in the account of creation, and there would have been correspondence between physical reality and value-based-moral reality. Also, I’ve heard this idea from different rabbis, who say that there is some connection, at a deeper level, between Torah and science, because the Holy One, blessed be He, created both of them, and as Maimonides quoted in his letters, Rabbi Meir said in a baraita: “Look at His works, for through them you recognize the One who spoke and the world came into being.” If so, why should there be a difference between the value-based-moral creation of the world and the physical one?
3. Who says our orientation regarding the divine is correct? How do Maimonides, Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, and others know to say that God is perfect in the utmost perfection, that He is not composite, and that there is none besides Him? I don’t currently have access to my library, but some time ago I studied the first chapter of The Way of God, which speaks about the Holy One, blessed be He, and I thought it was all well and good—but where do we get the proofs that it’s true? I’m familiar with the approach that says we really have no knowledge of the divine and we can only describe it with attributes that are positive from our perspective, so that we ourselves may acquire good traits as a result. But from the little I know at the moment, what is the rational obstacle to saying there are 2 (or more) divine beings that created and govern the world? What’s the problem with thinking that those beings that created the world have a god of their own? Maybe דווקא because we know nothing about the divine, we attribute to it things that are not true? It may sound ridiculous and idolatrous, but I couldn’t give myself good answers to it…
These are the questions bothering me most right now. Thank you for the answer.