Q&A: God
God
Question
Since no thought can grasp Him, is it possible to say—and perhaps even educate people—that God = a person’s conscience, human reason, everything spiritual within a person, the source of his values, holiness, etc., instead of explaining that there is a spiritual entity beyond the universe whose existence can be proven or disproven? It seems to me that this is simpler to explain and to teach. What does the Rabbi think?
Answer
You can say anything, but there are two problems with this: 1. God is not an entity but a psychic movement. That is just a manner of expression, not a claim. 2. If there is no entity in the background, then all these norms have no validity. They are merely valueless psychological illusions. In fact, the very concept of “value” does not exist (see the fourth notebook).
By the way, that entity cannot necessarily be proven, nor can its existence necessarily be disproven. One can argue for its existence even without proof. Every proof is based on foundational assumptions, and if someone directly understands that God exists, then he does not need proofs.
Discussion on Answer
1. That is for you to explain, not me. You made that claim.
2. Regardless of what you call something—which is semantics—without God there is no validity to morality. See the fuller discussion in the fourth notebook (or the fourth talk in my book The First Existing).
3. This is explained in detail in my aforementioned book. Surely you do not expect me to write a book here.
“Without God there is no validity to morality”—why?
Maybe morality is part of an evolutionary development ingrained in man?
Y
I referred you to the places where this is explained.
Thank you, Rabbi. A few questions for clarification:
1. What does it mean that God = a psychic movement?
2. Why, if there is no God, are there no values? A person’s aspiration to values proves that there is a spiritual, conscientious force within him—I call that God.
3. What is the foundational assumption on which the proof of God’s existence is built?