Anti-thought and Judaism
Offline One argument against religion that I have frequently heard is that faith is essentially the antithesis to rational thought and since religion treats faith as a virtue it is essentially anti-thought.
I can see quite readily how this argument applies to Christianity and Islam and to a lesser extent Taoism, Buddhism and Hinduism. I can also understand that most people arguing against religion live in Christian-dominated societies and that Christianity and Islam are the largest world religions, so it makes sense that they should be the primary targets of such arguments.
Every time I hear this argument or one like it, though, I cringe at its misapplication to all religion. In particular, it does not apply to Judaism.
In Judaism faith is, if anything, discouraged. Belief in God is completely irrelevant and if you wind up believing you are expected to reach that point through study, dialogue and reason. What is important in Judaism is one's actions - the Torah commands that you do things, not that you believe things - and even without any belief at all you are still expected to partake in holidays as cultural, communal and traditional ceremonies.
I completely understand that the ancient Hebrews were violent, xenophobic and highly immoral by modern standards and that anyone who tries to implement the laws in the Pentateuch literally and fully should be locked up away from society, but modern Judaism almost unanimously realizes this as well and views the bible through the lens of centuries of ethical and theological commentaries as well as recognizing that further commentaries are likely forthcoming.
Ultimately, I don't think that Judaism can be brought under this umbrella of "anti-thought." I also expect that many free-though advocates will likely agree with me on this, since Jews are disproportionately present in purely secular and atheist groupings.
Of course, since Judaism is simultaneously religion, culture and heritage, one can easily be Jewish and atheist simultaneously, a combination I have heard referred to as a "cultural Jew."
- Login to post comments
Wait.. can you please touch on your understanding on why "faith" is "anti-thought".
"Faith" is not based on "proof".. does not mean that it is "anti-proof" or "anti-thought".
Its like "pro-choice" and "pro-life".. its terminology that is highly suspect when used when applied to some general concept such as "faith" or "religion".
How does this argument apply to these worldviews? I think that this statement is far too sweeping. It would be better to be specific about what aspects of certain faiths you find irrational. Also, I find it interesting that you separate Judaism. There are many different kinds of Jews as there are many different kinds of Christians as there are many kinds of Hindus, etc.
"- the Torah commands that you do things, not that you believe things - and even without any belief at all you are still expected to partake in holidays as cultural, communal and traditional ceremonies."
Why does the Torah say that? Why should anyone follow the Torah?
Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein
I apologise for not being more detailed, but the "faith is anti-thought" argument is one I have heard from Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. Essentially, as I remember, it is that faith is by definition the acceptance of something as truth despite total lack of evidence, hance it is antithetical to rationality.
Since faith is an integral part of both the Christian and Muslim belief systems, this argument is specifically designed to apply to these belief systems. Buddhism and Taoism have places for faith in their religions, though it does not play nearly as central a role there so the argument does not apply as fully. Hinduism is so extremely diverse that almost no single argument can ever fully apply.
It is true that there are many different kinds of Jews, but not nearly as many as Christians. In addition, an emphasis on deeds and low if any importance placed on belief is very widely accepted in Judaism whereas it is almost unheard of in Christianity.
Why does the Torah say that you should do things and not say that you should believe things? I don't know, ask its authors (oh wait, they're all dead). Also, I am not trying to justify Judaism here, so I cannot present reasons that you should believe the Torah since I don't believe there are any.
To clarify, I am not trying to detail this argument here, I am not trying to use it here to attack any religion nor am I trying to prosyletize or support Judaism. I am simply wondering if anyone here who is familiar with the argument can explain its generalization to "all religions" which I believe to be unjustified.
This is true! Except for the wacko orthodox jews and the Hasids, of course.
I am Jewish, so I can share such a story. Judaism is a lifestyle not a religion. Belief in God is a non-issue. When I was in New York, I had the good fortune to visit a Jewish congregation, the standing joke being that everyone was so enlightened that even the Rabbi was atheist. This turned out to be true. The interesting thing is, the Jewish holy book, the old testament, is probably the most barbaric and awful texts in theology, and as Dawkins pointed out, Yahweh probably the most unpleasant character in fiction. But, seeing as I dont see too many fellow Jews stoning their children for turning to "Gods other than Yahweh, as is commanded by the testament, I can assume that by far and large the people have cast off the tenets. The Jews recognize that their holy book was written 4000 years ago when ethics were barbaric to put it mildly. They understand that morality does not come from religion. Now, if only we could get everyone else to realize the same...
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
If this is what Dawkins really states, then.. well.. I'll hold my thoughts to myself and stick with a critic.
Faith, by definition, is a belief held that is not based of proof; not, "held despite total lack of evidence."
If he read the dictionary and still said the latter.. he either 1) doesn't understand the importance of language 2) purposefully twisted the concept for rhetorical purpose 3) is a hobbit.
Please tell me other people understand the difference between something being not being 'based' on something and 'the total lack' of something that is used to do something else.
Proof=sufficient evidence (or evidence in general) that establishes truth.
Proof and evidence are interchangeable (in some instances, but even if they were in the case of the definition of faith then this problem would arrise...)
If I say my house is not 'based' on wood, is not to say that 'wood' is not an important factor in the house.
i think whatever you think about faith in schools of thought like hinduism and buddhism and taoism is from a distant sort of orientalist perspective.(i may be wrong, i'm just surprised that you put everything into the same category. that's why i was asking you to be more specific about aspects of the faith itself which are irrational)
carved into these faiths is a tradition of challenging the nature of belief. buddhism is a series of philosophical and metaphysical constructs which challenges itself. the theologians of buddhism were logicians like Nagarjuna tirelessly questioning and skeptical about the nature of the world. 'Buddhist metaphysics and quantum theory' for the last couple of decades is an area rigorously studied and published in peer-reviewed academic journals.
here is a wikipedia summary of the compatibility (i would almost call this compatibility intrinsic to buddhism in contrast to Abrahamic religions) between Buddhism and Science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_science
the reason that it is hard to define a hindu is because hinduism more than anything else is a culture. if you want to get a good foundation of hindu metaphysics i recommend the bhagavad gita.
i didn't want to bring out these things in this thread, because i'm also not aiming to prosletyze. i felt you passed off these traditions too quickly.
here is some wikipedia keywords for anyone who wants some more context.
"hinduism" "bhagavad gita" "yoga" "maya" "dharma" "buddhism" "nagarjuna"
Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein
Wow.. my last post was wrought with grammatical errors. That's what I get for writing the moment after I wake up.
Since I have not had the motive to look for an exact quote and anything I put down without copying and pasting gets heavily filtered through my mind, he may not have said quite this. In fact, if I had some fundamental misunderstanding the points made by Dawkins and Harris may have been quite different, but this is what I took away as a summary of the argument. I will attempt to find references to post in the next day or two so I can either be corrected or demonstrate my point.
You are probably quite right that I passed them off too quickly. I have studied very little of Hinduism and I realize that it is, like Judaism, still largely an "ancient religion" (which is a term I use for the old style of religion in which religion, nationality, race, culture, geographical location and political structure are essentially inseperable). It is the huge diversity in belief system (which stems from the catch-all nature of the term) which leads me to say that faith likely still has a place there.
I have read a decent amount of Buddhist philosophy, though I am by no means an expert and could easily be wrong about my statements regarding it. It seems to me, though, that it is fundamental to Buddhism to accept samsara and nirvana (the reincarnation cycle and... the other/same thing come to be referred to as "enlightenment"
which are both concepts requiring faith to accept. Of course, you are not meant to simply accept them in the same way as, say, Christians accept the bible, which is why I consider this argument to not apply as fully.
It seems to me that part of our misunderstanding here has to do with my use of the word "faith". I am not using "faith" to mean "religion", "philosophy" or "theology", I am using it to refer to that type of mental leap to accepting something despite lack of evidence - the way that Christians will often say "it's a matter of faith to accept that the bible is true" or the phrase "leap of faith".
When I refer to the presence of faith in Hinduism, Buddhism and taoism, I am similarly referring to the position held by the concept "faith" within their philosophical and theological outlooks - it is there, but it is not fundamental as in Christianity and Islam.
Judging by the misunderstandings so far, I should probably restate my problem here as follows:
In attacking religion, people often make arguments undermining the concept of "faith", concluding that religion will take on all the negative qualities they ascribe to faith. Judaism being a religion which is seemingly disliking of faith seemingly should be excluded from these generalizations, but it is not (as far as I know).
Is this exclusion because of a general lack of understanding of Judaism? Is it because Hassidim are used as Jewish exemplars? It is because I've missed something about arguments or about Judaism? Or is it something else entirely of which I've not thought?
I think there are many non-practicing Jews and the culture is such that belief in Yahweh is not necessary to identify with that culture. What would you say is the an identifying factor of Judaism? (What would separate a Jewish person from a non-Jewish person?)
Is this it?
"- the Torah commands that you do things, not that you believe things - and even without any belief at all you are still expected to partake in holidays as cultural, communal and traditional ceremonies."
doesn't this commandment require some kind of belief (or 'faith'
? if not, what does it require? what do you mean when you say judaism dislikes faith?
There is no separate 'god-creator' in the Eastern religions you mentioned, so i would venture saying that faith is of a different quality then that of Abrahamic religions, but even faith in nirvana or reincarnation is not a requisite. in fact from a hindu or buddhist perspective, i would say the only essential requisite to call yourself part of a faith is that truth/happinesss exists, and that one can seek it (dharma).
Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein
Actually, that's the subject of significant debate within the Jewish community. For all practical purposes, you're a Jew if the Jewish community as a whole recognizes you as such, but the conditions for that aren't well-defined.
The traditional definition (and the definition used by Hitler during the holocaust and by the state of Israel since 1948) is that you are Jewish if your mother is Jewish or if her mother is Jewish. Of course, this definition does not include conversions which are allowed but discouraged in every variety of Judaism I'm aware of.
Saying that belief is not necessary to identify with the culture is an understatement - belief is not necessary to be a well-respected rabbi and you don't even need to feign belief, you simply have to be willing to use the right words in ceremonies.
Basically, when the ceremonies and structure of Judaism were being formed into tradition, belief was entirely a non-issue. Since then, Jews have continued to not care whether or not someone has faith, so justifications like the one I gave have been used to continue including atheistic Jews in the Jewish community. Really, though, participation in the rituals is primarily for the purpose of tradition and if you don't you are typically still considered Jewish (if your family is ultra-orthodox, you're likely to get the guilt laid on and possibly ostracized from your local community, but most others basically won't care much).
Like I said earlier, no Jews I'm aware of try and follow all the commandments literally, but most Jewish scholars have interpreted the commandments in relatively humane ways which most people are happy to consider.
Without belief, you're still typically going to treat people well and be a good person. You might not keep kosher or go to synagogue. You might drive on Saturdays and ignore the holiday, but you're basically just choosing to remove yourself from numerous community bonding rituals and you'll basically be treated just like anybody in a neighbourhood of yuppie parents who doesn't attend local PTA meetings and pot-luck barbecues.
I realize that a god/creator is not so much present in Eastern religions (although a case can be made that Brahma fits the bill in Hinduism), but faith does not have to be solely regarding a God.
I was under the impression that in Hinduism you're supposed to follow your dharma (path in life) simply because it's your path in life.
I was also under the impression that the "goal" in buddhism is to break free from the wheel of samsara by attaining nirvana through eschewing attachment. True, if you don't believe in samsara Buddhists don't feel like they have a duty to convince you, but equally you cannot seek nirvana unless you wish to attain it.
it seems to me from what you say then that the most unifying aspect of Judaism is not the faith or the Old Testament, but rather the sense of community shared by people of the same ethnicity. But I don't think this is unique to the Jewish community although it is more close knit than other religious communities. There are Christians who exchange gifts and wear white to weddings in chapels, who just identify these traditions.
But, i think the reason that Judaism is lumped with other religions, especially Abrahamic religions is because...it's an Abrahamic religion. When I think of Judaism and its traditions, I think of the Old Testament and the Torah and Passover and Hannukah.
where do the right words in the ceremonies come from? how do the rabbis know they're right? do these not come from some unifying worldview-belief system? or, are they arbitrary?
Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein
delete double post;
i was trying to edit the above post to say how do rabbis know the words (not the rabbis themselves) are right in the tradition. why not any other strings of words.
Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein
That is true, yes. The difference between Judaism and most other modern religions is that for Judaism, community and tradition are enough to belong and enough reason to continue. If all Gods were publicly and completely disproven tomorrow Christian and Muslim communities would be in crisis, most Jewish communities would consider it an interesting topic of comversation.
In a sense, the old testament, shared history and belief system brought the Jews together, but what keeps Jews together is momentum.
Nobody would deny that the words and rituals have their origins in biblical times and the old testament, but they are not always continued for those reasons. They're the "right" ceremonies because they're the ones rabbis have been performing for generations (how do they know the old rabbis were "right"? they don't and it doesn't matter - if tradition is the reason for the ceremony then tradition is enough to dictate its form).
Once again, the ceremonies originated in a unifying worldview, but no longer need it to sustain their practice.
i hope this doesn't seem like semantics or nitpicking or anything it's not. i am curious, and i'm enjoying this conversation.
in saying a verse/performing a ritual, or carrying on a tradition in general, and in identifying/defining a community in relation to the rest of the world, isn't there an implicit belief that the tradition and the community are worth preserving? so maybe the unifying worldview isn't based on Yahweh anymore, but the preservation of the community and tradition have become the basis for another unifying worldview?
Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein
As far as I'm concerned, semantic differences need to be dealt with and nits aren't good to keep around. What's so bad about precise, diligent, patient labour that leads "nitpicking" to be a negative word, anyway?
Yes, in continuing a tradition there is an implicit statement that the tradition is worth continuing. The belief in that statement need not be an individual one, though, because even if an individual would just as soon dispose of the tradition, the community as a whole would need to decide to dispose of the tradition before it could be effectively divested of value.
Basically, what I'm saying in the above, is that whatever benefits these rituals and traditions may once have had, they currently have those values standardly attributed to religions by those Sam Harris calls "religious moderates": they foster community involvement, give people a sense of worth, of belonging and of connection with their ancestors.
It is true that these things can just as easily be attained through secular means, but only if the entire community were to begin doing so. Essentially, even if the traditions are intrinsically valueless, filling their role with something else requires people to overcome the prisoner's dilemma (only not quite as stringent). The only reliable way I know of to overcome the prisoner's dilemma is to present to everyone the negative effects of taking the easy route - which seems to be one of the major goals of Sam Harris recently. Unfortunately, I don't think that "faith" as a negative effect can be attributed accurately to the majority of Judaism. In fact, I see cultural Judaism as something which may even be worth keeping around, if only because it would be a shame to cut off a modern population from their historical roots.
Regarding your questions around "unifying worldview", I had taken this term to mean "a worldview which provides a single paradigm under which all of an individual's experience can be unified." Judging by your phrasing of the last question in your post, though, I think I may have been wrong in that assumption; did you instead mean "a worldview through which a community of individuals can gather and share their experiences"?
If the former definition is what you meant, then I would say that modern Judaism need not be a unifying worldview. If the latter, then yes, it certainly is.
I'll make a few points here. Jews are considered Jews if they are born to a Jewish mother and or follow Judaism.
There is a Jewish culture. Since most people believe in God, most family members of a non believing Jew (like myself) do follow Jewish customs and I end up being part of the culture. The best way to describe it is an ex Irish Catholic will always be part of the Irish Catholic tradictions unless he or she moves from Ireland, and even then, may retain much of it.
Hitler and other Jew haters, tend to bring Jews together and confirm the ethnicity perception. Hitler didn't ask any ethnic Jews about how much they follow the religion or believe in God.
That being said, there are many Jews who like Christian Fundies, do not believe in evolution and even an ancient earth. Boggles my mind.
http://baconeatingatheistjew.blogspot.com
with the latter definition which is the one i'm really interested in, is it possible to delineate between a belief or set of beliefs, and a worldview through which a community of individuals can gather or share their experiences?
i think its a neat part of existence that there can be a worldview through which individuals can gather and share their experiences (i am even so adventerous as to hope for a a worldview through which a whole lot more people can gather and share their experiences) but i'm wondering what kind of assumptions and/or beliefs this kind of worldview entails; can we break it down?
Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein
Well, a worldview consists of a set of beliefs about the world. Often, if the worldview gathers people into a community, it often also contains beliefs about the nature of those people as well.
I think that people can gather and share their experiences through things other than a worldview - this is demonstrated quite well by the plethora of societies existing around hobbies and sports.
Worldviews which gather communities might have certain properties common among their contained beliefs, but I don't really know what those might be. If you're wondering about what beliefs this particular worldview entails, that can certainly be broken down, but I am not enough of a scholar of Judaism to do that alone. I would also suggest that the worldview which once played a major role in unifying the Jewish community does not play a large role in keeping it unified anymore - the Jewish community remains unified (to the degree that it is) largely through tradition, culture, family and ritual, and while all of these things stemmed from that worldview, they have since largely divested themselves of it.