Before I actually touch any of the issues, I want to discuss why the argument over belief in Judaism (or any other religion) exists at all.
When I hear and read about the arguments, they become heated very quickly. The believer quickly accuses the skeptic of having insincere motives (i.e. he/she is just looking for an excuse to do whatever he/she wants), and the skeptic accuses the believer of being an idiot. This again leaves me in the position of Elihu ben Berachel - the argument quickly runs out of hand, with no side making any progress. Let us first analyze, are these accusations from either side true?
First I will deal with the position of the believer. From my personal experience, I must admit that they are for the most part correct. Now I expect a lot of flack for this statement. But let us analyze this critically. Who is more likely to question the validity of the religion in which they participate? Is it not the person who is unhappy with the religion? It seems to me that the person who is content with his lot is indeed more likely to not question it. This, I have seen, is often borne out in my experience. What is interesting is that often the people who fall into this category don't even realize it - they think that they have thought their conclusions out, but clearly they have not.
However, it is absolutely not true that this is universally the case. There are, indeed, many issues that must be dealt with in examining religion. The believer quickly jumps on the cases where there may be ulterior motives and generalizes. I personally know people who genuinely struggled with the issues, patiently weighing the arguments on both sides, until they came to a decision. I believe I fall into such a category - I struggled with the issues for over two years until I came to a decision (even consciously giving more weight to the religious perspective - I'll discuss this in the next paragraph).
Additionally, the idea that there is a motivation to become a nonbeliever is ridiculous, once one thinks about it. Consider the options - you get a little bit of good now for sinning and a whole lot of bad later in terms of punishment, or you can do something that may cause you a bit of discomfort now (or even some good now - depending whether one likes to perform the mitzvot), and a whole lot of good later. Clearly the motivation is to choose the latter. Note that I have now turned Pascal's Wager on its head - clearly the motivation lies in the direction of becoming religious, if one is interested in long-term planning. Additionally, as I mentioned above, there may be motivation to perform the mitzvot themselves - I personally enjoy Shabbat very much, and was thus interested in keeping the meaning behind it. Thus the skeptic could argue in a similar manner that the believer is seduced into believing.
Returning now to the skeptic's position, I think it suffices to say that this is clearly not true. There are plenty of extremely intelligent Orthodox people, as well as plenty of extremely ignorant ones; however, this is just as true for the nonbelievers as well. Much of the beliefs simply stem from the exposure to the arguments, upbringing, life experience, etc.
If only we could avoid all the insults that universally get tossed around in these kind of discussions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Well, JE, I should have read a little more to see that you indeed are observant.
Why is the skeptic the one with "insincere motives", while the believer is the "idiot"? You are already setting it up that the skeptic's problem is wrong motivation, while the believer's problem is wrong thinking. The former is more easily fixed than the later.
You've mentioned Elihu ben Berachel for the second time - who is he?
Unhappiness with one's religion may be the catalyst for questioning it, but intellectual honesty is ultimately a better reason for questioning. People may be blissfully happy with a lie - should they stay with it because it makes them happy?
You struggled for over two years before becoming religious - are you ready now, via your own blog professing a search for truth - to consider reverting back to the alternative? The "motivation to become a non-believer" should be the same as to become a believer - because it's the truth.
I don't understand what you mean by "turning Pascal's Wager on it's head" - I thought that PW already argues for belief as the safest option!
See "Rejection of Pascal's Wager" at http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pascal.html
where it says, among other things, that "Furthermore, as many atheist philosophers have pointed out, it is also possible to conceive of a deity who rewards intellectual honesty, a God who rewards atheists with eternal bliss simply because they dared to follow where the evidence leads - that given the available evidence, no God exists!
"Returning to the skeptic's position" - that believer's are idiots, you mean - you say that that position "is clearly not true". You're right - skeptics don't deny that there are "plenty of extremely intelligent Orthodox people", just like they wouldn't deny that there are plenty of intelligent Christians or Muslims or Hindus, even if the skeptic thinks that they also happen to be wrong (like they think that the intelligent Orthodox Jew may also be).
And I think that you're use of "intelligent" opposing "ignorant" is not quite correct - one can be intelligent and ignorant at the same time. One could charge many in the yeshiva/kollel world with just that - they are very intelligent and apply that to their Gemorrah learning, but they are simultaneously ignorant of many other aspects of life outside the four walls of the yeshiva and the four amos of halachah. Ignorance is lack of knowledge; stupidity is lack of intelligence.
You want to "avoid all the insults that universally get tossed around in these kind of discussions"? Then maybe you shouldn't be so quick to call someone "rediculous" for thinking that "there is a motivation to become a nonbeliever". (I know that you said that the "idea" is rediculous, but that implies the same about someone who has that idea).
Elihu ben Berachel is a character in Sefer Iyov. He responds when Iyov's friends "could not respond and villified Iyov."
Pascal's Wager is turned on its head (though not exactly, as you have correctly pointed out) because it shows that the people who question realize that it is advantageous to be religious, yet question anyway. I was not referring to whether Pascal's Wager is a valid argument; that is for another post.
As for the terms used for the skeptic or the believer, I'm not referring to what I believe. I'm just referring to stereotypes that I often see flung around.
I'll respond to the last point first.
Yes, you are referring to what you believe about your defined stereotypes, because you admit that the believer's position is "for the most part correct", while you claim that your choice of the skeptic's position is "clearly not true", although I think that I have shown in my previous post that that is not really the skeptic's position.
Regarding Pascal's Wager (PW) - does there eventually come a point where the answers to questions outweigh the advantage in being religious offered by the Wager? And you must admit that you do hold that PW is a valid argument - that it is "clearly" the right thing to opt for the chance of long-term other-worldly reward, and doing otherwise is "rediculous".
You even admit that you consciously gave "more weight to the religious perspective", apparently because of PW. That is not really an intellectually honest approach - it feeds rather on fear of making a mistake. At some point, the evidence must be able to outweigh that fear. And, if you look at the link I provided in the last post, you will see that the outcome of PW, meaning the object of that fear, is not so clear, and could even lead one to the opposite decision - not to believe!
I enjoy and think it's important to participate in this discussion, but I don't have time to do it as much as I want. So don't be offended if I don't respond right away like I have so far. Again, let's hope that others join in.
And I suggest to you that you read over your postings a few times before posting them to make sure that they flow and say what you want them to say.
As I said, I plan on developing my ideas on Pascal's Wager more in a later post. I did not say I bought the argument.
And I am aware that I was not thinking in an intellectually honest manner. That was in the past, though; I feel that my current opinions are much more objective.
Post a Comment