26 Jun 2008

Kiruv proofs: Rambam and Rav Hirsch speak out

Rambam, the master of criticism, speaks out against the popular theologians of his day, the so called defenders of the faith.  He criticises the Mutakallemim and the method of the Kalam philosophy.  These are mostly 'Mohammadean' but was very worried about the rise of such philosophy 'amongst our co-religionists'.  He thinks the right way to respond to such people  is to say to them: "'Will you mock at Him, as you mock at man?' for their words are indeed nothing but mockery."  These are the people who in trying to bolster religion bring all sorts of 'proofs' to demonstrate the fundamentals of our faith. 

 

In the specific case I will draw from here they try to prove that the world was created (sound familiar?).  He says that "all the proofs of creation have weak points, and cannot be considered as convincing except by those who do not know the difference between a proof, a dialectical argument, and a sophism".  [Proof of the soul kind of misses the point of why we hold the belief, don't they?; it is not something that simply 'is' but something we are called on to be]. In all cases the proofs are "questionable because propositions have been employed that have never been proved".  [As you know, 600,000 people couldn't have lied about the revelation, but on whose authority do we accept that there were that many people? The thing whose very truth we are trying to establish?]  The mistaken tactics of these mediaeval kiruv workers include  mistaking the imaginable for the possible. [Of course one can imagine that G-d created the fossils a few thousand years ago, but really? Really really?]

 

But hey, what's the problem?  If people end up believing the right things, who care about the method they get there?  Turn a blind eye.  They have grown up 'children of the gentiles' .   They want proofs, give them proofs.  But Rambam very well sums up the danger of such an approach:

 

I will not deceive myself, and consider dialectical methods as proof; and the fact that such a proposition has been proved by a dialectical argument will never induce me to accept that proposition, but, on the contrary, will weaken my faith in it and cause me to doubt it.  For when we understand the fallacy of a proof, our faith in the proposition itself is shaken.  It is therefore better that a proposition which cannot be demonstrated be received as an axiom, or that one of the two opposite solutions be accepted on authority

A proof is not only not possible but undesirable!  Here he is not criticising 'dialectical arguments'.  These are the kind of arguments that help you 'see' the world in one way rather than other [the glasses through which the world is seen in correct focus].  Ultimately proofs where there is none, will lead to the destruction of the basic axioms of Jewish belief.  It will fundamentally misunderstand what they are.  These are the principles by which we understand everything else.  Why put forward a fallacious argument that in the end leads to doubt about the very propositions we are trying to protect?  Rambam saw it as a major task to bring down such proofs along with the proofs of the alternatives (in this case the eternity of the world).  Both fundamentally misunderstand the role of such doctrines.

 

As ever, R' Hirsch puts the points beautifully:

 

What is the use of torturing the youthful mind with "proofs" of the existence of G-d... and the rest of what is called rational religion or rational theology?  In reality the maturest mind of a philosopher knows no more about the essence of G-d than the simple mind of the child; nor is it necessary for the moral behaviour of man in this world to know more than the Torah tells us about G-d.  It is not the longing for the world beyond which is the essence of Jewish piety; it is.... to use all the material and spiritual means at our disposal for the noble and enobling purpose of the great edifice of mankind which G-d wants to erect from the generations of the human family.

 

The 'knowledge' of G-d that the Torah gives us isn't the kind of knowledge which waits approval by proof or evidence.  Nor is it the kind we would expect to be.  Is creation simply teaching us some lame 'fact' about how old the world happens to be?  Have those master theologians happened to stumble upon and discover that we are made of a 'spiritual substance' which all those ignoramuses have somehow happened to miss?  A* for your history lesson about that little rock in the middle of the Sinai dessert.  No these aren't facts awaiting discovery but the very starting point of our search:

 

The basis of your knowledge of G-d does not rest on belief, which can, after all, allow us an element of doubt... [The] fundamental truths accordingly are completely out of the realm of the mere believing or thinking and are irrefutable facts which must serve as the starting point of all our other knowledge with the same certainty as our own existence and the existence of the material world we see about us.

 

Hirsch rather runs amok with the notion of 'fact' and especially 'irrefutable facts'.  Nevertheless the point holds, that 'knowledge of G-d' is the very means by which we frame our experiences and our knowledge.  One doesn't wait upon proof of some vague philosophical concept of 'physical world' before acting on it (philosophers have tried unsuccessfully for centuries). [ We don't proof we have eyes by looking for it.  The eyes is not 'in the visual field' but is the very thing that sees.]  It is as Rambam says (if we do have to be philosophical) an axiom.  This might all be nonsense, but that's the very point... If its wrong to believe in G-d or creation (etc) it is not because its false but because it's nonsense.  Either acting upon G-d's word 'makes sense' or is simply a condition of madness.  I keep using the metaphor of sight: either these doctrines are the right prescriptions for our eyes or they are fundamentally blurred.

 

I've got a bit philosophical here, and I don't want to make it seem that I have tried to make it clear what the roles of these doctrines are in Judaism.  Or why we should hold them (as opposed to thinking they are nonsense).  Or what the beliefs lead to.  In fact, I haven't shown much.  But kiruv methods of 'proof' are fundamentally misguided, practically, theoretically and Judaically.  Practically because they will lead us to doubt the fundamentals of faith.  Theoretically because the arguments are logically fallacious.  Judaically, (and this is what I haven't claimed to show) because they miscontrue those very beliefs they aim to defend.

25 Jun 2008

When so little can be done

A couple of months back the excitement was palpable, well it was for me.  Yet no-one else seemed that bothered at the revolution that was taking place.  Robert Mugabe was defeated.  One tyrant down.  No-one including me was so naive to think that Robert Mugabe would go without a fuss, yet the pressure to go seemed overwhelming.  Yet quietly and without (relatively speaking) fuss, he managed to keep hold of his grip on power.  He let the waters settle but managed to stay in the race on a legal technicality (alright.. his opponent didn't have enough to defeat him but still)! 

Then quietly and without much international fuss he starts to murder people and drive others out of their homes right in the pubic eye.  And now the opposition party has pulled out (citing unfree and unfair elections), Mugabe gets to be upset that the average Zimbabwean is deprived of his/her vote.  And what happens... China, Russia and South Africa for the first time agree to a non-binding, watered down resolution.  As if Mugabe could care about a UN resolution, economic sanctions (he's not affected or not being part of the commonwealth  (I'm sure his loyalty to the queen is minimal).

Maybe I should write a letter to my MP and get an emphatic statement read in parliament.  Or maybe I should get depressed about the state of the world and be apathetic and think about me.  Or maybe just pray.  Of course my real instinct is to blat him. Wipe him out.  Diplomacy is great and all but that only works with someone who gives a damn.  What possible advantage does he get from it?  But violence, is that the answer... if you wipe out one dictator there are ten more to take his place.  And what does that say about the rule of law?

It's an easy life for tyrants.  Maybe I should consider my future career prospects.  Hmm