I took a first year philosophy class in university which went chronologically from the ancient Greeks to the modern Europeans. The medieval philosophers were very interested in God-proofs, which I found entirely uncompelling. This wasn’t because I was so sophisticated, or understood the weaknesses in their arguments (which I have since learned are many). It was that I couldn’t translate their logical notions about God into my lived religious experience. I did come back to one of those proofs, the argument from design, a few years later on my own terms, not as a way to prove that God existed, but as a way to make rational sense of my existing relationship with Hashem – to know that I was not irrational or delusional.
I recently completed A Guide for the Jewish Undecided: A Philosopher Makes the Case for Orthodox Judaism, by Samuel Lebens, which was a great overview of why God and Torah are rational, at least from a specific, insider point of view. Some of his arguments are like those I heard in university, and fall entirely flat to me (though they are much more clearly and thoughtfully presented than anything I heard in university). Others are ideas that are less about proof than about helpful and comprehensible explanations of the ways in which God and Torah are entirely rational things to think and believe. They won’t convince the unbeliever, but they give rational credence to one who is already on the inside of religious life – even tenuous religious life.
Lebens overall framework has two components. The first is that what’s rational and compelling for an insider is different from an outsider. This is particularly so in Jewish life where creed has played a far smaller role than in the other monotheistic religions, and where national identity (e.g. that I see myself as part of Am Yisrael) is far more central. The second are a series of arguments, ranging from God-proofs to re-thinking the problem of evil in the world, that either demonstrate the rationality of religious life, or at least that it’s not irrational and problematic. He does this in service of what he calls “Pascalberg’s Wager,” a play on Pascal’s Wager, which is a Jewish version of the following argument: “Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas if God does exist, they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (an eternity in Hell, or its Jewish equivalent” (from Wikipedia). In the Jewish version, Lebens presupposed that the person is already connected to Jewish life and the Jewish community, so it’s a question of whether greater commitment is rationally warranted or not, given that commitment. This then provides the grounds for all the arguments he puts forward which, he hopes, collectively make Judaism a sufficiently rational choice, even if it’s still a wager.
Lebens writes quite intentionally for a lay audience, and it was written very clearly and accessibly. However, it is still a book of philosophy, and as such, not for everyone. I quite enjoyed it, and if you are curious about the topic, or want a good, clear introduction, it’s a great book to read.
Just Because I Liked It:
- Peter Thiel is definitely a person who thinks for himself, which made this interview on Honestly with Barri Weiss interesting, even if he seems to consistently claim more than he proves about his ideas, and is a bit too disparaging about ideas he disagrees with for my taste.
- Should children even be on social media? I think Cal Newport always has something interesting to say. His response to that question, in this article from The New Yorker, is no exception.