repost..
Over Pesach I thought to catch up on my academic reading, a miktsoah that I have generally neglected over the past few years. To this end I reviewed articles from the The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy on topics of special interest. One article in particular has held my interest and I have been thinking about it all throughout Pesach. Jacob Joshua Ross, in the paper entitled The Primacy of the Personalist Concept of God in Jewish Thought (Vol.8171-199, 1999), discusses the three conceptions of God that currently coexists within Judaism, and really in all monotheistic religions. With great erudition, tact and sensitivity he argues that the first floor of whatever edifice or Temple we may build to enshrine Divinity, must be and remains the vision of God as Person who relates to man in ways similar to the ways in which men relate to one another and to himself. The author was educated in Ponevezh, Harry Fischel and Hebrew University. What I will do is to restate his argument in a much briefer form, rephrasing it for those without a requisite philosophical background and adding tidbits and comments along the way. The result is not an accurate reflection of the article but is my digest and reaction; I strongly recommend the original paper, if you can get it. Dr. Ross begins by pointing out that "the naive, simple Jew is hardly aware that he may be operating with what some of the leading thinkers of his own tradition regard as a vulgar, popular concept of God, suitable for children and the untutored, which must be supplemented, qualified and even replaced in whole or part in the outlook of every thinking individual". The perception of God as an individual like ourselves, who commands, expects, is angered and punishes or rewards, is wholly theologically untenable and thinkers such as Rambam have already shown its inadequacy. The thinking elite is aware that the personal concept has been replaced by a philosophical conception of God as the First Cause, on which all of existence depends as a necessary outcome, or the Mystical Conception, which sees God as the ALL that is present in every object of Creation, the One that contains and determines the Many. A Jewish mystic lives in a multileveled spiritual universe, breathing with its flow, rising and falling and interacting with its various manifestations and levels, surrounded by a sea of spirituality that underlies everything. I will pause for a minute to briefly outline what I see as the advantages and disadvantages of each of these conceptions for the Service of Hashem.
The Personalist Conception is, of course, the one most consistent with the surface understanding or Scripture and Rabbinic Literature. It is the one that we absorb as we grow up and the one that is reinforced in constant encounter with rabbinic literature. That is not to say that other conceptions are not present in Tanach and Midrash; on the contrary, the kernel of the other approaches is easily discernible. You might say that they are in solution and just waiting for a focused inquiry to precipitate before our very eyes. The Pesonalist concept, however, is much more pervasive. There is no question that the idea of God as Father, Judge, King or any other permutation of images with which we endow Him, makes personal service much easier and more meaningful. It engages out emotions, making possible prayer, performance of ritual and self-sacrifice. If so, why do we need any other? The answer, I think, is that it is demonstrably insufficient and even false. Xenophenes statement that Man made God in his image, resonates. It is easy to demolish and reject personalist religion with argumentation and without other alternatives, the result is agnosticism or outright atheism. So many have been lost because they became convinced that this conception of God is primitive, unscientific and demonstrably false. Had they only known of other, more sophisticated conceptions, perhaps they would have remained within the fold of the believers. In addition, as people grow, they sometimes discover that their religious motivations were immature, fueled by psychological needs, desire for acceptance, feelings of rejection, desire to gain power by identification with the Almighty. This realization, especially if coupled with the effects of deprivation that arose from the early life choices, can be disappointing and cool the ardor and vitiate the faith of even the most committed believers.
The Philosophical conception of God also suffers from serious disadvantages. It sets up a vision of a mechanistic universe, with the minimum of miracles and low-level of spirituality, a minimalistic world of reason and nature, a world in the image of the inexorable laws of necessity and logic. God is far removed, and perhaps unreachable. Philosophy never satisfactorily bridged the gaping gulf between the God of Aristotle and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It stifles genuine religious feeling, replacing it with contemplation of the Perfect as the sole worthy religious activity. It may suite some personalities but certainly, not mine. Both it and the Mystical conception weaken the attachment to the particularistic way of life and the values of the rites and rituals of one nation. A philosopher is reduced to explaining many observances as pedagogical, designed for the ignorant and weak-minded, or as intended merely to promote a way of life that encourages philosophical attainments. The truth, however, remains that the Philosopher no longer requires rituals. He begins to view many of them as superstitions of the masses, good enough for public ideology but unable to command his support within. Thus, his commitment and the ability to fully engage in the religion of his ancestors suffers significant damage. Similarly, for the Mystic, the experience of the direct communion with the Divine, makes social life as well as the life of ritual, much less meaningful. Both conception distance and isolate their adherents from the heritage and the way of life of their ancestors, their families and their people. Clearly, these are major problems. Then there is Hume's criticism. Put simply, David Hume argues that to define God in philosophical or mystical terms which are not a part of our daily experience, is nothing more than to escape from the natural consequences of rational thinking. If at the end we are left with concepts which we cannot fully grasp or integrate, there remains not much difference, beyond words, between believers and agnostics. The only difference is that agnostics are honest and the believers hide behind words. To expand, I quote from Spark Notes on A Treatise on Human Nature. Hume begins by arguing for the validity of empiricism, the premise that all of our knowledge is based on our experiences, and using this method to examine several philosophical concepts. First, he demonstrates that all of our complex ideas are formed out of simpler ideas, which were themselves formed on the basis of impressions we received through our senses. Therefore, ideas are not fundamentally different from experiences. Second, Hume defines “matters of fact” as matters that must be experienced, not reasoned out or arrived at instinctually. Based on these two claims, Hume attacks metaphysical systems used to prove the existence of God, the soul, divine creation, and other such ideas. Since we have no experience of any of these things and cannot receive a direct impression of them, we have no real reason to believe that they are true.
Dr. Ross argues that the Personalist conception is Foundational. By this he means that it comes before others in history of religions, in personal growth and development of a religious personality and as the bulwark of daily spiritual life. It s primacy is not accidental but reflects logical and conceptual priority. In other words, any alternate conception actually presupposes it and builds on top of it. This conceptual priority makes the personalist conception impossible to eliminate in Western religious traditions. He continues with a discussion of anthropological understanding of religion as a way of making sense of the world and as a force for social cohesiveness. To serve these functions, religion must be anthropomorphic, for we cannot understand the world except in out own terms, and we cannot harness the social power of religion to unify our relationships with others in society without it being expressed in human terms. He goes on to liken the three conception to nets of various weave and pore size. Each one when thrown into the ocean of human experience will return with a different catch. Each provides only a partial assessment of the sea environment and of the life that teems within it. However, neither net is better than another; each allows us to grasp the ocean in a different way. Similarly,each conception of the Divine provides as a partial answer as to what it is and how we relate to It. I would add that the true Eved Hashem must learn to function on many levels. Utilizing all three conceptions as proper and useful allows an Eved Hashem to serve God appropriately. In prayer and at the Rebbe's tisch he can pull out the personalist conception and serve Him in exultation and joy. Facing the remarkable sights of nature or the personal trials of life trials call for a retreat into philosophical contemplation. At quiet times of reflection, the mystical awareness floods the consciousness with the awareness of Hashem's omnipresence. The pragmatic ability to switch between differing conceptions reveals an elevated personality, a profound grasp of human nature and a significant degree of maturity and insight.
Comments