I can't say I've ever written an article prompted by someone from a non-Orthodox Jewish movement, but once I heard this podcast episode (of "Search Engine"), I had to share my thoughts.
Thank you for the thought provoking article. some observations and questions:
> The God I worship is not a pantheistic deity. But can this notion of God be found in traditional Jewish sources? Yes: in the writings of Kabbalah, Chasidus, and other brands of Jewish mysticism. I think these teachings are wrong on this score and reflect a distorted idea of authentic Jewish theology.
How do you reconcile the fact that Rabbi Karo and the Gra were Kabbalists? Were they wrong? If yes, and held wrong opinions on theology, were they heretical pantheists?
I don't know what your opinion is, but my understanding is that they were not heretics, and that these were not their beliefs - the error lies with modern chassidim and mystics who engage in these disciplines without requisite scholarship and/or the prerequisite personal ethical growth required, leading them to incorrect understandings of theology (of course, modern chassidism as an institution encourages this, so perhaps the fault lies with it)
> The answer, according to my understanding, is that atheists may deny the existence of God as defined by Torah, but most (if not all) of them have some conception of “a Primary Existence.”
To elaborate on this, it seems to me that modern atheists are really agnostics and acknowledge G-d as a legitimate theory, but since it's an unfalsifiable one (maybe we're in a simulation, maybe we're in a multiverse, maybe we're a disembodied brain in a jar), they disregard it's practicability. At best, they accept the Aristotelian (or Spinozan) conception of G-d - ultimately, there is no obligation or even merit to worshipping this G-d, since there is no input from Him - it's purely dependent on the human, entirely subjective.
The Jewish theology per Ramabam differs in that acknowledging this existence of G-d is a starting point, but that our Mesorah, which asserts that this G-d communicated with man, taught us how to conceive of and relate to Him - objectively.
In this case, the ultimate difference between modern atheists and theists is whether accepting our mesorah (and it's objective conception of G-d) is epistemologically correct or not - we Orthodox Jews who have intensely interrogated, cross-examined and analysed the Mesorah find it most reasonable to believe it is true - those not privileged to be exposed to our mesorah and methods somewhat understandably do not, and are left with a bare bones, subjective conception of G-d, a large (actually, literally infinite) canvas upon to which anything can be thrown.
Within this framework, we easily arrive at "the God that is portrayed in these religious texts is not a very appealing god." - without the guidance of the Mesorah, this is the obvious end result. Likewise, "Ooh, I feel connected to everyone on this dance floor because we are all in it and we’re all feeling it.” That’s oneness. That’s the place where I feel most connected to God.” - if G-d is purely subjective, then indeed conception of him will be purely emotionally subjective.
In a nutshell, Zvika is an atheist - I suspect a label he wouldn't deny.
Regarding your question about R' Yosef Karo, the GRA, and others: I am totally comfortable shrugging my shoulders, being דן לכף זכות, and saying, "I don't know what they held because I haven't learned their views on these matters, nor am I a kabbalist, but I'm going to assume it was not heretical until proven otherwise." I tend to agree with your statement that "the error lies with modern chassidism and mystics, etc." but I'm uncertain as to when this error originated.
I like your assessment of modern atheists vs. mesorah-based thinkers, and even though your conclusion that "Zvika is an atheist" is a possibility, I'm disinclined to think that, simply because he agreed to be interviewed for a podcast episode about what it feels like to believe in God. Although it's possible he might be lying to himself (as is always possible for us humans), I have no reason to suspect that he lied to PJ Vogt and all the Search Engine listeners.
On R' Karo et al, why have you not learned their views? You wrote in your article that you disagree with them, but how can you if you haven't studied them?
On whether Zvika is an theist - I didn't mean to intimate that he is a liar or hypocrite, and wasn't casting judgement - I haven't even listened to the podcast. Instead, what I meant was, per my framing, there is no quantitative difference between his belief system and that of the average modern atheist - only superficial labels.
I did not write in my article that I disagreed with particular chachamim. I wrote:
"The belief that 'everything is God' is pantheism, not monotheism. The God I worship is not a pantheistic deity. But can this notion of God be found in traditional Jewish sources? Yes: in the writings of Kabbalah, Chasidus, and other brands of Jewish mysticism. I think these teachings are wrong on this score and reflect a distorted idea of authentic Jewish theology."
In your first comment, you wrote that you don't think R' Yosef Karo et al. actually held by a pantheistic deity, and while that may be true, their worldview was still influenced by their respective sets of kabbalistic teachings - and KABBALAH (in an intentionally broad sense) is what I avoid. Why? For reasons too involved to elaborate on here - six reasons, to be precise. (I actually gave a shiur called, "Six Questions Which Prevent Me From Learning Kabbalah" or "Six Reasons Why Kabbalah is Sketchy" or something like that, but it was before I started uploading my Torah content and I can't locate the recording; I think it might be on my backup drive in NY.) And it's not JUST that I find Kabbalistic teachings sketchy for these six reasons; it's also because I believe the premature study of Kabbalah (or the study of counterfeit Kabbalah) to be hazardous, based on the teachings of the Rishonim and based on my own exposure. I realize this response raises many more questions than it answers, but since you asked, I felt like I at least had to state where I'm coming from.
Regarding your point about Zvika: got it. Thanks for clarifying!
Thank you for your response - I am actually 100% in agreement with you, especially on the notion of premature study of Kabbalah.
There exists a strain of 'rationalist' Judaism that outright dismiss Kabbalah, and I am trying to get a comprehensive grasp of that theology - but you are obviously not in that camp.
Rabbi Dr. Sam Leben's work on Chasidic Idealism does a lot of very useful work on "the God character". Well worth reading one of his essays or watching one of his lectures on it
>>without making the point about God being an “unappealing character,” which, in my view, is both disrespectful to God and a counterproductive educational strategy.
Interestingly, I personally think it's an excellent educational strategy. Probably because I spent five years teaching Bamidbar and fielded that specific question about God every time. Acknowleding explicitly that this IS the emotional experience of people reading the stories of Kivros Hataiva and the mageifa Pinchas stopped and the mageifa after Korach etc
I think there's a difference between using people's natural reactions to God in the narrative as a starting point for analysis vs. a teacher FRAMING God from the get-go in a negative manner. (Zvika actually went on at length to say even more negative things about God, which I didn't have room to include in the article, and which I felt conflicted about including anyway.)
Methodologically, I've seen teachers make this mistake before: anticipating a negative reaction to something on the part of the students, and then PRESENTING it to them לכתחילה in this negative light in a manner that's overkill.
I'm not saying that this is an intrinsically bad move - only that it should be used judiciously.
Thank you for the thought provoking article. some observations and questions:
> The God I worship is not a pantheistic deity. But can this notion of God be found in traditional Jewish sources? Yes: in the writings of Kabbalah, Chasidus, and other brands of Jewish mysticism. I think these teachings are wrong on this score and reflect a distorted idea of authentic Jewish theology.
How do you reconcile the fact that Rabbi Karo and the Gra were Kabbalists? Were they wrong? If yes, and held wrong opinions on theology, were they heretical pantheists?
I don't know what your opinion is, but my understanding is that they were not heretics, and that these were not their beliefs - the error lies with modern chassidim and mystics who engage in these disciplines without requisite scholarship and/or the prerequisite personal ethical growth required, leading them to incorrect understandings of theology (of course, modern chassidism as an institution encourages this, so perhaps the fault lies with it)
> The answer, according to my understanding, is that atheists may deny the existence of God as defined by Torah, but most (if not all) of them have some conception of “a Primary Existence.”
To elaborate on this, it seems to me that modern atheists are really agnostics and acknowledge G-d as a legitimate theory, but since it's an unfalsifiable one (maybe we're in a simulation, maybe we're in a multiverse, maybe we're a disembodied brain in a jar), they disregard it's practicability. At best, they accept the Aristotelian (or Spinozan) conception of G-d - ultimately, there is no obligation or even merit to worshipping this G-d, since there is no input from Him - it's purely dependent on the human, entirely subjective.
The Jewish theology per Ramabam differs in that acknowledging this existence of G-d is a starting point, but that our Mesorah, which asserts that this G-d communicated with man, taught us how to conceive of and relate to Him - objectively.
In this case, the ultimate difference between modern atheists and theists is whether accepting our mesorah (and it's objective conception of G-d) is epistemologically correct or not - we Orthodox Jews who have intensely interrogated, cross-examined and analysed the Mesorah find it most reasonable to believe it is true - those not privileged to be exposed to our mesorah and methods somewhat understandably do not, and are left with a bare bones, subjective conception of G-d, a large (actually, literally infinite) canvas upon to which anything can be thrown.
Within this framework, we easily arrive at "the God that is portrayed in these religious texts is not a very appealing god." - without the guidance of the Mesorah, this is the obvious end result. Likewise, "Ooh, I feel connected to everyone on this dance floor because we are all in it and we’re all feeling it.” That’s oneness. That’s the place where I feel most connected to God.” - if G-d is purely subjective, then indeed conception of him will be purely emotionally subjective.
In a nutshell, Zvika is an atheist - I suspect a label he wouldn't deny.
Thank you for the thoughtful comment!
Regarding your question about R' Yosef Karo, the GRA, and others: I am totally comfortable shrugging my shoulders, being דן לכף זכות, and saying, "I don't know what they held because I haven't learned their views on these matters, nor am I a kabbalist, but I'm going to assume it was not heretical until proven otherwise." I tend to agree with your statement that "the error lies with modern chassidism and mystics, etc." but I'm uncertain as to when this error originated.
I like your assessment of modern atheists vs. mesorah-based thinkers, and even though your conclusion that "Zvika is an atheist" is a possibility, I'm disinclined to think that, simply because he agreed to be interviewed for a podcast episode about what it feels like to believe in God. Although it's possible he might be lying to himself (as is always possible for us humans), I have no reason to suspect that he lied to PJ Vogt and all the Search Engine listeners.
Thank you for your response.
On R' Karo et al, why have you not learned their views? You wrote in your article that you disagree with them, but how can you if you haven't studied them?
On whether Zvika is an theist - I didn't mean to intimate that he is a liar or hypocrite, and wasn't casting judgement - I haven't even listened to the podcast. Instead, what I meant was, per my framing, there is no quantitative difference between his belief system and that of the average modern atheist - only superficial labels.
I did not write in my article that I disagreed with particular chachamim. I wrote:
"The belief that 'everything is God' is pantheism, not monotheism. The God I worship is not a pantheistic deity. But can this notion of God be found in traditional Jewish sources? Yes: in the writings of Kabbalah, Chasidus, and other brands of Jewish mysticism. I think these teachings are wrong on this score and reflect a distorted idea of authentic Jewish theology."
In your first comment, you wrote that you don't think R' Yosef Karo et al. actually held by a pantheistic deity, and while that may be true, their worldview was still influenced by their respective sets of kabbalistic teachings - and KABBALAH (in an intentionally broad sense) is what I avoid. Why? For reasons too involved to elaborate on here - six reasons, to be precise. (I actually gave a shiur called, "Six Questions Which Prevent Me From Learning Kabbalah" or "Six Reasons Why Kabbalah is Sketchy" or something like that, but it was before I started uploading my Torah content and I can't locate the recording; I think it might be on my backup drive in NY.) And it's not JUST that I find Kabbalistic teachings sketchy for these six reasons; it's also because I believe the premature study of Kabbalah (or the study of counterfeit Kabbalah) to be hazardous, based on the teachings of the Rishonim and based on my own exposure. I realize this response raises many more questions than it answers, but since you asked, I felt like I at least had to state where I'm coming from.
Regarding your point about Zvika: got it. Thanks for clarifying!
Thank you for your response - I am actually 100% in agreement with you, especially on the notion of premature study of Kabbalah.
There exists a strain of 'rationalist' Judaism that outright dismiss Kabbalah, and I am trying to get a comprehensive grasp of that theology - but you are obviously not in that camp.
Rabbi Dr. Sam Leben's work on Chasidic Idealism does a lot of very useful work on "the God character". Well worth reading one of his essays or watching one of his lectures on it
Intriguing! Thanks!
Great article!
Thanks! And thanks for reading!
>>without making the point about God being an “unappealing character,” which, in my view, is both disrespectful to God and a counterproductive educational strategy.
Interestingly, I personally think it's an excellent educational strategy. Probably because I spent five years teaching Bamidbar and fielded that specific question about God every time. Acknowleding explicitly that this IS the emotional experience of people reading the stories of Kivros Hataiva and the mageifa Pinchas stopped and the mageifa after Korach etc
I think there's a difference between using people's natural reactions to God in the narrative as a starting point for analysis vs. a teacher FRAMING God from the get-go in a negative manner. (Zvika actually went on at length to say even more negative things about God, which I didn't have room to include in the article, and which I felt conflicted about including anyway.)
Methodologically, I've seen teachers make this mistake before: anticipating a negative reaction to something on the part of the students, and then PRESENTING it to them לכתחילה in this negative light in a manner that's overkill.
I'm not saying that this is an intrinsically bad move - only that it should be used judiciously.