A question for atheists

[Paige]

  I'm a little reluctant to launch here, in part because I do not mean to hijack again, but also because I approach matters of my faith tradition so very differently than how you've laid out here that it's hard for me to find the right entry point to get there.  I don't mean to "deflect," but I honestly cannot begin to describe my own attachment within your frame of "evidence as matching points between belief and reality."  

 

Would you say that with your faith, evidence doesn't matter because the lived experience is what's most important to you? Would it be that you don't really care if the events described in your religious tradition happened, and you don't care if some of the rules no longer seem culturally appropriate, and it almost doesn't matter if an all powerful God exists, because you find peace and strength in the traditions and rituals that bind you to others of your community?

 

I think I can kind of understand that, especially if you are coming from a non-Christian (Jewish?) background.

[fraidycat]

It's not weird. It's just a different approach to thinking about questions. Do you remember study that asked three questions to predict whether you're more or less likely to be a religious believer?

 

 

[Answers and explanation here] The conclusion of this little study showed that the more religious the undergrads were, the less likely they were to have demonstrated effective analytical reasoning on the three questions. And the better the students did on the questions, the less likely they were to have strong religious beliefs.

So it's not weird to lack belief and it's not weird to have belief. It just means there are different ways to approach the same questions, including questions like why do we do what we do, what happens after we die, why did it rain on my wedding day, why is my cat chasing something that isn't there?

Interesting.

[Pam in CT]

Would you say that with your faith, evidence doesn't matter because the lived experience is what's most important to you?

 

---

 

Would it be that you don't really care if the events described in your religious tradition happened, and you don't care if some of the rules no longer seem culturally appropriate, and it almost doesn't matter if an all powerful God exists, because you find peace and strength in the traditions and rituals that bind you to others of your community?

 

I think I can kind of understand that, especially if you are coming from a non-Christian (Jewish?) background.

 

 

There's the tradition, which like all the major religions is vast and contains multitudes; and then there's me, knocking around in my own little corner of the tradition.

 

The tradition of Judaism is more focused on this life, the one we know for sure we have, than on what might come after death.  There do exist a number of teachings on what might come... but these are fairly peripheral compared to the core concepts of community and covenant as framed in Torah.  Those core teachings around peoplehood and shared obligation emphasize the community "us" over the individual "I", and our responsibilities in this world, which is sometimes expressed in terms of acting in a type of partnership with the divine in healing the world.  

 

Is that what you mean by "lived experience"?

 

_____

 

Judaism as a tradition is perhaps more comfortable with questioning & debating & dissent than the other monotheistic traditions -- the Talmud, we we count as a sacred text, part of Oral Torah, literally retains the record of vigorous arguments between our ancient desert fathers, including just-like-SCOTUS the dissenting opinions... and that tradition of discussion and debate around the texts carries on to the present, within all the denominations / strands (though it looks different, across the strands).  We do not have any expectation that our texts, or the divine will, is "simple" or "clear" or easy to discern.  We struggle to understand, and see that struggle as a collective undertaking -- traditionally we're supposed to study with a partner.  Not alone.

 

My own little corner is within the progressive strands, in which there are a range of perspectives on the divinity / authorship of Torah.  Most people in my corner are quite comfortable with scholarly concepts such as the JEPD hypothesis that chiguirre described upthread, and the corollary that the texts carry many human fingerprints upon them, and therefore that many details reflect the social mores and expectations of the ancient world.

 

"Peace and strength" do not capture my attachment to the texts, lol.  "Israel" translates as "God-wrestler"; that describes me far better.  The community aspect, though, yes.  That gift came to me rather late in life, and I cherish it.

[NotSoObvious]

Well obviously I would be disappointed that he chose a different path, but he's my son and I love him. I'd listen to his thoughts and beliefs, and ultimately it would become a subject we likely wouldn't discuss. I'd be fine as long as he didn't try to make me feel my beliefs were wrong. I think that kind of thing can come from either side.

 

Let's face it; atheists would probably like to convince Christians of their belief (or lack thereof) just as much as Christians would like to convince atheists that there is a God. I believe when one feels very strongly about a matter, they'd like others, especially those they care about, to agree.

 

 

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but didn't want to lose this without responding. 

 

No. I really, really, truly don't care what everyone else believes. I care how you treat people. I care how you choose to use your religion in public. I care how my former religion has a devastating effect on women and LGBT kids. I will call those things out until I'm blue in the face. But whether you believe in God or Jesus or Santa or the boogie man? I seriously could not care. If my former religion hadn't done such damage, I'd still be religious. We tried to stick with God and couldn't. After so many lies and deception and dysfunction in our former religion, it was just impossible for us to get back to blind belief in anything. 

 

And to answer your previous question, if my kids found religion, or just a belief in something, that in itself wouldn't be a problem at all. If they chose to join a religion that thought less of other people, pushed their beliefs on others, etc, then yes, I'd have a problem. Just like if they had those attitudes without religion. 

 

 

Yes, I can't escape the proselytizing because the religion we left (and the religion of our families and many of our friends) is the king of missionary work. It's constantly in your face. There were lifestyle changes we made when leaving our former religion that are at odds with it as well, so it's about more than what we believe. However, our family has slowly given up on us and we moved across the country, so it's gotten better.  

[Charlie]

re questions and implicit premises behind the questions

 

 

Charlie, there is so much in this that fires off so many cascading thoughts!  And I so wish we could sit over a glass of wine, or steaming mug of tea if wine is not your thing, and hash on out in person.  I'm a little reluctant to launch here, in part because I do not mean to hijack again, but also because I approach matters of my faith tradition so very differently than how you've laid out here that it's hard for me to find the right entry point to get there.  I don't mean to "deflect," but I honestly cannot begin to describe my own attachment within your frame of "evidence as matching points between belief and reality."  To attempt (weakly) through a very imperfect analogy, I could not describe why poetry matters, or why music and art matter, using the terms of "evidence" and "belief" and "reality."  Those three terms are quite inadequate in describing the mechanism of what poetry (of the three arts, the one that most touches me personally) is about or how it works.  And yet, empirically, we look around and see that to some people poetry and music and art do matter -- to a subset of people, a great deal.

 

Bluegoat referenced Charlotte Mason a bazillion posts upthread with something along the lines of where you go depends in large measure on where you start and how you define the premises.  I concur with that idea.  Among the most basic discoveries when folks coming from different faith traditions come together in interfaith discussions is the discovery that we look to our respective traditions to ask quite different questions, and implicit in those questions are premises which also vary quite a bit.

 

It's a tricky thing, making generalities.

 

In America, I think religion is generally linked to questions about what happens after death.  

 

That is, to my mind, largely the legacy of the country's majority / dominant faith tradition.  Christianity speaks explicitly about post-mortal salvation, particularly in its proselytizing forms.  Proselytizers seek to save souls in the world to come. As we've seen in two different WTM threads over the last few days, the anguish felt by parents whose children are questioning their FOO faith are concerned about their children's fate after death.  The "universalist" thread explores what elements are deal-breakers from the perspective of post-mortal outcomes.  On these boards, as well as in interfaith groups I've been in IRL, many Christians express the idea that this life is so tiny compared to the eternal life to come as to pale in comparative significance.  This explicit emphasis on post mortal outcomes implicitly elevates the paired narratives of the expulsion from the Garden, and Jesus' atoning sacrifice, to central prominence.  The impact of the Expulsion story is revealed in the view of humanity described in the link you shared; and the impact of the atonement-salvation narrative drives both the Who is a Christian analyses and also the fervor in some circles for proselytizing*. 

 

But as I know you know, not all religions place nearly the same importance on what happens after death.  Many religions are far more focused on cultivating qualities such as compassion, mindfulness, unity, order etc in THIS life.  Whether as a corollary to that difference, or perhaps it's a different dimension entirely, not all religions are particularly (or at all) theistic.  What sacred texts mean, stripped out from the theistic- and salvation-focused set of questions, is not answerable by "evidence."

 

 

The Exodus narratives have a similar centrality of place within Judaism as do the paired Expulsion / Resurrection narratives within Christianity.  They define the peoplehood and the covenant of the faith.  Our elevation of those stories above the others frames a different core question for Jews, with different emphases -- not What happens when I die?  but rather, How ought we live? or the theistic version of the same question, How does God want us to live?  which are in turn premised on an orientation to this life, here and now; and concern with communal experiences/relationship with God rather than on the individual. And the meaning of those narratives -- their truth -- is rooted in those frames of community and continuity and the relentlessness of that question, how shall we live?  Not in archaeological artifacts or ancient scribal records.

 

Two other analogies, that perhaps can point a little bit to the kind of "reality" I find in my sacred texts, despite a singular lack of "evidence": I personally find meaningful "truth" in the unwashable blood on Lady Macbeth's hands, and also in the tragic locked consequences of secrecy and mistrust between Cupid and Psyche.  I find meaning in both those narratives that informs my understanding of the world.  Those types of narratives, and the metaphors within them, to me reveal "truth."  It is a different kind of truth than I expect from science textbooks.  For the latter I demand evidence. For the former I look for resonance.  I do not for a moment "believe" in the literal truth of the Cupid story; whether there really was a historical Lady Macbeth who actually said those precise words is irrelevant to the meaning of the narrative.

 

 

*FTR, I'm really really really really opposed to proselytizing in both its explicit and its IMO more insidious tit-for-tat souls-for-services forms.  For a rather long laundry list of reasons.   

 

 

On your other, intriguing Cosmo Quiz:

 

FWIW, I got all these correct, the second and third the first run through; the first one I mentally answered the intuitive (and wrong) default first, but double-checked my algebra before following the link.  Which according to the link would suggest mine is not the sort of disposition that is vulnerable to faith attachments.  

 

And indeed FWIW my attachment isn't intuitive, though I would never claim it to be "evidence-driven" either.  For that matter Dawkins' scale, which so many Americans seem to embrace as so elucidating, strikes me as so responsive to a specifically Christian, specifically *American* conception of religion which is not just theistic and belief-based, but specifically monotheistic and in many formulations MALE-theistic at that, as to be nearly a caricature.

 

 

 

I could go on forever, my friend, but I fear I have managed both to go on far too long already, AND fail to answer your prompt.  Truly I don't mean to deflect.  I just can't quite respond to those terms because those are not my processes.  It's like we're flying at different altitudes, or something.

 

Right back at you, Pam. Wine, or tea. What are your feelings about dark chocolate? Anyway, as I read this post it makes me think you're not a theistic believer, that your Judaism is cultural, but then in your next post you mention peoplehood and shared obligations and community "which is sometimes expressed in terms of acting in a type of partnership with the divine in healing the world." And, well, that threw me off! You mention "the divine" as if it's an actual thing with which you can, well, partner up and work. So now I'm not quite sure what you mean about being flummoxed by a conversation that focuses on evidence. This post I'm quoting makes it sound like theism is just a part of the story that binds your community together, but the next post makes it sound like there is a belief taken in faith that a divine entity exists and in some ways can/will/may or may not interact with you or you with it. But now we get into your personal beliefs and I don't want you to feel compelled to explain yourself or defend your beliefs. So I'm going to try and keep this general, and not personal.

 

Whether or not you believe there exists a divine entity with which humans can interact doesn't change my point about the importance of evidence. And here's why I think that: If there was evidence the Exodus happened as told, if there was evidence that the river really did turn to blood and there was a sudden and deadly plague on livestock and all the firstborn sons died in the night, and if there was evidence Moses led a group of people the population of Chicago out of Egypt with the help of a mighty deity, I daresay your religious practices would be different. But there is no evidence for these things, so your community doesn't spend its time appeasing such a deity, which the evidence would suggest is of utmost importance. Instead, your community wrestles with ethical questions, and the idea of a deity is nestled comfy in the background, no more than a character in a story that unites you with your community around the world. So you do rely on evidence, you rely on it to determine what is true. And knowing what is true guides you to knowing how to respond in any given situation. It is true that there is no danger of pissing off a deity capable of killing all firstborn sons overnight, so picking up sticks on the Sabbath doesn't warrant punishment. It is true there is no reason to develop technology to protect yourself from staffs that can turn into snakes. It is true that we need not consider a terrorist attack capable of turning all the water in the city of Paris to blood. These things are true and this reality guides your religious beliefs and every day actions.

 

So I'm left with thinking you can't personally relate to the discussions that delve into the evidence regarding the history of Jesus, because if that were a part of your religion, whether or not he really existed would be of no more importance than whether or not Moses really existed. This approach is what I imagine will be adopted by the Christian community as fewer people believe (or care) if Jesus was real. But surely you can appreciate why others do, right? I imagine so, which is why I think your comment refers to not relating to this, not that you don't understand why others consider evidence for their religion important. I mean, we have people rewriting science textbooks for the purpose of convincing believers there is evidence for their religious beliefs. So for many people, evidence is very, very important, and I expect you recognize that, but don't relate to it. But please, forgive me if I'm misrepresenting you here. I don't mean to speak for you, just repeat back and respond to what I understand you to say.

[ktgrok]

Would you say that with your faith, evidence doesn't matter because the lived experience is what's most important to you? Would it be that you don't really care if the events described in your religious tradition happened, and you don't care if some of the rules no longer seem culturally appropriate, and it almost doesn't matter if an all powerful God exists, because you find peace and strength in the traditions and rituals that bind you to others of your community?

 

I think I can kind of understand that, especially if you are coming from a non-Christian (Jewish?) background.

 

Not her, but yes, I'd say that for myself. I full acknowledge I may be wrong about everything. And that the exact specifics in the Bible do not need to have been historical for them to express meaning to me. Etc etc. 

[Pam in CT]

I'm quote fond of dark chocolate.  In moderation, of course....

 

 

re "cultural Judaism," language, theism and "partnership with the divine"

Right back at you, Pam. Wine, or tea. What are your feelings about dark chocolate? Anyway, as I read this post it makes me think you're not a theistic believer, that your Judaism is cultural, but then in your next post you mention peoplehood and shared obligations and community "which is sometimes expressed in terms of acting in a type of partnership with the divine in healing the world." And, well, that threw me off! You mention "the divine" as if it's an actual thing with which you can, well, partner up and work. So now I'm not quite sure what you mean about being flummoxed by a conversation that focuses on evidence. This post I'm quoting makes it sound like theism is just a part of the story that binds your community together, but the next post makes it sound like there is a belief taken in faith that a divine entity exists and in some ways can/will/may or may not interact with you or you with it. But now we get into your personal beliefs and I don't want you to feel compelled to explain yourself or defend your beliefs. So I'm going to try and keep this general, and not personal...

 

Right.  "Cultural Judaism" connotes different things to different people, but I suppose I'm too Special a Snowflake to fit tidily into either the "cultural" or the "theistic" box -- I attend pretty closely to sacred *texts*, probably spending more time and thought grappling with them than the average "cultural" or Reform Jew; but my *beliefs* re the nature of the divine are both too amorphous, and also (after some number of years trying nail them down with clarity and specificity... and finally deciding that that very effort was really not very Jewish, but was, rather, a reaction to how religion was default-defined in America by the hegemonic frame) too irrelevant to be terribly useful even to ME.

 

I envision religion as a kind of language, through which (some) people try to express certain ideas.  

 

(FWIW, I envision mathematics similarly, as a language, albeit one largely focused on the expression of different types of ideas.)

 

The idea expressed in the partnership metaphor, tikkun olam, derives from several teachings from the mystical side of the tradition; but here is my rendition of a quite down-to-earth Jewish legend that describes pretty well how I understand it to work.  I am by disposition even less suited for mysticism than for philosophy, yet the metaphor that God needs *us* to complete the work resonates quite deeply with me.  

 

Does that render me eligible for the "theist" box?  Shrug.

 

 

 

re how critical it is, or isn't, that the Nile literally turned to blood

...Whether or not you believe there exists a divine entity with which humans can interact doesn't change my point about the importance of evidence. And here's why I think that: If there was evidence the Exodus happened as told, if there was evidence that the river really did turn to blood and there was a sudden and deadly plague on livestock and all the firstborn sons died in the night, and if there was evidence Moses led a group of people the population of Chicago out of Egypt with the help of a mighty deity, I daresay your religious practices would be different. But there is no evidence for these things, so your community doesn't spend its time appeasing such a deity, which the evidence would suggest is of utmost importance. Instead, your community wrestles with ethical questions, and the idea of a deity is nestled comfy in the background, no more than a character in a story that unites you with your community around the world. So you do rely on evidence, you rely on it to determine what is true. And knowing what is true guides you to knowing how to respond in any given situation. It is true that there is no danger of pissing off a deity capable of killing all firstborn sons overnight, so picking up sticks on the Sabbath doesn't warrant punishment. It is true there is no reason to develop technology to protect yourself from staffs that can turn into snakes. It is true that we need not consider a terrorist attack capable of turning all the water in the city of Paris to blood. These things are true and this reality guides your religious beliefs and every day actions....

The bolded is an interesting thought experiment, which I'll have to think about a bit more.

 

Certainly it is true that I do not spend time or effort on "appeasement."  And while there are traditions and foods with which I and my family mark the Sabbath, we do not "observe" Sabbath as does YaelAldrich and other families on the more traditional end of the Jewish spectrum.  But while I cannot speak for anyone other than myself, I really don't think my fellow Jews who do observe the full range of restrictions as everyday actions do so out of appeasement, or out of a belief they'll be smote in punishment by an angry God if they don't.  That is -- forgive me -- a rather childish conception of a serious (if not necessarily literal) attachment to their understanding of the covenant as received through the tradition.   

 

The ideas that are resonant to me that arise out of the Exodus narratives are around the experience of coercion, of the courage to break out of coercion even into the unknown, of the fear of wandering and homelessness, of the power of hope.  Of the imperative for us today to act in solidarity with those who are similarly coerced, to welcome the stranger for once we were strangers in Egypt.  Of the powerful allure of shiny false leadership.  That the psychology of enslavement can result in such PTSD brokenness that people who have endured it may not ever be able, Frodo-like, to return to wholeness.These are universal insights of the story.  And of the particularist covenant standing at Sinai: that we belong to one another, that we are responsible for one another, grumbling and stiff-necked and disparate and quarrelsome though we may be.

 

I don't know that evidence for blood in the Nile, however conclusive it was one way or the other, would make much difference to my receipt of those insights.  The insights transcend the historicity of the details (much like the blood on Lady Macbeth's hands).  YMMV. 

 

 

re not relating personally to the preoccupation in others for "evidence"

...So I'm left with thinking you can't personally relate to the discussions that delve into the evidence regarding the history of Jesus, because if that were a part of your religion, whether or not he really existed would be of no more importance than whether or not Moses really existed. This approach is what I imagine will be adopted by the Christian community as fewer people believe (or care) if Jesus was real. But surely you can appreciate why others do, right? I imagine so, which is why I think your comment refers to not relating to this, not that you don't understand why others consider evidence for their religion important. I mean, we have people rewriting science textbooks for the purpose of convincing believers there is evidence for their religious beliefs. So for many people, evidence is very, very important, and I expect you recognize that, but don't relate to it. But please, forgive me if I'm misrepresenting you here. I don't mean to speak for you, just repeat back and respond to what I understand you to say.

I'm struggling to put words to this.

 

I've been very fortunate to have been very enriched by participation in two long term interfaith groups and various other shorter term discussions.  I am a different person because of what I've learned in such fora.

 

And while there are all kinds of premises and processes and perspectives and slants of light that vary considerably across faith traditions, a few of which I have consciously tried to integrate into my own worldview (the concept of mindfulness, on which I'd say the Buddhists are thought leaders) and others that I am deeply attracted to (the Sufi concept of the beloved Divine, ever stretching out to welcome us in; the sense of roll-up-our-sleeves-and-get-to-work LDS purpose, the dialing back of the self in service to others) even if they're not *quite* aligned to where I'm currently at; and many others that I feel I've briefly glimpsed through the veil... the preoccupation of a certain subset of (seemingly only) Christians with "evidence" still baffles me.  

 

To your comment, I certainly recognize and acknowledge the empirical reality that immense longing for "evidence" exists.  It's manifest on this very thread.  But, yeah.  I don't personally relate.  To me it redirects from the transcendent divine to the trivial and profane (which in Judaism means something closer to "worldly" than "smutty").

 

Which pretty much restates where we were about 3 pages back, I'm afraid...  :lol:

 

[Pam in CT]

Sadie, aside from having already hijacked Charlie's thread twice, I don't know that I can do it in interweb-sized sound bytes.  Sure wish you came through New England on occasion!

 

Definitely NOT an old man with a beard, lol.  

 

I guess I'd categorize as "divine" any concept beyond our (to my mind rather self-evidently finite) capacity to perceive through our (to my mind self-evidently limited)  sensory-constrained faculties or describe through our (to my mind self-evidently limited) existing languages.  Anything ineffable (like love, like the attachment some of us empirically have to music or art) or infinite (which the languages of math and science also attempt, differently, to describe).  There's a real sense in which I derive at my understanding of the divine through an attenuated appreciation in the negative of human limitations -- that I approach the idea of transcendence from a sense of our smallness, the idea of the infinite from an attenuated sense of our finite-ness.  

 

Amorphous, pretty indescribable and most assuredly not evidence-based.

 

 

The metaphoric funnel with which I connect that hot mess of cosmic ineffable churn to organized Jewish tradition is an even longer story, definitely not reducible to sound bytes.  And yet: I do.  There it is.  And in doing something of this sort I'm really not so special; there are lots of us knocking about.

[Pam in CT]

ETA

 

 

...On evidence, I don't long for it. Lack of evidence did not really enter into my atheism, funny as that sounds. It was a litle frustrating when I was trying to be a good Christian though! 

 

This about sums it up for me.

 

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. 
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. 
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? 
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?â€

 

(I forgot I dropped off this part.  Are y'all tired of me yet, lol?)

 

Re Searching for Evidence - no, I've never come across anyone who identifies as atheist who's engaged in such a search.  It's a quest of a (certain type of) believers.

 

 

 

 

The question about the nature of God, and how the attributes of "purely good" v "omnipotent" in the face of evil can be resolved, is another place where the way the dominant faith tradition has framed the question (and the implicit premises behind the question) has become so ubiquitous that it's difficult to unravel that influence.

 

As a tradition, Judaism seems to me to be relatively less concerned about the nature of God and relatively more on what God wants us to do.  As with the possibility of some sort of post-death existence, there are a range of teachings, including one stream (most succinctly captured in Job) that God is omnipotent, period, no comment on that purely-good hypothesis; and another (most succinctly captured in the mystical metaphor of tzimtzum, that an infinite God "contracted" in order to make room for creation and has "held back" ever since, which implies that God is in a sense "hidden."  And of course there is a very long Jewish tradition of arguing with / even raging at God over evildoing, stemming back to Abraham's celebrated argument over Sodom, Job himself, several of the prophets, straight through to Elie Weisel.  

 

So (as with post-mortal outcome questions) there's debate, there are ideas... but the focus is different, and there is not necessarily quite the same insistence on the "all-good" premise that there is in Christianity and Islam.  

 

I am what I will be.  Deal with it, what's the alternative?  Which ultimately may not be particularly different than lived experience as a non-believer.

 

 

[ktgrok]

 

 

Amorphous, pretty indescribable and most assuredly not evidence-based.

 

 

 

 

There is a saying that if you can understand it, it isn't God. That's where I land. That and the metaphor of the blind men and the elephant are what I stick with. Keeps me humble.

 

Thank you for your thoughts, I've enjoyed them. 

[ktgrok]

 

 

 

 

The question about the nature of God, and how the attributes of "purely good" v "omnipotent" in the face of evil can be resolved, is another place where the way the dominant faith tradition has framed the question (and the implicit premises behind the question) has become so ubiquitous that it's difficult to unravel that influence.

 

As a tradition, Judaism seems to me to be relatively less concerned about the nature of God and relatively more on what God wants us to do.  As with the possibility of some sort of post-death existence, there are a range of teachings, including one stream (most succinctly captured in Job) that God is omnipotent, period, no comment on that purely-good hypothesis; and another (most succinctly captured in the mystical metaphor of tzimtzum, that an infinite God "contracted" in order to make room for creation and has "held back" ever since, which implies that God is in a sense "hidden."  And of course there is a very long Jewish tradition of arguing with / even raging at God over evildoing, stemming back to Abraham's celebrated argument over Sodom, Job himself, several of the prophets, straight through to Elie Weisel.  

 

So (as with post-mortal outcome questions) there's debate, there are ideas... but the focus is different, and there is not necessarily quite the same insistence on the "all-good" premise that there is in Christianity and Islam.  

 

I am what I will be.  Deal with it, what's the alternative?  Which ultimately may not be particularly different than lived experience as a non-believer.

 

There is a reason I am so drawn to Judaism :)

 

If I could let go of the concept of God became Man and my love for that idea, I'd be Jewish for sure. 

[MercyA]

If I could let go of the concept of God became Man and my love for that idea, I'd be Jewish for sure. 

 

And if it weren't for the Mary-and-the-saints-stuff, I'd want to be Catholic.  ;)

 

Pam, I've enjoyed hearing your thoughts, too. Thank you for taking the time to share them.

[Charlie]

 

I'm quote fond of dark chocolate.  In moderation, of course....

 

 

re "cultural Judaism," language, theism and "partnership with the divine"

 

Right.  "Cultural Judaism" connotes different things to different people, but I suppose I'm too Special a Snowflake to fit tidily into either the "cultural" or the "theistic" box -- I attend pretty closely to sacred *texts*, probably spending more time and thought grappling with them than the average "cultural" or Reform Jew; but my *beliefs* re the nature of the divine are both too amorphous, and also (after some number of years trying nail them down with clarity and specificity... and finally deciding that that very effort was really not very Jewish, but was, rather, a reaction to how religion was default-defined in America by the hegemonic frame) too irrelevant to be terribly useful even to ME.

 

I envision religion as a kind of language, through which (some) people try to express certain ideas.  

 

(FWIW, I envision mathematics similarly, as a language, albeit one largely focused on the expression of different types of ideas.)

 

The idea expressed in the partnership metaphor, tikkun olam, derives from several teachings from the mystical side of the tradition; but here is my rendition of a quite down-to-earth Jewish legend that describes pretty well how I understand it to work.  I am by disposition even less suited for mysticism than for philosophy, yet the metaphor that God needs *us* to complete the work resonates quite deeply with me.  

 

Does that render me eligible for the "theist" box?  Shrug.

 

 

 

re how critical it is, or isn't, that the Nile literally turned to blood

The bolded is an interesting thought experiment, which I'll have to think about a bit more.

 

Certainly it is true that I do not spend time or effort on "appeasement."  And while there are traditions and foods with which I and my family mark the Sabbath, we do not "observe" Sabbath as does YaelAldrich and other families on the more traditional end of the Jewish spectrum.  But while I cannot speak for anyone other than myself, I really don't think my fellow Jews who do observe the full range of restrictions as everyday actions do so out of appeasement, or out of a belief they'll be smote in punishment by an angry God if they don't.  That is -- forgive me -- a rather childish conception of a serious (if not necessarily literal) attachment to their understanding of the covenant as received through the tradition.   

 

The ideas that are resonant to me that arise out of the Exodus narratives are around the experience of coercion, of the courage to break out of coercion even into the unknown, of the fear of wandering and homelessness, of the power of hope.  Of the imperative for us today to act in solidarity with those who are similarly coerced, to welcome the stranger for once we were strangers in Egypt.  Of the powerful allure of shiny false leadership.  That the psychology of enslavement can result in such PTSD brokenness that people who have endured it may not ever be able, Frodo-like, to return to wholeness.These are universal insights of the story.  And of the particularist covenant standing at Sinai: that we belong to one another, that we are responsible for one another, grumbling and stiff-necked and disparate and quarrelsome though we may be.

 

I don't know that evidence for blood in the Nile, however conclusive it was one way or the other, would make much difference to my receipt of those insights.  The insights transcend the historicity of the details (much like the blood on Lady Macbeth's hands).  YMMV. 

 

 

re not relating personally to the preoccupation in others for "evidence"

I'm struggling to put words to this.

 

I've been very fortunate to have been very enriched by participation in two long term interfaith groups and various other shorter term discussions.  I am a different person because of what I've learned in such fora.

 

And while there are all kinds of premises and processes and perspectives and slants of light that vary considerably across faith traditions, a few of which I have consciously tried to integrate into my own worldview (the concept of mindfulness, on which I'd say the Buddhists are thought leaders) and others that I am deeply attracted to (the Sufi concept of the beloved Divine, ever stretching out to welcome us in; the sense of roll-up-our-sleeves-and-get-to-work LDS purpose, the dialing back of the self in service to others) even if they're not *quite* aligned to where I'm currently at; and many others that I feel I've briefly glimpsed through the veil... the preoccupation of a certain subset of (seemingly only) Christians with "evidence" still baffles me.  

 

To your comment, I certainly recognize and acknowledge the empirical reality that immense longing for "evidence" exists.  It's manifest on this very thread.  But, yeah.  I don't personally relate.  To me it redirects from the transcendent divine to the trivial and profane (which in Judaism means something closer to "worldly" than "smutty").

 

Which pretty much restates where we were about 3 pages back, I'm afraid...  :lol:

 

 

With regard to the idea of trivializing a religious belief to "a rather childish conception," I think it's important to distinguish between appeasing God and facing punishment. Regardless of what the unacceptable behavior is, be it picking up sticks or being gay, the punishment always and only comes from the community, from people. God never does punish anyone. In fact, God doesn't actually do anything, it's the offended believers who do. I don't think that's a childish conception but a fairly accurate conclusion. Dissenters may get punished, from a private rebuke (even your own!) to public shame to capital punishment, there's potential risk in leaving a religious belief. In this thread, the punishment includes suffering warnings, rebukes, threats, pleas, and proselytizing in general. Not as dire as losing your head, but still, it's a negative consequence that functions to change another person's behavior.

 

You talk of a "God from the gaps," where he is understood to be the stand in for things we do not yet understand. Thank you for explaining that. Naturally I wonder if a belief in the God of the Gaps is then predicated on what is known, or what is understood by a single individual or group? And how does one know where the gaps begin without knowing and considering evidence? But now we're getting into the "correct" religious approach to understanding a thing that can't be known, this explanation that atheists reject, and that gets back to proselytizing, lol!

Edited January 9, 2017 by Charlie

[Pam in CT]

re distinction between appeasement of / punishment from the divine v all-too-human coercion:

With regard to the idea of trivializing a religious belief to "a rather childish conception," I think it's important to distinguish between appeasing God and facing punishment. Regardless of what the unacceptable behavior is, be it picking up sticks or being gay, the punishment always and only comes from the community, from people. God never does punish anyone. In fact, God doesn't actually do anything, it's the offended believers who do. I don't think that's a childish conception but a fairly accurate conclusion. Dissenters may get punished, from a private rebuke (even your own!) to public shame to capital punishment, there's potential risk in leaving a religious belief. In this thread, the punishment includes suffering warnings, rebukes, threats, pleas, and proselytizing in general. Not as dire as losing your head, but still, it's a negative consequence that functions to change another person's behavior.

 

Ah.  I agree that it *is* important to distinguish between the two. Perhaps I misunderstood you back upthread; what I gleaned from the picking up the Sabbath sticks business was that because *I* envisioned the divine more amorphously / less personal-god-theistically than some of my more observant comrades, *I* was not constrained in my everyday actions by fear of a punitive God smiting me, but that *they* might well be.  Which is not how it works for anyone I know IRL.

 

Whereas subtle and not-so-subtle forms of human coercion for non-compliance with established community norms is real, and troubling to me, and among the several reasons why I belong on the progressive end of the spectrum.  I am very much a child of the Enlightenment, valuing individual choice even as I also value community care and mutual obligation.  And not all Jews are.  There is tension between the two values, and one of the differentiating elements between the strands of Judaism is the extent to which they tilt in one direction v the other.

 

 

re human limitations and "God from the gaps"

...You talk of a "God from the gaps," where he is understood to be the stand in for things we do not yet understand. Thank you for explaining that. Naturally I wonder if a belief in the God of the Gaps is then predicated on what is known, or what is understood by a single individual or group? And how does one know where the gaps begin without knowing and considering evidence? But now we're getting into the "correct" religious approach to understanding a thing that can't be known, this explanation that atheists reject, and that gets back to proselytizing, lol!

 

I certainly don't myself speak in "God from the gaps" language, though it may be one of those terms (like "materialist" and "relativist") that nobody really claims for themselves, but are only used by others to label ideas (rather often before dismissing them, lol).

 

If coerced to tick a box, of the range of choices that folks interested in such labels bandy about, I expect I come closest to "non-overlapping magisteria."  A mostly different set of concerns, framed by mostly different types of inquiry.  

 

 

[Charlie]

re distinction between appeasement of / punishment from the divine v all-too-human coercion:

 

Ah.  I agree that it *is* important to distinguish between the two. Perhaps I misunderstood you back upthread; what I gleaned from the picking up the Sabbath sticks business was that because *I* envisioned the divine more amorphously / less personal-god-theistically than some of my more observant comrades, *I* was not constrained in my everyday actions by fear of a punitive God smiting me, but that *they* might well be.  Which is not how it works for anyone I know IRL.

 

Whereas subtle and not-so-subtle forms of human coercion for non-compliance with established community norms is real, and troubling to me, and among the several reasons why I belong on the progressive end of the spectrum.  I am very much a child of the Enlightenment, valuing individual choice even as I also value community care and mutual obligation.  And not all Jews are.  There is tension between the two values, and one of the differentiating elements between the strands of Judaism is the extent to which they tilt in one direction v the other.

 

 

re human limitations and "God from the gaps"

 

I certainly don't myself speak in "God from the gaps" language, though it may be one of those terms (like "materialist" and "relativist") that nobody really claims for themselves, but are only used by others to label ideas (rather often before dismissing them, lol).

 

If coerced to tick a box, of the range of choices that folks interested in such labels bandy about, I expect I come closest to "non-overlapping magisteria."  A mostly different set of concerns, framed by mostly different types of inquiry.  

 

What I meant was, if the evidence supported the story of the Exodus to have happened as written, then it would behoove people to appease God, because evidence would show that noncompliance has disastrous results. But it doesn't. I didn't mean to suggest you or anyone else should or does appease such a character, or even that one exists. I only meant to give examples of the importance of evidence, which you say you don't really consider, but I see evidence (!) to the contrary (sorry! puns were never my thing, lol!).

 

I did not realize "God of the gaps" is considered derogatory. I did a quick search and found wiki's explanation that it was coined by Christian theologians to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence. However he very next sentence explains how it's become derogatory (wiki, god of the gaps). I was not aware of that (either of them, actually), so I'll retract that (and now is when I fear my poor memory will betray me and I'll say it again sometime, having forgotten that I just learned this :-( ). In any case, your position is that of a theist, however you determine that divine to work. Thank you for clearing that up. I was confused, lol!

[eternalsummer]

Pam, we are not too far apart in the way we see God.  I wish I had a community like yours - I was in fact raised as a Reform Jew by my grandmother (who converted well after my mom was born, for a second marriage to a Jewish man) but I did not convert and by the time I was in high school I went through an atheist phase that pretty much negated all of that.

 

I am not an atheist, though - I see religion as very useful societally but not that useful personally, because I can't get past the sort of adherence to the mythology of it.  I feel like if you are raised as a Jew, esp. in the Reform tradition, you can get away with seeing god and religion the way you do, but to convert to something like that (or to any religion, really) you have to be a lot more of a true believer - even for Reform.

 

For me, as a non-religious person, I don't know many religious people so I don't get a lot of conversion attempts.  I got a hilarious one once when I was maybe 20, at a rehearsal for a friend's wedding, when a girl I used to know in high school started talking to me about what I believed. I had just discovered the Tao Te Ching, so I talked to her about that.  She was pretty friendly about it at first, but it quickly became clear that she really wanted to talk about Jesus, and I hadn't yet figured out how to talk to people in their own language (hers was clearly Christianity, of the evangelical persuasion).  She said the Tao Te Ching sounded made up, hahahaha.  She also said that of course Jesus was older than the Tao so the Tao was probably just a copy of the bible.  or something.

 

For me, Charlie, it is kind of a god of the gaps - I didn't know that was a derogatory term either, and would be more or less happy to use it to describe my conception of the divine.

 

For me, it is not something that can have evidence or requires evidence, because it is the things for which evidence is beside the point. The most concrete instance I can describe is when my father died  He had been in a coma for weeks (COPD, pneumonia, etc.) and was barely breathing.  There was very little of him left.  But then my mom called and said I should come over right away, so I did, and when I got there 3 minutes later (we lived a mile away) he had died.

 

The difference in his live body and his dead body was profound, absolutely profound. It was very very very very clear that there was something that had been there but was no longer.  It was very clear that there was part of him that was not his body, and since his brain function was almost nothing before he died, it was clear (to *me*) that there was something besides the body that exists in humans and no longer existed in my dad.  

 

I would try to explain it because I am on the whole a rational person, but it was not a rational experience and it is not a rational belief.

 

The difference, I guess, is that when I was say 16-22 I required belief to have a rational basis.  Then I had a child and read the Tao and stopped requiring belief to be entirely rational.  The difference between what I know and what I can rationally explain, I would call the divine (if I were speaking the language of someone who believed in the divine).

 

If I were talking to a Mormon, I'd call it God.  If I were talking to an atheist, I'd call it physical laws, perhaps as yet undiscovered.  If I were talking to a Taoist, I'd call it Tao, and that would be the closest explanation.