At Limmud I taught a series on ‘Judaism without God, partly
stimulated by reading God is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens’ powerful
attack on faith. I’d previously been
unimpressed with the ‘new atheists,’ having read Richard Dawkins’ The God
Delusion. This is a book which
brings home the point previously made by Dawkins himself in his attacks on
non-scientist religious opponents of Darwinism, that you shouldn’t write about
what you don’t know – in Dawkins’ case, religion and philosophy. But unlike Dawkins, Hitchens had a fantastic
education in the humanities and did know all about theology and the Bible. As a result, his attacks on religion as
untrue, barbaric, sexist, violent and destructive, have a lot of force. While reading, I agreed with almost
everything he said and then – tearing myself away from the book – remembered
that I’m the Chief Executive of a religious organisation.
The hole in Hitchens’ argument, as pointed out by my friend
Rabbi Joel Levy (who’s currently teaching a series on the topic) is that for
most people, Western, liberal secularism is not enough. it certainly does not have the resources to
build communities and create the deep structures of meaning and value which our
atomised, utilitarian society is sorely lacking. I believe our goal is to create a genuinely
liberal, humanist, open-minded form of communitarian religious practice, which
respects the other, is open to science and western values, is committed to
social justice, but at the same time is solidly and authentically grounded in
our textual and cultural traditions.
And it seems to me that if we want to defend a conception of
liberal, non-fundamentalist religion as a positive force in the world, we need
to be able to ground it in a conception of God that doesn’t make a mockery of
our philosophical principles, not to mention common sense. This was the basis for my sessions at
Limmud. To give one example of the
insights we reached: Maimonides taught
that the most important commandment is to know that God exists and is the
ground of all being. But reading his
philosophical work, the Guide to the Perplexed, it becomes clear that we
can’t know or say anything about this God without limiting it (him?),
projecting our own concepts onto him (her?) and sliding down the path to
idolatry.
The conclusion is that Judaism believes that the whole of
existence is grounded in something which we know to exist but can by definition
know nothing else about. It reminds me
of my answer to then 5-year-old son who asked me if I believed in God. I said yes – as long as we’re clear that we
can’t know what God is, I don’t
understand what ‘believe’ means, and I’m also not too sure about ‘in.’
I find this idea powerfully comforting. It allows me to get on with being Jewish,
doing mitzvot, learning Torah and being involved in my community, while
acknowledging that there’s no need to be clear about the fundamental value that
ostensibly lies at the heart of all these things. It effectively centres Judaism on God while
practically removing God from the equation.
In this case, practice definitely precedes belief, as the Torah says, ‘na’aseh
venish’ma,’ we will do and then we will hear.
THIS WEEK...
We finalised an amazing programme for Yom Masorti, our
movement-wide day of learning, culture and fun, 10 February at New North London
Synagogue. Come and hear Daniel Sokatch,
Chief Executive of the New Israel Fund USA on social justice in Israel, Rabbi
Jeremy Gordon and Zahavit Shalev on Jewish parenting, Stephen Shashoua from the
3 Faiths Forum on Overcoming Stereotypes through Interfaith Innovation, and
loads of other great sessions. There’ll
also be good food, great music from Los Desterados musicians, ‘Wot? No Fish!’
the the new show from performance artist Danny Braverman, and a free all-day
children’s track with art, music, drama and family disco. For the full programme,
more info and to book for Yom Masorti, go to masorti.org.uk.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOf the triumvirate of public intellectuals (or is it four horsemen?) espousing atheism, I agree that Hitchens is by far the most persuasive. His unconcealed rage at what he sees as the ludicrousness and especially immorality (sic) of all religions makes his work thoroughly engaging and immensely readable. In place of the measured critique of Grayling and the antiseptic 'rationality' of Dawkins we have instead an unrestrained polemic that is both humorously scornful and deeply provocative. He would not, I feel, welcome a godless Judaism (nor a Christianity or an Islam without God) since for him it is the very teachings of all 3 monotheistic religions, as attested by the blood-stained historical experience of their devotees, that have promoted an immorality. In other words, immorality is, to him, intrinsic to the Abrahamic faiths and virtually all moral progress and enlightenment have taken place in spite of, rather than because of these religions.
ReplyDeleteI like the article. Here, you make the implicit point that God is created in man’s image rather than the other way around, i.e., you cannot conceive of God (the source). This brings the holy book into question: I have always struggled to stay grounded in the texts when all readers subjectively make anything of what is written, take the bits they like and use those for any moral code of behaviour that they wish to live by - written by people throughout history, translated, copied, huge chunks rewritten with no evidence for divine inspiration. So this is an interesting article, as I agree with all your points and this viewpoint is far removed from the Judaism that I have always been taught about so far in my life.
ReplyDeleteIn relation to critiques of Dawkins that focus on his alleged lack of knowledge of religion and philosophy, I always point to this: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/24/the-courtiers-reply/. Sums it up nicely :)
ReplyDelete