Sago Boulevard

In the context of a on-going discussion about the believability (for lack of a better word) of Judaism, Orthoprax writes:

I see the world as it is today. I don’t see water splitting into walls, I don’t see chariots of fire in the sky, I don’t see the sun stopping in its movement, I don’t see giants or witches or angels anywhere (well, in movies I suppose). I don’t see any miracles in life.

It’s important to point out here a significant difference of perspective. I’m looking at the world through halakhic lenses so the miraculous means something very different to me. See, for instance, the blessings before and after Shema. In R. Wurzburger’s words, “We must begin with refusing to let familiarity dull our sense of wonder.” Of course, though, this only makes sense if you are looking for God. You won’t find what you’re not looking for. You won’t see what you’re not prepared to believe. Orthoprax paraphrases me as saying: “So, if you believe then you will believe. If you are skeptical then you will be skeptical. Wowzers.” Well, no. If you open yourself up to the possiblity of God in a sincere and diligent way, then you may recognize Him the next time you see the sunrise. If you want a neat logical demonstration of why it is reasonable to believe in God before doing all of the heavy lifting that Halakhah requires, you won’t get it. It is in this light that the rabbis advise: “Do not believe an individual who claims to have found [spiritual treasures] without having toiled for them” (BT Megilah 6b).

Orthoprax expresses some genuine concerns about the so-called proofs for theism. If you’re interested I recommend reading through my comments on his post. I’ve addressed similar issues before (here and here) but I want to share a way of thinking that I personally find helpful:

It’s true that we can explain the complexity of nature without appealing to God. The same is true for moral intuitions, ontology, etc. But positing God’s existence is helpful in understanding how all these things relate to each other. Scientists (generally) aren’t interested in understanding the relationship between the origins of the universe and ethical dilemmas, even if they can explain each one individually. But the Torah is concerned with exactly those kind of issues; for example, the relationship between ethics and ontology. The Torah answers by appealing to God. It’s not deductive to be sure, but it’s very useful. In terms of accounting for the entirety of existence, I think the Torah-theory has tremendous explaining power. You’ll always be able to come up with a cogent naturalist explanation but it strikes me as much less compelling.