http://www.chabad.org/generic_cdo/aid/807781/jewish/The-Story-of-Life.htm
Rabbi Friedman had just discussed cultivating a Jewish identity in children. He went on to discuss the doubtful or sceptical mindset that creeps into adult minds....
So let's speak for a moment about what happens to adults. How does an adult lose that security? We lose it because we start to doubt. What is this thing called "doubt"? Somebody asks you, "do you really think G_d split the sea and drowned the Egyptians in it?" What are you supposed to say? What you're supposed to say is, "What, are you asking me? You're asking me about what happened three thousand years ago? Why do you expect me to know this? So if somebody says, "do you really think G_d split the sea?" If you say "Yes", where are you coming from? If you say "No", what are you talking about? The only correct answer is, "How am I supposed to know? What kind of question is this?" So do I think G_d split the sea? Crazy. They say he did, so, he did.
People who want to feel sophisticated will say, "Well, I doubt it." You doubt it? What does that mean? What's a doubt? You think maybe yes, but then again, maybe not? Huh? What are you thinking? You can't know whether it did or didn't happen so how can you be in doubt? So either you simply don't know, and that's for sure, no doubt about it. Or, it's written and they say it happened, then it happened and there's no doubt about it. Where does doubt come into it? Now, if you say, "Yes, G_d split the sea and the Egyptians were drowned in the waters. Absolutely, definitely." A person would say to you, "Oh, you have a very strong belief. Your faith is a very strong faith." Don't confuse me, I have no faith. Faith is a whole different subject. I know for sure that G_d split the sea and drowned the Egyptians because that's what people say what happened. People say something happened, then it happened. Not because of faith. Because of ... I mean, that's life ... somebody comes from Australia and says there are weird animals there, they hop around on their back legs. If you say "Don't be crazy, I can't believe that." You're just not intelligent. They came from Australia, yeah? And in Australia there are funny animals. Do you have to have faith to believe that? Must you go yourself and check it out before you can accept it? People who were there came back and said, "there are these animals there." Fine, so, there are those animals, I have no doubt. I have no REASON to doubt. Does that mean that I'm taking a leap of faith? No. Faith is a whole different thing. This is not faith, so we're confused with these various functions. There's intelligence, there's faith, there's fact, and there's doubt. We've got to unravel this.
... If somebody says that G_d created the world in 6 days, do you believe that? It's not a question of belief. Either He did or He didn't. So whether I believe it or not won't make any difference. Torah says, my Grandfather says, Jews have always believed that G_d created the world. So - that's the way it is. It's the status quo, not a leap of faith. So when a Jew says "we received the 10 commandments at Mt. Sinai, out there in the Sinai desert, that's a factual statement. Was I there? No. Can I prove it? Why do I need to prove it? If somebody comes from Australia and tells me there are kangaroos, then there are kangaroos. I have to prove it? How am I supposed to prove it? I was never in Australia. So if people tell us that G_d gave us the Torah at Mt. Sinai, on the 6th day of the month of Sivan 3,315 years ago, that's fine. That's true, it's factual, has nothing to do with faith, and there's no reason to doubt. Now a person would say "but wait a minute. G_d spoke? C'mon." What is the problem with G_d speaking? What's the problem? The problem is I never heard Him speak. In fact I don't know anyone who did hear Him speak. ... [but] the fact that I've never heard G_d speak, I don't know anyone who has heard G_d speak... it only happened that one time. So? That doesn't make it a subject of faith. It was a weird event. There was a Tsunami. Really? Hasn't been one in years. True, but there was one a few years ago. So it was an unusual event, it was a one time event, but it happened because people were there and they say that it happened. Do I need to have a leap of faith to trust what people experience? I don't. If I say I doubt it then ... I'm neither here nor there. What do you mean "you doubt it"? "Well you know, G_d speaking - that's weird!" G_d creating the world? I doubt that." What do you mean you doubt it? If it's so weird that you can't relate to it, then you reject it, you don't doubt it. If it's not that weird, then why are you doubting?
So, where does faith come in? G_d created the world. That's not faith. G_d gave us the Torah. That's not faith. G_d split the sea? That's not faith. G_d made a flood and an ark.. and Noah survived in an ark, that's the fact.... unless you have proof otherwise. But you can't say it didn't happen because you don't know anyone who was there. That's not intelligent. So if all of that is simply fact, then what's faith? Faith applies to subjects that can't be known. CAN'T be known. Can't be experienced. For example, G_d is deeply affected by how we behave. When we do a Mitzvah it gives Him great pleasure and when we do a sin it gives Him great pain. That's a matter of faith. Because - I don't understand that. How can what I do affect G_d? And how am I expected to know that? So if a bunch of people saw G_d split the sea? OK - so now I know. But how do we know how G_d feels? That's a matter of faith. So it's not something I can explain, G_d is infinite - why should He be affected by what I do? So it doesn't make sense. Nobody ever experienced it, 'cause we're talking about how G_d feels, not something He did. So there was no experience and it doesn't follow logically that that should be, therefore I have only one choice: believe it or don't believe it. But doubt? What's doubt?
In a class once we were talking about the subject, there was a woman there who was having a hard time with certainties. So everything that was discussed, her reaction was "but how can you be sure? Maybe not. But how do you know? But maybe not!" So finally one time I said to her "You know, this 'maybe not' is not a good argument. You're just torturing yourself. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Maybe you're not really your mother's daughter, maybe you got switched in the hospital... I meant to be ridiculous, she said "aaahhh!! Oh my G_d!!" (Rabbi Friedman Laughs) Another thing to worry about. The maybes are not doubts, they're insecurities. So doubt really is an unnecessary and unhappy state of affairs. When you're in doubt, you don't know anything more than you did before, but you're less happy. Because doubts drain your enthusiasm for life. If you live with doubts, you're not a happy person.
And that's why when a person gets really intense about life, or life becomes intense, and there are difficulties, we naturally return to the simple facts of life. Who am I? Who am I? You've got to get back to the fundamentals when things gets tough. And the reason things are tough is because they're too complex. You've got to go back to simple facts. I am me, you are you, this is what we do. Simple.
... happiness comes from certainty. When things are certain, even if they're difficult, it's easy to take. When I know who I am and I know what I ought to be doing, then doing it becomes a lot easier, even if there are difficulties. So, raising a child without doubts, that is the foundation on which a healthy life can be built.
Afterword by Joanna:
I recently wrote the following on another blog:
.... a skeptic refuses to believe anything that cannot be proven. So if you reject objective moral standards on the grounds that they are unprovable or at least have not yet been proven, you have no moral standards as yet to live by.
This is why I’m skeptical of skepticism — I think it is unproven as an effective, consistent or even workable way to live. In fact I think it to be unsustainable — every skeptic I have ever talked to seems to apply their skepticism selectively.
I see no reason to replace my Judeo-Christian value base, which I think has proven itself, with a void. If someone tells me something, I give them the benefit of the doubt until I think I have reason not to do so. Yes, this does make a virtue of trust. If I feel compelled to do research and after researching whatever their statement was I find conflicting opinions, I might choose to be agnostic about it, but I could not assume to be negative about the issue until the positive is proven. That is a negative bias, which is not balanced. I’m neutral rather than nihilistic. In a court of law, lack of evidence is NOT in itself evidence of lack and circumstantial evidence is still viewed as evidence. That’s a workable system, but it is at least neutral rather than skeptical. In fact you could describe it as positive since an alleged criminal is considered innocent until proven guilty. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt reflects a positive basis.
The problem with skepticism is that it is deeply self-absorbed. If someone tells you something, they might well be sharing real wisdom with you. If you insist that they prove their statement, they might wonder why they should bother. They might not care much whether you believe them or not, or, at least, might not see it as their role to have to prove themselves to you. So you potentially shut yourself off from wisdom by insisting that the world owes you an explanation for everything.
A religion is a way of life - you live it. If you are part of a society and there are laws you don't agree with, so what? What makes you so important you can pick and choose which laws to abide by? If everyone just observed the laws they felt like observing, society would fall apart. We don't have the time or the space for bespoke cultures. Society is not about the individual, at least, not while he is thinking only of himself. The more a person harmonises his or her will with the will of G_d, the less conflict there will be between his will and that of the Creator. The closer a person gets to holiness, the better he or she will understand that what is best for G_d, what is best for the greatest good of all is also what is best for him or her as an individual. That's incidental, but it is also true - don't doubt it.
No comments:
Post a Comment