An honest religious thinker...

I

Once more, there is a beautiful quote from Wittgenstein that perfectly summarises the status of religion today:

An honest religious thinker is like a tightrope walker. He almost looks as though he were walking on nothing but air. His support is the slenderest imaginable. And yet it really is possible to walk on it.

The intellectual conditions, as such, for religious belief have never changed. Only the social conditions have. Ultimately religion isn't based on evidence for the probability that it is true. In fact, it is of the very essence that it is not. The question as to whether we accept the 'yoke of heaven' or not is firmly on our shoulders. Of course, I'm not saying the choice is arbitrary; 'How we act' very much depends on what how we take the world to be. However, Judaism stresses the 'limits of reason' and no reason will force us one way or the other. Ultimately one has to make a decision- do I see the world like this or like that?

This is precisely the Jewish concept of free-will. Reason cannot intellectually arbitrate between what Christian/secular culture denotes by 'theism' and 'atheism' (No religious Jew could be an atheist or a theist). Thus, one can't adequately conclude such a discussion before deciding how to act. The 'yetzer hara' (evil inclination) can always reinterpret the facts to justify what it wants without being irrational. I won't believe I have to do x, y or z, unless I have an 'ultimate reason', a 'proof' that I have to.

Rationality, so religion tells us, doesn't go 'all the way down'. What I mean by this can be illustrated by the following:

[A scientist gave a lecture about astronomy]. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

What's supports the world? A turtle. What supports the turtle? Another turtle. What supports that?... and so on. Ultimately, you can (and should) give reasons for what you believe. Religion is not for the intellectually frail. However, on the one hand, there is no bottom turtle- one which you cannot ask what supports it. In philosophical parlance, there is no indubitable belief that lies at the bottom of our knowledge claims. There is no 'basic belief' from which you can argue outwards from, or inwards to. On the other hand, our finite minds can't intellectually settle for for infinite turtleness! We cannot justify our claims by a premise that lies infinitely far away.

So what to do? Ultimately, we have to rely on practical rationality. Whilst we can be intellectually agnostic, in practice we have to live a secular life or a religious one. The choice is not one between atheism and theism (the search for the bottom turtle) but between being an Ish ha-Elokim (man of G-d) or an Apikorus (one who mocks the sages). Through the actions we choose we are committing to interpreting the world as an expression of divine creation or as mechanical entity without moral consequence. Either we see the Mesora (Jewish tradition) as divine order or a human creation.

II

As I say, this has always been the way. So why does it now appear that we are "walking on nothing but air"? There are two reasons. Firstly, people in bygone eras (practically) related to the world as if it were enchanted. This was one in which the world was controlled by powers that lay outside of our understanding. The world- so to speak- had a personality. From a Jewish perspective, this isn't unanimously seen as positive. It was such a view that led to the prevalence of avodah zara (untranslatable! strange worship). People who couldn't understand why the sun did what it did began to attribute it as an independent power (a god). Whether we should, in a limited way, believe in an enchanted world depends on which view of Judaism you take (Rambam/ Malbim vs. Ramban/ HaLevi) and both have merits.

Nevertheless, when holding such a view, it is obvious to believe in the supernatural. It is natural and woven into the very fabric of your being. In a post Cartesian and Newtonian world, this is no longer so. The major change was not theoretical per se- both Descartes, Newton and many after them were firm believers in G-d. Instead, they affected a change in the very way we see the world. Everything is there to be intellectually conquered, brought into our understanding, control and subdued. We are suddenly in a world where something beyond our grasp becomes instinctively alien. With such a mindset one can passionately believe in G-d but it's a decision that is against the grain. One always had to make a decision but its now more like a leap

I suppose a simpler way of putting that (although it misses some of the subtleties) is that it is very counter-cultural to believe in G-d so seems to require more justification. Yet as I said above, there is nothing one can point to that 'settles the matter' that would compel you to accept it (esp. if you were looking for ways not to believe). Hence tightrope.

III

The second reason is that- as Jews- we no longer live in self-governing communities governed by halacha. We now seem to require a justification for the institution itself. Previously the keeping of halacha, in the public realm at least, was de facto- it just was what happened. It was the base or practical starting point from which all decisions or philosophizing began.

Even from such a social position there is a role for the free intellectual and moral decisions laid out above. First of all, there was taking upon oneself all the obligations that were not of specific concern to the public order. It is unlikely that in times past, many people were shomer mitzvot (kept the commandments) in the way explicated by the rabbis in their academies. However, let's assume by habit or instruction they did. We are taught that free will isn't only about the keeping of commandments, but performing them with kavanna (the right intention). This directly depends on how we take the halacha- divine order or human creation? One may keep it out of habit or only keeping it where one has to avoid the wrath of the authorities (Beth Din). On the other hand, one perform an action with the awareness that it is is mitzvah from G-d. However, no intellectual premise could lead one to this awareness.

So what is the difference today when Jews are growing up secular? Again, we could just highlight the obvious practical consideration that a) it seems a bigger leap to decide to keep halacha in the first place than to do what you already do with more kavannah b) to decide to keep halacha is harder when it is counter-cultural and c) whilst no-one in the past would have doubted that halacha should govern society, one now is asked for justification.

However, this might be misleading. It is not that they didn't realise the 'tightrope' nature of the justifications for halachic practice because they happened not to ask! Instead, to a certain extent it was unnecessary to do so! The whole life of the community was built around the rhythm and pulse of the religious life. One could see a practical manifestation of G-d's will in the world. One could be inspired by tzadikim- living Torah scrolls. And so on. Of course, one could use free will to see things in a different way but there was a living testament to the fact that we are a 'wise and understanding people'. Nowadays, without being born inside such a society, we can only look at it externally. From the outside, without the testament, why halacha?

IV

But, as Wittgenstein says, despite the fact that "His support is the slenderest imaginable.... it really is possible to walk on it" The reason being that in Wittgenstein's words "explanation comes to an end" and our beliefs ultimately rest on a "form of life". From the outside- from the perspective of philosophy- the ground is continually slipping from under our feet. That is, no honest religious thinker can believe in religious dogma. We can't believe that there is a statement that is philosophically indubitable and not open to challenge.

Thank G-d then that our feet do not rest on such a slender base but one that is the broadest imaginable. We stand on a base of action- on a form of life- which provide a context in which our beliefs make sense. Within a halachic lifestyle a Jewish orientation is revealed throughout every aspect of our life. Our actions are in a sense, revelatory of our beliefs.

This doesn't mean we can point to our actions as a justification our belief. From the outside, as I have said, we can only be intellectually agnostic. How then, in the modern world where we are conditioned to see everything from the outside, should we make such a decision? I don't know. Yet I am sure that I can see the world as divine without breaking my neck.