Monday, December 03, 2012

God: Facsimile of our Ignorance or Infinitely Beyond our Grasp?

I wrote this response to Yoram Hazony's recent Oped in the New York Times:(  

Yoram Hazony makes one excellent point in his editorial: “The belief that any human mind can grasp enough of God to begin recognizing perfections in him would have struck the biblical authors as a pagan conceit.”  This, I believe, is an astute and accurate understanding of the biblical text.  I also found myself agreeing—at least to some degree—with the following line of reasoning:

[God] is portrayed, ultimately, as faithful and just. But these are not the "perfections" of a God known to be a perfect being. They don't exist in his character "necessarily," or anything remotely similar to this. On the contrary, it is the hope that God is faithful and just that is the subject of ancient Israel's faith: We hope that despite the frequently harsh reality of our daily experience, there is nonetheless a faithfulness and justice that rules in our world in the end.

Though there is room to argue about his formulation of ancient Israel’s faith, from a philosophical perspective I would have to agree that being faithful and just are not perfections that “exist in his character “necessarily”.” Maimonides pointed out a long time ago that being faithful or just (or any other “perfection”) are ways of describing what we can perceive in this world as the work of God—that which is Providential—and not by any means a description of God Himself. 

However, as much as I agree with Dr. Hazony about the lack of perfection in our knowledge of God, I would not draw his other conclusion: that the ancient Israelites had, what he calls, a more realistic conception of God—a God who is “incomplete and changing.”  As Hazony knows, there are no simple interpretations of any biblical text, or any text for that matter.  Every interpretation rests within an interpretive frame which grounds the reader and determines what is and is not seen and heard.  In Hazony’s frame the beliefs of the ancient Israelites and the philosophers are placed in opposition—the ancient Israelites’ view of the world being realistic and the philosophers’ idealistic.  However, I do not understand why the ancient Israelite’s conception, as he would have it, is any “more plausible a conception of God” than the conception he has attributed (and I am not convinced he is correct in this attribution) to the theists.  What evidence is there in the biblical text that God is “as Donald Harman Akenson writes…an “embodiment of what is, of reality” as we experience it”?   Though I am loathe to try and get into the mind of the ancient Israelite—a hermeneutic of futility at best—is it reasonable to attribute to them such a conception of God?  Does this conception of God really emerge from the biblical text?  Was God, in the mind of the ancient Israelite, just another word for how they experienced reality? 

I argue that Hazony’s interpretation does not emerge from the text at all—he has brought forth a notion of God that is to his liking and has summoned forth the text to support his argument.  Beyond philosophical objections (of which there are many), I believe his interpretation is poor because I do not see how this constructivist notion of God emerges from the text or how it leads to a better interpretation of the text.  

At the end of the day we must ask ourselves—as the so maligned theists did in their day—who, or what is God?  We will find the answers to that question from a number of sources: our traditions, our philosophical reflections and our readings of the text.  Each source informs and is informed by the others.  There is no way to avoid this hermeneutic circle.  However, we must avoid creating straw-men out of sources foreign to our own beliefs and traditions and live up to the interpretive call.  As I already mentioned, I agree with Hazony’s contention that “perfection” is a poor category to apply to God.  But isn’t claiming that God is incomplete and changing and “coming-into-being” just as—if not more—misguided?  Is he not falling prey to the same mistake the theists made—namely, attributing our own limited categories to God?  

Did the “biblical authors” (a construct, I am not, for a number of reasons, comfortable with) assert that God is perfect?  No, they obviously did not.  But Hazony seems to have confounded/equated the fallibility of our grasp with the object we seek to grasp.  Hazony points out that when “God responds to Moses’ request to know his name” the King James Bible is incorrect in its translation of that name as “I am that I am.”  He writes,

The Hebrew "I will be what I will be" is in the imperfect tense, suggesting to us a God who is incomplete and changing.  In their run-ins with God, human beings can glimpse a corner or an edge of something too immense to be encompassed, a "coming-into-being" as God approaches, and no more.

His translation is, of course, better than the KJB.  However, this is precisely the point at which he loses me.  How would it follow from this translation that God is incomplete and changing?  Let God be Who He will be and let man’s conception be that which is incomplete and changing.  Why would it follow from the fact that our grasp is limited that God himself is limited?  We need not be philosophers to have problems with this line of reasoning.  

One final question—this time from the text: If Moses could only see God’s back, doesn’t that imply an imperfection in Moses’ knowledge not an imperfection in God?  Isn’t the notion that God is always more than we can comprehend, always beyond our conceptions only possible if God is actually something more and something beyond? As Zophar the Naamathite says, “Canst thou find out the deep things of God? Canst thou attain unto the purpose of the Almighty? (Job 11:7, JPS 1917 Edition)  Let us not make God a facsimile of our own ignorance.  

Sunday, May 20, 2012

או חברותא או מיתותא

I have not made a post in a ridiculously long time.  I have been pretty busy in graduate school.  Recently, for a paper I am writing, I tried explaining, in experiential terms, what a chevruta is.  I thought some of my chevrutot would appreciate it.
Judaism places special emphasis on the act of studying Torah and has special regard for the learning pair, known as a chevruta, which literally translates as partner or friend.
Said R. Hiyya b. Abba, Even father and son, master and disciple, who study Torah at the same gate become enemies of each other; yet they do not stir from there until they come to love each other. (Kiddushin, 30b)
Learning Torah is a struggle.  It is a struggle with the words of revelation, a struggle for truth, a struggle for a good life.  For sure, it is an internal struggle—the student (even a great scholar is considered a student in the Jewish tradition) experiences a deep inner turmoil—in which he constantly seeks transcendence through those words and always falls short.  But it is also an outward struggle with one’s fellow man.  He contends with his partner.  They cannot help but clash, be enemies—their subjectivities must come in conflict.  But, the pull of revelation, to transcend difference and to join in desire for the Most High quells the crashing of sword and shield and forms the basis of transcendent partnership in the search for meaning.