One important lesson that I’ve learned from the last few years of vigorous Facebook discussion is that a weak argument can often end up inflicting significant damage on the position that it is trying to advance.
In short, Strauss argued that neither Orthodoxy nor its opponents could claim to be able to refute the claims of the other concerning crucial principles such as the nature of God and revelation. Each camp can choose to believe its own claims but there is no way to objectively evaluate the validity of either side in this debate. Orthodox Judaism, he considers, cannot possess any knowledgeof its core principles – it can merely adhere to belief of unknowable claims.
As I slowly make my way slowly through this fascinating book, the essay by Rabbi Shalom Carmy has really got me thinking. Carmy writes of Strauss’s argument:
“it is not an argument for the truth or likelihood of belief in revelation…One does not worship God as a hypothesis that might improbably turn out to be true. And revealed religion requires much more than acts of worship. It demands thorough commitment and, when necessary, sacrifice and suffering. Real people do not live and die for a remote hypothesis.”
This response very much resonates with my reaction to those who argue for religious observance on the basis of practical probabilities such as Pascal’s Wager (that the potential consequence of being wrong regarding religion is far more severe for one who chooses to be non-religious).
My understanding of Judaism – which is heavily coloured by Rambam –centres around creating and nurturing a very real two-way relationship with God. On an individual level this consists of a genuine connection which a person’s mind and soul can make with God – a connection which is fortified through prayer and the performance of commandments. Performing an action because one feels that there is a decent chance that there is a God who has commanded it misses the whole point entirely from Rambam’s perspective.
This is because Judaism is not a set of magical boxes to be ticked or dangers to be avoided in one’s journey through life. Rather it is about fulfilling our covenant with God on a national scale – establishing the sort of just and altruistic society that this entails – while forging a very real relationship with God on an individual level. As Rambam emphasises in the third section of the Moreh (3:51), fulfilling the commandments – particularly prayer – without being mindful of this context is simply performing empty actions – it carries no significance at all.
Of what value therefore, is living a notionally religious lifestyle on the basis of a probability, wager or remote hypothesis that might prove to be accurate?
What I will acknowledge however, is that the existence of the Straussian argument – that Orthodox Judaism’s belief in revelation can never be rationally refuted – remains a useful practical safety net to fall back upon.
Our relationship with God is not static. It consists of waves of faith, commitment and enthusiasm which rise and fall through the year – and often even the day. (On a personal note, I know that the tired Shmuli Phillips who has dragged himself out for Shul on a cold morning is far more grumpy and skeptical about EVERTHING than the version of him swaying serenely at an uplifting Kabbalat Shabbat service.) If a Straussian safety net can temporarily assist a person to remain connected at such a low-point, it certainly serves an important role – providing a platform from which they can reforge their real relationship with God once their inspiration returns.
As several of the essays in this book explore, questions of philosophy and theology do not belong to the category of propositions which one can ever hope to objectively prove or disprove. Unlike mathematics with its neat solutions whose correctness can be determined, philosophical and theological arguments which appear persuasive to some will always fail to impress others.
Rabbi Carmy underscores the importance of traditional arguments such as the likelihood of such a finely-tuned world possessing a designer – and that such a designer might well be expected to have communicated his purpose in creating the world to the primary protagonists within this universe. Nevertheless, the merit of such arguments will always contain a subjective element: does one consider it to be the best possible explanation for a set of phenomena among competing explanations?
For many who contemplate existence – creation, humanity and history – the answer will be strongly in the affirmative. They will be sufficiently convinced to develop a relationship with this Creator and live their lives in accordance with his apparently revealed commands. For others who have not achieved this level of clarity, Pascal’s Wager and Strauss’s argument for Orthodoxy may remain an important launching pad for further meditation and exploration from within the world of religious observance.
First posted on Facebook 18 April 2022, here.
