Skip to main content

Thought for the Day: The Kuzari Begins With Science and Rejects Atheism

These are my notes on learning the Kuzari. This is not a translation nor even a commentary, simply my notes and thoughts.

Synopsis
The Kuzari begins by giving a background story. The king of the Kuzars had dedicated himself to exacting service to G-d according to the strict dictates of his religion. One night an angel came to him in a dream to tell him that G-d was pleased with the king's intentions, but not with his actions. The dreams were persistent, and eventually the king decided that he would have to seek the true path to service of G-d.

With that as a background, the king first turns to a scientist/philosopher. (In those days anyone who pursued a career that was not involved in day to day living was called a philosopher. That eventually divided into natural philosophy -- which became science -- and supernatural philosophy. Hence, my use of the term scientist/philosopher.) The scientist tells him that of course there is a creator; but the creator is not involved in the creation. There is no relationship between creator and created other than cause and effect. Therefore, claims the scientist/philosopher, the highest level of human achievement is to become totally intellect driven (seichel ha'po'el). Never do anything because you feel forced by circumstances... i.e., my intellect is made to serve the physical. Rather the goal is that all actions should taken only upon council of the intellect -- the physical is subjugated to the intellect.

The king politely rejects this argument -- after all, that is precisely what he was doing when the dreams started. Therefore he dismisses the scientist/philosopher and decides to see what the Christians and Moslems have to say. He does not even think about asking the Jews, as they are a small and despised people.

Commentary
I first found it fascinating that the scientist/philosopher of 1000 years ago is presenting this idea of de facto atheism -- that is, that god doesn't interfere with our lives, he is simply rendered irrelevant other than as a historical curiosity -- as a modern idea. I had grown up thinking that this was a rather neat idea of our modern times! There really is nothing new under the sun; religion is always considered old-fashioned, and science (with grudging accommodation for a creator) is considered modern.

One additional and related comment -- why the need for the dream sequence altogether. I think that the problem being addressed is that there is no logical argument against the scientist/philosopher's position. One can do no experiment to prove him wrong, and it sounds very, very reasonable. The only answer to him is that we know he is wrong. There is right and wrong, absolute right and wrong. I may not know all the details, nor can I prove my position, but I know it none-the-less. I think the Kuzari may be telling us that one should start his exploration of reality by searching inward. We do have an inner voice, but we can only hear it after serious work to be sure we know ourselves and our mission. And then after that, we must seek outward; for spiritual truth cannot be made up anymore than physical reality. Reality is what it is. One cannot know reality by pondering made up fancies; one can only know reality by gather data and then pondering the implications.

Comments

Yehudi said…
Great post! I love reading through your blog because it's always intellectually stimulating...
I started a new blog that's connected to Jewish Pride and I'd like to invite you over to check it out. Let me know what you think!

Popular posts from this blog

Thought for the Day: Pizza, Uncrustables, and Stuff -- What Bracha?

Many years ago (in fact, more than two decades ago), I called R' Fuerst from my desk at work as I sat down to lunch.  I had a piece of (quite delicious) homemade pizza for lunch.  I nearly always eat at my desk as I am working (or writing TftD...), so my lunch at work cannot in any way be considered as sitting down to a formal meal; aka קביעת סעודה.  That being the case, I wasn't sure whether to wash, say ha'motzi, and bentch; or was the pizza downgraded to a m'zonos.  He told if it was a snack, then it's m'zonos; if a meal the ha'motzi.  Which what I have always done since then.  I recently found out how/why that works. The Shulchan Aruch, 168:17 discusses פשטיד''א, which is describes as a baked dough with meat or fish or cheese.  In other words: pizza.  Note: while the dough doesn't not need to be baked together with the meat/fish/cheese, it is  required that they dough was baked with the intention of making this concoction. ...

Thought for the Day: What Category of Muktzeh are Our Candles?

As discussed in a recent TftD , a p'sak halacha quite surprising to many, that one may -- even לכתחילה -- decorate a birthday cake with (unlit, obviously) birthday candles on Shabbos. That p'sak is predicated on another p'sak halacha; namely, that our candles are muktzeh because they are a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and not  מוקצה מחמת גופו/intrinsically set aside from any use on Shabbos. They point there was that using the candle as a decoration qualifies as a need that allows one to utilize a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור. Today we will discuss the issue of concluding that our candles are , in fact, a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and not מוקצה מחמת גופו. Along the way we'll also (again) how important it is to have personal relationship with your rav/posek, the importance of precision in vocabulary, and how to interpret the Mishna Brura.  Buckle up. After reviewing siman 308 and the Mishna Brura there, I concluded that it should be permissible to use birthday candles to decorate a cake on Sha...

Thought for the Day: Why Halacha Has "b'di'avad"

There was this Jew who knew every "b'di'avad" (aka, "Biddy Eved", the old spinster librarian) in the book.  When ever he was called on something, his reply was invariably, "biddy eved, it's fine".  When he finally left this world and was welcomed to Olam Haba, he was shown to a little, damp closet with a bare 40W bulb hanging from the ceiling.  He couldn't believe his eyes and said in astonishment, "This is Olam Haba!?!"  "Yes, Reb Biddy Eved,  for you this is Olam Haba." b'di'avad gets used like that; f you don't feel like doing something the best way, do it the next (or less) best way.  But Chazal tell us that "kol ha'omer HaShem vatran, m'vater al chayav" -- anyone who thinks HaShem gives partial credit is fooling himself to death (free translation.  Ok, really, really free translation; but its still true).  HaShem created us and this entire reality for one and only one purpose: for use...