Atheism is not a belief?

[Guest]

Please note: atheism is a lack of belief it is not a belief.

I probably really do not open this can, but the assertion was made and it is intriguing.

How can there be an idea that one can believe, yet at the same time it not be?

There has to be some criteria which would have to be used to create this "not a belief" Yes? No?

[Jrosemary]

Many (if not all) of the philosophies of the yogas can be followed without compromising an atheist worldview.

I shouldn't think you'd have a problem with anything except the bhakti branch--and even that doesn't contradict your position, as I understand it.

I think there's more room in religions for atheists than most people realize. If you're dealing with non-credal religions--by which I mean religions that do not define their adherents by the creed they profess--it's not that much of an issue.

Judaism isn't credal: we have lots of traditional teachings, but what you believe about them doesn't determine whether or not you're a Jew. Hence there's no inherent contradiction about being an atheist and a synagogue-attending Jew.

In fact, there's a whole branch of Judaism--Reconstructionism--that began as pretty much an atheist movement. The guy who founded it, Mordecai Kaplan, rejected theism (although he left the door open for certain neo-platonist or Kabbalistic views.) The Reconstructionists aren't as hard core now as they were back in the day, though; 'God' isn't a bad word any more.

[Jonah]

I understand the fact of atheist Jews. But, I haven't heard one that goes to shul talk about what that does for him/her. I understand Richard Rubenstein, but I don't know if I would find him shul or if I should be surprised to see him there (Is he still alive?...I don't keep up.)

The reason I ask is that my understanding of Rubenstein's atheism is that it's based on Jewish concepts of justice. Because of injustice (holocaust et al), God cannot exist.

But, for the Jew...apparently we can dispose of God, but not justice. Or can we, really? Since Moses, the very notion of God was tied to justice. And even if we allowed that we manufacture our gods on account of this or that, in the Jewish case, the reason for a god is injustice/justice. Can we really have one without the other? Or is there really something else meaningful to do in shul?

[Jrosemary]

I understand the fact of atheist Jews. But, I haven't heard one that goes to shul talk about what that does for him/her. I understand Richard Rubenstein, but I don't know if I would find him shul or if I should be surprised to see him there (Is he still alive?...I don't keep up.)

The reason I ask is that my understanding of Rubenstein's atheism is that it's based on Jewish concepts of justice. Because of injustice (holocaust et al), God cannot exist.

But, for the Jew...apparently we can dispose of God, but not justice. Or can we, really? Since Moses, the very notion of God was tied to justice. And even if we allowed that we manufacture our gods on account of this or that, in the Jewish case, the reason for a god is injustice/justice. Can we really have one without the other? Or is there really something else meaningful to do in shul?

I understand Rubenstein's reasoning--he is devastating to read--and I respect his conclusions. Believe it or not, though, he's not a strict atheist. (Like Kaplan, he allows for certain Kabbalistic views of the divine.)

And it's worth noting that even in After Aushwitz, he didn't say 'chuck Judaism--forget it, it's over and done.' (Although, as I recall, he certainly wanted to radically reimagine Judaism.)

But you're larger question seems to be: is shul meaningful for the atheist Jew? Is there anything meaningful in shul without God?

I think you have to go to shul-attending atheist Jews for the answer, but I'll take a stab at it. (I don't identify as an atheist, although I'm not hostile to atheism.)

Short answer: yes. Part of our job description, as Jews, is to wrestle with God. ('Israel' means God-wrestler.) Judging the very concept of God, judging the likelihood of God's existence, weighing the evidence--surely that's a form of wrestling with God? How can God fault us for deciding that any objective evidence is lacking?

Then there's the power of our liturgy, tradition and rituals. Even if I decided that the notion of God is utter foolishness--and it may be, for all I know--I would still light the candles on Shabbat for the sheer beauty of the bracha (blessing). I would still come to shul to say Kaddish for my departed loved ones, taking comfort in the cadence of the old Aramaic words. I would still read our Scriptures and commentaries to understand how Jews have dealt with eternal questions of justice and righteousness throughout our history. . . and I would still argue with other Jews in Torah study class about our conclusions and interpretations.

I would still love singing the Az Yashir Moshe in shul, imagining what it was like to be on the banks of the Reed Sea after escaping Pharaoh's army, even if I thought that story didn't contain a grain of literal history. (And for all I know it may not.) I would still keep kosher, admiring the mindfulness that brings to every trip to the food store. I would still make a big Seder every year, to drink wine with family and friends and discuss the meaning of freedom and liberation.

(In fact, at least a third of the guests at my last Seder were gentile atheists--and they loved it and found it fascinating and even meaningful, despite the long Haggadah and the discussions about God's role in the story.)

So yes, I can see plenty of meaning in shul and the whole of Jewish traditions, whether a person is a monist, panentheist, theist, agnostic or atheist--or any combination thereof.

[Jonah]

jrosemary,

Very well put. Thank you. Yes, I agree with you on Rubenstein. He left the door open a little, and I've always felt that if one could name that "little", one could apply it to all religion.

I guess there are two macro themes I identify with in your post. One is the justice agenda in wrestling with God. The other is everyday Jewish life which, in my own particular head wiring, has to do with being home. I'm a convert and not. My father's family came from a crypto-Jewish history. And then there's the oft quoted saying of all the converts having been mystically present at Sinai.

But, also. In my own particular wiring. Both the justice that all humanity and Israel need is connected to my sense of home. To me, home is a basic human right.

[Poverello]

So far it's been established here, at least in my own conversation, that the word 'atheist' means "without belief in a God or gods" or simply "not theist".

I have another question:

Is it possible to hold a belief in God (Monotheistic) without any sort of anthropomorphic assertion or even any assertable conception of God whatsoever?

A general theist or deist may fit. These theists may generally believe that a higher being exists but don't ascribe much specifics to him unless it's theoretical perhaps. I've encountered very few of these types and they tended to go only by philosophy and some science and most likely would not follow or accept much of religion.

Thanks for the reply! What I'm essentially trying to establish here is whether or not 'atheism' is necessarily a "default position", as it were. I have doubts regarding whether or not a belief in God necessarily entails understood and accepted assertions about God.

[Poverello]

In Judaism, we have a notion of God called Ein Sof. This Ein Sof is thoroughly transcendent, attributeless (as we understand attributes, at any event) beyond humanity's ability to categorize and utterly impersonal. I think the notion of Ein Sof is our way of saying "we don't know anything about what God is like."

You will meet some synagogue-going Jews who only hold with the Ein Sof notion of God--they don't hold with the more personal notion of God that coexists in Judaism. (Every synagogue also has its token atheists, but that's another story. )

Hinduism, likewise, has the notion of Brahmam, which is similar to Judaism's Ein Sof. Hinduism, like Judaism, also has an intensely personal notion of God (personified in Shiva, Durga, Vishnu, and so forth) that coexists with that transcendent, impersonal notion. I don't know if there are Hindus who focus just on Brahman and reject the personal notion of God. I'd be interested to hear the answer if anyone here happens to know.

We had a discussion about Ein Sof vs. a personal notion of God over the breakfast table after Sunday minyan one morning at my shul. One guy was giving very good arguments for just sticking with the idea of Ein Sof. But my physchiatric make-up isn't prepared for that. I seem to require a personal God to argue with, so I much prefer a balance between the two notions.

Hope this helped . . .

These definitions of God would definitely qualify as non-anthropomorphic, and thank you for introducing me to the 'Ein Sof' concept; I'd not heard of it before!

I'm interested in knowing what your friend's arguments are like for accepting only the idea of 'Ein Sof', though I don't want to stray too far off-topic if possible.

[Jrosemary]

jrosemary,

Very well put. Thank you. Yes, I agree with you on Rubenstein. He left the door open a little, and I've always felt that if one could name that "little", one could apply it to all religion.

I guess there are two macro themes I identify with in your post. One is the justice agenda in wrestling with God. The other is everyday Jewish life which, in my own particular head wiring, has to do with being home. I'm a convert and not. My father's family came from a crypto-Jewish history. And then there's the oft quoted saying of all the converts having been mystically present at Sinai.

But, also. In my own particular wiring. Both the justice that all humanity and Israel need is connected to my sense of home. To me, home is a basic human right.

Hey, no shame in being a convert. Judaism is on my father's side of the family, not my mother's, so I converted in a Conservative synagogue. Had a mikvah, beit din and the works--I'm a proud Jew-by-choice.

I also agree with Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism that patralineal descent may well be acceptable . . .but that's so far off topic that I'll just bring this to a close.

[Jrosemary]

In Judaism, we have a notion of God called Ein Sof. This Ein Sof is thoroughly transcendent, attributeless (as we understand attributes, at any event) beyond humanity's ability to categorize and utterly impersonal. I think the notion of Ein Sof is our way of saying "we don't know anything about what God is like."

You will meet some synagogue-going Jews who only hold with the Ein Sof notion of God--they don't hold with the more personal notion of God that coexists in Judaism. (Every synagogue also has its token atheists, but that's another story. )

Hinduism, likewise, has the notion of Brahmam, which is similar to Judaism's Ein Sof. Hinduism, like Judaism, also has an intensely personal notion of God (personified in Shiva, Durga, Vishnu, and so forth) that coexists with that transcendent, impersonal notion. I don't know if there are Hindus who focus just on Brahman and reject the personal notion of God. I'd be interested to hear the answer if anyone here happens to know.

We had a discussion about Ein Sof vs. a personal notion of God over the breakfast table after Sunday minyan one morning at my shul. One guy was giving very good arguments for just sticking with the idea of Ein Sof. But my physchiatric make-up isn't prepared for that. I seem to require a personal God to argue with, so I much prefer a balance between the two notions.

Hope this helped . . .

These definitions of God would definitely qualify as non-anthropomorphic, and thank you for introducing me to the 'Ein Sof' concept; I'd not heard of it before!

I'm interested in knowing what your friend's arguments are like for accepting only the idea of 'Ein Sof', though I don't want to stray too far off-topic if possible.

Hmmm...since it's so off topic, why don't I start a new topic up in the Non-Christian forum? I won't get around to it until Saturday night or Sunday morning. I'll pm you when it's done.

[Poverello]

Hmmm...since it's so off topic, why don't I start a new topic up in the Non-Christian forum? I won't get around to it until Saturday night or Sunday morning. I'll pm you when it's done.

Sounds good! Though would it be against forum rules to post it here so we can correlate with other discussions?