Believers
After an extensive discussion with a friend involving belief, rationality, numerology, science, psychology and all other sorts of big picture matters, we have concluded that there are three types of believers (at least within the context of Judaism):
- The one that does not challenge his beliefs
- The one that challenges and finds proofs to support his beliefs
- The one that challenges, fails to prove, and still believes
The tough question is: which is the biggest fool?
Weird to see someone who’s observant ask who the biggest fool is since this is implying all 3 are fools. Where do you fit (since I can’t think of any possible third option)?
The tough question is not that tough to me: the first.
Comment by Michael — 14 July, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
I’ve been thinking about that implication for a while. If that implication is necessary, then I guess it’s worth noting that non-believers may equally be fools.
Your answer may be obvious as the perspective of the critical rationalist, but of course there is much simple pleasure in the ignorance of the first. And if one contends that belief systems need to be (at least somewhat) irrational, surely challenging one’s beliefs could be considered futile if not harmful…
Comment by Joel — 14 July, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
Indeed, if one considers atheism a belief, it too would have these fools…
Comment by Joel — 14 July, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
I think it goes without saying that there’s not much about the second one that can be considered “foolish”. A person’s individual proofs might be misguided but the very act of challenging oneself indicates a certain open-mindedness, and there is a justification to continued belief if proofs are found. The third one would not be too foolish either: had he discovered disproofs but continued believing then we might judge him, but he has merely failed to prove. I think the first one has the weakest personality, and probably suspects that his beliefs would not stand up to challenging.
I don’t consider atheism necessarily a belief, incidentally. I would consider myself an atheist insofar as I do not believe in God. I’m not sure if I necessarily believe that there is no God, but I also don’t particularly care. I don’t know if you’d credit that distinction, but I am guessing that both count as atheism.
Comment by Simon Holloway — 15 July, 2008 @ 9:43 am
But for any non-foolish belief (whatever that may be), I wouldn’t find person 2 to be a fool at all.
There may be pleasure in ignorance but I’m taking fool to mean one who believes untrue things — I guess it’s not a perfect interpretation and you could debate on what a fool might be. Maybe to someone the biggest fool is someone who gives up the comfort of ignorance for harsh reality, but that’s a matter of taste.
PS. By “possible third option” of course I meant “possible fourth option”.
Comment by Michael — 15 July, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
Well I’m going to go with option 1 as well in accordance with my own particular philosophical bent. However I can see the potential foolishness in both the other options.
How do you get those cool photos that look like sketches on your website? Its neat.
Yay for Google Reader making staying in touch with my friend’s blogs practical, and yay for my own new blog reminding me that my friends actually have blogs.
Comment by Jordan — 16 July, 2008 @ 7:27 pm
Apologies Simon, above… Your comment seems to have been caught up in the spam queue! My blog has grown a bad habit of not letting me know when there’s something to moderate, and clearly your post was too vile to let through immediately. Some thoughtful words as usual.
The problem with the second individual is the assumption that there is such a thing as a proof for the basis of belief. If you consider the fact that many suggest that such things cannot be proven, then the individual must be under-scrutinising any proof, and coming at it with the prior intent to believe. Surely this character is more of a hypocrite than the first: at least the first hasn’t deluded her/himself by looking for “proofs”.
And yes, Simon, I’ll credit your distinction (with a pass? an HD?)
Comment by Joel — 20 July, 2008 @ 6:02 pm
I think the problem is semantics — if the 3 points in the post are about religious belief then it’s actually very different to the more general concept of belief.
There’s probably no such thing as proof for religious belief (if there was it wouldn’t be religious belief after all) but there are proofs and evidence for more general kinds of beliefs (eg. my belief that right now I’m hungry).
People who mix the 2 often end up saying ridiculous things like “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” (like the Purpose Driven Life guy) [PS. in a Freudian keyboard slip I typed “Driven” as “Drivel” :)]
Comment by Michael — 21 July, 2008 @ 8:00 am
Too late to weigh in? I thought not.
It being Tish’a B’Av, big picture things are on my mind. In a response to a girl that quoted to me an article she happened to read telling Jews… well, this:
“when our emunah is dependant on the strength of our intellect, then we are dangerously exposed to thoughts and opinions of those who know how to present stronger arguments than we do, and our emuna is liable to be destroyed, G-d forbid. For that reason, the way of true Jewish emuna is the way of our forefathers- the simple and uncomplicated belief in Hashem that has been passed down in an unbroken chain from A, I & J.”
(Oy vey, I thought) I answered back something new that came to mind, of relevence to our discussion, if not directly answering the question: R’Bachya ibn Pequda in Hovoth HaLevavoth’s Haqdamah (intro) says it is an obligation on every man of sound mind to confirm and affirm their Judaism philosophically with his power of intellect; others such as children have the luxury of relying on the testimony of the previous generations.
Additionally, as Rambam very often influenced Shulhan Aruch and recommended emunah sheleimah, I wouldn’t be surprised to find the idea of challenging ones beliefs within the realm of actual halachah. Further, one must ‘know what to answer a heretic’ - Pirqei Avoth. This would imply being armed with the right knowledge in any particular intellecual battle. So if today the attack on Judaism comes from science, you would be obligated to know science. This would have interesting ramifications, of course, in places such as Bnei Brak. My full response to the girl can be found on my blog www.themindofmichael.com .
Comment by Mike — 10 August, 2008 @ 1:17 pm