• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Monotheism: a path to Godlessness?

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I've share the following elsewhere. Perhaps some of you will find value in it. It comes from a somewhat uneven little book by Douglass Rushkoff titled Nothing Sacred: The Truth About Judaism ...
Iconoclasm leads to the conclusion that any God must, ultimately, be a universal and nameless God. The natural result of settling for an abstract and unknowable deity is to then focus, instead, on human beings and life itself as the supremely sacred vessels of existence. There's no one around to pray to, so one learns to enact sanctity through ethical behavior. Iconoclasm destroys all man-made symbols and leads to abstract monotheism, which in turn leads to an ethos of social justice.

< -- snip -- >​

Jewish community became the new temple. The emerging talmudic law stressed that God was experienced differently by everybody. Accordingly, the Israelites who witnessed him "directly" at Mount Sinai each saw a different image of God. Likewise, wherever Jews prayed together, the spirit of God was present even though each person experienced him personally and uniquely. There was no longer any official doctrine on what God was. His name could no longer be pronounced; his meaning could no longer be conceived.

From then on, most Jewish thinkers have understood God more by what he is not than by whatever he is. Medieval philosopher Moses Maimonides developed what is now called "negative theology." God is not a creature. God has no hands, and neither does God have emotions. Since any positive attribute of God is "inadmissible," he can be referred to only in the negative. If we are to appreciate God, we must do so by contemplating the underlying order of the natural universe. God is in the beauty of the logic, the details. Maimonides understood that any fixed conception of God must also be a form of idolatry. Negative theology prevents Jews from going backward and reducing their abstract God to a particular image, concept, or icon. But what happens when one moves forward from there?

Let's push the envelope just a little further, along with the existentialist philosophers of the twentieth century: If God cannot be conceived in any way, if his existence is utterly out of reach of human systems of belief and intellect, then for all practical purposes he does not exist. The evolution of God -- from Abraham's fire-breathing warmonger through Moses' righteous savior and Isaiah's compassionate father to Philo's allegorical character in the human drama -- is from real, to the ethereal, to the inconceivable. This is why the spiritual crisis of the twentieth century, precipitated by the success of the scientific model and rationality that came with it, need not threaten one's spiritual foundations. As long as faith finds its foothold in something other than the authority of God or the testaments of those who claim to have encountered him, logic and spirituality are not at odds. God is just not something Jews are suppose to worry about.

In this light, abstract monotheism is not the process by which a people find the one true God, but the path through which they get over the need for him. Whether he exists or not, he is beyond human's perceptual reach or conceptual grasp. He is increasingly inaccessible and rendered effectively absent. This is no cause for sadness. Our continuing evolution beyond the need for a paternal character named God doesn't mean we have to become atheists; we might just as likely become pantheists, learning to see God in everything and everyone. For at each step along the way, the Jews' focus on an external master whose hunger they need to quell or whose edicts they need to obey is replaced by an emphasis on people's duty to one another.​
There is far more here than meets the eye, including an implicit critique of Chritianity which I believe to be fully warranted. But first and foremost is the wonderful observation that ...

abstract monotheism is not the process by which a people find the one true God,
but the path through which they get over the need for him


:clap​
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Rushkoff put a lot of thought into this. I don't recall ever having come across these exact ideas before. Thank you, Jay! This is one post I'll be re-reading.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
An interesting question, at least to me, is the extent to which Paul's Christianity and its deification of "Christ" represents a repudiation of this abstract monotheism and, as such, a philosophically reactionary/retrograde worldview.
 

Karl R

Active Member
Interesting essay.

Jayhawker Soule said:
An interesting question, at least to me, is the extent to which Paul's Christianity and its deification of "Christ" represents a repudiation of this abstract monotheism and, as such, a philosophically reactionary/retrograde worldview.
Rushkoff ties this trend to the destruction of the temple.

Paul's christianity began while the temple still stood. It's difficult to react to a circumstance before it happens.

However, if you're correct and this is a reactionary trend which is preemptively repudiates a coming trend, it opens up some extremely interesting questions.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I don't know enough about the Gnostic writings to make more than a guess here, but weren't some of those writings at least close to pantheism? If so, would they reflect the progression of abstract monotheism along its natural line of logic, while Paul reflects its regression in the deification of Jesus? Or, should I go back to sleep this morning and think about it all later when I'm rested?
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Sunstone said:
I don't know enough about the Gnostic writings to make more than a guess here, but weren't some of those writings at least close to pantheism?
Gnosticism had nothing to do with Pantheism. The latter takes the physical world and reframes it as God, while the former takes the physical world and denigrates it as evil which can be exposed and deposed only with the aid of esoteric knowledge.
 

Ody

Well-Known Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
abstract monotheism is not the process by which a people find the one true God,


but the path through which they get over the need for him



:clap​

Hasn't been the case for me.
 

Ody

Well-Known Member
AlanGurvey said:
Hasn't been the case for me.

I don't even see how it leads to atheism, after all a more abstract G-d only creates in my mind the higher probabilty of Deism.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
AlanGurvey said:
I don't even see how it leads to atheism, after all a more abstract G-d only creates in my mind the higher probabilty of Deism.
Or, perhaps more accurately, it creates an increasingly lower probability for anything other than a Deist God, a God-of-the-Gap, and one which is increasingly easy to dismiss altogether. Thanks for sharing ... ;)
 

Ody

Well-Known Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
Or, perhaps more accurately, it creates an increasingly lower probability for anything other than a Deist God, a God-of-the-Gap, and one which is increasingly easy to dismiss altogether. Thanks for sharing ... ;)

I have found arguements for deism actually to be quite interesting and not watery like other arguements about the divine.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
AlanGurvey said:
I have found arguements for deism actually to be quite interesting and not watery like other arguements about the divine.
Perhaps you should start a new thread ...
 

Ody

Well-Known Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
Perhaps you should start a new thread ...

Don't really have to it utilizes the two greatest arguements that are used when talking about the question "is there a G-d"

A)Complexity of nature
B)visible absurdity of society and the environment in regards to how it treats individuals.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Again, unless you're committed to derailing this thread, please consider raising your defense of deism elsewhere.
 

Ody

Well-Known Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
Again, unless you're committed to derailing this thread, please consider raising your defense of deism elsewhere.

Sorry for getting off topic :(
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Part I

My first question is somewhat off topic in this thread, but perhaps this is nevertheless the best place to raise it.

I've noticed that, if the author is correct, then abstract monotheism leads to most or all of the main values of the Western Englightenment, for instance:

"There's no one around to pray to, so one learns to enact sanctity through ethical behavior. Iconoclasm destroys all man-made symbols and leads to abstract monotheism, which in turn leads to an ethos of social justice."

In the absence of divine intervention (or new prophecies), what does one base this "ethical behavior" and "ethos of social justice" on if not reason and rationality? For to get agreement among people on what is ethical, one must resort to either force, bribes, or reason. And during the Western Enlightenment, as during the rise of Jewish Humanism, reason for once was the trump card. From a consensus that a rational social ethic is necessary, to a consensus that political, economic, and social liberty is humanely necessary is but a reasonable step.

Moreover, through negative theoloogy, we get:

"If we are to appreciate God, we must do so by contemplating the underlying order of the natural universe. God is in the beauty of the logic, the details."

Which, of course, is highly compatible with the rise of science.

So, here we seem to find in Jewish Humanism primal ideas of the Western Enlightenment. Reason, rationality; social, economic and political liberty; naturalism, science. I realize there are many sources for these values, including ancient Greek and Roman culture. But many sources for the same or similar values easily come together and reinforce each other. So I have questions about this.

First, am I way off base here? Is there any reason to believe that Jewish Humanism and other sources of Enlightenment values did not reinforce each other, or that Jewish Humanism was not a significant source of Enlightenment values? And if it was not a significant source of Englightenment values, how does one explain such Jewish thinkers as Spinoza and his influence on ethics? Or Maimonides and his earlier influence on Western theology and the philosophy of God?

Second, is there any evidence that Jewish Humanism influenced the Christian acceptance of the Enlightenment by providing to Christianity interpretations of deity (or the alleged will of deity) compatible with Enlightenment values? Has this question ever been explored by anyone? If so, who? And what did they come up with?

Third, I've heard it said (I can't recall where though) that the Western Enlightenment came late to European Jewry. That it was originally a Christian or former Christian movement, and only later was taken up by Judaism. Is there any truth to this? If so, is there a reason why it happened this way?

Forgive me for raising such speculative and off topic questions, but I've become as curious as the proverbial kitty about these things. I would at least like to know whether my questions have any merit, even if there are no answers to them.

Part II

This is closer to an on topic question (I am sure you are relieved to hear that): Christianity might be seen as a reversion from a pure abstract monotheism to an anthropormorphic deity. If so, does this account at least in part for the tendency among some Christians to rely on Biblical authority, rather than reason or other means, in establishing value? Does it have something to do with the insistance of some Christians that without God there is no meaning in life? Does it lead some Christians away from a focus on humanity to a focus instead on "Godliness"? Perhaps most importantly, does it create in some Christians a notion of deity that is so concrete they can become, as it were, emotionally dependent on that deity, rather than "getting over the need for God"? Would all of these things happen anyway, or does the anthropomorphism of Jesus Christ influence their happening?

My apologies for inflictin' on you, Jay, these hugely speculative questions that have been perculating up in me since first reading this thread. I would appreciate any guidance you can give me on them.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Forgive me, but it is too late for me to do credit to your post. I will try to address some of it tomorrow ...

Shabbat Shalom
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
Forgive me, but it is too late for me to do credit to your post. I will try to address some of it tomorrow ...

Shabbat Shalom

Not a problem at all. I'm a bit tired this evening myself.

Peace
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Sunstone said:
First, am I way off base here? Is there any reason to believe that Jewish Humanism and other sources of Enlightenment values did not reinforce each other, or that Jewish Humanism was not a significant source of Enlightenment values? And if it was not a significant source of Englightenment values, how does one explain such Jewish thinkers as Spinoza and his influence on ethics? Or Maimonides and his earlier influence on Western theology and the philosophy of God?

Second, is there any evidence that Jewish Humanism influenced the Christian acceptance of the Enlightenment by providing to Christianity interpretations of deity (or the alleged will of deity) compatible with Enlightenment values? Has this question ever been explored by anyone? If so, who? And what did they come up with?

Third, I've heard it said (I can't recall where though) that the Western Enlightenment came late to European Jewry. That it was originally a Christian or former Christian movement, and only later was taken up by Judaism. Is there any truth to this? If so, is there a reason why it happened this way?

< -- snip -- >​

Christianity might be seen as a reversion from a pure abstract monotheism to an anthropormorphic deity. If so, does this account at least in part for the tendency among some Christians to rely on Biblical authority, rather than reason or other means, in establishing value? Does it have something to do with the insistance of some Christians that without God there is no meaning in life? Does it lead some Christians away from a focus on humanity to a focus instead on "Godliness"? Perhaps most importantly, does it create in some Christians a notion of deity that is so concrete they can become, as it were, emotionally dependent on that deity, rather than "getting over the need for God"? Would all of these things happen anyway, or does the anthropomorphism of Jesus Christ influence their happening?
First, a general observation: Christianity is individual while Judaism is societal. Baruch A. Levine, in an article titled Biblical Concepts of Holiness, writes:
The Sifra conveys the concept of "otherness" in its comment to Lev. 19:2, which teaches that "you shall be holy" means "you shall be distinct [p'rushim tihyu]." This means that the people Israel, in becoming a holy nation, must preserve its distinctiveness from other peoples, This objective is epitoized in Exod. 19:6: "You shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation [goy kadosh]. This statement also conveys the idea, basic to biblical religion, that holiness cannot be achieved by individuals alone, no matter how elevated, pure, or righteous. It can be realized only through the life of the community, acting together.​
By "community", here, Levine is speaking, not of some sequestered sect, but of Society as a whole, and Society is predicated upon Law.

An article titled Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Law, Nahum M. Sarna compares Torah with a nuber of antecedents. He writes, in part:
THe affinities and analogues that abound between the Israelite and the other Near Eastern law collections tend to obscure the fundamental distinctions that exist between the two, a subject that must now be addressed. First and foremost is the essential fact that biblical law is the expression of the covenant between God and Israel. Several important consequences flow from this. The legal sections of the Torah cohere with the Exodus narratives and cannot be separated from them without losing their integrity and identity. Their sole source and sanction is divine will, not the wisdom and power of a human monarch. As imperatives of a transcendant, sovereign God who freely entered into a cobenanted relationship with His people, the laws are eternally binding on both the individual and society as a whole. Hence the public nature of the law. There can be no monopoly on the knowledge of the law, and the study of it is a religious obligation. Further, there can be no differentiation between the branches of public and private law and between both of them and religion and morality. All topics that fall under any of these rubrics are equally binding. Law is not severed from morality and religion.​
Judaism is about holy society and society is about humanity. This is a rife breeding ground for humanism. It is important to note, by the way, that this is not unique to Judaism. It is also true of Islam, and one should not forget about Ibn Rushd's infuence on Maimonides.

So, in an attempt to answer your questions:
  • the Enlightenment drew on all available resources;
  • Islam was a far more central conveyor belt - Judaism's influence on Christianity was severely mitigated by antisemitism;
  • Western Enlightenment arrived late to European Jewry because they were enclaved in the Pale of Settlement;
  • as noted above, while Judaism is societal Christianity is individual/personal (almost narcissistic), but any movement is capable of developing a backward, fundamentalist component.
I've rambled enough. Sorry if I've failed to definitively answer your questions, but I hope I've given you some more to think about. Good Shabbas.
 
Top