Some Goy: Did you just say religious Jews can be atheist and agnostic? LOL what an idiot you are! These things are incompatible! You cannot be a religious person and believe in “reason”!
Me, a religious agnostic Jew:
How does this work, though? How is a person religious if they don’t believe in a god? Is this like people who say they’re “spiritual but not religious”?
Agnostic, sure, but atheist is the direct opposite of religious. If you want to get pedantic sure, you could say one can be religious an not theist, but that’s not not what “atheist” has come to mean.
@warpedellipsis – Actually it is the exact opposite of “spiritual but not religious” it is more like “religious but not spiritual”- Judaism focuses pretty heavily on “doing” and as long as you are doing the religion then you are a religious Jew- anything else is actually pretty irrelevant.
There’s even a fairly well known story about three rabbis who stayed late into the night arguing over whether God exists and eventaully come to the conclusion that all evidence is against it and God does not exist. The next day one of the rabbis sees the others heading to shul and exclaims, “I thought we concluded that God does not exist!” and the other two reply, “yes, but what does that have to do with anything?”
Aah well, in that sense.
That’s still a rather weird and controversial definition of atheist tho. Makes a bit more sense, but also why would you follow the teachings if you are an atheist?
I always thought the definition for atheist was “does not believe in God” so that seems to fit the definition of atheist to me?
There’s actually another story that involves a priest asking an atheist rabbi why he would live with so many restrictions if he does not believe- unfortunately I do not remember the conclusion to that one. So I have to offer my rather bland response-
They do so because they are Jewish. And I guess also because Judaism is a religion of doing– the specifics of what you believe about it are there to be debated- which includes the nature of God- which also includes whether or not he exists- and it doesn’t seem odd that some people would come down on the “he doesn’t” side?
I think in an opposite manner Christianity is a religion based on”belief” with a specific core doctrine that your belief in determines whether you are Christian or not. I don’t think Judaism has anything like that.
Ok, let’s put it like this then:
Technically an atheist is “someone who does not believe in God”.
Technically, fruits are “developed from the ovary in the base of the flower and contain the seeds of the plant”.
Is a practicing religious person that does not believe in God an atheist? Technically yes.
Is a tomato a fruit? Technically yes.
Yet, I suspect you would be at least a bit confused if I offer you fruit salad and then I bring you this:
So I don’t think it’s unreasonable for someone to be confused if you say you are an atheist when you’re a practicing religious person.
This is actually a great analogy, because in Korean cuisine, tomato salads absolutely are associated with fruit salad, thus proving that the issue here is not Judaism’s relationship with atheism, but actuallyyour own refusal to accept or understand that your cultural framework is not standard or universal.
Koreans put tomatoes in fruit salad. Reconciling Judaism and atheism is not “confusing” for Jewish people. You just don’t get the fundamental concept of cultural difference, because you can’t see past your own specific worldview.
Thanks for illustrating your own ignorance so beautifully and succinctly!
@dadhoc says that Judaism “believes in a maximum of one God.”
I like that definition.
So this is really important stuff for all faiths. Christianity after it was co-opted by the empire is a completely different animal from the original followers of the Way. Jesus never said ‘believe in me,’ (John doesn’t count because the real Jesus was a Jewish wisdom teacher who taught in aphorisms and parables, not long Greek style orations) but 87 times he said “follow me” that is ‘do what I do’. The JOB of the disciple is to know what the rabbi knows and do what the rabbi does. The parts of Christianity all wrapped up in believing the right things have completely lost the plot.
I can’t believe I’m quoting an epistle, but this bit of James is pretty much the proof that Christianity is also intended to be about doing: James1:22-25 But be doers of the word, and not merely hearers who deceive themselves. For if any are hearers of the word and not doers, they are like those who look at themselves in a mirror; for they look at themselves and, on going away, immediately forget what they were like. But those who look into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and persevere, being not hearers who forget but doers who act—they will be blessed in their doing.
I’m pretty sure you could follow Jesus without believing in God, I certainly know plenty of Christian clergy who are agnostic at best…
dadhoc’s definition of Judaism is brilliant and at least for me works for Christianity too.
Thanks for this discussion, because I feel like Christian-influenced thought (maybe cultural more than the actual theology, which tends to weigh results more carefully) prioritizes feeling over action, not just in religious matters but in social behaviour; and I think that can lead to people guilting themselves for either (a) doing the right thing, but not feeling as enthusiastic about it as they think they ought to, or (b) refraining from doing the wrong thing, but having felt the temptation in the first place. Like, from the point of view of the person you helped/refrained from harming, you *did* do good, so there’s no point in privately beating yourself up for not having done it without thinking twice.
I think there’s a clip somewhere on this site of a civil-rights activist, possibly Jame Baldwin, replying to the “but changing the law won’t change the bigots’ hearts” caveat with “I’m pretty ok with them hating me in their hearts as long as they can’t hurt me irl.”
(and as a hyper-self-conscious person this gave me years of wondering if I was capable of a sincere emotion because part of me was always mentally watching myself, and surely if I was *really* sincere, all my feelings would be completely dilute and unquestioning; I was like one of those characters in, say, a Hawthorne or a Wilde story who trap themselves in completely internal moral labyrinths, like “I love this person, but the moment I tell them, doesn’t that make it on some level a performance, and therefore fake?”)
Mooncustafer 