Eliade vs. Durkheim; Sacred Foundation of Religion

The premise of this article is that Eliade and Durkheim each had a different definition, characterization, and interpretation of the word "sacred" and their divergent opinions of religion center on this dichotomy. 

Critique and Notes

      Historian and philosopher Mircea Eliade developed a distinct perspective on religion. Eliade's definition of the concept of sacred diverges from the opinion of 19th century French sociologist David Émile Durkheim. Through exploring and elaborating each scholar's interpretation we will understand their distinctive worldview. To better understand each philosophical position we will also discuss the key ways the two theories come into conflict.
Mircea Eliade and Durkheim explore the divergent perspectives on religion.
Mircea Eliade argues that a profane world is a world that has been desacralized, in which transcendent spiritual meaning has been stripped from the cosmos and therefore has no meaning to it other than what can be seen in its plain natural form. The western wall, for example, would be no different to the wall President Trump wants to build on the southern border of the United States. However, a sacred object or place contains holiness while still retaining the original physical qualities of its natural form. For this reason Eliade argues that sacred is the opposite of profane. If the natural world did not have the ability to manifest the divine through nature then there would be nothing more to the natural world that we could see. Without the understanding of sacred as transcendent to the profane religion would be irrational and opposite to nature.
Eliade points out that whether a person is  religious or not, one needs to consider the bigger role played by the cosmos in order to occupy a space. With this understanding of sacred, our physical world is symbolic, It serves as a parallel for the spiritual experiences each person experiences in their effort to create a connection with god. Elaide coined the term spiritual hierophany to describe the ability to connect to a higher spiritual plane through the mundane. Therefore spiritual rituals are repeated and high value is given to sacred spaces. Eliade primarily draws examples from  the three monotheistic faiths; Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, because in  these religions there are many  cosmological rituals and many places consecrated as a sacred space.
The Torah scroll in the Jewish religion is covered every moment in which it is not actively being used for worship, and a covering is gracefully placed on top even during the five minute break in the reading during which blessings are recited. These ritualistic behaviors reinforce the idea of dignity through concealment. In accordance with the same concept of modesty, the human body isn’t covered because it is ugly, rather to retain dignity; so too the scroll isn’t ugly, and it is not that the Jewish people don’t want to share the beauty of the Torah. The mission is to keep the Torah meaningful and holy. If the Torah were to be paraded on the streets it will degrade the value that is inherent in it. This is a very abstract idea of privacy, therefore these rituals are practiced to make them concrete. Even though scroll is just animal skin written with ink it holds an enormous value because it is the written word of God, the physical symbol of the sacred the gift that God gave the Jewish people on Mount Sinai.
      Durkheim argues that religion is about security and people take spiritual action in pursuit of security , which seems to be “sacred”. These collective rituals develop an emotional association that expresses itself through religious devotion. Considering the dependency on religious symbolism for a sense of stability, whatever is holy is protected in society by a taboo. What society holds to be sacred is that which was deemed to be special, therefore it should be treated with respect. An example of this superstition is a Churinga. A Churinga is an object that- is protected and should only be seen by men; women and children are excluded from the viewing experience. It is not inherently sacred only acquires status as “sacred” when surrounded by taboo. A Churinga becomes holy by carrying the totem that bears the family name. Durkheim argues that religion is about social order and only exists to turn individuals into a group; it is a way people commit themselves to become part of a group. In Durkheim's worldview a deity is not a necessary component of religion. Although Durkheim relates a cynical perspective of religion he does concede that religion gives people a sense of order to the world. Religion teaches people how to look at the world, therefore, he opines, religious doctrines discuss their belief regarding the beginning of the world as this relates to the origin of ceremony and tradition of belief itself.
  Most things we come across in life are quite ordinary. The everyday things people do in their everyday life such as drive a car, go to work and check their email. The routine aspects of our day to day existence can easily  be distinguished from the sacred. As Durkheim states, these things are profane. However, we consider some things to be sacred. These are things we set apart as extraordinary and worthy of inspiring awe and reverence. Building a Sukkah for the Feast of Tabernacles, reading the Torah, and paying respect as the gravestone of a great sage are all  considered to be sacred. Religion in this case is a social institution involving beliefs and practices based on recognizing the sacred. Equally important, as part of the social institution of religion, are the rituals that are considered formal ceremonial activities that center on recognizing the sacred.

Eliade and Durkheim agree that a sacred object retains an essence of the original quality of physical reality in a natural world. However, the key difference between the two philosophies is that Eliade argues that  sacred means the physical transcended its nature while retaining its physical characteristic whereas Durkheim believes that no value is added other than a social construct fictionalized by a superstitious society.

Erikson vs. Freud; Theology vs. Empiricism (Religion vs. Science)

Sigmund Freud and Erik Erikson are two psychologists who disagreed on the value of religion for human civilization. Freud argued that religion is a corrosive influence on society because it is rooted in fantasy; whereas Erikson believed that religion provides an important framework and order for life. A 2010 Pew Research study estimated that 5.9 billion people claim affiliation to an organized religious group.  If Freud's theory is correct 84% of the world population is engaged in wishful thinking. Could it be possible that a majority of society are immature and childish? 
In his book, The Future of an Illusion, Freud discusses the destructive nature of human beings and the need to find a way to coerce people to overcome their laziness and impulses.  His perspective on religion is built on his theory of the id, the ego and the superego. He also discusses the primal need for people to find comfort and feel the illusion of control when facing the harsh realities of life. When still a child a person first turns to his mother, then later on, his father, to solve his problems and protect him. This emotional craving for reassurance and comfort persists with a person throughout his life; and in the absence of a father, people turn to religion. Religion and its associated moral precepts can also serve as a motivation for the work and impulse control that is needed for the functioning and continued preservation of society. Religious ideas inform people on the most important issues in life. However, Freud opines that religion is merely an illusion rooted in wishful thinking. Moreover, whereas statements made in other aspects of life can be questioned and even proven, religion is often accompanied with dogmatism. Questioning the tenets of religion is often met with negative consequences. Instead, belief in religious principles rests on inherited tradition and assumptions of proof that are also passed down from previous generations.
Freud believed that human society progressed through science, not religion; and that science and religion were mortal enemies. Due to the advancements in science such as technology and medicine, religion will become less and less relevant. Instead of turning to an imaginary g-d for help with an illness or preparation for a natural disaster, practical solutions will be found in scientific discoveries. It is for this reason Freud asserts that religion can be a destructive force as it can convince someone to be lazy and avoid pursuing real solutions to his problems and taking the necessary steps to improve his life and the world he lives in.
Erik Erikson critiques Freud's beliefs of religion from a psychoanalytic point of view. Erikson argued that Freud’s misunderstanding of religion results from his misunderstanding of the human mind. While he respects the premise Freud’s theory of the human mind, he believes it is truncated and ignores many aspects of human capacity. Erikson refutes Freud's assertion that religion is a vacuous illusion. There are many variables that influence the formation of religious beliefs. These include social influences, interpersonal interactions and creative innovation. Religious symbols cannot be reduced to simplistic psychic phenomena because they invariably express multiple meanings that transcend even unconscious experiences.
Erikson directly challenges Freud's claim that religion is childish and anti-social. Religion offers a greater meaning and internal motivation for self-control. A comprehensive religious worldview in this regard is not limited to those of the Judeo-Christian tradition, rather, secular ideologies such as humanism and rationalism can also serve to provide stability in life and a moral guide for ethical behavior.
Erikson recognizes the connection of human maturation to the development of trust; the ability to both trust oneself and to trust the world one lives in. With this understanding of human nature religion plays a significant role in the human psyche. Religion provides a framework for a mature trust in life that, unlike an infantile trust, is a faith that takes into account the alienations and anxieties that are discovered throughout childhood and adult life. Erikson's definition of religion is a worldview that is developed or exists with societal confirmation that  inspires aspirations and motivation and contains a comprehensive ideological system that can help its adherents to overcome adversity and support both individual sense of identity and a collective or group identity.
According to Freud’s interpretation of religion majority of society structure their lives around a false sense of reality. Erikson’s disagreement with Freud is not based on theological grounds, instead, his positive opinion of religion stems from his deeper understanding of human psychology. Considering the Pew Research study in 2010, the majority of society have not come to regard religion as irrelevant in their lives as Freud predicted. However, noted scientists and atheist thinkers, such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, continue to educate the public on the growing role of science in the development of human civilization. They agree with Freud that the reliance on religion and its influence on the progress of society will diminish over time with the advancement of science.

Opium of the Masses, Product of the Oppressed; Karl Marx on Religion

Karl Marx, a 19th century German philosopher, stated that  “religion is the opium of the people,” as meaning that religion is an escape mechanism; a buffer against reality allowing people to escape into a world of illusion. Perhaps even Marx would have agreed with the concept behind this interpretation, however, this does not capture what Marx was conveying when he initially wrote the quote, during his exploration of the role and effect of religion on society. Greater insight into the original intent can be understood when reading the quote in its larger context. “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world….. And the soul of soulless conditions it is the opium of the people…. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.” Marx did not claim religion to be a pain-killer, rather, he is calling religion the product of the oppressed people, where people project their needs and desires onto an idealized existence.
Factory workers in Europe in the 19th  century couldn't achieve happiness in their ordinary real life. Therefore, for Marx religion has a social function distracting people away from their appreciation into thinking that their state is somehow the natural order of things. Instead of what it really was the status qual being maintained by elite powerful man.
Instead of asking if “religion is not the opium of the people” it can be asked as is religion oppressive something that conservatively holds back social change and maintains the state's que or is religion a liberating force something that subvert the status quo and encourages social change.
Does religion uphold and maintain the status quo? Yes. Some aspects of religion are inherently conservative and resistant to social change; religious adherents have a vested interest in the continuity of tradition and are therefore committed to the mission of passing along their beliefs and rituals to the next generation. This tendency towards conformity has oftentimes caused allowed religion to be abused and used as a tool to justify illegitimate political power; for example, when a king proclaimed his rule to be divinely mandated, or when a ruler leads his country to battle claiming that he is engaging in a holy war that was inspired by God. With both of the examples above we can recognize that religion has legitimating  power, a power which is seen around the world, across a wide variety of cultures .
Religion can also be used as a means for social control. Public shaming, shaming individuals from deviating from social rules, or discouraging people from acting out of line, can inhibit social change. Marx claimed that religion can discourage social change, and therefore the upper classes of society have often used religion as the means with which to retain power and maintain control over society. However, religion and society are very complex, therefore, religion is not the only force holding back societal change. In fact, there are many times in history where religion was the catalyst for social change and the driving force that was able to subvert the status quo.
In an ostensibly contradictory manner, the author writes that “capitalist society, as a two-class system of an exploiting and an oppressed class, has social alienation in its very heart”. Evidently, the source of tension exists at the very core of society. So close is it to the core, that one can consider it to be at the heart. Marx conceives of the heart of a heartless society as religion, rendering it incompatible with reality as it is. Encouraging the oppressed to recognize their circumstances, Marx believed that religion must be acknowledged as a root of alienation, rather than one of hope.

Tillich vs. Freud; Theoretical Analysis of Theology

Outline
Notes

Paul Tillich was a German-American Christian existentialist philosopher and Lutheran Protestant theologian who lived from 1886-1965. He argued that, regardless of one’s awareness of it or not, all people are religious. To him, religion was not the belief in a deity of some sort, but is something that is so important to them that they would sacrifice even their lives for it. In this way, religion answers the question of the meaning of life, because everyone has something that makes them exist and he labels this “religion.”  His ultimate concern is that one is obligated to obey the demands of their religion in order to reap the rewards. In the Judeo-Christian religion, eternal life, joy, peace, and a relationship with god are promised to those who obey the ten commandments, worship God and keep the faith. His faith is the background behind his primary critique of the Freudian worldview, which is that Freud's anti-religious dogmatism led him to ignore this basic human yearning that only religion can answer. In his eyes, Freud was therefore limited to the narrow prism that people only fear death and any other anxiety is infantile or neurotic, and religion is an illusion to deal with the world.
Tillich’s condescending view of Freud’s theories of anti-religionism stems from his belief of how religion was relevant to the rise of the Nazi Party and World War II in Germany. Tillich was raised in Germany, and saw the beginnings of the Holocaust from the German side. He witnessed Jewish people lose their jobs, their homes, their lives, and their freedom because of their devotion to the Jewish religion. During the Holocaust, the Jewish people kept their faith despite being tortured for it because it was what made their lives meaningful. Tillich also witnessed many Christians who believed that to be true to their faith, they had to protect and support the Jews. These Christians hid Jews away and helped save them, even though most of the Germans around them were persecuting those who aided the Jews. In this way, the helpful Germans were more devoted to the values of their faith than to being Christian alongside their neighbors. He also saw the Nazis sacrifice their personal beliefs, integrity and values for the sake for the party. They lived for the party, and even though we look down upon their actions, Tillich witnessed that their beliefs really did fuel their controversial actions.
The question is, why did so many people in Germany interpret their religion to allow them to kill other humans, while some German Christians aided the Jews and other persecuted people? Freud believes that religion is only for unhealthy people, and maybe unhealthy people make weak decisions. Freud argues that religion was an illusion, yet it is important for those dysfunctional people for multiple reasons: to give consolation to create faith that God will do what is right, to give requirements by setting boundaries, to give rewards, to guarantee that you will be provided for, and to give answers about the origin of people and the meaning of existence. However, according to Freud, this develops during childhood because of childhood neurosis that prevents a child from getting a good handle on reality.
      To break Tillich’s arguments down, both an axiological and ontological approach can be used. An axiological perspective is a philosophical study of the value of an action. Tillich’s  axiological view of religion is his understanding of the value of religion and using this approach, it can be seen that the value of religion outweighs other values and is the ultimate concern. Ontology, the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations fuels Tillich’s understanding of religion and how religion informs the meaning of existence. Tillich claim that religion is an intrinsic part of the creation the world around every person and is not an illusion, as Freud deems it, but a part of every person’s worldview.
The difference between Freud and Tillich is that Freud sees religion only in theological and doctrinal terms and in psychological terms of what people think, therefore, it is not valid, but Tillich sees religion in ontological terms and in axiological terms as how it describes human behaviour both individually and on a group level. It provides an argument that religion has little to do with a dysfunctional childhood and is an intrinsic part of how the human mind creates its values.

A Heart in Heartless World; Karl Marx's Theory on Theology

As the famed revolutionary career began, Marx articulated what would become the founding notion of his theory: “‘Man makes religion, religion does not make man’”. Although at the time the concept itself was not groundbreaking, the context in which it was said began the greatest change of social development the world had ever experienced. In effect, Marx solicited the uprising of any oppressed group of people by allowing them to take ownership of their lives. He freed them from the compulsion to accept the yolk of divinely ordained circumstances by being the occasion to their triumph over oppression. “Religion,” wrote Marx, “is the heart of a heartless world…” Religion is not itself evil; it is only in the heartless world that it is the greatest catalyst of oppression.

        Although the author initially excerpts the most famous (or perhaps infamous) quote of Marx, he resolves that it must be understood in its complete context: “Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”

Most crucial to appreciating Marx’s depth is recognizing his sensitivity to religion’s essence. Religion is a response to an overwhelming circumstance. Dominated by the upper class, the Bourgeoisie faces an inescapable dilemma of conforming to the will of their superiors. Without the means to protest their oppressors, this group of people embraces religion as a way of coping with their suffering. Thus, Marx called religion a “reflection,” “reflex,” and “superstructure” of the real world. In any society, the group that is treated secondarily can utilize religious perspective to justify the unfairness of their circumstances. From the outset, this group hasn't had a chance to create an ideology of self-creation, since it is stifled by the reality of its situation as second class citizens. Marx did not have a disdain for religion. Yet, he disliked the fact that religious perspective caused people to accept their downtrodden situations. Thusly, “he was not an anti-theist, but a critic of the reactionary social role that religion plays in supporting an exploitative social system”. It is religion’s functionality as a scape-goat from confronting reality that deems it negative.

        Furthermore, Marx explains how the specifics aspects of religion promote an illusion of light in the dark work. As heaven—a realm independent and superior to the earth—is central to the Christian consciousness, Marx believed that it is a “duplicate world… the sort of duplicate to be found in a mirror which inverts the object it is reflection”. When one attaches himself to the notion of heaven, he can recreate his experiences on earth to reflect his self-imposed imaginary reality. Thus, Marx explains, “the sufferings of earth are reversed in the expectation of heavenly bliss; or, human suffering is said to be ultimately caused by God’s punishment of sin, whereas in reality that suffering results from the oppression and exploitation of human beings.” Through a subtle but definitive thrust, Marx dilutes the foundation on which religion stands, highlighting its reliance upon an illusory reality. Man needs religion in order to cope with his horrendous conditions. Marx believed that, while “religion may be illusory and self-defeating response to human problems…it is not an accidental nor pointless illusion”. In this way, religion is the heart of the world—heartless or not—since “the proletariat takes religious opium in response to actual pain”.

        In an ostensibly contradictory manner, the author writes that “capitalist society, as a two-class system of an exploiting and an oppressed class, has social alienation in its very heart”. Evidently, the source of tension exists at the very core of society. So close is it to the core, that one can consider it to be at the heart. Tautological with religion, Marx conceives of the heart of a heartless society as religion, rendering it incompatible with reality as it is. Encouraging the oppressed to recognize their circumstances, Marx believed that religion must be acknowledged as a root of alienation, rather than one of hope. 

Nachamu - V'Etchanan #BibleInsights

This weekend I had been planning to edit an article that I've written a few weeks back that discusses strong support for the State of Israel from Evangelical Christians based in South Korea. South Korea Shalom Jerusalem.

 A large part of their inspiration to stand behind the Jewish people is from the verse in the prophets (Isaiah 40:1-2) in which G-d, tells the prophet: "Nachamu," comfort the Jewish people; for although the exile will be long and difficult, the Temple will one day be rebuilt and the Jews will return home. A representative from this group shared an interesting interpretation of this verse to mean that G-d was commanding the other nations: "Go console and care for my people. Help them and heal them from the suffering they have endured."

With this on my mind, it seemed wrong to miss out on the opportunity to hear the Haftarah reading in shul, precisely this prophecy was read in the synagogue this Shabbat. G-d sent me so many signs to remind me of his presence in this choice. First of all, there was a Bar Mitzvah in the shul, so there was extra joy in the service, the candy throwing "Aufruf" ceremony, and the opportunity to wish the Birthday boy's mother "Mazel Tov," and rejoice in her Simcha. The Torah portion itself was also very inspiring, although not directly related to the Haftarah.

The Parsha (weekly Torah portion) started with Moshe pleading to G-d to allow him to enter the land of Israel. It's hard to understand the desperation of man who saw heaven and conversed with angels to enter a land I get to live in everyday. I love Israel, but I somehow get the sense there must be so much more to this place that I have not even begin to imagine. Considering all the disagreements about what the State of Israel means politically and religiously, both within and without Judaism, for a moment, all that becomes irrelevant. Even if Israel would suffer a catastrophic attack, or if the Jewish people will again become scattered across the globe - for this moment in time - I live an experience that Moses, and many Rabbis in subsequent generations only dreamed and yearned for. In this moment I thank G-d for the privilege.

Another theme I have been thinking of that feels connected here, is the idea of living in this land being a greater experience to Moses than even the experience of being in Heaven with G-d; the latter experience was not enough for him. It would seem that a certain level of spiritual fulfillment and pleasure could only be obtained through the effort and the journey here on Earth.

Some people have a theory that the World to Come is the Ultimate, the ultimate goal and the ultimate location. To reach heaven.
To put it simply, Classic Christian theology teaches that abstinence from physical pleasures of this world will lead to rewards of spiritual pleasure in the world to come. Islamic traditions guide a path to physical pleasure in the world to come. Even Jewish literature is sometimes misinterpreted as the world to come being the highest value. "This world is an entranceway to the world to come, prepare yourself in the lobby so you can enter the main ballroom."

However, heaven is never once explicitly mentioned in the Five Books of Moses, rather, the text focuses on all manner of physical and spiritual behavior and thought here on this earth. In the book" Ethics of Our Fathers" it is said that one moment of repentance and good deeds in this world yields a greater pleasure than the pleasure  that could be amassed in all of eternity in the world to come.

Synchronicity can be found between these two dichotomies and understood through several theoretical frameworks and the process of philosophical analysis.

One way to explain is through an analogy. Consider that you are playing a video game. Of course your goal is to reach and conquer the highest level, but while on level three, for example, all your focus and concern is on that level. In that moment, level four is irrelevant. Yet the joy of the game is having a purpose, a path, a destination and a goal. One serves the other. When we reach the world to come: when we die, as all people one day will, or in the the times of Messiah, when we will rise from the dead, in that time, the past years of trials will recede to the background as the enormity of G-d's love and salvation will overpower everything else. We also have that end time destination as out goal to strive for and to hope for in the hear and now. Yet right now in this moment, this life is not just our focus, it is our ultimate location to be.

I once read a Medrash about Moshiach Ben Yosef, who is believed will come before Moshiach Ben Dovid. He asked G-d for life, not to live in the flesh, as even a tiny insect does, but to live in the heart of each Jew through the exile. He wanted the Jews, and humanity as a whole, to live with hope and joy, in the exile. Hope there will be a redemption, joy in the pursuit of purpose and comfort that in this moment we are exactly where we are supposed to be. Tisha B'av, the time for mourning, is over, and now we can allow ourselves to fully embrace the now, without reservations or hesitations.

Another interesting concept that specifically contrasts with the idea of this world being insignificant in comparison to heaven, is the teaching taught to me by Rabbi Eliyahu Ellis that refutes the premises of Christianity and Islam of forfeiting worldly pleasure in the hope of heavenly pleasure in another lifetime:

Judaism is a guide for how to create heaven, here on Earth.

 On Erev Shabbat, the first of creation, G-d created a beautiful, yet hidden, light. It is our job here on earth to claw away the darkness so the light can be revealed. Alex Epstien, a philosopher who combats the dogma of global alarmists, advocates for a world view where humans are not a destructive force on the world, rather, to understand that through creativity and ingenuity we invent solutions and advancements that make the world safer, cleaner and better. Think of all the advancements in medicine; we have total cures today for diseases that once seemed insurmountable such as several cancers, pneumonia, and Hypo plastic Left Heart Syndrome, and we are closer than ever to cures for diseases such as HIV, Alzheimers, and Osteogenesis Imperfecta. We have developed the technology to recycle and desalinize water, call internationally for free or pennies, we soar the skies, and some have even traveled to space. With regard to Tikun Olam (the mandate to fix the world, some translate this as "Social Justice") it is clear that man's purpose is to develop and fix a broken world and become a part of creation. Moshiach is the promise that when the journey is arduous and the effort seems futile; in the end, light will conquer darkness and the human spirit will triumph.

There is a story of a Jewish boy in the Ghetto that illustrates this point. Passover Eve, with all his family except him and his dad having perished, he asked his Father, can I ask you a fifth question? (Following the traditional "Four Questions".)

"Will I survive another year and be here next Passover seder to ask you the Four Questions, and will you be here to answer them?"

The father honestly answered, "I don't know. But I will promise you this: next Passover, there will be somewhere in the world a Jewish boy who will ask his father the Four Questions, and his father will be there to answer them."

Dr. Jordan Peterson often says that the joy of meaning is necessary to offset the tragedy that is life. To me it seems he has it backwards. The joy of meaning is found precisely within the tragedy of life. The struggle of each individual and in partnership with the whole of humanity, and the creator of all, is where we find ourselves connecting to a larger and eternal mission. "Tikun Olam, the mandate to fix the world, presumes the world will be broken."

A few more words on this week's Parsha:

The Ten Commandments were told again. We stand for this part of the Torah Reading.

In this week's Pasha we also read the Shema prayer, declaring a belief in one unified incorporeal G-d. In this chapter is the commandment to teach the next generation. When you know you have a legacy and a mission, it becomes vital to pass this on to children and grandchildren who can carry on the legacy and bring the mission to completion. The Torah does not use the verb למד,  rather the root שננ, ושננתם. Teaching should be an active and interactive process, if sharing information, listening to questions and creating a living, breathing, back and forth dialogue. During a dispute between sages of the Talmud, one Rabbi stated, "לא בשמים היא." The Torah is not in heaven. G-d gave us the Torah so that we can live it in our lives and our hearts and teach our children to do the same.

The Thirteen Attributes of G-d are listed and enumerated in this Parsha. Beyond human understanding, G-d is one unified entity that we can experience through various different attributes. This is the Middot Moses was taught to use to intercede on behalf of the Jewish people, yet here, in Moses request, he was told, "Stop praying." G-d reassured Moses a much greater reward and a greater plan was yet to come.

Every time the Torah is read, when it is returned to the Aron Kodesh, the parishioners declare: "This is the Torah that Moses placed before the children of Israel."

This verse is found in Parshat V'etchanan: Chapter 4, verse 44.

Bibliography:

The concept of אור גנוז, hidden light, is from a lecture by Shira Sharfstein, Co-director of Chabad of Downtown Universities in Atlanta, Georgia.
The Elixir to Eternal Youth: Torah Perspectives

I first discovered Alex Epstien's unique style of articulating a positive, pro-human worldview on The Rubin Report.

The last quote is creditied to the creators of Grey's Anatomy - it was said by a character in the epiode "One Day Like This" season 14, episode 17.

Alex Epstien  Humanism vs. Materialism

For years, I wrestled with conflicting doctrines of how to understand fundamental aspects of life on earth. From vaccines and antibiotics, to the morality of work over volunteerism. Was it a blessing when a new apartment complex was built in my neighborhood? If it blocks the view of the mountain from my porch, that is annoying; but what if it isn’t? Should I morally be sad that a mountainful of trees were chopped down? Psychologically, would a status quo finally make me feel like my feet are on the ground or would it be invigorating to finally embrace the reality of being part of an ever changing landscape?

Having a coherent philosophical framework through which to consider each situation, task, and choice; is like wearing the right prescription glasses. For me, however, hearing this interview on youtube, was like a hiker, lost in the woods, who finally found a compass.

God in its Essence

Is G-d a "him," a "her," or an "it?"



Presented below is a screenshot of a twitter conversation between Charlie Kirk and I on this topic. Charlie Kirk is an Evangelical Christian who has become well known on account of his political activism. In his professional capacity he refrains from engaging in theological debate, whereas, on his personal social media platform he remains authentic to his beliefs. Longer explanations would be unnecessary, as the image speaks for itself.

Expanding on this thread, here are a few thoughts that come to mind.

G-d is not merely real, G-d is REALITY.

The ultimate pursuit of Truth is the quest to understand nature of G-d.

G-d is a power beyond human comprehension. G-d is the spirit of the world, the spring of creation.

G-d describes himself in anthropomorphic terms so that we can grasp a glimpse of his being and connect to him in our lives; in what we do and in who we are. However,

G-d is unique, neither physical nor spiritual, the Creator of both the physical and the spiritual worlds.

Maimonides, in the 3rd of the thirteen principles of faith states that "G-d is not a human being, has no human body characteristics and has no human organs or limitations."

When I shared these thoughts with a friend who has limited background in Hebrew or study of the Bible in its original language she asked:

In Hebrew, what is the personal pronoun of "G-d," masculine, feminine or inanimate, such as "it"?

I responded:

"In the Bible and scripture, G-d takes on the form of many morphological, semantic and syntax structures. G-d is not limited to one form or attribute; G-d is multidimensional, and therefore is describes in many ways. When ascribing to the feminine expression of his being, G-d is described in the feminine form, such as in the word, שכינה - Shechina, "The Holy Presence. " Other times we experience G-d in masculine attributes, for example, א-ל ש-די kel shaka, G-d is described in masculine attributes, and thus the name and pronoun assumes the masculine form."

Paraphrasing Rabbi Motty Berger from Aish Hatorah, "G-d is the source and proof of dignity and divinity in Man, the reason and cause for human beings' ability for self-control to rise above their animal nature and pursue greatness. Therefore, denying the existence of G-d is not a sin against G-d it is a crime against humanity." It seems to me, therefore, that it is not enough to declare that G-d is real, but to understand what impact the existence of G-d has on this world in which he placed us and onto the nature of how he made us be. This knowledge is the compass that guides our way and the road-map in all we do, bringing us back to the original counterpoint: the imperative to know in G-d to the extent in which G-d is revealed to us. Gaining knowledge of the creation through recognition, respect and intimacy with the creator.

Well whatever does that mean, and how on Earth do we do that?

Ben Shapiro, once declared, "I don't  just love G-d, and serve G-d, I know in G-d." So to say, living with an awareness of G-d is living my truth, though he hates that phrase. It's what he breathes and how he perceives. When question as to the accuracy of his statement, Ben clarified that he is no prophet. He does not KNOW G-d, as no human could know G-d, yet he knows in G-d insofar as G-d is knowable. In study there is a distinction between absolute knowledge and deductive knowledge. Absolute knowledge is that I have ten fingers and ten toes. Deductive knowledge informs me that if my fingers wiggled to my command yesterday, barring an accident or illness, the same would be true of my fingers tomorrow, or another example, the direction the sun rose and set yesterday is the directions in which it will do so today. It is through the manner in which G-d sends us signs and symbols of his existence and the Human intellect with which we have been blessed, we can deduce the following:

"If something can't come from nothing, and before there was something, there was nothing, then that nothing must be G-d."

Thank you to Rabbi Yom Tov Glaser, Dr. Gerald Schroeder, Rabbi Dov Ber Cohen and Rabbi Neckameyer, from Yeshivas Aish Hatorah for some of the thoughts and ideas taught in their lectures that helped contribute to this article.

A note to Christian and other non-Jewish followers of this blog: This article follows Jewish teachings and opinion. However, consider that Judaism is the source and origins of Christianity. It is my belief that, although this article contradicts core tenets of your faith, you can gain and benefit from study and knowledge of the information shared.  Additionally, Europe and the West was founded on the influence of Greek philosophy and biblical roots. The key to building a strong future is maintaining a connection to the source.

I welcome debate and discussion both in the comments section of my blog and via email. In fact, I hope this article will not be seen as a finished product, but as a springboard for conversation regarding the meaning and purpose of life.

I love music, so I have included the lyrics of a song related to this topic.

Where is G-d? song by Lawson Bates

“Who is G-d” based on a song by Lawson Bates

Some may wonder, who is the g-d of Israel?

they say we've never seen him,

so how are we to know?

Just take a look at this homeward road i'm travelling,
you will see a mighty G-d

everywhere i go.

He is the eye of the storm,

the bottom of my ocean,

the morning and the midnight

in every wind that blows.

The top of my mountain,

the lowest of my valleys

Who is g-d?

He's the essence of my soul.

three hebrew children

bound to have met a fiery furnace

Joshuah found him in the battle of Jericho

Daniel, yes he found him in the den of a lion

wherever we are, thats where our g-d will go.

It is the eye of my storm,

the bottom of my ocean,

the morning and the midnight

in every wind that blows.

The top of my mountain,
the lowest of my valleys.

What is g-d?

It's the compass and the goal.

He is the eye of the storm,

the bottom of my ocean,

the morning and the midnight

in every wind that blows.

The top of my mountain,

the lowest of my valleys

Who is g-d?

He's the essence of my soul.

Bibliography:

Maimonides - Aish Hatorah

http://www.aish.com/jl/p/mp/48924072.html?mobile=yes

13 Principles of Faith - Chabad

http://www.chabad.org.il/Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=1955&CategoryID=150

Three Hebrew Children

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16486/jewish/Chapter-3.htm#showrashi=true

"He Who Answered"
http://www.hatanakh.com/en/content/he-who-answered-hananya-mishael-and-azarya-he-who-answered-daniel