Following G-D and Rationality

After having a discussion with my friend Baruch I thought that it would be a good idea to discuss a person's ability to follow G-D based solely on rational thinking vs emotional involvement (Something I discussed here). Anyway, the most appropriate way to discuss this, I think, is bringing in my dear old friend Rabbi Dr Leo Adler. For those of you who don't remember Rabbi Dr. Adler, he wrote an exceptional essay called "The Biblical View of Man." The very first thing he discusses is this issue of rational thought vs emotional reality. Here are the relevant excerpts from the beginning of the essay:

The idea being being brought here is something, I think, is obvious. Human beings have rationality at their disposal. However, there is also something else they have, emotions and the ability to go against their rational thought. If a man believes in G-D how can he sin? This is a question that only a philosopher, who does not take into account human emotions and characteristics, can ask.

The Bible, on the other hand, takes into account the human condition and realizes that even though man may be aware of certain realities, he or she can disregard these realities in favor of their hearts' desires. For example, people go sky diving even though they know it is very dangerous and could lead to death. Why do they do it? Because it is fun and they do not focus on the possibility of death.

The same idea applies to G-D. A Jew, or non-Jew, may believe in G-D. Why then do they sin? Because they follow their hearts desire and do not think about G-D while they are sinning. This is what it is like to be human. The idea of a human being strictly following rationality is theoretical at best. People are not robots and they follow their emotions which may sometimes go against their rationality.

This brings me to my point which I made in Parsha Ki Tavo, Man can come to a belief in G-D through rationale. For instance, the Jewish people came to a belief in G-D because they saw the miracles and wonders that G-D performed, they even spoke with Him at Mt. Sinai. However, until they were able to emotionally involve themselves with the cause of the Torah, they were not connected to G-D. The Jewish people were not fully invested in the life of the Torah. They might have known that G-D was real, but they still desired to do things that were against the Torah. It was only once they were emotionally involved, connected to G-D and wanted their lives to be filled with G-D's holiness were they finally able to have this full connection.

People can be Jewish without G-D. People can claim to come to rational conclusions that G-D exists. However, this will not cause them to keep G-D's laws or even try to connect with Him. They might just say these things and even believe them, but that does not mean these ideas will be taken to heart. A person needs to find their own motivation for keeping the commandments. Some might say that rationally coming to a conclusion does give one motivation for keeping the Torah and trying to connect to G-D. This may be true, but in the end of the day the main reason a person uses rationality instead of mysticism or pure emotions is because rationality is what  fuels their desire, emotional desire. As I said before, human beings are not robots and they desire many things for different reasons. However, it is this desire that motivates him or her to act and really believe in something.This can either lead to a strong connection to G-D or none at all, even in the realm of people who DO believe in G-D.

The Morals of Judaism

In Judaism there are several laws that seem to discriminate against non-Jews. Unfortunately, these laws are sometimes abused by people to undermine Jew-Gentile relations. This is a corruption of the true ethics and morals of Judaism. Judaism is a religion of friendly relations and non-discrimination even though this may appear not to be the case in some instances. True, there are some occurrences in Jewish literature that appear to be discriminatory where it seems like the life of a Jew or the possessions of a Jew seem more important than those of a Gentile. However, I do not believe that the true meaning of these ideas are meant in this manner. In order to divulge the true meaning of the sages throughout the generations I think a view of man through the Bible is in order.

I think the reason for the apparent discrimination of the Gentile can be divulged through an excerpt from the book The Biblical View of Man. In it Rabbi Dr. Leo Adler discusses how the Bible views a man that does not believe in G-D. He says,

"On the other hand, Godlessness and lack of fear of G-D, in the biblical conception of man, indicate human depravity: ;The benighted man thinks There is no G-D; man's deeds are corrupt and loathsome, no one does good' (Psalm 14:1). Lack of fear of G-D is so clearly considered moral corruption that Abraham can justify passing off his wife as his sister with the claim that 'I thought surely there is no fear of G-D in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife' (Genesis 20:11)."

The Gentile that is discriminated against is referred to as a man that does not have a fear of G-D. This idea was referring to an era of human civilization where there was depravity and debauchery that was being done on a daily basis. The only force in the world, in this era, that could stem human depravity was a belief in G-D. Without this essential belief, man would act immorally. There were no exceptions as quoted from Abraham's experience, man without a fear of G-D was immoral and without limits. Otherwise, why would Abraham fear for his life, wouldn't moral people allow one to be married to a beautiful woman and not have to fear for his life? Thus, in the Bible, we see that a man without a fear of G-D is immoral and without constraint. This is the purpose of the Bible, to provide moral limits for man.

Therefore, we can see that in biblical times man without a belief in G-D is immoral and dangerous. Abraham had to fear for his life when he went to a city populated with immoral people. The Bible tells us that this situation justified his lie and turned an otherwise immoral act, lying, into a necessity for life. Thus, we see the basis for protecting people against immoral people even if it means acting in a, seemingly, immoral way.

This idea can be seen in the philosophy of Kant from this website where it discusses the repercussions of Kant's Categorical Imperative. It says,

"The second consequence follows from Kant's basic moral rule, the categorical imperative: 'Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law.' In other words, you can only give yourself permission to a behavior ('act according to that maxim') which you simultaneously give everyone else the same permission to do (you 'will that it would become a universal law'). This means that if I steal from you, I give permission to everyone to steal from me."

In a sense, this is the moral code that the Bible is following. When a person acts immorally, he or she allows all those to act immorally towards them. This can be seen in the case of Abraham. The Bible seems to tell us that there are two types of people in its time, those who believe in G-D, the moral people, and those who do not believe in G-D, the immoral people. This does not speak of our current generation, but rather of the society of ancient times.

This idea is not just Biblical in nature, but it evolves into a Rabbinic principle as well. This can be found in a Tosephta, a Tannaic work, in Shevuot 3:6. It says,

"Rabbi Reuben met a philosopher in Tiberias, who asked him: 'Who makes himself hateful in the world?' Rabbi Reuben replied: 'He who denies his Creator.' 'But how does that make him hateful to men?' wondered the philosopher. Rabbi Reuben replied: 'Honor thy father and mother; though shalt not murder; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness. No man can break these laws without first denying G-D, no man can commit one of these cardinal sins without first ignoring Him Who gave these commands!'"

This Tosephta is explained by Rabbi Dr Leo Adler in the following manner. He says,

"He who sins against morality and ethics can do it only by denying G-D. Rabbi Reuben built his thesis upon a verse from Leviticus (5:21): 'When a person sins and commits a trespass against the Lord by dealing deceitfully with his fellow, robbing him or oppressing him...' Here too, disloyalty to G-D is assumed to be the precondition for moral failure vis a vis man: whoever sins against men did so after first breaking faith with G-D. For the Bible, fear of G-D is the foundation of man's being, not a separate res religiosa (as it was considered by the philosopher who argued with Rabbi Reuben)."

It seems like from this Tosephta that the philosopher would be considered a moral person, although he was curious of the basis of the morality of the Bible. However, even at this point in history, in the rabbinic literature, man was still moral based on his belief in G-D. Without this belief man had no reason to act appropriately and compassionately. This led Jews to be persecuted as well as other minorities. However, at this point in history there was persecution from the pagan Romans and Zoroastrians against the monotheistic religions. This violated basic morals and thus allowed those being persecuted to act according to how Kant explained earlier in this post.

Throughout Jewish history we have seen that Jews have been oppressed and mistreated. During the years of Christian domination the Jews were constantly subjected to forced baptism, death or expulsion. These acts were clearly immoral. Under Islam, Jews were constantly demeaned and treated as second class citizens. Check out the sources listed in Wikipedia. Regarding the Islamic persecutions they mention a few,

"Islam and Judaism have a complex relationship. Traditionally Jews and Christians living in Muslim lands, known as dhimmis, were allowed to practice their religions and to administer their internal affairs, but subject to certain conditions.[205] They had to pay the jizya (a per capita tax imposed on free adult non-Muslim males) to the Islamic state.[205] Dhimmis had an inferior status under Islamic rule. They had several social and legal disabilities such as prohibitions against bearing arms or giving testimony in courts in cases involving Muslims.[206] Many of the disabilities were highly symbolic. The one described by Bernard Lewis as "most degrading"[207] was the requirement of distinctive clothing, not found in the Qur'an or hadith but invented in early medieval Baghdad; its enforcement was highly erratic.[207] On the other hand, Jews rarely faced martyrdom or exile, or forced compulsion to change their religion, and they were mostly free in their choice of residence and profession.[208] Notable exceptions include the massacre of Jews and/or forcible conversion of some Jews by the rulers of the Almohad dynasty in Al-Andalus in the 12th century,[209] as well as in Islamic Persia,[210] and the forced confinement of Morrocan Jews to walled quarters known as mellahs beginning from the 15th century and especially in the early 19th century.[211]"

This would reveal that even under Muslim rule the Jews were discriminated against and so were other non-Muslims. Also, in Christian lands the Jews and Muslims were discriminated against. Thus, repeating Kant's morals, the Jews would have every right not to respect Muslim or Christian rights even though they do believe in G-D.

Just to recap everything that we have stated until now. Originally, the Bible tells us that people that did not believe in G-D acted immorally because they had no reason to act morally. Therefore, when the Bible discusses people that do not believe in G-D and how a person can act towards them, it is referring to an immoral person that acts with depravity and debauchery. Also, even a believer in G-D can act immorally, that has been seen in the 2000 years of Jewish exile culminating with the holocaust executed by Hitler in Germany.

What we see from all of this is that the Jewish commentators that discuss mistreating Gentiles are referring to the Gentiles that mistreat Jews or anyone else. According to the philosophy of Immanuel Kant this is an entirely moral and appropriate reaction. However, nowadays I do not think that these laws would apply in the same way. As we have disclosed, the person of the Bible that does not believe in G-D is a person that is immoral. The Bible does not disclose its feelings about a person that denies G-D's existence but is still moral and demands equality for all people. In my opinion, it seems like from the sources that I have quoted, that a person that does not believe in G-D, but is moral, should be treated morally and does not fall under the umbrella of an immoral idolater.

Therefore, my conclusion is that if a group of people condones immoral behavior towards another group, it would appear to be that the Bible and Rabbinic literature would say like Kant, that one treats them as they treat others. However, if a person is moral, regardless of whether he or she believes in G-D, they are to be treated morally and correctly, with love and compassion. The Rabbinic commentaries do not discuss mistreating a Gentile in general, but rather a Gentile that mistreats and oppresses Jews or other people in general. These people do not have to be treated morally since they treat others immorally. However, a Gentile that is moral must be treated with proper morals and a failure to do so would be considered a transgression against the Biblical commandments and Rabbinic tradition.

UPDATE:
Here is a link to Kant's ideas of morals spelled out in the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Also, here is another link to a different page with more of Kant's ideas on more subjects like politics in the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

ANOTHER UPDATE:

Here are the Rishonim that holds like what I am saying.

Equality Before the Law

In the book The Biblical View of Man it discusses justice. In this section it mentions an idea that one would think should be obvious. However, in this day and age it seems like this simple idea does not get proper attention. It says,

"Equality before the law is also proclaimed in order to protect the rich from the results of the poor winning unjustified sympathy. Thus, parallel to 'you shall not subvert the rights of the needy in their disputes' (Exodus 23:6) there is also the commandment 'nor shall you show deference to a poor man in his dispute' (Leviticus 19:15)."

This seems to be something that escapes people nowadays. People are always ready to demonize the person with the upper hand. Don't get me wrong, I believe that the poor man's rights should be protected, like mentioned in Exodus. However, it seems like for some reason that people are considered undeserving unless they are the underdog. This article can illustrate my point:

"Conversation at a South Side fire station heated up when the topic turned to affirmative action. 'White firemen are mad because blacks get extra points added to their tests,' declared a white lieutenant perched on the bumper of a fire truck. If it were not for department policies that favor minorities, he said, he would have had his silver lieutenant's bars sooner.

The white officer did not get any sympathy from his black coworkers. 'These white folks are mad because they won't have as many jobs,' said the station's captain, who is black. 'What about all those years they were leaving us out, when the promotions were 100 percent white? Whites thought everything was fine and never said a word.'

True, there were horrible conditions back in the day where blacks were discriminated against, but did these white officers discriminate against those blacks? No, it was the whites of several years ago. However, this station captain thinks it is fine to "payback" the whites. That seems like revenge and not equality. Is that the American way? Is that justice?

Another situation happened recently at another fire station. The article can be found here: "WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court appeared divided Wednesday over whether a Connecticut city's decision to scrap a promotion exam for firefighters because too few minorities passed violates the civil rights of top-scoring white applicants.

As is often the case with closely fought social issues at the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared to hold the key to the outcome. He seemed concerned that New Haven, Conn., scuttled the test after it learned that no African Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be promoted based on the results."

These issues reveal a very telling problem in our society, discriminating against the majority in order to give an advantage to the minority. How is that fair? Shouldn't everyone be equal? Just because there has been discrimination against minorities in the past, does that mean that the majority should be discriminated against in the future? Is that how to fix the problem? Or maybe the real answer is to make everyone equal, that way there is no discrimination. This is what the Torah is telling us. That real justice discriminates against no one and treats all equally.

Tolerance and Ideas In Jewish Christian Relations

I just started reading this book that was originally written in German by Rabbi Dr. Leo Adler. The books name is The Biblical View Of Man. He was in the Mir yeshiva when it was in Lithuania and Shanghai. After the war, he became the Rabbi of the Jewish community in Basel, Switzerland. In his book is a letter from 1966 that he wrote in response to a request from Father Theodor Bogler, the editor of a Christian Journal, to contribute a Jewish interpretation of Christmas. His letter states that he did not feel comfortable contributing. However, the elegance and class with which the letter is written is remarkable. Also, I think it is very important for Jewish people to read as well as the Christians that read the letter when it was published in their journal. (The Journal was Liturgie und Monchtum). The letter states,

"Most honored Father,

I thank you for your friendly letter of May 24 and the invitation to contribute to the Christmas edition of Liturgie und Monchtum a piece on the Jewish attitude to the Christian festival of Christmas. Although I very much appreciate your friendly offer, I must reject it. If as you write, you heard of me through my booklet The Biblical View of Man, then if you reread the chapter on "The Transformed View of Man in Apocryphal Literature" you will understand that the idea of a G-D who reaches out to man, turning himself into man and flesh so as to reach man because man can no longer manage to reach G-D and, indeed, was never in his history capable of doing so - that this idea is of apocryphal origin and is diametrically opposed to the ancient biblical tradition of man being equipped with freedom and, thereby, with the strength and righteousness needed to find his way along the path to G-D.

Accordingly, the Christian interpretation of the Christmas festival is an impossible notion for Jewish theology, not only a question of a religion's attitude. Notwithstanding all the moral and ethical commonalities, which result both from Christianity's Jewish origin and from the recent renewed Christian attention to the Bible, we must not lose sight of that which divides us - which is nowhere more obvious than in connection with the Christmas festival, which for professing Christians has not only a symbolic meaning, but also a religious reality of the highest order.

Far be it from me, therefore, to oppose the certainty of Christian belief with that of Jewish belief, something which anyway would do you no service.

So I would ask you to leave it at that, with no other alternative in a situation in which each of us perceives G-D and seeks his own share in Him in his own way.

Yours, with friendly regards,
Rabbi Leo Adler"

There are a few things that are very important to point out about this letter. First of all, he points out that, according to Judaism, man is equipped with all of the tools to find his way on the path towards G-D. This means that in any situation a man finds himself there is always room to believe in G-D and follow his ways. No Jew should ever feel that it is an impossibility to connect to G-D, there is always a way, one just has to search.

Another major idea here is the tolerance that he shows towards the Christians. He reveals his ability to accept the Christian belief in G-D and shows that Jews do not need to force their belief on others. He thinks that any way that someone can connect to G-D, whether it be Judaism or Christianity, a person should follow his beliefs. There should be religious tolerance and brotherly love among all religions.