Okay okay, you got me. I’ve got the daughter. I’ve got the life of secular morality with its manifest inability to speak to our moment. I want some flavor of this so badly. But it’s hard to apply that corrective in the absence of any organic connection to an actual tradition. Do I just take Pascal’s advice and fake it until it feels right? Because you’re right to point to a metaphysical deficit. But if you don’t take a faith’s code metaphysical claims seriously, how do you not feel like a fraud?
Having been preoccupied by matters of spirituality for a while, the very limited wisdom I found is that God should always be a lived experience, not a belief. He can be found in the joy of creativity as well as in the chants of religion, but not in your thoughts.
So maybe drop the questions and try to feel the reality behind the words? Whatever path you may find yourself following. I'm studying Buddhism and meditation but it's mostly because I also come from a blank religious background and that appealed to me more than religion based on a personified God.
In the end it’s a very personal thing and for some the element of belief is essential.
I find Judaism to be ritual based faith. In a way the way Judaism is structured it takes into account one struggle with God and faith (Israel literally means that). I think one can find merit in those rituals, that survived and evolved over thousands of years even without truly believing in God.
I agree with the others here who are saying "it needs to be personal", a lived experience.
My own path has included studying most major world religions, seeing them as being something like "emotional technologies." I ended up finding enough similarities and commonalities in these faiths that I new feel comfortable borrowing from them freely. I have my own self-constructed faith that follow. I lean heavily into the roman catholicism of my ancestors, but i see this primarily as a form of ancestor connnection. I swear a sikh kara, and I think regularly about karma, enlightenment, and various theologie's perspectives on where i am, and where the world is.
If you assume that there is some truth to all of this, and you pursue that truth as being important, i think you'll find that you grow so much along the way, you may end up in a place where you are comfortable saying that you don't really know these answers.
If my own personal religion has one central tenet, it's that each person needs to perform this search, on their own, and that the act of performing the search is probably more important than wherever it leads you. If you're still interested in the conclusions i've reached:
- I believe "God" is an anthropomorphic interface to the good, as defined above
- I think we live in a simulation constructed of our own believe systems, and much of personal growth comes from consciously tinkering with your belief system in order to define 'yourself' in such a way that you act more effectively in the world. See: https://apxhard.com/2021/01/18/the-hypnotoad-pill/
One of several problems I have with this article is its misconstrual of liberalism, or I should say liberalism-capitalism, since each is an aspect of the other. Liberalism is not a synonym for 'secular modernism', whatever that may be. Liberalism, as specified by Locke, Smith, Jefferson, Mill, Rawls, Nozick, etc. etc. -- all the usual suspects -- is an attempt to find a minimal set of rules by which people of diverse interests and opinions can get along, without harming their self-possession and possession of property. With liberalism, ou can be as religious or irreligious as you like -- liberalism doesn't care as long as you follow the (minimal) rules. Selection of a religion, or meaning in life, or favorite ancient book, or sangha, or whatever along those lines floats your spiritual boat, Selection of Judaism seems as reasonable as any other set of choices. The fact that many people do not adhere to a religion may have something to do with the notion of religion itself, rather than some dubious ideological prejudice assumed about people in San Francisco. (But I don't know. I'm not what most people would call a liberal, but they taught me about it in school. Maybe some actual liberals will testify.)
Yes, you're describing what's now politely called 'classical liberalism', which back in the day was just 'liberalism'. But nowadays I don't think that's what...gestures all around...this is right now. At least not anymore. Perhaps it will be again and I'm much too pessimistic. Entirely possible.
Well, I suppose liberalism in any form, manifesting as capitalism, could destroy religion, not because it's against religion ideologically, but because it replaces the hope and faith in another, 'higher' world, with the satisfactions of stuff and more stuff, especially for oneself¸ _right now_. Every day becomes Black Friday. But some people find religious satisfactions in liberal polities and culture anyway.
I disagree with you a lot on the Israel-Palestine issue, and came to this post ready to disagree given the association, but loved every word even though I'm an atheist. Your writing makes me uncomfortable because I disagree with you often, but never sense any phoniness, forces me to rethink deeper.
The analysis of the failure of secular ethics sounds like something I just read in Jonathan Haidt’s book Happiness Hypothesis. The western approach to ethics went from virtues, proverbs, fables, maxims and role models to unworkable utilitarianism and lowest common denominator human rights. This may be good for the legal system but it is not how people actually make decisions in their lives.
And yes, sounds like the right diagnosis. Odd, because almost no human society has ever lived this way, and we somehow talked ourselves into thinking it's the only moral way to live.
I suspect future historians will have field day with us.
Thanks for articulating so well things I've felt for a while. I do believe this question of reintroducing spirituality to our life is the life and death problematic of this century. Maybe literally, given our specie's increased ability to hurt itself in its ignorance.
So, I’m listening to your interview with Andrew Sullivan—and based on it, and this essay, may I strongly suggest that, in regards to Judaism and especially the question of the tension between particularism and universalism, take a listen to Rabbi Soloveichik’s Bible365 podcast. It is behind a pay wall, but R. Soloveichik is a brilliant expositor of a traditional, well-informed, extraordinarily well educated Judaism. It is produced by the Tikvah Fund.
I find this fascinating, revivifying, and to my surprise, somewhat of a relief. There’s obviously something missing out here, though the grand operation in front of us won’t admit to that. So you have to realize it and deal with it on your own. I wonder how many others are doing this.
Does this mean you believe in God? Where do you see yourself on the orthopraxy/orthodoxy boundary? I won't call it a line because i think it's much more fractal.
I was a Christian once. Now I am not. For a long time I said to myself: "I don't/can't believe the claims of all that. It's not even a possibility anymore." But in between I learned something important. First, from living my life badly and dishonestly at times. And then, a few years ago, from the lectures of a wise and serious public figure who had seriously considered the Jewish tradition and its stories.
What I learned was that this question - about "belief" - is, in the inescapable form it can only adopt five hundred years into the age of reason, a mostly sophistic distraction. I won't tire you with my thinking on the subject except to say I have little interest anymore in what people say to themselves about what they believe. I don't even have an interest in what I say to myself about what I believe. I just pay attention to how I live my life, and how people live theirs. The only answer that matters to the question "Do you believe in God?" lives there.
You'll address the question however you do, if you do. Knowing the richness and beauty of your writing it will probably be amazing to read. It always is. I just want to suggest another option: don't answer it at all. There's something to be said for stepping back from a conversation that, in its typical lack of sophistication and humility, so easily trivializes the depth, mystery and vastness of its subject.
Very thought-inspiring! Thanks for writing this. It really is against the contemporary form of secular liberalism or modernism or whatever our lowest-common denominator is culturally right now. It's you not just peering into the abyss, but shouting into it: "What are you? Where are you taking us?"
And you caused a personal conversion experience in me, too: I went from free lurker to paid subscriber. :-)
Okay okay, you got me. I’ve got the daughter. I’ve got the life of secular morality with its manifest inability to speak to our moment. I want some flavor of this so badly. But it’s hard to apply that corrective in the absence of any organic connection to an actual tradition. Do I just take Pascal’s advice and fake it until it feels right? Because you’re right to point to a metaphysical deficit. But if you don’t take a faith’s code metaphysical claims seriously, how do you not feel like a fraud?
Having been preoccupied by matters of spirituality for a while, the very limited wisdom I found is that God should always be a lived experience, not a belief. He can be found in the joy of creativity as well as in the chants of religion, but not in your thoughts.
So maybe drop the questions and try to feel the reality behind the words? Whatever path you may find yourself following. I'm studying Buddhism and meditation but it's mostly because I also come from a blank religious background and that appealed to me more than religion based on a personified God.
Good luck to you in any case.
In the end it’s a very personal thing and for some the element of belief is essential.
I find Judaism to be ritual based faith. In a way the way Judaism is structured it takes into account one struggle with God and faith (Israel literally means that). I think one can find merit in those rituals, that survived and evolved over thousands of years even without truly believing in God.
I agree with the others here who are saying "it needs to be personal", a lived experience.
My own path has included studying most major world religions, seeing them as being something like "emotional technologies." I ended up finding enough similarities and commonalities in these faiths that I new feel comfortable borrowing from them freely. I have my own self-constructed faith that follow. I lean heavily into the roman catholicism of my ancestors, but i see this primarily as a form of ancestor connnection. I swear a sikh kara, and I think regularly about karma, enlightenment, and various theologie's perspectives on where i am, and where the world is.
If you assume that there is some truth to all of this, and you pursue that truth as being important, i think you'll find that you grow so much along the way, you may end up in a place where you are comfortable saying that you don't really know these answers.
If my own personal religion has one central tenet, it's that each person needs to perform this search, on their own, and that the act of performing the search is probably more important than wherever it leads you. If you're still interested in the conclusions i've reached:
- I believe there is a solution to the is/ought problem that is totally commensurate with scientific materialism. See: https://apxhard.com/2020/11/27/a-moral-system-from-scientific-rationality/
- I believe "God" is an anthropomorphic interface to the good, as defined above
- I think we live in a simulation constructed of our own believe systems, and much of personal growth comes from consciously tinkering with your belief system in order to define 'yourself' in such a way that you act more effectively in the world. See: https://apxhard.com/2021/01/18/the-hypnotoad-pill/
One of several problems I have with this article is its misconstrual of liberalism, or I should say liberalism-capitalism, since each is an aspect of the other. Liberalism is not a synonym for 'secular modernism', whatever that may be. Liberalism, as specified by Locke, Smith, Jefferson, Mill, Rawls, Nozick, etc. etc. -- all the usual suspects -- is an attempt to find a minimal set of rules by which people of diverse interests and opinions can get along, without harming their self-possession and possession of property. With liberalism, ou can be as religious or irreligious as you like -- liberalism doesn't care as long as you follow the (minimal) rules. Selection of a religion, or meaning in life, or favorite ancient book, or sangha, or whatever along those lines floats your spiritual boat, Selection of Judaism seems as reasonable as any other set of choices. The fact that many people do not adhere to a religion may have something to do with the notion of religion itself, rather than some dubious ideological prejudice assumed about people in San Francisco. (But I don't know. I'm not what most people would call a liberal, but they taught me about it in school. Maybe some actual liberals will testify.)
Yes, you're describing what's now politely called 'classical liberalism', which back in the day was just 'liberalism'. But nowadays I don't think that's what...gestures all around...this is right now. At least not anymore. Perhaps it will be again and I'm much too pessimistic. Entirely possible.
Well, I suppose liberalism in any form, manifesting as capitalism, could destroy religion, not because it's against religion ideologically, but because it replaces the hope and faith in another, 'higher' world, with the satisfactions of stuff and more stuff, especially for oneself¸ _right now_. Every day becomes Black Friday. But some people find religious satisfactions in liberal polities and culture anyway.
I disagree with you a lot on the Israel-Palestine issue, and came to this post ready to disagree given the association, but loved every word even though I'm an atheist. Your writing makes me uncomfortable because I disagree with you often, but never sense any phoniness, forces me to rethink deeper.
* Mathew → Matthew.
Thanks for powering through the discomfort. :)
The analysis of the failure of secular ethics sounds like something I just read in Jonathan Haidt’s book Happiness Hypothesis. The western approach to ethics went from virtues, proverbs, fables, maxims and role models to unworkable utilitarianism and lowest common denominator human rights. This may be good for the legal system but it is not how people actually make decisions in their lives.
Love Haidt. I need to read that book.
And yes, sounds like the right diagnosis. Odd, because almost no human society has ever lived this way, and we somehow talked ourselves into thinking it's the only moral way to live.
I suspect future historians will have field day with us.
Thanks for articulating so well things I've felt for a while. I do believe this question of reintroducing spirituality to our life is the life and death problematic of this century. Maybe literally, given our specie's increased ability to hurt itself in its ignorance.
This really moved me. Appreciate your writing.
Thank you for reading and supporting!
So, I’m listening to your interview with Andrew Sullivan—and based on it, and this essay, may I strongly suggest that, in regards to Judaism and especially the question of the tension between particularism and universalism, take a listen to Rabbi Soloveichik’s Bible365 podcast. It is behind a pay wall, but R. Soloveichik is a brilliant expositor of a traditional, well-informed, extraordinarily well educated Judaism. It is produced by the Tikvah Fund.
Yes! I like Soloveichik and have been getting the Tikvah emails. I should probably subscribe.
I find this fascinating, revivifying, and to my surprise, somewhat of a relief. There’s obviously something missing out here, though the grand operation in front of us won’t admit to that. So you have to realize it and deal with it on your own. I wonder how many others are doing this.
Does this mean you believe in God? Where do you see yourself on the orthopraxy/orthodoxy boundary? I won't call it a line because i think it's much more fractal.
Yeah, the 'God question' I should probably address in a second post. I get it a lot.
I was a Christian once. Now I am not. For a long time I said to myself: "I don't/can't believe the claims of all that. It's not even a possibility anymore." But in between I learned something important. First, from living my life badly and dishonestly at times. And then, a few years ago, from the lectures of a wise and serious public figure who had seriously considered the Jewish tradition and its stories.
What I learned was that this question - about "belief" - is, in the inescapable form it can only adopt five hundred years into the age of reason, a mostly sophistic distraction. I won't tire you with my thinking on the subject except to say I have little interest anymore in what people say to themselves about what they believe. I don't even have an interest in what I say to myself about what I believe. I just pay attention to how I live my life, and how people live theirs. The only answer that matters to the question "Do you believe in God?" lives there.
You'll address the question however you do, if you do. Knowing the richness and beauty of your writing it will probably be amazing to read. It always is. I just want to suggest another option: don't answer it at all. There's something to be said for stepping back from a conversation that, in its typical lack of sophistication and humility, so easily trivializes the depth, mystery and vastness of its subject.
Rosenzweig/Rosenstock-Huessy's "Judaism Despite Christianity" is supposed to be good.
Looks interesting (but hard to find a copy!)
Very thought-inspiring! Thanks for writing this. It really is against the contemporary form of secular liberalism or modernism or whatever our lowest-common denominator is culturally right now. It's you not just peering into the abyss, but shouting into it: "What are you? Where are you taking us?"
And you caused a personal conversion experience in me, too: I went from free lurker to paid subscriber. :-)
Beautifully written
Thank you.