The Unanswerable Question
It’s a riddle that might never be solved, but when the Brandeis Humanists met Chabad at Brandeis Oct. 6 for a public debate, they discussed one of the most disputed questions in the modern world: Does God exist?
The Humanists, represented by Jonah Cohen ’10 and Max Lewis ’09, and Chabad, represented by Alex Flyax Ph.D. ’13 and Rabbi Peretz Chein, debated before an eager audience of students and faculty in Rapaporte Treasure Hall.
Chein opened the discussion by asking the audience to abandon their traditional modes of sensory perception in order to explore a “more complex” definition of “existence.” His arguments centered on the concept of God as the “first cause,” the action for which there is no antecedent.
Everything we know about the world is a “joke,” Flyax added, if a first cause is not the reason behind the creation of life. “Complex things,” he said, “are the result of an organizing force.”
Although Flyax acknowledged the roles of evolution and natural selection in human geneology, in an interview after the debate, he described evolution as a result of God.
While they didn’t dispute the necessity of a first cause, the Humanists rejected the concept of an omnipotent God, asserting that the Big Bang was the first cause and the beginning of the universe.
Surprisingly, perhaps, Cohen didn’t entirely reject the idea that God might have caused the Big Bang. Cohen said he’s “willing to wait” for concrete evidence of God’s activity.
The Humanists did point out the impossibility of a coherent definition of God in light of the multiple conceptions of God that exist among world religions.
Yet Chein countered that Judaism espouses a more general view of God.
“God is the first cause of all creation who is engaged and responsive to all existence,” he said in an interview after the debate. God has all “positive and good qualities” imaginable, he said.
Throughout the debate, however, Lewis remained skeptical, pointing out flaws in what he saw as Chein’s idealistic notion of God.
If God is in such a perfect state, he argued, then it would seem impossible for anything, even prayer, to bend his will.
Lewis suggested that if God is responsible for creating mankind and shaping human nature, then God, not free will, is to blame for tragedies, citing in particular the events of Sept. 11, 2001.
Lewis declared that he will “gladly” believe in God if someone proves his existence. Religion is grounded in faith rather than certainty, he said, and faith is not evidence enough for the existence of God.
“You can’t have faith without evidence,” Lewis said, and proceeded to draw a distinction between religious and personal faith. Belief in human relationships, such as that between husband and wife, he explained, is based on the proof of fidelity.
The individual who believes in personal faith can therefore be “happy and accomplished without religion,” Lewis said, by turning to the “beautiful” universe around him instead.
In response to a question from an audience member on the relationship between religion and morality, Flyax said that although atheists and religious individuals alike can practice morality, a belief in some higher power allows people to regard morality as a “personal responsibility” as opposed to a “social benefit” or optional performance.
Cohen insisted that people should not feel obligated to act morally, but Flyax answered that the individual option to act according to moral standards is not enough to sustain the well-being of society in general.Religion, Flyax said, is necessary to implement morality in certain societies.
The Humanists said that religion is especially meaningless when it is inherited rather than attained through knowledge. Religion should not be forced upon an individual, Lewis said in an interview after the debate.
When an audience member asked the Chabad representatives how they would perceive religion had they not been raised as Jews, Flyax responded that he was raised as an atheist but remained “objective to the environment.” Later, he discovered a personal connection with Judaism and converted, he said.
Some students in the audience were impressed by the persuasiveness of the cases for and against the existence of God.
The topic of the debate was “very well-tackled,” said Matthew Lawrence ’10, noting that he was particularly “surprised” by Chabad’s strong arguments.
Other students, however, felt that both sides of the debate lacked the passion they would have liked to see.
Tara Metal ’10 was “disappointed,” as she expected a more heated and controversial debate, she said.
Flyax admitted that the topic of God’s existence was “too general” for the participants to engage in more detailed discussion. Instead, the aim of the debate was to provide the audience with the incentive to think and respect other schools of thought, he said in an interview.
The debate, Cohen said, was designed to “promote dialogue.”
SkiDude
Flyax said that although atheists and religious individuals alike can practice morality, a belief in some higher power allows people to regard morality as a “personal responsibility” as opposed to a “social benefit” or optional performance.
CA
What a bad piece of journalism. Read the comments. Chabad side did not say much of what is ascribed to it.
It was a nice kiddush Hashem.
LM
An answerable question?!?
As a Lubavitcher, I really hope you know the answer…
YCL
The notion that there is a g-d (a being, which is far supernal to anything we can relate to, to call ‘being’)is something that we mortals can’t fully comprehend.
The real question is what is proof?
Just because a blind man can’t see does that mean colour doesn’t excit? We are like the blind man, yet that doesn’t mean we should rely on faith alone. There is no doubt that there is something greater and more powerful than us. The famous story with the ink and the picture depicts the point, nothing transpires by itself, its all a cumulation of a carefully orchestrated system, one which someone who is higher than it all put in place.
moishy
Does God exist? If he doesn’t who are all those secular people praying to in the hospitals?
The Remaining One
Of course, the Rebbe was strongly against such activities for obvious reasons, but who cares.
But seriously, one wonders whether the “Chabad team” were aware of the Rebbe’s views.
Brandeis -60
Still crazy after all these years!
Peretz Chein
To: The Remaining One
Can you back your sweeping and generalized
statement with a source?
Boruch ben Tzvi(A H)HaKohaine Hoffinger
B”H
Simple answer: Why is Loshon HaKodesh (Hebrew) so very far advanced over all the other languages? It’s very much deeper and much more profound.
Loshon HaKodesh is the creation language and all languages can be found in it (Edenics.org) proving the Tower of Babel episode in history.
If we evolved, why is the world speaking such a weak, poor, language?
Certainly communication is a hallmark of progress, no?
We didn’t evolve, we devolved.
To the remaining one , perets chein
mistame your refering to sharei halacaha uminhag vol 5 – hoisofois umiluim siman 105. however the rebbe there is talking about christianity, although one can be medame milsa lemilsa, and the reasons the Rebbe gives lichura apply here too.
Yosef
To YCL:
A blind man cannot see color. but no one is saying that color has any relationship with him. We, on the other hand are saying that something we can’t prove to exist has had a relationship with us (by creating us) and continues to relate to us (as G-d).
The other story you mention, usually called the “watchmaker analogy” was made famous by a William Paley in 1802. But atheists reject it by saying that, given enough time, evolution will improve life constantly since it’s under pressure to survive.
To Boruch ben Tzvi(A H)HaKohaine Hoffinger:
Saying that all languages share commonalities (whether true or not – the site is xxxxxtian) doesn’t mean that Loshon Hakodesh is superior to them all. All it means is that, at one point, all of mankind lived in proximity to one another. This is a belief shared by atheists as well.
Also, keeping old words doesn’t mean we aren’t progressing, it just means it’s more convenient then doing away with them entirely.
Advancement is marked by adding, not necessarily subtracting, too.
References
Anyone interested there’s a very good source on this topic in a book called Mind over Matter (compiled from letters and talks of the Rebbe), you can read it online here http://www.chabad.org/libra…
Another good source on this and similar topics is http://www.simpletoremember…
this is an amazing joke
i always find it interesting the way the most secular people believe in G-d. the truth is EVERY SINGLE JEW believes in G-d weather or not the want to, weather or not they know it.
like in my fave joke: a man who was once a frum jew converted into a christian, married and sent his daughter to a christian school. one day she came home and said to him, “dad! dad! guess what i learnt today. i learnt about the trinity.”
The father stopped and looked at his daughter with a serious expression. “Listen sweetie. THERE’S ONLY ONE G-D, AND WE DON’T BELIEVE IN HIM!”
The Remaining One
Peretz Chein wrote:
To: The Remaining One
Can you back your sweeping and generalized
statement with a source?
—
Do this mean that you didn’t consult with someone familiar with the Rebbe’s guidelines before embarking on this project?!
There are countless sources, but you could begin with searching the Igros Kodesh (for “Vikuach” etc.) at http://chabadlibrary.org/bo…
See for instance the Rebbe’s letters to R. Shmuel Chefer who wished to organize debates in Kibbutzim which Chabad would visit on outreach missions:
http://chabadlibrary.org/bo…
http://chabadlibrary.org/bo…
and a long and sharp explanatory letter to R. Adin Shteinzaltz (admittedly regarding Christianity but all the reasons cited apply here as well):
http://chabadlibrary.org/bo…
sa
there is no real “proof” of the existence of god.
and if you want to believe something did create the world, theirs no proof its what we call “god” and that it gives a crap about whether we believe in it or not
Boruch ben Tzvi(A H)HaKohaine Hoffinger
B”H
Dear Yosef:
As far as I know the author of Edenics.org is Jewish and he wrote a book called: ‘The Word.’ It is a secular web site and only discusses language.
Second, I never said words that ‘share commonalities’ prove prove the depth of any particular language. I was showing how all languages are including and stem from ‘The Holy Tongue.’ People lived together? Then where did all the 3,000 languages come from? Why should language change? Living apart proves conclusively that vocabulary and grammar will change drastically?
Anyone who studies, even briefly the basic nature of ‘Mystical Hebrew’ sees the very advanced nature of ‘The Holy Tongue.’
Rabbi Glazerson, Rabbi Raskin, etc. have published books on this.
bhoffinger@aol.com
In reply to sa
Sa, I’m not sure about your level of observance (or if you’re even Jewsih), but I recommend you take a look at some writings of the Rebbe that deal with your self-proclaimed fact.
Try here: http://www.chabad.org/libra…
please post my comment
avraham avinu asked the same question too, and came up with an answer.what we can we learn from avraham avinu? we can learn that the only way find out the truth is by seeking answers. how do we seek answers? we seek answers by asking questions just like avraham avinu did.