Chapter 6-10: Blindness To The Wonder And The Question Of Amazement

“The extreme hiddenness of G-d is a fact of constant awareness. Yet His concern, His guidance, His will, His commandment, are revealed to man and capable of being experienced by him.” (pg. 66)

“When in response to Moses’ request, the Lord appeared to tell him what He is, did He say: I am the all-wise, the perfect, and of infinite beauty? He did say: I am full of love and compassion. Where in the history of religion prior to the age of Moses, was the Supreme Being celebrated for His being sensitive to the suffering of men?” (pg. 67)

“To the fatalist, mystery is the supreme power controlling all reality. He believes that the world is controlled by an irrational, absolutely inscrutable and blind power that is devoid of either justice or purpose. …To the notion of fate history is an impenetrable mystery, and man is in dark uncertainty with regard to the future. A tragic doom is hanging over the world, to which gods and men alike are subject, and the only attitude one may take is that of resignation. It is a view that is found in various forms and degrees in nearly all pagan religions, in many modern philosophies of history, as well as in popular thinking.

…The awareness of mystery was common to all men of antiquity. It was the beginning of a new era when man was told that the mystery is not the ultimate; that not a demonic, blind force but a G-d of righteousness rules the world. In Greek tragedy man is invariably the victim of some unseen power which foredooms him to disaster. “Awful is the mysterious power of fate.” “Pray not at all, since there is no release for mortals from predestined calamity.” (Sophocles)

In contrast, Abraham stands before G-d, arguing for the salvation of Sodom: “Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be it from Thee! Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?”

The theology of fate knows only a one-sided dependence upon the ultimate power. The power has neither concern for man nor need of him. History runs its course as a monologue. To Jewish religion, on the other hand, history is determined by the covenant: G-d is in need of man. The ultimate is not a law but a judge, not a power but a father.” (pg. 68)

I love how Rav Heschel makes a stark contrast between belief in G-d and your only other option. The lack of belief in G-d leads one to the darkest and most depressing of places. It’s a world devoid of love and compassion, justice and purpose. Nothing has any greater rationale or meaning. All of the worlds sophistication including our own – has no greater purpose and is victim to the random tides of time and space.

The bleakness and purposelessness of an existence based on such a model is truly bone chilling. The ability of atheists to find succor in the notion of being “free” from G-d paints an extremely short sighted picture. Their relationship with religion/notions of G-d is either a severely emotionally traumatized one which leads to just wanting “the monkey off their backs” without following through to its ultimate implications. Or it’s a simplistic inability to take the next step and think about the universal consequences beyond ones personal “freedom” of responsibility to G-d.

“Standing face to face with the world, we often sense a spirit which surpasses our ability to comprehend. The world is too much for us. It is crammed with marvel. The glory is not an exception but an aura that lies about all being, a spiritual setting of reality.

Blindness To The Wonder

The perception of the glory is a rare occurrence in our lives. We fail to wonder, we fail to respond to the presence. This is the tragedy of every man: “to dim all wonder by indifference.” Life is routine, and routine is resistance to the wonder. “Replete is the world with a spiritual radiance, replete with sublime and marvelous secrets. But a small hand held against the eye hides it all,” said the Baal Shem. “Just as a small coin held over the face can block out the sight of a mountain, so can the vanities of living block out the sight of the infinite light.”

The wonders are daily with us, and yet “the miracle is not recognized by him who experiences it.” Its apprehension is not a matter of physical perception. “Of what avail is an open eye, if the heart is blind?” One may see many things without observing them – “his ears are open but he does not hear.” (Isaiah)

“The word of the Lord came to me: ‘Son of man, you dwell in the midst of a rebellious house, who have eyes to see, but see not, who have ears to hear but hear not.’” (Ezekiel)

“Alas for people that they see but do not know what they see, they stand and do not know on what they stand.” (pg. 85)

From the delightful words of the Baal Shem to the many passages that warn against having audio and visual capabilities but being blind and deaf to our greater reality. I love how this concept is a central theme throughout Judaism. Nothing speaks more directly to this notion then the concept of Shabbos.

For six days we toil by the sweat of our brow to provide sustenance and shelter. We are weary, overworked, and overwhelmed with practical responsibilities. Our hearts and brains have no time for deeper reflection. Particularly today, in our constantly on the go rat race society, where all our tools to increase efficiency only allows for more time to accomplish more career oriented tasks. The review, the bonus, the raise, the promotion – are all consuming.

Combined with the needs and demands of children, spouse, and family it is very understandable that we have eyes that can not see and ears that can not hear. The beauty is that G-d built in a solution to this serious problem; it’s called Shabbos, our day of rest.

On Shabbos we break from all the pressure and overwhelming stimuli – the blackberries, the faxes and emails, the urgent phone calls, the car, computer, and the television, all the efficiencies to speed up life are removed from our mindset. We stop focusing on HOW to conquer the world and we start examining WHY we are here.

We are once again able to see the greater purpose of creation with our eyes and hear the mystery and wonder of the G-d’s communication with our ears.

The Desanctification Of Nature

“Biblical thinking succeeded in subduing the universal tendency of ancient man to endow nature with a mysterious potency like mana and orenda by stressing the indication in all nature of the wisdom and goodness of the Creator.

One of the great achievements of the prophets was the repudiation of nature as an object of adoration. They tried to teach us that neither nature’s beauty nor grandeur, neither power nor the state, neither money nor things of space are worthy of our supreme adoration, love, sacrifice, or self-dedication. Yet the desanctification of nature did not in any way bring about an alienation of nature. It brought man together with all things in a fellowship of praise. The Biblical man could say that he was “in league with the stones of the field” (Job) (pg. 90-91)

“To the Biblical man, the power of G-d is behind all phenomena, and he is more concerned to know the will of G-d who governed nature than to know the order of nature itself. Important and impressive as nature is to him, G-d is vastly more so.” (pg. 92)

The Question Of Amazement

“…There is no word in Biblical Hebrew for doubt; there are many expressions of wonder. Just as in dealing with judgments our starting point is doubt, wonder is the Biblical starting point in facing reality. The Biblical man’s sense for the mind-surpassing grandeur of reality prevented the power of doubt from setting up its own dynasty. Doubt is an act in which the mind inspects its own ideas; wonder is an act in which the mind confronts the universe. Radical skepticism is the outgrowth of subtle conceit and self-reliance. Yet there was no conceit in the prophets and no self-reliance in the psalmist.

And so the Biblical man never asks: Is there a G-d? To ask such a question, in which doubt is expressed as to which of two possible attitudes is true, means to accept the power and validity of a third attitude, namely the attitude of doubt. The Bible does not know doubt as an absolute attitude. For there is no doubt in which faith is not involved. The questions advanced in the Bible are of a different kind.

Lift up your eye on high and see, Who created thee?

This does not reflect a process of thinking that is neatly arranged in the order of doubt first, and faith second; first the question, then the answer. It reflects a situation in which the mind stands fact to face with the mystery rather than with its own concepts.

A question is an interrogative sentence calling for either a positive or a negative answer. But the sentence “Who created these?” is a question that contains the impossibility of giving a negative answer; it is an answer in disguise; a question of amazement, not of curiosity.

This, then, is the prophet’s thesis: there is a way of asking the great question which can only elicit an affirmative answer." (pg. 98-99)

I hesitated to add this excerpt about doubt because it can seem confusing as it surfs on two different non-aligning concepts – doubt and amazement. In order to doubt, we need to come up with a formulation and then question its validity. This inherently implies that we can grasp this formulation with our minds.

Rav Heschel is stressing the point that the grandeur of the universe, of all creation, is a formulation that is far beyond our ability to cognizantly encounter. Our interaction with this question can not take place on the plane of doubt. We don’t have the knowledge and tools for it. To believe that we do would stem from conceit and vanity.

Rather it takes place on the plane of amazement. The grandeur, the wisdom, the sheer numbers of interlocking laws and intrinsic nature of life, the planet, and the universe; is beyond awesome.

“Who created this?”

Is not a question that lends itself to doubt, because we simply can not comprehend this elevated realm of existence that first requires comprehension in order to doubt. Rather, the question is intrinsically one of sheer amazement.

Conversation With An Atheist: Exclusively Logical Vs “Other” Senses

Once again I had some very interesting dialog on an online forum. Last time it was with Christian fundamentalist, this time with folks on the other end of the spectrum, atheists and agnostics.

They were talking about logic and reason as the only value so I wanted to bring in other parts of our senses into the equation. I started with some of my favorite quotes:

Here are two of my favorite quotes for you folks to chew on. Its from G-d in Search Of Man by A. J. Heschel.

“Only those will apprehend religion who can probe its depth, who can combine intuition and love with the rigor of method.”

"The worship of reason is arrogance and betrays a lack of intelligence. The rejection of reason is cowardice and betrays a lack of faith.”

-------------------------------------

Jerry responded to my quotes:

See, this is a perfect example of a theologian being guilty of the old saw of "To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Because worship is often integral to theological methodology, they cast science in the same mold when they wish to compete with it. They often use such pseudo-profundity to poison the well against scientists as well-meaning but unenlightened patsies to a false god. Patsies who couldn't even tie their own shoes without theologians to hold their hands for them while showing them the proper way to behold the mysteries of the Universe through mysticism.

Scientist and freethinkers don't _worship_ reason, it's a tool. The mental equivalent of an opposable thumb, it allows you to do grasp things not open to those who lack it and despise its cultivation.

-----------------------------

I responded to Jerry:

A tool for what end? Rabbi Heschel is pointing out that reason is not enough, we have to engage all our senses. Nor does he dismiss reason in the slightest. Its about balance and utilizing all our abilities including but not exclusively reason. Take a look at the following paragraphs from his brilliant book:

“Our age is one in which usefulness is thought to be the chief merit of nature; in which the attainment of power, the utilization of its resources is taken to be the chief purpose of man in G-d’s creation. Man has indeed become primarily a tool-making animal, and the world in now a gigantic tool box for the satisfaction of his needs.

The Greeks learned in order to comprehend. The Hebrews learned in order to revere. The modern man learns in order to use. To Bacon we owe the formulation, “Knowledge is power.” This is how people are urged to study: knowledge means success. We do not know any more how to justify any value except in terms of expediency. Man is willing to define himself as “a seeker after the maximum degree of comfort for the minimum expenditure of energy.” He equates value with that which avails. He feels, acts, and thinks as if the sole purpose of the universe were to satisfy his needs.

To the modern man everything seems calculable; everything reducible to a figure. He has supreme faith in statistics and abhors the idea of a mystery. Obstinately he ignores the fact that we are all surrounded by things which we apprehend but cannot comprehend; that even reason is a mystery to itself. He is sure of his ability to explain all mystery away. Only a generation ago he was convinced that science was on the way to solve all the enigmas of the world.

…In the place of G-d, humanity – the grand etre – becomes the supreme object of adoration. However, what is considered an achievement from the perspective of modern man may be judged a privation by the post-modern man. “In future generations, people will find difficulty in understanding how at one time generations existed who did not regard the idea of G-d as the highest concept of which man is capable, but who, on the contrary, were ashamed of it and considered the development of atheism a sign of progress in the emancipation of human thought” (Walter Schubart - 1950)

-----------------------------

Jerry went to town on my response and on the excerpts from Rav Heschel:

“A tool for what end?”

Well, here you sit, on a electronic network that spans the globe, making the Gutenburg press look laughable in comparison. You don't go hungry, you're probably not overly concerned that you'll die of the Bubonic Plague and you're likely to live to be a relatively pain-free octogenarian. You even have enough leisure time to contemplate questions like these. Yet, you still want to give credit to religion for all this by subjugating science to the role of the Ugly Sister.

“Rabbi Heschel is pointing out that reason is not enough, we have to engage all our senses. Nor does he dismiss reason in the slightest.”

And what senses are those? Let's be precise here, because it's that precision that makes the difference. If those 'senses' are quantifiable, then do so. If not, then explain why they merit an exception and on what ethical grounds.

“Its about balance and utilizing all our abilities including but not exclusively reason. Take a look at the following paragraphs from his brilliant book:

“Our age is one in which usefulness is thought to be the chief merit of nature; in which the attainment of power, the utilization of its resources is taken to be the chief purpose of man in G-d’s creation. Man has indeed become primarily a tool-making animal, and the world in now a gigantic tool box for the satisfaction of his needs."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most theologians teach that Man was given dominion over the earth? Weren't most theologians on the wrong end of the debate about slavery? You want to talk about man making tools, what about men making tools of other men in those halcyon days when Religion virtually ruled the Earth? Of how many religious men still believe that a woman's highest purpose is to be a vessel for a man's progeny?

“The Greeks learned in order to comprehend. The Hebrews learned in order to revere. The modern man learns in order to use. To Bacon we owe the formulation, “Knowledge is power.” This is how people are urged to study: knowledge means success. We do not know any more how to justify any value except in terms of expediency. Man is willing to define himself as “a seeker after the maximum degree of comfort for the minimum expenditure of energy.” He equates value with that which avails. He feels, acts, and thinks as if the sole purpose of the universe were to satisfy his needs.”

As opposed to a theologian who would have us on our knees worshipping his Boss? This whole line of 'reasoning' is just pure sophistry meant to indict those who won't be bound by superstition and ecumenical fiat.

“To the modern man everything seems calculable; everything reducible to a figure. He has supreme faith in statistics and abhors the idea of a mystery.”

Rhetorical nonsense. The best scientists know what they _don't_ know, and appreciate mystery as a hungry man salivates over a big steak. One can appreciate the dilemma mysticism and those that practice it have-- unable to prove much of what they say, they then say it's because we're basically stupid and should just accept that. A prescription, IMHO, which serves to keep people ignorant and pliable.

“Obstinately he ignores the fact that we are all surrounded by things which we apprehend but cannot comprehend; that even reason is a mystery to itself. He is sure of his ability to explain all mystery away. Only a generation ago he was convinced that science was on the way to solve all the enigmas of the world.”

And theologians conveniently use the (mis)conception of mystery as sophistry to say to the reader "Stop thinking here." Those not so bound become, in the theologian's mind and those of his followers, one of The Arrogant Heavy who will bring about the denouement of mankind that most theologians predict is perpetually imminent. As they have for about the last 2000 years.

-----------------------

My response to Jerry:

“Well, here you sit, on a electronic network that spans the globe, making the Gutenburg press look laughable in comparison. You don't go hungry, you're probably not overly concerned that you'll die of the Bubonic Plague and you're likely to live to be a relatively pain-free octogenarian. You even have enough leisure time to contemplate questions like these.

…Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most theologians teach that Man was given dominion over the earth?”

Jerry you bring up a number of great points. It is incredible what mankind has accomplished using reason and logic. Reason and logic are great gifts and must be used to examine the how of all the things. Mankind has done a phenomenal job of it and today we sit in 2008 with technology and medicine that elevates our standard of life. Bravo!

You are also correct that most religions believe that Man was given dominion over the earth to do just that – increase our ability to survive.

I am not opposed to any of it nor did I mean to take away its importance and significance. As you write that by conquering earth we are able to sit and contemplate questions like these.

But that is in fact the point. It is not enough to conquer the world for a better life. We also then must take it to the next level and understand the WHY of things. Why are we here? What is our ultimate purpose?

Without conquering the world (technology, moving beyond survival mode) we could not have the frame of mind necessary to really delve into the next crucial mission of life – the WHY part. So the HOW part is crucial, but only as a first step to getting to the WHY part.

Rav Heschel’s point was that if you stop at the HOW part and say that reason and logic is all that there is, then we are just “a seeker after the maximum degree of comfort for the minimum expenditure of energy.”

Now lets get to the WHY part.

You wrote:

“And what senses are those? Let's be precise here, because it's that precision that makes the difference. If those 'senses' are quantifiable, then do so. If not, then explain why they merit an exception and on what ethical grounds.”

…And theologians conveniently use the (mis)conception of mystery as sophistry to say to the reader "Stop thinking here.”

Ahaaa… Once again you make a very good argument. If I say that we must use our intuition, instinct, and all our inner senses as well as reason to understand the WHY part, then you have dismissed me because you want me to exclusively use my reason and logic because intuition and instinct can not be explained logically.

Well let’s see if I can break it down and show that there is knowledge and understanding outside of logic and reason.

Logic and reason has left the scientific world with the notion that there is no knowable reason WHY we are here. Based on logic alone we apparently are here as random accidents in a cosmic collision. Yet most people can sense, intuitively and instinctually, that it is not so. The sheer number of random happenings for survivability to happen doesn’t “feel” like an accident. We also can sense something greater at work here. Many define that in different ways, but nonetheless they can sense something very awesome in the world.

I saw somewhere (What the bleep do we know) that we are only aware of 2000 bits of information out of the 400 billion bits of information we are processing per second. That would partially explain our intuitive process. More importantly it’s a great example of the concept of knowing but not really knowing. We can comprehend that our mind has many capabilities, yet we don’t understand the extent of its powers.

It very much reminds me of playing Poker. The greatest poker players are not the mathematicians who can calculate the best possible odds. Poker requires knowledge of the odds, combined with a keen sense of intuition, ability to control one’s emotions and pick up all the human cues and clues that you opponent inadvertently leaves.

Poker has taught me that we pick up far more information than we can rationally explain. I happen to be very good at poker and just by watching how a player touches his chips or cards, by his expressions and words, by his or her choice of dollar amount; I can “feel” what cards s/he has. Yes, a lot can be rationally explained, but a lot more info is gathered by my mind then I can rationally point to, that goes into my intuitive process.

Religion is the same. A dry rationalist will be missing half or three quarters of the necessary information to see the whole picture. That is not to say that reason and logic don’t play a crucial part, they do, but they are only one part of the necessary tools that humans have to comprehend the WHY of the world.

End of my response.

----------------------

I think I covered most of his issues. What I really find fascinating is to see Rav Heschel’s concepts directly brought to life in response to an obviously intelligent person who sees life through an exclusively “logical” prism. Its not just rhetoric by Rav Heschel, this attitude permeates a large part of society, particularly within the scientific community.