How Do We Know Whom To Believe?
 |
A recent damning television exposé of a purportedly religious (Kabbalah)
group has forced me to re-examine my own religious beliefs.
Many of my beliefs have been influenced not just by intellectual arguments
but in a large part also by exceptional teachers. Indeed, beliefs, by definition, cannot
be verified with certainty by empirical evidence. So perhaps, like members of the
aforementioned religious group, I, too, have been inveigled and ultimately
deceived by charismatic teachers? Maybe the beliefs that have been inculcated in
me since my youth are fantastical?
The question is a frightening one, because it turns the very things that most
convince us into a reason for doubt. When we find a teacher inspiring and
compelling, when we are enthused by people who seem spiritual and
pious, how can we be sure that they are not just megalomaniac, demagogic
charlatans who are playing on our vulnerability for their own selfish gain? Is
there a way of ensuring that we do not become conned into accepting religious
beliefs that are in fact false?
A fascinating insight by Judaism’s great codifier and philosopher,
Maimonides (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, 1138-1204), sheds light on this dilemma.
After Adam, the primordial man, sinned, the Torah tells us that he was now able
to differentiate between good and evil (Genesis 3:5). Maimonides asks a
fundamental question: is it not absurd that after having sinned, Adam was
rewarded with the power of differentiation? In answer, Maimonides makes a
profound distinction: he explains that before the sin, by virtue of his
intellect alone, without any experimental evidence, Adam was able to distinguish
between eminently true facts and those that were false. After the
sin, Adam lost this ability and was now capable of differentiating only between
the morally good and the morally corrupt. This is why Adam and Eve now felt
naked -- the innate immorality of being naked in public was now apparent to
them, something to which they had been given immunity by their previous higher
intellectual perception (Guide for the Perplexed 1:2).
This is now human nature: without empirical evidence it is impossible to discern
truth from fiction. We can, however, differentiate between the morally good and the morally corrupt. This is a powerful barometer. We can easily detect moral corruption and be sure that it brings falsehood in its wake. Interestingly, in the Bible there is no
prohibition against lying. Instead it says, “Keep away from falsehood” (Exodus
23:7). The reason for this seems clear: without empirical knowledge we cannot
completely avoid falsehood, but by avoiding morally corrupt people we can "keep
away" from it.
Unfortunately, history is littered with people who have hijacked holy teachings
for their own mendacious gain. Since their teachings are based on the books of
sublimity, the teachings themselves can be inspiring. However, one can be sure
that eventually their inner sordidness will lead them to corrupt the teachings
as well.
The teachers that made the most powerful impression on me, the teachers who
earned my trust and devotion, were those who not only were sincere but also
lived in accordance with the teachings they preached and fled from any type
of moral corruption as from the plague. In matters of faith, this is the best
indicator of truth I am ever going to get in this lifetime. For now, this is good
enough for me.
| |
|
Latest Comments:
It's true that a highly charasmatic leader can be a sociopath who misleads others into evil. We have to realize that if they have an evil intent, it may not be obvious at first. Before joining any religious or political movement, it may be a good idea to watch from the sidelines for a while, to see what develops. Then you can weigh the benefits of the teaching as it is being applied against the negative effects.
|
I did not see the damning TV expose' of Kabbalah, but I think another question to ask might be WHO produced the expose' and for WHAT purpose...political or religious or humanistic persuasion or just one more topic, overly sensationalized by media. Also...I thought the criteria used for decision making before 'The Sin' was obeying what G-d told them.
|
It's nice to have some direction from a teacher, but the only way you are going to know if the knowledge of a teacher is good is if you check his/her sources and take it upon yourself to read them whether or not an individual teacher stresses this. Usually, there is never a source that is 100% good, so broaden your search, and get a feel for what different teachers and authors say about the same subject. Then, formulate your own opinions on the subject.
|
We cannot learn on the basis of trust alone. Yet, we cannot always use logic as a filter. So a good teacher, I believe, should provide the student with the tools - whatever they may be - to evaluate their teaching, to try it on, as it were. Chasidus, for example, speaks of things that transcend intellect, like faith. Yet it pinpoints the faith in each one of us, and describes its experience, giving us the oppurtunity - indeed, demanding of us - to search for and find it. Truth is not something one could hijack: "Truth will sprout forth from the Earth" (psalms). You should always be able to find truth, as opposed to taking it on faith from someon else. Learn from your teacher not his or her faith, but the path to your own. Walk that path, and you will verify which of the directions are true.
|
I have read and reread the article several times and I must admit that I do not really understand the answer (for similar reasons as those expressed by Atlanta). I would answer the question of your title the following way: Seeing is NOT believing. Beliefs - by definition - cannot be proven. If you can SEE it, there is no reason to BELIEVE it. Belief emanates from a deep UNDEFINED core within our soul. It is interesting to note that when addressing the apparent contradictions between Torah and Science, the Rebbe would not PROVE the truths of Judaism, but rather disprove the apparent refutations. The Rebbe would merely remove the obstacles that made it difficult for the believer to believe in the face of apparent 'scientific facts' seeming to prove otherwise. With the obstruction removed, the believer was free to believe. When the competing static is cleared away, the soul will naturally dance to the Torah's music. I think Maimonides is referring to something else altogether. The difference between before and after the sin is that before they ate of the forbidden fruit, evil was an objective, theoretical reality. It was something that existed outside of the human experience trying to get in. Once they ate of the tree, evil became part of them; it was no longer merely something external pressuring them from the outside. Evil became a subjective experience, PART of the human being. Before they sinned, the criteria that they used to decide what to do or not to do were the objective definitions of 'true' or 'false'. After they ate of the forbidden fruit, a new dimension was introduced into their decision making process: 'I like it' or 'I don't like it', independently of it is 'right' or 'wrong'. That is when their nakedness brought about shame, because it lost it purely objective purpose and revealed the possibility of the human to do something that was objectively wrong just because it felt good. Man had acquired the taste to behave like an animal.
|
It must not contradict the Torah revealed to Klal Yisrael at Sinai, by Hashem, through Moshe. And it must not ADD anything, however nice it seems, to the Torah....
|
Firstly, I do think that with all comments still this essay is an interesting one. Then, with all due respect I want to share with you David Hume's understanding that even Empirical evidence does not guarentee truth, and that we cannot know whe it points to the truth and when it does not. After all, we all have countless evidence that the sun revolves around the earth, as we see it do it every day, and indeed for thousands of years this is what was believed in (including by the Rambam) until disproved by scientists; and there could be many more examples to that. The fact is that empirical knowledge is only knowledge about the past, and only partial as we can never know all the sides of a thing, all the connections it has to other objects - especially when such are hidden from our eyes. Logical knowledge is also not sure even if more than empirical,for being more analytic than synthetic. I therefor suggest that everything we know, we believe, just in different levels of conviction.
|
As a social scientist, I disagree that the voice of spirit cannot be experimentally proven. In my previous post, I gave you VERY concrete variables that can be felt and measured internally and at least the fruits of behavior can be measured externally by others...
|
There are many contemporary as well as philosophical examples which prove that pure logic does not necessarily bring one to truth (see Mark Sainsbury in his Logical Forms: An introduction to philosophical Logic, Page 23). As I mentioned in my article the only prove of truth is empirical evidence (see also Edmund L. Gettiers famous paper entitled, Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? which backs up this assertion). This poses believers with a problem: since matters of belief are by definition not backed up by experimental evidence, how does one know that what one has been taught to believe is true? This question is the same for any type of belief including that of other religions. To say that logic can prove that a belief is true is philosophically unsound. To say as others have attempted to that one must feel the spirit is too subjective for others to accept as a proof of truth value. Ultimately in matters of faith we can never reach an objective, empirical, experiential truth. Thus religious people must start with a basis of faith (possibly backed up by logic), for many this is a belief in a G-d given code, for Jews this code is the Torah. Beyond this belief one relies of G-dly people who interpret the Divine. This is where the heart of the difficulty lies and where Maimonides' observation mentioned in my article is instructive.
|
There four test that MUST be met to KNOW that what you are receiving is thr divine truth from G_D.
First, the Spirit MUST speak to you mind (intellect) Second, the Spirit MUST speak to your heart (emotions/soul) Third, the feelings in your herat MUST be fruits of the Spirit such as love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperence. Fourth, these fruits MUST reside in your heart for some time.
ALL four MUST be present to be 100% sure that you are receivng divine truth from a speaker/leader. As you study the Torah with an eye sinle to the glory of G_D, the four above aspects will be present.
|
|
|  |

|
Showing 28 - 42 of 52
 |
|
|