Printed from Chabad.org
Contact Us
Visit us on Facebook
Meet the new Chabad.org
Switch to OLD version

Is G‑d an Agnostic?

Print
E-mail

To the luminous LCD of luscious luminance, the magnanimous Mensa member of Mexican menchlichkeit, sagacious and wondrous are his words that often make sense as well, deep and meaningful is his well of wisdom for all who dare draw from it, his honor, the Grand Rabbi of Suburban Guadalajara north of Flamenco Avenue and excluding some of the business district,

Dear Guad,

I'm not sure I should be writing to a rabbi about this. You see, I'm an agnostic. An agnostic is not an atheist. At least, most of us believe--or rather, have tentatively determined--that these two terms are not generally synonymous. An atheist believes that G-d does not exist. An agnostic is far more sophisticated and doesn't feign to believe anything at all--other than the idea that we can't really know anything for absolutely certain. And perhaps even that is not so certain, either.

Can an agnostic still be good Jew? At any rate, I want to know if an agnostic can still be good Jew. But then, perhaps I should not be asking a rabbi, since, if there is no G-d, then obviously the rabbi, being a believer in G-d is really off track. But in case there is a G-d, so who better to ask than a rabbi?

So here goes: I'm an agnostic. I'm convinced that there cannot be any compelling proof for the existence of a benevolent creator of the universe. Is there room for me in your religion?

--Agnes Tolk

Dear Agnes,

You're just an agnostic about G-d. I'm still not convinced about the whole of reality. Which is why, personally, I think G-d is also agnostic. He sits there perpetually wondering whether He exists or does not exist. Out of His questioning, a whole world is generated--with beings like us that go around asking, "Is this for real, or what?"

Now you're going to say, "That's nuts. Why on earth--or heaven, or whatever it is that does or does not exist--would G-d (if He exists) be unsure of His own existence?"

G-d sits there wondering whether He exists... Out of His questioning, a world is generated Well, consider this: Who came up with this whole idea of existence to begin with? Of course, the atheist assumes that existence just is. He doesn't imagine there could be no existence. That's atheism in a word: Things just are. (Okay, three words.)

But since you're asking a rabbi, I'll tell you that nothing has to be. G-d came up with the idea of existence. That's actually a fair translation of G-d's name in Hebrew, as I wrote to some-other-poor-soul- who-also-thought-he-could-get- a-simple-answer-out-of-me- and-ended-up-just-as- confusicated-as-you're-going-to-feel- by-the-time-you-finish-this-responsa: G-d in Hebrew means "The Isifier"--as in we is and He ises us.

G-d came up with the idea that some things would exist and others would not. Call it A and B. Then He had to determine whether He would be one of those of category A or B. And that's where the whole problem began: G-d has yet to determine whether He is playing this game of existence and is a part of our world or if He has better things to do with His time. (Actually, time is also another of those category A existence things. But the line sounded good, so I used it.)

If G‑d would "exist" then something would have had to existify Him - which means He wouldn't be G‑d... It's not so far out: Maimonides, the great 12th century codifier of what-we-believe- and-what-we-don't- just-so-everybody- can-argue-about-it- for-the-next-thousand-years writes that G-d cannot be called an existence. An existence has some sort of definition, as in "exist as what?" If G-d would exist, Rabbi M says, then something would have had to existify Him--which means He wouldn't be G-d. So G-d, by definition, does not exist.1

Neat fact: Did you know that when the Romans would sentence a person to death for becoming a Jew, the crime was called, "atheism"? Since the Jewish G-d cannot be seen or described, they considered this person to be without any god at all. Turns out that Judaism is closer to atheism than most people's theism. As Rabbi Sholom Dovber of Lubavitch once put it, "The G-d the atheist doesn't believe in, I don't believe in either."


Here's more evidence that G-d is an agnostic:

1) Free Choice. Free Choice means that G-d does not exist. If He would exist, then--being the all-encompassing, all-powerful being that G-d is--He wouldn't leave any posssibility for my free choice. There just isn't room for the two of us. Free choice, in other words, means that I exist, I make my own decisions and run my own life. And if so, G-d does not exist.

But hold on: What is it that I have free choice to decide? After all, there has to be something of meaning to decide in order to make a choice. Meaning, purpose, inherent value--those are just other code words for G-d. So the choice is whether I do what G-d wants me to do or not. Which means that G-d exists. Turns out that Free Choice is very agnostic.

2) Evil. What is evil? If G-d exists, there cannot be evil. Because evil is the absence of good--and if G-d is here and G-d is good, how could there be anything here but good? So the existence of evil means that G-d does not exist.

But wait: How can there be evil if there is no G-d? What's evil about it? It just is like anything else. So the existence of evil assumes that G-d exists.

Once again, G-d both exists and does not exist. The idea of morality is also very agnostic.

3) Existence. Let's get right down to the core of the quandary: Existence. How does anything exist? Only because it is sustained by G-d, the great Isifier (as described above). So, for anything to exist, G-d must exist.

But not so fast: What is it that the Isifier, blessed be He, is isifying? Whatever it is, it is not Him--because if it were Him, then He hasn't isified a thing, has He? Existence must be that which is not G-d. Reduce that to: G-d does not exist.

"The G-d the atheist doesn't believe in, I don't believe in either..." So existence itself is an agnostic state, another one of Schrodinger's cats sitting in the box neither alive nor dead and not even a little bit in between. What the quantum physicist calls "qubit entanglement" or "an indeterminate state." As G-d is agnostic, so is existence.

Another neat factoid: Take all the radiant energy in the universe (such as light, heat, etc.) and subtract all the negative energy (such as gravity) and what do you get? Zero. So does the universe exist or what?


Now that you're just as confused as the rest of us and know it too, tell me, please: Who will untangle the qubits, open the box, determine the state of the world and of G-d and relieve Him of His grand conundrum? Who will let Him come into His universe and exist here along with us?

There's only one hero of the story I can think of and that is us. In effect, we are G-d's conscience deciding whether He should live in this place we call reality or not.

So if we decide that this is a G-dless place where every man can do whatever he likes, the strong swallow the meek, the conniving consume the naive, beauty is just an artifact of human senses and instinct, things just happen because they happen and eventually the whole place is going to fizz out anyways ever since they enacted the law of entropy--so that's the world we decided to live in and that's the way our world is. Like the Torah (Leviticus 26:23-24) says, "If you go about life haphazardly (meaning, as though there were no G-d), then I will treat you haphazardly (meaning, I will not be G-d and things will just be because they are)..."

It's up to us to convince G-d to believe in His world, in us, and in His own existence But if we decide to be genuinely ticked off with injustice; perturbed by G-d's lack of presence, obsessed with the beauty by which He shines into His world; fascinated and amazed at every cell of life and being like a ten year old boy on his first visit to Radio Shack; and yearn for an ultimate future where G-d, purpose, meaning and life will be screaming out from every twig, rock and photon...

...then we will have convinced G-d to believe in His world, in us and in His own existence. Then our world will be a real world.

That's the choice called Judaism. So, Agnes, are you on the bus or what?

FOOTNOTES
1. See the perplexing Guide for the Perplexed, chapter 57. Also see the wild and wonderful dissertation of the Rebbe in his 1975 Hadran on Maimonides.
By Tzvi Freeman
Rabbi Tzvi Freeman, a senior editor at Chabad.org, also heads our Ask The Rabbi team. He is the author of Bringing Heaven Down to Earth. To subscribe to regular updates of Rabbi Freeman's writing, visit Freeman Files subscription.
About the artist: Sarah Kranz has been illustrating magazines, webzines and books (including five children’s books) since graduating from the Istituto Europeo di Design, Milan, in 1996. Her clients have included The New York Times and Money Marketing Magazine of London.
The content on this page is copyrighted by the author, publisher and/or Chabad.org, and is produced by Chabad.org. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with the copyright policy.
Print
E-mail
Sort By:
Discussion (43)
December 13, 2011
I still think this subject is Crazy
After all the comments all I can conclude that the author of the article Tzvi Freeman has a need to challenge us the readers to show how we can be sure that G-d exists. His arguements about the way this existance is not necessarily so are incomplete, but since the subject is a belief type and not a proof type, one would not expect to see more than this anyway. Certainly there is a place for showing doubt and I believe that this doubt is part of the unknown nature of G-d that makes him unique. (Logic aside!)
David Chester
Petach Tikva, Israel
December 12, 2011
Here we go again - another Rabbi knows what what G-d must be thinking.
ted
palo alto, ca
August 18, 2011
This is one of the most amazing things I've ever read. Not a very profound statement on my part, but I'm still trying to recover from "The Feeling of Truth Goosebumps." Thanks, Rabbi.
Eileen
NY, NY
June 18, 2011
Free will is a persistent illusion. Even the most diehard deterministic behaves as though free will exists, even though it cannot.

Free will implies a de facto separation between the individual and the universe which (s)he inhabits, otherwise there is no wiggle-room to permit any degree of independent action.

Lack of free will in fact does not imply freedom from responsibility and accountability. Socially, the belief in free will arises and is subjectively persistent. Even so, the illusion of having an independent "self" which thinks and behaves freely is persistent.

All that is, is necessary and contingent by the fact of its existence. Being that I am, and am in the universe, I am necessary and contingent. The universe could not be except as it is, and that is all bound up in the properties and initial conditions at t=0.

(To play with an old Beatles song: "We all live in a singularity, a singularity, a singularity.")
Zero-Equals-Infinity
Toronto, Canada
July 6, 2010
Existance and Free Will
The question about G-d being agnostic is rediculous. How can a being so profound as G-d not believe in Himself? His ego must by necessity be so great that the mearest tiniest doubt is impossible.

Now the free-will arguement needs some definitions about what it is and how it works with pre-destination. This subject is one for which BOTH concepts appear to be contradictory yet apply together. Of course we must believe in free-will, is there any choice?

It could be that on small-scale things we can choose but when it comes to heavier issues we have to go the way of the Almighty. But if so where is the division?

This means that the Divine Plan must exist and we are able to make changes to it. But due to our inability to be both sure and unsure of it, we cannot possibly work out what it will bring.

One is tempted to want to live for the moment hedonistically, but like the problem of free-will, this too in inconceviable in concrete terms and it is also good to plan ahead.
David Chester
Petach Tikva, Israel
November 1, 2009
this essay keeps me off the Jewish "bus"
Why this essay keeps me off the Jewish "bus" --

Essayist Tsvi Freeman states:
"G‑d came up with the idea that some things would exist and others would not. Call it A and B. Then He had to determine whether He would be ... [in] category A or B."

To create an idea or to make a decision, the idea-creator must first already exist. (Non-existent people -- or non-existent "anything else"s -- never have an idea or a decision. They don't think or decide anything, because they don't exist.)

To decide whether /A/ to exist or /B/ not to exist, the decider must exist (for at least long enough to make that decision). The idea of a non-existent decider contradicts itself, like the idea of a triangular sphere.
Kate Gladstone
Albany, NY/USA
December 25, 2007
Zero Equals Infinity
Wow!
What a great handle!
Wish I'd taken it first! Well done!

I'm Jaki, which could be a nickname for Jakheved or for Jakob or for John which is English for Jean and so it could be a nickname also for Jeanne.
Jaki
December 25, 2007
Without beginning ...
A fractal equation exists and is complete whether it is instantiated or not. Beginning is meaningless vis-a-vis the equation. It only has meaning from a perspective that is local and bounded within the limits of the instantiation of the equation, (as we are within the universe.)

Ironically, no instantiation need ever actually occur. The fractal equation contains all that is possible to unfold via instantiation. Hence without beginning, all that is, is resident and bounded by an equation.
Zero-Equals-Infinity
Toronto, On
December 24, 2007
But then there is G-d agnosticism concerning G-d's
Rav Freeman, you've still let Agnes off too easily! -- though perhaps there was no choice as we'll see.

For of course G-d must decide upon His own agnosticism as well. What is to be in category A' -- that which is paradoxical, and category B' -- that which is not. Though to look here is to go beyond the mask of Echad, past E-n Sof, so-to-speak, beyond where even the concept of same, different, and category cease.

The Arizal hints to it, and Rav Yitzchak Ginsburgh has so hinted (had E-n Sof been truly absolute, would it not be at least, "Without Beginning" rather than 'Without End"?) As any notion of "us" disappears in Echad, this discussion would take us into dangerously perilous waters. The wise have already hinted and stopped, so I guess we certainly should.

So after all you've done very well again Rav Freeman -- going as far as we and Agnes, if not the subject, can be taken.
Anonymous
Los Angeles, CA
October 26, 2007
As for leaving room for us to grow: this suggests thinking of Gd as having, within Gdself, a potential space which Gd actualizes, just as the potential space of the womb is actualized when she is pregnant. Ie, speaking anthropomorphically, Gd can be thought of as pregnant with the universe. The Torah actually uses this metaphor, indirectly, when Moshe Rabbenu asks HaShem whether he is the one who conceived all this people. And later we are told that Moshe is the"husband of Gd" (ish Ke lo kim), a translation validated in at least two midrashim. And HaShem uses the pregnancy metaphor as well, saying, "I will cry out like a woman in labor"
Since the metaphor is validin the Tanach and in the midrashim, the path whereby the Divine Plenty reaches us can be thought of as the umbillical cord.
Is the baby aware of the mother? Hm. The baby hears the mother's heartbeat, without knowing what it is. To the baby, that heartbeat is the whole universe. What heartbeat do we "hear"?
Miriam Wiener
St. Paul, Minn
Show all comments
1000 characters remaining
Email me when new comments are posted.
FEATURED ON CHABAD.ORG