B'chasdei Hashem, over the past almost 20 years, Beis Mevakesh Lev has produced over 13,300 audio shiurim and over 31,000 written posts, unmatched by any one-person website - all completely free of charge. There are no paywalls or anything else. Now we are turning to you for help so we can continue - any amount will help. Even 99 cents! Thank you to my sweetest and most beloved friends!!!:-)!!
alchehrm@gmail.com
----
Today it is fashionable to be skeptical. The naive believer is presented as a childish and backwards type, while the role model is that of the skeptic, the critical, the one who undermines conventions. The prevailing opinion is that skepticism is an ally of atheism; that skeptical thinking leads to disbelief in the existence of God, or at least to abandoning religion and tradition. I want to question this opinion and argue that the truth is completely different. Skepticism can actually be an ally of religious faith. It all depends on the direction you take it.
Let's go back to the first systematic skeptic in modern philosophy, namely Descartes. In an attempt to find out what can be known with absolute certainty, Descartes subjected all types of human knowledge to the criticism of skepticism, to see which knowledge would survive it. Of course, all knowledge about the external world fell in the early stages of criticism: who said that there is an external world at all? Maybe everything I see is just a dream, an illusion, or a matrix that exists only within my consciousness? And who knows what the true nature of the world is? Maybe it was created only half an hour ago, and all my previous memories are fake? Maybe the laws of nature that prevailed in the past are different from those that prevail today - if there is such a thing as "laws of nature" at all? All scientific theories, and all natural sciences, cannot stand up to the spirit of skepticism that scatters them in all directions. Later, another professional skeptic, David Hume, will come and conduct a more focused skeptical critique of science, against the principles of induction and causality. Undoubtedly, modern science is definitely not "skepticism-proof."
Of course, Descartes' skepticism applies not only to the external world, but also to the human body itself. Who said I have a body? Maybe I'm just dreaming or imagining that I have a body, just as a person can dream that he has wings? Maybe I'm just a brain in a jar, or not even a brain at all - just a spiritual consciousness, subject to the illusion that it has a material body?
Also, even the things that seem certain to us can actually be wrong. Maybe some entity is messing with our consciousness, causing us to hold wrong opinions and be convinced that they are true? Maybe 2+2 is not really 4, and only the "deceiving demon" makes us think so? It is impossible to prove that this is not the case, and therefore these opinions also fall before skepticism.
So what's left in the end? Here Descartes came to the conclusion that the only thing that is certain without any doubt is my existence. For even if I am wrong about everything else, there must be an "I" who is wrong. If I don't exist, there is no one to mislead. Hence Descartes' famous sentence: Cogito ergo sum - I think, therefore I am. Only this knowledge is completely immune to any skepticism.
Descartes, who did not really want to remain a skeptic, tried to use this knowledge as a basis for certainty, and to try to expand the circle of knowledge as much as possible. Here we will leave him, and go in a slightly different way than his. If I exist, then there are two possibilities: either I myself am the cause of my existence, and the cause of the existence of all the reality I experience - or some other force is the cause of it.
The possibility that I am the cause of my existence, and I created myself and all of reality - sounds completely absurd, even to an extreme skeptic. It is true that we agreed to doubt even our logic, and to take into account that maybe it is misleading us; but this is a reasonable possibility only if we assume that some external force is deceiving us. If not, then I would have to assume that I am simultaneously the self-cause of my existence and the existence of reality - and also deceiving myself into thinking that it is not logical that I am such. But if I am such a powerful entity, who can constitute myself and the whole world, why would I suffer from such a dire lack of self-awareness? Maybe it's possible, but it seems that even an extreme skeptic would find it difficult to hold this opinion, that he himself is the cause of his existence and the existence of reality, without him knowing it. Not to mention that the reality I see is so complex and complicated that it is hard to believe that I myself created it, even if I am a big megalomaniac.
It seems, therefore, that we can assume with almost absolute certainty that, apart from me, there is at least one more force - a force external to me, which is the cause of my existence and the existence of reality. It does not matter if reality actually exists in a real way or only in my consciousness, if the world was created billions of years ago or five minutes ago, and if the other people around me have consciousness or are just robots; either way, some force had to create it - and if it's not me, then as mentioned, there is a force outside of me. I have no reason to assume that there is more than one such force - don't forget that I am a skeptic! And therefore I prefer to attribute to that single force, the reason for my existence and the existence of the whole of reality. And I call this force God (Elokim). It seems to me a pretty suitable name for a force that can do all this.
And here we have reached the surprising conclusion that not only is the existence of God (Elokim) not refuted by skepticism, but on the contrary - it is one of the most resistant things to any skepticism, extreme as it may be. Science, philosophy, the Big Bang, evolution - all these, it is doubtful whether they are true or not. "Scientific evidence"? Come on. Go prove first that the world was not created a quarter of an hour ago, and that you are not a brain in a jar. Only two things are really certain: that I exist - and that there is a force that created me and reality, namely God (Elokim). Everything else can be doubted.
So what do we do now? If everything is in doubt, except for my existence and the existence of God (Elokim), what am I supposed to do from tomorrow morning? How to manage my life? Here faith comes into the picture. Contrary to popular belief, doubt is not the enemy of faith, but of knowledge. "Knowledge" is entitled to boast of this title only if it can be proven with certainty, while doubt is the "maybe not?" that crumbles all certainty. Faith, on the other hand, is the sister of doubt, and like it, it is a daughter of the "maybe" family; but unlike it, faith is "maybe yes?".
Both doubt and faith can come in different levels of strength; there are negligible doubts that almost no one takes into account, and there are strong doubts that undermine certainty with great force. So is faith: there are weak beliefs, which a person holds only as a distant possibility, and there are beliefs that a person is convinced of with all his might, with complete faith (although he cannot prove them).
It turns out that faith and doubt are not really rivals; "maybe not?" does not constitute any argument against "maybe yes?". In fact, they work together: doubt destroys all the rigid buildings of proofs, thereby making room for faith to plant its flowers and trees. These are indeed not as rigid as the proof buildings, but precisely because of this they stand better against the winds of doubt, and move with them without breaking. If it were not for doubt, the total rule of positivism would not have left room for the diverse flowers of faith. It is doubt that allows for wealth, diversity and a multitude of possibilities and opinions. This is how the brother and sister cooperate with each other.
Therefore, every person should clarify with himself what he really believes in, and live his life according to those beliefs. You don't have to prove anything, and you can't prove it either. What you need to do is believe. One will believe in science, evolution and quantum theory; the second will believe in religion, with its metaphysics and scriptures; and the third will believe that all of reality is but an illusion that exists in his consciousness. Each one uses faith in a way that seems right to him - and uses doubt against those opinions that do not seem right to him. It's all a matter of personal decision.
This does not mean that you cannot argue and convince; when both sides agree to believe in certain basic assumptions, they can argue which conclusions are derived from those basic assumptions. But the basic assumptions themselves cannot be proven or disproven.
So how do you get along like this together? How do you manage a company in such a way? That is already a completely different question, important though it is, but not related to the subject. It is a practical matter - how people with different beliefs can cooperate in a beneficial way. But it is not related to the essence of faith and skepticism. All kinds of claims that are heard endlessly that religion is harmful to society, leads to wars and so on, even if there is truth in them, are not relevant to the very belief in religion. If I believe that religion is correct, I will not give up this belief just because it has harmful consequences. And if you don't believe in religion, then either we will find a way to get along together, or we will fight. But practical arguments do not touch on the essence of faith.
The conclusion, therefore, is that skepticism not only does not negate the belief in the existence of God, but on the contrary - negates the existence of almost everything, except for God. And therefore, it makes room for beliefs of various kinds, and among them of course also for religious faith.
Translated from מיסטריום
