51吃瓜

If there isn鈥檛 a God calling us to behave in a particular way, what else is there?

In an article聽published by 51吃瓜, rabbi-in-training Jeremy Sher argues: 鈥淔aith itself is more important than the God that the faith professes to be in.鈥� For Sher, God doesn鈥檛 exist 鈥� at least not in any of the ways we normally use the word. God is not like the sun or Mount Rainier or Justin Bieber鈥檚 pants, nor any other physical object that we could enumerate or imagine. Instead, God names a way of being.

On one level, Sher鈥檚 approach is refreshing. Rather than trying to defend God on nonsensical metaphysical terms, he鈥檚 taking a subtler approach 鈥� arguing for an understanding of God that is much less about some thing up in the sky, and much more about how we move through the world and understand our own experience.

On another level, though, Sher hasn鈥檛 left traditional metaphysics as far behind as he thinks. In what follows, I鈥檒l argue that Sher鈥檚 theology depends on the very beliefs he claims not to hold. Sher may not be a believer in the traditional sense, but he鈥檚 still trading in the emotional currency of a long-discredited theology.

Kind of Feeling

Sher writes: 鈥�I am a person of faith, a believer. My faith transcends boundaries and resists definition.鈥� He then approvingly quotes a letter from Va莽lav Havel to his wife, in which the future Czech president writes: 鈥淔aith … is usually 鈥渇aith in something,鈥� but that 鈥渟omething鈥� is not the decisive factor … a challenge to which would either shake the faith or require a rapid change of fetish. Genuine faith is original, primal and discrete; it precedes its object (if it has one).鈥�

Faith, then, isn鈥檛 first and foremost about an object 鈥� it鈥檚 a kind of feeling, an orientation toward the world. And this faith, Sher repeats, 鈥渋s more important than the 鈥楪od鈥� that the faith professes to be in.鈥� In fact, worrying too much about whether God exists involves a sacrifice of the 鈥済enuine faith鈥� that Sher wants to talk about.

But before saying what genuine faith is, Sher describes what faith isn鈥檛.

The first category is 鈥渇aith that鈥� 鈥� the belief that a particular statement 鈥渙btains as fact鈥� (God exists, everything turns out for the best, etc.). If these statements turn out to be incorrect, Sher writes, the believer鈥檚 faith is 鈥渟haken,鈥� proving that such faith isn鈥檛鈥渟trong鈥� to begin with.

Surprisingly, Sher argues that these varieties of faith 鈥渞equire little participation on the part of the believer; they are just a pile of propositions that the believer believes are true.鈥�

漏 Shutterstock

I disagree. Questions of fact may sometimes be black or white, but beliefs about those questions rarely are. Instead, beliefs shift and fluctuate; sometimes, they behave like particles, taking shape only after we鈥檝e gone looking for them. They鈥檙e the sort of things that depend on our moods, that we prefix with 鈥渒inda鈥� and 鈥渕ore-or-less.鈥� It鈥檚 the rare believer who believes cleanly, without doubt or uncertainty; many believers put enormous amounts of emotional energy into buttressing their faith.

Faith In

Sher鈥檚 second category is 鈥渇aith聽in鈥� (faith聽in the scientific method, faith聽in humanity). Unlike faith that, faith in isn鈥檛 propositional, and therefore can鈥檛 be proven wrong. Instead, we can continue to invest or place value in people, institutions, and ideas, even after they鈥檝e fallen short of our hopes or expectations.

Sher actually goes further, arguing that faith in 鈥渕akes no statement about the world, but it does influence a believer鈥檚 ideas about how individuals and societies should respond to the world.鈥� This also seems wrong to me: At least some of the time, we use the phrase 鈥渇aith in鈥� as shorthand for probability 鈥� to describe our degree of confidence that the world is a particular way (hospitable to democracy, likely to improve, etc.). In other words, the distinction between faith in and faith that may not be quite as clear as Sher suggests.

In any event, this is where God comes in. Although we talk about 鈥渇aith in God,鈥� Sher thinks this is misleading; God doesn鈥檛 exist in the same way that humanity, or the scientific method, or anything else does.

Accordingly, Sher introduces a third type of faith. This final category doesn鈥檛 obey the grammatical pattern we鈥檝e seen so far (faith + preposition). Instead, Sher writes in more abstract terms: 鈥淭his God idea we have is a way for us to access what is most holy and matters most.鈥�

Here, 鈥淕od鈥� isn鈥檛 an entity; instead, it names an approach to ethics, and perhaps to life itself. In a Facebook exchange, Sher echoes Rabbi David Cooper: 鈥淸T]he question is not what God does, but what it means 鈥榯o God.鈥欌�� Sher elaborates: 鈥淚t means a little more than to do the morally right thing, because there is, for me, a sense of cosmic participation in putting the world in order.鈥�

In other words, Sher鈥檚 concept of God not only captures the experience of behaving morally 鈥� it also explains why people behave this way. In fact, it 鈥渋s the reason it is possible for people to engage in selfless risk-taking and self-sacrifice in the service of the greater good.鈥�

God Calling

I share these values, but why call any of it 鈥淕od鈥�? Doing so runs the risk of suggesting that all heroic moral behavior has a metaphysical motivation, as if people who lack a notion of God can鈥檛 take great risks or sacrifice themselves for others.

I know this isn鈥檛 what Sher means, of course. But for someone like me 鈥� raised outside the Jewish tradition that he calls home 鈥� I can鈥檛 help but find the language distracting.

Now, maybe 鈥渙ur difference is only stylistic,鈥� as Sher recently suggested to me. But I think there might be a bit more going on: I think Sher is leaning on God to backstop his own values. Not directly, of course 鈥� again, Sher doesn鈥檛 believe in God as a metaphysical entity. (鈥淣o indeed, not whatsoever, not a chance.鈥�) But consider how he ends his article: 鈥淸T]he happiness or suffering of humanity and our living Earth matters: I have faith in that. Morality matters despite the rampant alienation of cruelty and the absurdity of mass indifference: I believe that. Responsibility matters because we are responsible beings, and we are called to take responsibility one for the other: to which I say yes, hallelujah, amen.鈥�

It鈥檚 gorgeous rhetoric, and I agree 鈥� all of this matters very much. But what does it mean to say that we鈥檙e 鈥渃alled鈥� to responsibility? Called by whom? It can鈥檛 be some being called “God,” since Sher has already rejected that possibility.聽And even if there were a God up there, how would we know he鈥檚 worth listening to? As many religious ethicists have pointed out, only by checking God鈥檚 demands against our own consciences.

But if there isn鈥檛 a God calling us to behave in a particular way, what else is there?

Nothing 鈥� it鈥檚 just us down here. We are the source of Sher鈥檚 calls. We are both the called and the callers. We are the source of our own values.

This isn鈥檛 a novel point: Nietzsche made these arguments 130 years ago, and philosophers since have expanded on them in a hundred directions. What鈥檚 so interesting about Sher is that it seems like he鈥檚 on the verge of accepting them, too 鈥� but just at the last minute, he blinks.

Instead, he tries to have his cake and eat it too 鈥� disowning bad metaphysics while smuggling metaphysically-valenced language into a very human set of values.

That鈥檚 not to reject poetry, of course. But it is to suggest that Jeremy Sher鈥檚 argument isn鈥檛 ultimately about faith or God 鈥� it鈥檚 about Jeremy Sher. His article聽is a brief glimpse into the workings of his own mind: brilliant, creative, but perhaps a bit fearful, too.

Perhaps I鈥檓 reading him wrong. It鈥檚 always dangerous to psychologize, especially with someone you鈥檝e never met. But when I try to make sense of the dissonance in Sher鈥檚 account of faith, I can鈥檛 escape the feeling that his emotions are driving his argument 鈥� in particular, his discomfort with the idea that human beings are alone in this world.

That鈥檚 a tough pill to swallow, and I鈥檓 certainly not finished trembling at its implications. But it鈥檚 also just how things are. Sher seems to resist this conclusion; he seems to feel that human beings require validation from elsewhere 鈥� as if we鈥檙e somehow insufficient on our own.

And so I would ask, why? Why this need for back-door sanctification? Why this concern with recovering the grandeur of a dead metaphysics? Why so little faith in your fellow human beings?

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your donation is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a sponsor.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51吃瓜’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: 听/ /