Reply To: Being a shliach for the tzibur without Hashem

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Being a shliach for the tzibur without Hashem Reply To: Being a shliach for the tzibur without Hashem

#935479

TKND:

1. What does probably mean? What do the Ani Maamins mean? One could envision a Reform Jew believing all of them in some sense, and one could equally well envision rishonim not believing in some of them.

2. If it’s true that someone who is not smart enough to harbor doubts is better than someone who is, then Emunah doesn’t sound like such a good idea. It promotes ignorance, since people who are too ignorant to know what questions there are can never explore those questions. Furthermore, it calls into doubt the very meaning of the word belief, as illustrated by the other questions. (I would also posit that your answer is the Chassidic one, but that Litvaks might answer it differently.

3 and 4. So comparing the two, you are saying that it is better (at least for purposes of being a viable baal tefilah) to take some random version of events as true with no basis at all in fact, than it is to believe in something because it is proven? How can you make value judgments based on what people believe, if all you want is that they suspend judgment and take someone’s word for it? And what about all the other versions of history that are vying for this dude to believe them? Why do you privilege the biblical version of History over the others, if not because you think there is some way to say it’s objectively better?

5. Question 5 really relies on a particular perception of questions 3 and 4, i.e. that belief must mean either being able to prove it, or believing it without being able to prove it; and that either version is not tenable as a religious requirement.

6. This guy doesn’t actually think that as an empirical matter, these things happened, but he does believe that he needs to believe they happened. Again, it’s the logical outcome of questions 3 and 4. You can either prove something or you can’t. Inasmuch as someone can prove something, he doesn’t “believe” it. Inasmuch as someone can’t prove something, he can’t be required to believe it in the sense that he actually thinks it happened, but he can Believe it to the extent he thinks that as a matter of religious practice he needs to believe it.