This is brilliant. You have verbalized and organized my attempts at argumentation with the “non-believers “. It’s just not my department. So thank you.
The difference between belief and conviction is a function of the evidentiary base employed to arrive at one's conclusions -- but both belief and conviction absolutely rely on evidence.
Belief can even summon evidence from books, holy or otherwise, to prove itself. It can rely on personal experience, or the experience of others that's then related directly to other believers.
Conviction, by contrast, can be based on an evidentiary body that's scientific and, at the same time, entirely false. How? Because, in the end, science, too, is no more than a belief system that requires its adherents to bow to the textual authorities espousing the latest paradigm.
See The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn, a book that demonstrates the instability of scientific "reasoning" and the importance of remaining free of conviction altogether -- even in the "holy" realm of scientific inquiry!
In the end, I suppose, the two are almost the same, and attempting to parse a difference may be less than fruitful.
That is, the Torah and Isaac Newton's Principia, l'havdil, may be equally believable and convincing, though they draw upon widely divergent evidentiary bases. And, of course, only one is from G-d.
Not at all. Read it again. Emunah is properly translated as conviction. Belief is, at most, emunah peshuta. The unthinking belief of little children.
Convictions can be based on anything. Did you think I was suggesting that because someone is convinced of something, that makes it right? Because that would ridiculous. But belief is only ever right in the sense of the proverbial broken clock.
I'm not claiming infallibility for scientists. Anyone who fell for that nonsense clearly never did the "Sociology of Science" unit in Soc 101. They get trapped inside their own paradigms, and then demand that everyone else join them.
Good article. Good points. Perhaps, belief is an avenue for those whose only path left open is a ‘child’s belief’ because they have not strength left for anything else. I knew many like that. Sadly they are all gone. Survivors each and every single one of them. May their Neshamas have an Aliyah.
Okay, I struggle with belief, conviction, whatever you want to call it. I certainly don't argue against the conviction in the Torah's truth. But here is my response to "how it could have happened" that we got convinced to accept as truth something that is part of a broken chain of commission.
In "Kings" for example, Josiah discovers a Torah scroll and realizes that he and Israel have not been keeping to the law. When I read this without rabinnic commentary, it seems to me the plain meaning is that the Israelites completely forgot about this text, had to re-learn it, and re-enforce it. So it was not handed down mouth to mouth, so to speak.
I can imagine a situation where Ezra is able to convince people that their ancestors saw something they did not. That seems not much more difficult than Joseph Smith convincing people he spoke with God. Of course, he couldn't convince them their grandparents knew these things, but he could convince them that their great great grandparents many times removed did and stopped passing it down during times of idolatry.
I'm not trying to question other people's Judaism here, but trying to articulate my own lingering doubts in the assurance from authorities that 600,000 plus people witnessed the events at Sinai. (And don't get my started on my sci-fi fantasies that Moshe could have duped the Israelites with, essentially, smoke and mirrors).
In the end, I put aside these doubts and "believe" on "faith" because, in fact, my gut wants me to--among other things.
Here's the thing, Thomas. Those two periods, Josiah and Ezra, are problematic for the theory that the Torah was "invented" then. The Samaritan Torah is based closely on ours. When did they copy it?
Did they, right around the time that Josiah of Judah campaigned wildly through their land, destroying temple and burning graves, decide, "Hey, these Judahites just invented a Torah. We should copy it!" It seems unlikely.
And Ezra. A time when we turned away the Samaritans because they weren't our people and they were angry enough to make up libels to the Persians about us? That's when they also decided to go all in on the newly minted Torah of the Judeans?
It's not plausible. It's far less plausible than the idea that the Torah had been around for a long time before that. If it was ancient, it's easier to see how the Samaritans might have copied it, even at a time when they hated us. Sort of like the way in which the "Palestinians" try and co-opt Jewish history. But something brand new? I doubt it.
And I get the trickery angle. I can't read about Eliyahu on Har Karmel without thinking that the water he had poured on the bulls could have been a flammable liquid. :)
Maybe you do "believe" on "faith". I consider both of those to be dirty words. I don't have it in me to believe on an emotional level. Maybe the fact that I wasn't raised frum makes it easier for me. I know a lot of FFB folks who lose their emunah continue acting as though they haven't because the social price would be too much. And I bet a lot of them won't let themselves question because the *internal* price would be too much. But I'm an advocate of "the unexamined life is not worth living". And "Check your premises".
I don't know anything about the Samaritan Torah, but I wasn't suggested Josiah "made it up." What I was suggesting was that he re-discovered an ancient text about which he had no knowledge, no oral transmission, and so, essentially he and people after him interpreted that text in ways that may well have been misguided.
And yeah, I've also thought that Eliyahu might have poured kerosene on those bulls :-).
As for being FFB. I was raised Christian, a kind of mild protestant, and didn't embrace my Judaism until I was 40.
Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts on belief and conviction and am thinking to use this as a starting point for a discussion in my class today on, of all things, vampires.
In Dracula, Van Helsing asks characters to believe in what they cannot believe, the existence of vampires, a belief they resist even when they see direct evidence of it. Because, I guess it goes against their convictions.
This is brilliant. You have verbalized and organized my attempts at argumentation with the “non-believers “. It’s just not my department. So thank you.
I'm glad to have helped.
I think there may be a mistake here.
The difference between belief and conviction is a function of the evidentiary base employed to arrive at one's conclusions -- but both belief and conviction absolutely rely on evidence.
Belief can even summon evidence from books, holy or otherwise, to prove itself. It can rely on personal experience, or the experience of others that's then related directly to other believers.
Conviction, by contrast, can be based on an evidentiary body that's scientific and, at the same time, entirely false. How? Because, in the end, science, too, is no more than a belief system that requires its adherents to bow to the textual authorities espousing the latest paradigm.
See The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn, a book that demonstrates the instability of scientific "reasoning" and the importance of remaining free of conviction altogether -- even in the "holy" realm of scientific inquiry!
In the end, I suppose, the two are almost the same, and attempting to parse a difference may be less than fruitful.
That is, the Torah and Isaac Newton's Principia, l'havdil, may be equally believable and convincing, though they draw upon widely divergent evidentiary bases. And, of course, only one is from G-d.
Not at all. Read it again. Emunah is properly translated as conviction. Belief is, at most, emunah peshuta. The unthinking belief of little children.
Convictions can be based on anything. Did you think I was suggesting that because someone is convinced of something, that makes it right? Because that would ridiculous. But belief is only ever right in the sense of the proverbial broken clock.
I'm not claiming infallibility for scientists. Anyone who fell for that nonsense clearly never did the "Sociology of Science" unit in Soc 101. They get trapped inside their own paradigms, and then demand that everyone else join them.
You're arguing a complete strawman here, Dean.
Forgive me, emuna is the unthinking belief of little children?
No. Emunah peshutah is. You should read more carefully. Do you know the difference between emunah and emunah peshutah?
I love this, Lisa. You really have the art and accuracy of explanation!
Lisa, you are ruthless!
(That’s a compliment).
Good article. Good points. Perhaps, belief is an avenue for those whose only path left open is a ‘child’s belief’ because they have not strength left for anything else. I knew many like that. Sadly they are all gone. Survivors each and every single one of them. May their Neshamas have an Aliyah.
אמן
Okay, I struggle with belief, conviction, whatever you want to call it. I certainly don't argue against the conviction in the Torah's truth. But here is my response to "how it could have happened" that we got convinced to accept as truth something that is part of a broken chain of commission.
In "Kings" for example, Josiah discovers a Torah scroll and realizes that he and Israel have not been keeping to the law. When I read this without rabinnic commentary, it seems to me the plain meaning is that the Israelites completely forgot about this text, had to re-learn it, and re-enforce it. So it was not handed down mouth to mouth, so to speak.
I can imagine a situation where Ezra is able to convince people that their ancestors saw something they did not. That seems not much more difficult than Joseph Smith convincing people he spoke with God. Of course, he couldn't convince them their grandparents knew these things, but he could convince them that their great great grandparents many times removed did and stopped passing it down during times of idolatry.
I'm not trying to question other people's Judaism here, but trying to articulate my own lingering doubts in the assurance from authorities that 600,000 plus people witnessed the events at Sinai. (And don't get my started on my sci-fi fantasies that Moshe could have duped the Israelites with, essentially, smoke and mirrors).
In the end, I put aside these doubts and "believe" on "faith" because, in fact, my gut wants me to--among other things.
Here's the thing, Thomas. Those two periods, Josiah and Ezra, are problematic for the theory that the Torah was "invented" then. The Samaritan Torah is based closely on ours. When did they copy it?
Did they, right around the time that Josiah of Judah campaigned wildly through their land, destroying temple and burning graves, decide, "Hey, these Judahites just invented a Torah. We should copy it!" It seems unlikely.
And Ezra. A time when we turned away the Samaritans because they weren't our people and they were angry enough to make up libels to the Persians about us? That's when they also decided to go all in on the newly minted Torah of the Judeans?
It's not plausible. It's far less plausible than the idea that the Torah had been around for a long time before that. If it was ancient, it's easier to see how the Samaritans might have copied it, even at a time when they hated us. Sort of like the way in which the "Palestinians" try and co-opt Jewish history. But something brand new? I doubt it.
And I get the trickery angle. I can't read about Eliyahu on Har Karmel without thinking that the water he had poured on the bulls could have been a flammable liquid. :)
Maybe you do "believe" on "faith". I consider both of those to be dirty words. I don't have it in me to believe on an emotional level. Maybe the fact that I wasn't raised frum makes it easier for me. I know a lot of FFB folks who lose their emunah continue acting as though they haven't because the social price would be too much. And I bet a lot of them won't let themselves question because the *internal* price would be too much. But I'm an advocate of "the unexamined life is not worth living". And "Check your premises".
I don't know anything about the Samaritan Torah, but I wasn't suggested Josiah "made it up." What I was suggesting was that he re-discovered an ancient text about which he had no knowledge, no oral transmission, and so, essentially he and people after him interpreted that text in ways that may well have been misguided.
And yeah, I've also thought that Eliyahu might have poured kerosene on those bulls :-).
As for being FFB. I was raised Christian, a kind of mild protestant, and didn't embrace my Judaism until I was 40.
Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts on belief and conviction and am thinking to use this as a starting point for a discussion in my class today on, of all things, vampires.
In Dracula, Van Helsing asks characters to believe in what they cannot believe, the existence of vampires, a belief they resist even when they see direct evidence of it. Because, I guess it goes against their convictions.
Ramchal "ever jew needs to believe and know"
The Ramchal wrote in English?
How is this different from the guy who thought whole and holy were related? The Ramchal never said the word "believe".
lol, you had a run in with Yehuda too? He's a smart guy, but his polemics are loooooong! I sense a sweetness in his soul.
You may be right about that.