It's interesting that in the discussion of religious education as a good, there's no mention of the idea that any one involved thinks directly in terms of whether or not this religious activity is what God actually wants.

It's striking to read "Heading to church or synagogue might make one feel more righteous and community-oriented than going golfing on a weekend morning, and that’s pretty much the point: The feelings and knock-on effects gathered from spending time in a certain way are part of the overall purchase."

That makes perfect sense if you don't actually believe in God, or you don't actually believe that your religion has any particular relevance to God, but that seems strange when God is presumably the whole point of the religion.

Is it relatively normal for people to identify themselves so strongly as Jewish while also disassociating themselves entirely from the idea that God is a real being who demands that they live in a specific way? As an atheist who grew up in an evangelical household, this is such an alien point of view.

What God actually wants? How about a more fundamental question: Is there a God? Everything points to a negative answer. So why spend time making the motions of a religious person. However, I still consider myself a Jew, and I'm proud of it. Yet I don't believe there is a god.

"Everything points to a negative answer." Really!

Ok you seem to disagree. Let's use a current example but actually just another question among hundreds of thousands like it: if there is a personal god, and I assume you think there is, why does this god permit Ebola? Have you seen the suffering of this god's beautiful little children in Africa? It is far more comforting not to believe in any god at all, at least for me.

I'd say Alvin Plantinga's free will defense is probably the most logically sound explanation of the problem of evil. It's not without its faults, mind you (it assumes an incompatibilist, libertarian view of free will), but it enjoys widespread acceptance in the philosophical community.

Personally, outside of the intellectual exercise it offers, I try not to get involved in the debates regarding God's existence. At the end of the day, it consists of humans trying to explain something that is ultimately incomprehensible to us: how can fallible, mortal beings with limited knowledge possibly explain (or even comprehend) the actions of a being that is, at the very least, omniscient and omnipotent? As Shakespeare so eloquently put it in King Lear: As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods. They kill us for their sport.

Beautiful comment, thanks. You're right that all of this is beyond our comprehension. It does remind me of Job questioning his suffering and the answer being "Were you there when the Morning Stars sang together and all the sons of god shouted for joy?" The universe is immense beyond our understanding and perhaps we are mere dust motes to distant deities. Olaf Stapleton imagined that galaxies are conscious.

Job is probably my favorite book of the Bible after Ecclesiastes.

Also, +1 for Stapledon. I still have Star Maker lying around somewhere waiting to be read, but I loved Last and First Men. His writing style isn't for everyone, but he wrote some of the most unique works of science fiction that I've ever read.

Stapledon - sorry for the misspelling. Haven't read him for years but loved his books. Star Maker is the true mind blower, to use an old expression.

on the other hand there are 2 problems of free will; logical and practical. the logical problem seems solved by plantinga's defense but the further question is can we explain all the evil that exists in the world with such a defense or are we left short as the scale of evil dwarfs it's useful function?

"the most logically sound explanation"

On the one hand you seem to grasp that the divine nature is by definition transcendent and hence unavailable to the relatively mundane capacities of traditional logic (pace Godel). Yet on the other hand you assert Plantinga's argument regarding the so-called "problem of evil" as somehow appropriate to the task.

An erstwhile atheist myself, today I find it impossible for anyone of intellectual integrity to read in a comprehending manner the second half of David Bentley Hart's "The Experience of God" and thereafter remain convinced in the matter of God's non-existence.

I'm aware of the limitations of logic with regard to God, but that doesn't mean it's a foolish venture. If we couldn't examine God via logic, then we'd have to toss out a good portion of theology, including some of the greats like Aquinas.

I've heard quite a bit of buzz around Hart's book, but I've been leery about reading it after poor experiences with some of his lectures and debates. He has a bad tendency to come off as arrogant and condescending, giving even the most vocal New Atheists a run for their money at times. I find Dawkins and company insufferable generally, so I have little interest in reading the arguments of an opponent that is equally insufferable. Is he better about that stuff in his writing?

> If we couldn't examine God via logic, then we'd have to toss out a good portion of theology, including some of the greats like Aquinas.

And that's just as well. Stick to the original pre-Aquinatic theology, as it mostly went downhill (and turned puritan, austere, and all too logical) from there...

The arrogance -- or at least petulance -- to which you refer certainly is among his weaknesses. In my experience it is his somewhat rash and frustrated reaction to that confederacy of airport bookstore dunces known as a the "new atheists". A more serious accusation in my mind is Hart's tendency toward the turgid. Nevertheless, when he is able to summon his full voice you will find few living writers better able to elicit the numinous and to elucidate the fundamental rational foundation for the necessity of God (for as all honest, intelligent atheists must finally admit, theirs is ultimately a self-annihilating position - see Anthony Flew, et al).

Your point re Aquinas is of course well taken. I would remind that as majestic as Aquinas and the other apologists were, they predate Godel's Incompleteness Theorem by some many centuries. Godel's influence on these matters has of course barely begun to unfold, being less than a century old. Expect a very different climate 100 years hence!

If your justification for "no god" is suffering - check out Buddhism! It both gives 100% meaning to suffering and it's necessity in the world, and it eliminates the need to have a "God" to believe in.

Right about that indeed. Buddhism does appeal to me!

so why do you care about human suffering?
buddhism sees nothing in human suffering other than the reminder for their transcending ie, ignoring! human suffering or joy.
it is a negative system that seeks annihilationj ultimately.
only orthodox christianity sees eternity a spriitually tenable pheneomenon; cf. the absurd belief in the afterlife in islam where people will be rewarded for murdering people.

I'm not sure where the notion of a comforting God originates. I can say with certainty that it is not in Classical or Rabbinic Judaism. In the Torah Moses requests that God explain to him the rules for how God operates. God responds to Moses that such a response is not possible. The Book of Job is one long discussion on the question of theodicy. As philosopher Cheryl Berman wrote in her book Reasonable Doubts " Religion is a scalding cup of coffee, not a comforting cup of tea." Christianity which needs to deal with the question of who is given Grace seems to be a religion of challenges, as one can never know if they have Grace. I can't address other religions, but the I can't see how any religion from Paganism to monotheism embraces the notion that God is some sort of cosmic 911 that responds to every single human cosmic crisis. This may not be comforting, but it's probably accurate.

Comforting gods begin to emerge in Homer - mainly Hermes and Athena

In Sumeria with Enkidu.

Well said. I'll think about this. Thanks.

If you have any questions about this stuff, I would be pleased to respond to them as best as I can. I enjoy recommending books on these topics, in particular.

Where in the Torah does Moses ask god this question?

Exodus 33:12-23. To wit

12 And Moses said unto the LORD: 'See, Thou sayest unto me: Bring up this people; and Thou hast not let me know whom Thou wilt send with me. Yet Thou hast said: I know thee by name, and thou hast also found grace in My sight.
13 Now therefore, I pray Thee, if I have found grace in Thy sight, show me now Thy ways, that I may know Thee, to the end that I may find grace in Thy sight; and consider that this nation is Thy people.'
14 And He said: 'My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest.'
15 And he said unto Him: 'If Thy presence go not with me, carry us not up hence.
16 For wherein now shall it be known that I have found grace in Thy sight, I and Thy people? is it not in that Thou goest with us, so that we are distinguished, I and Thy people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth?' {P}
17 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken, for thou hast found grace in My sight, and I know thee by name.'
18 And he said: 'Show me, I pray Thee, Thy glory.'
19 And He said: 'I will make all My goodness pass before thee, and will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.'
20 And He said: 'Thou canst not see My face, for man shall not see Me and live.'
21 And the LORD said: 'Behold, there is a place by Me, and thou shalt stand upon the rock.
22 And it shall come to pass, while My glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with My hand until I have passed by.
23 And I will take away My hand, and thou shalt see My back; but My face shall not be seen.' {P}

Lots of profound stuff here. One needs to understand that from a Classical/Rabbinic Jewish point of view the Torah is God's book about Humanity, not Humanity's book about God. There is actually very little about God's nature in the Torah, although a bit about His personality, as it were , anthromorphically speaking.
Yes, you are correct the Greeks tried to move their Gods to a more human typology ( as opposed to beastly or quasi human types, like Anubus). And
in the final analysis they may gave been better able to relate to their gods to a greater degree because of their humanish qualities, but capricious gods cannot by nature be comforting. The latter can only occur when one has specific expectations and capriciousness does not lend itself to comfort. As the Talmud says " Put not your faith in the mighty ones ( political leaders et al )as they bring no salvation"

What a terrible translation with all those thee's and thou's and hasts, etc. Antiquated 17th c. English, I guess. I thought Moses was the only man to ever see God face to face? Yet here, in this very moving passage, he is protected from that. I like the idea that the Torah is God's view of humanity. The Greeks wondered about the justice of the gods and questioned the gods with this in mind. The OT seems to point to a rather capricious god quite often too. I think Christianity gained such a foothold because of a depiction of a compassionate god who promised a pleasant afterlife, at least for those who deserved it.

No one can see God face to face , verbatim. Whenever God reveals himself in the most Imminent mode, it is always as being enveloped in a cloud or in Fire.

The notion that the Jewish God's capriciousness rests on the notion that God is judgable, which in turn rests on the notion that the human being is capable of comprehending God based on human reason. This notion is laughable. Hume demostrated the limits of human reason a long time ago. As did Kant. Assuming there is a God renders that God outside of time and space and therefore not comprehensible to humans whosr entire world view is shaped by three dimensional perception. And if there is no God the very notion of questioning God's justice is absurd. If no God exists then events occur at random and the question of God becomes moot, because god and bad are only a function of cosmic randomness.
It seems to me that Pauline Christianity found its greates appeal among two groups. First were the "Godfearers", that is non-Jews that had abandoned paganism and had a predeliction towards ethical monotheism and may have, to some degree or other, adopted some Jewish praxis. The Roman historian Tacitus maintains that they made up about 10% of the Roman Empire. When Paul proferred a faith which reduced its salvic obligations to faith, this option becomes a lot more attractive than full conversion to Judaism which stresses deeds over belief. But, despite believing that one believes there is no way for the Christian to determine whether they are given Grace. Baptism and Faith may be necessary conditions for Salvation but there is no operative way of determining if one achieves Grace. My understanding, albeit limited, is that most Catholics ( if not Christians) do not attain Grace at death , but actually go to some nether region while waiting and suffer some kind of torments. Serious Christians at least until the onset of neo-Calvinism were constantly worried whether or not they had Grace.

The rest of the mainstream that accepted Christianity were slaves and the poor , possibly responding to what they understood would be a free "get out of jail card" and took great comfort in the notion of an afterlife which seemed to embrace the poor ( Sermon on the Mount).

Just b/c people get comfort out of religion, that does not mean that the religion is comforting. In fact it would seem to me that since the object of religions is to strive to make people rise above their natural tendencies, a true understanding of religion would actually seek to move people out of their comfort zone. The Jewish notion of social justice, or christian liberation theology, or Mother Theresa's work with lepers would seem to indicate that accepting the status quo in inappropriate. Some reflection about the true nature of religion renders comfort difficult.. That is not to say that religion cannot offer solace, but that is not the same as comfort.

Exodus 33:11: Moses used to talk with God face to face.

A short answer just for now: let God or gods be capricious, their ways not to be known; that's their business. As for myself, they shouldn't expect my worship and I doubt that they do. All this, of course, under the strange assumption that they exist. As for helping others like Mother Teresa or other good people, I don't believe religion is necessary for doing that.

> if there is a personal god, and I assume you think there is, why does this god permit Ebola?

A better question that this naivety: why shouldn't God permit Ebola?

Who said God (assuming it exists) should make it all be rainbows and unicorns and hugs?

God might just as well appreciate people passing through varied and multiple experiences, including very bad ones, not just some endless stream of joy (the latter is what heaven is about in most religions anyway).

naivete (sorry I'm an old English teacher). You make a good point. I just don't see, if it's all the same to "god," why I should bother to worship him/her/it. I'm happy with trying to live up to the Golden Rule, from which I often fall short on a regular basis. Many ancient Greeks, who gave this much thought, felt that our real hope is in humanity, not in the gods.

You assume wrong. But the question "Why does God allow suffering?" is the subject of approximately a million billion books, articles, speeches, etc., and has led to an equal number of conclusions. I wouldn't write it off as so simple.

people insist on living their lives free of God's guidance is the basic answer. We were given free will, made bad choices and are now suffering the consequences. Fortunately God provided an out through the sacrifice of his son Jesus and in a short time will institute the 1000 year reign of Christ promised to redeem mankind. In the meantime he has allowed humans to practice every form of self rule we can think of along with all of our technological advances. Is the world better off now than it was before Adam and Eve's disobedience ?? Yet humans deny his existence, refuse to live by the principles brought out in the Bible, even ridicule, curse and otherwise insult God, yet then cry when he does'nt correct their mistakes. Well, he will correct our mistakes soon enough and when he does it means doing away with all the problems and the problem makers. Your choice as to whether or not you are one of the problem makers. Read the Bible and learn, ignore the Bible and............

You sound like the people in Liberia who say that the Ebola plague is a curse from god for their sins.

you sound like a very wealthy obama supporter residing comfortably on the upper west side of bloombergville...i mean the deblasio ghettoes for the chosen friends of the communist party.

You sound like a very rude person.

not at all. God causes no grief for mankind. He does'nt need to we have done enough of that by ourselves. Read the Bible, his intention is to fix the problems not add to them...

who wrote the bible? God? don't think so....man wrote it to control, suppress women, excuse and promote killing...The Bible overflows with "texts of terror"..Isaiah 13:16 "Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished"....

Glad to hear it.

the next step is to align ourselves with him through faith in his son and adherence to Bible principles........again i encourage you to read the Bible..

you need also recall that most of the people who seek to deny the existence of God see themselves as gods, obama and bloomberg alone are living proof of this madness, and they REALLY are the cause of most of the evil afoot currently in america and the world. thus their need to blame God for their "divine" errors is a cosmic joke!

it's amazing that they let your comment stand here!

as you say the very people AND THEY ARE NOT ONLY JEWS! WHO deny the existence of the Almighty (people with a brain and real memory of western history cast against the current psychosis that is islam know this encompasses the Trinity) they deny the existence of the eternal One yet scream to heaven every time their culture of denial encounters one of the phenomenological horrors that either they or their denier antecedents provoked.
the case of ebola in africa is a very powerful example. for the past two hundred years the very movers and shakers of secularist power have overseen the plunder of Africa; today a continent that possesses a substantially comparable wealth in mineral resources to that which supports the west has descended into the grossest levels of per capita poverty BECAUSE THOSE VERY DENIERS DID ALL IN THEIR POWER TO empower the current native plunderers of that sad continent.
to the knowers, africa provided not just ebola but the two individuals who literally built the foundations of western Christian thought and both western and eastern intellectual organization, namely St. Augustine and St. Antony of Egypt.
Without Augustine, Luther could not have found the cornerstone of the Modernist thought the became the Protestant Reformation--yes, for all the horrors of religious wars, Luther helped promote the modern world. without Antony of Egypt's founding the institution the grew to be Eastern and then Western monastacism, the middle ages would never have evolved from the Dark Ages and probably most of their and my Jewish ancestors would have been exterminated in the barbarian carnage.
then came the Rothschilds, the prinicipal puppeteers of the first wave of brutality and savagery known as the French Revolution which engendered the Modern Nihilist gods currently overseen by the current wave of denier/secularist oligarchs: to the Rothschild/Bilderberg mischief makers we now have the satanic quartet of Marxist Jewish oligarchs aiding and abetting Obama and his gang in their quest to destroy the world thru islam: bloomberg, soros, buffett OH YES HE IS! AND zukkerberg.
So BLAME GOD? i prefer to identify the specific malefactors who sought and continually seek to thwart the very divine plan that Augustine identified about 1600 years ago in CIVITAS DEI.

so as you proposed in your comment, their very malevolence and cosmic greed may now promote the end of time that will prove the Divine Presence for all the deniers once and for all.

If Jesus knew how his name was used in perverse twisted ways for the Vatican to use money to adorn with gold he would be horrified. He was a simple carpenter who hated excessiveness.

i see the current abusers of God's name, obama, sharpton, jackson and the clintons as truly perverse in their flaunting of the terrible wealth they grabbed off the backs of the poor which they are always yammering for yet the poor never get less poor while these commie parasites have amassed MILLIONS AND IN THE CASE OF THE VERY HOLIER THAN THOU CLINTONS a cool billion!

agree. Be sure that he knows exactly how Christendom has abused his and his father's names and purposes, and just as Jesus condemned the religious hypocrites of his day we can be sure he does the same today........

Apparently this entity named, "God," is totally in love with financial executives and Wall Street because he has engineered the entire U.S. economy around them.

He also enjoys mass-murder and destabilizing countries, poverty, cutting taxes for the rich, homelessness, imprisoning people for using drugs, torture, indefinite detentions of suspects, censorship, spying, intellectual property theft trade deals, bail outs for select special companies, stock trading and oil producers.

1.... what is your instinct?
Is it 'to live'? To continue?
If you knew what that life is, to the letter, then you could live and create life, by choice. 'bout like any god, right?
.
2.... is your 'everything' provided for by 'the garden'? Every breath, food, sleep. stars.....? And you were born in between the beginning and ending of it all, right?
.
A jew adheres to the rules and honest with themselves, until 'the day' ..... right?
.
because all are born, alive, of the previous generations. To even be alive and know it, is to have a pretty good chain of lineage, no matter the color or creed, right?
.
The good, adhere to the rules of personal responsibility, the rest are not so fair, be choice..
.
if any life is born 'jewish' then all are. The difference of the 'line of david' could be 2 fold. a).... serkumcized (west) b) .... command adherent (knowledge of).
.
.my opinion

Jew = good?

That is a bizarre conclusion and it not something Jews say ... or teach or learn or believe.

Jew = command adherent, by choice.
Is that good? Yes or no.
.
ps.... most any responsible parent teaches their child personal responsibility.
.
Adolph taught a whole slew of kids that they were born better than others by birth; is that Jewish?

Oy.

Guess so, if I follow your meaning correctly.

I figure each can feel what is real,
if given a chance to realize for themselves.