A liberal Jewish rabbi wrote a book that
was originally intended for a Jewish audience, but people of all faiths
(or unfaiths) should benefit by reading this book.
The author at times seems to equate God to love, charity, good will, etc.
and then conclude that since love, charity, etc. are real then God is
real. What is wrong with leaving the definitions of these words he equates
with God alone? Why not let them stand on their own definitions without
dragging a God into the picture?
His definition of God is very confusing and contradictory. It didn't make
any sense.
Most readers will have problems with much of what he has to say. Theists
will find him far too liberal and atheists will wonder why he tries to
consistently bring God onto the scene. I imagine that many people who have
read this book have actually become atheists since he does such a good job
of showing how the notion of a personal God is absurd and outside the
realm of our daily experiences. I don't think he would want this to be the
result however, as he says that it is better to be a fundamentalist who
takes myths literally than to be someone who rejects stories for their
mythological components. I strongly disagree with him on this point.
He also makes the bold assertion that "Human wickedness is the result
of living without God. . .". That is hardly the kind of answer I'd
want to give to my son when he asks about God. What sort of self-esteem
will that give him if he doesn't believe in God? Why call someone wicked
for their unbelief? Shouldn't their actions (rather than their belief or
unbelief) determine what kind of person they are?
He makes such statements as: "To the extent that Man uses his
intelligence and develops his conscience, he turns to God in order to
reduce chaos and misfortune." I think just the opposite is more true.
When people use their own intelligence and common sense, they are not
turning to God or some supernatural force. They are turning away from such
superstition and relying (correctly) on reality (which is all we have).
He falls into the common theist trap of giving God the credit for
everything good that happens and claiming that God had nothing to do with
bad things. He thinks that when something bad happens it is because we are
sinful.
I think that giving a God credit for the good that happens can be harmful.
If we don't understand that good happens because we
make it happen then good will not happen nearly as often. By believing that, (with few exceptions), YOU ARE TOTALLY
RESPONSIBLE for everything that happens to you then you are more likely to
live a productive and meaningful life. |
|
|
