Leo Strauss spent a good deal of time discussing the differences and common ground between religion and secular philosophy, or as he called them, Jerusalem and Athens. Although in his youth he experimented with Orthodox Judaism, for the bulk of his life he was not a religious man. Unsurprisingly for someone who wrote about contradictions in philosophical writings, his own thoughts on religion seem conflicting (see here: link). Be that as it may, below is an excerpt that resonates with me.
After arguing at length, both on substance and assumptions, that neither religion nor purely secular philosophy can disprove each other, Strauss addresses the implications of this realization. His conclusion is that since neither system can be be conclusively proven, the choice of either must be based on faith. Others would revise it to be that the choice of either must be based on non-rational reasons, such as tradition and personal predilections including faith.
Leo Strauss, “Progress or Return?” in An Introduction to Political Philosophy: Ten Essays by Leo Strauss, pp. 309-310:
If one can say colloquially, the philosophers have never refuted revelation and the theologians have never refuted philosophy, that would sound plausible, considering the enormous difficulty of the problem from any point of view [as previously explained]. And to that extent we may be said to have said something very trivial; but to show that it is not quite trivial, I submit to you this consideration in conclusion. And here when I use the term philosophy, I use it in the common and vague sense of the term where it includes any rational orientation in the world, including science and what have you, common sense [alone]. If this is so, philosophy must admit the possibility of revelation. Now that means that philosophy itself is possibly not the right way of life. It is not necessarily the right way of life, not evidently the right way of life, because this possibility of revelation exists. But what then does the choice of philosophy mean under these conditions? In this case, the choice of philosophy is based on faith. In other words, the quest for evident knowledge rests itself on an unevident premise.
Aiwac,
“In Hebrew or English (or both)?”
Both. Thank you.
“My consistent defense of Orthodox Judaism has been that it has not been disproven, that it remains viable and plausible. I’m not looking to prove it or even make it probable. Viable is all I think we can hope for right now (plausible is a subjective but useful criterion).”
If this is the case, how can we criticize, or even paint in a negative light, those who reject it?
Write to me in private: opdycke1861 – at – yahoo.com
R. Gil,
“Jesse A: See section 8 of this post re Jonestown cultists: http://torahmusings.com/2009/02/problem-of-religious-diversity/”
Apparently my surprise was unwarranted. That being said, none of this was clear from your post, so I think the conversation was worth having. Thank you.
J: If this is the case, how can we criticize, or even paint in a negative light, those who reject it?
We can criticize them for lacking faith: http://torahmusings.com/2006/11/knowledge-and-belief-2/
>We can criticize them for lacking faith: http://torahmusings.com/2006/11/knowledge-and-belief-2/
And if their personal predilections and traditions do not involve faith? Or lead them to any other worldview that they find subjectively plausible?
Guest!: Then their lack of faith is an aveirah.
“My consistent defense of Orthodox Judaism has been that it has not been disproven, that it remains viable and plausible. I’m not looking to prove it or even make it probable. Viable is all I think we can hope for right now (plausible is a subjective but useful criterion).”
Excellent idea, and you were well along the way with Plantinga and the ethics of belief. As I remember the back and forth you promised to develop these ideas. Have I missed the posts where you develop these claims? Why are you now appealing to an obscurantist drei kop like Strauss, when heretofore you courageously championed the use of reason in determining what we bewlieve?
I came across this interesting essay on Strauss relevant to the discussion:
http://anastaplo.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/reason-and-revelation-on-leo-strauss/
In other words, the quest for evident knowledge rests itself on an unevident premise.
It doesn’t seem so strange anymore to note that Rav Saadia Gaon had to bring support from Scripture to validate the reliability of sense perception and the ability of the mind to perceive the truth.
Before reading through the commentary: I would say this review is quite pertinent, if not directly relevant, to the quote above.
“Dovid Korneich on July 25, 2011 at 7:08 pm
In other words, the quest for evident knowledge rests itself on an unevident premise.
It doesn’t seem so strange anymore to note that Rav Saadia Gaon had to bring support from Scripture to validate the reliability of sense perception and the ability of the mind to perceive the truth.”
No, it does still seem strange, because if you undermine sense perception and the ability of the mind to perceive truth, then you undermine our ability to read and comprehend the truth of Scripture at all. Please try to keep up. (This is the problem with all of you Freelance Kiruv Fools: you all think that hashkafa is a zero-sum game where, if you can knock down secular reasoning, even if the validity of Judaism is completely incomprehensible, you’ve somehow won a victory for Judaism. It would be nice if you displayed even a little bit of intellectual honesty once in a while.)
To make my point a little bit clearer: not only is Strauss the guy who came up with the brilliant idea that the Rambam was a closet atheist, thus undermining our mesorah way beyond anything R. Avi Weiss could ever do, but he isn’t even respected as a philosopher. The views of the above reviewer follow pretty much across the board of serious philosophy. If you trust psychologists to determine whether E.S.P. is at all plausible, then you should trust the overwhelming consensus of professional philosophy to determine that Leo Strauss was a Machiavellian cult-leader whose “scholarship” is not really worthy of much attention. It always disappoints me when those who write academically about Jewish thought dabble in pseudo-philosophical nonsense instead of perhaps learning a bit of logic and reading real philosophy, and I’m disappointed that Dr. Gottlieb went down that road for his book.
Jon-Broklyn. Did you read Dr. Gottleib’s book?
I think your description of the supposed consensus view on Leo Strauss is a caricature. Actually I do not think there is a consensus.
>then you should trust the overwhelming consensus of professional philosophy to determine that Leo Strauss was a Machiavellian cult-leader whose “scholarship” is not really worthy of much attention.
That is ridiculous. Agree or disagree with him, he was and is a respected political philosopher. Some like his thought, some hate it – there is hardly anything close to a consensus. And as far as atheists go, it would be a wonderful world if most had as much respect for religion – even if only on a utilitarian level – as Strauss had.
Prof Kaplan: I certainly did not. I only know about it what I vaguely remember from an internet glance about it a while back, and that R. Gil mentioned it in connection with Strauss.
Prof Kaplan and Chardal: I think you’d be surprised about the consensus.
Is the concesus a function of his status as a philosopher, or political hatred of neo-conservativism?
I’m not persuaded. If I have a religious belief that it has been revealed that the world is going to come to an end on a specific date, that can be conclusively proven to be false (assuming that the world doesn’t end). Likewise, some other religious (or philosophical) beliefs can be shown to be highly unlikely to be true. So the argument that “you can’t disprove it, so pick one and believe it” is just not a very good one.
My, my Jon, we’ve stepped on somebody’s toes now, haven’t we?
Are you feeling better now that you’ve let loose and made your little rant?
In the future, please take the time to know what you’re talking about regarding Rabbi Gotleib’s book.
He never once mentions Leo Strauss let alone bases anything on his ideas. I think you’re confusing Strauss with a reference by Reb Gil to Prof. Yeshayahu Leibowitz.
Strauss is mentioned at least 24 times in the book being discussed.
http://books.google.com/books?id=A7WmLOkJdQAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Faith+and+Freedom:+Moses+Mendelssohn's+Theological-Political+Thought&hl=en&ei=wRo0TonpDqLk0QH95cXPAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=strauss&f=false
Perhaps you meant another Gottlieb or another book? You clearly weren’t reading carefully and chastised Jon due to your ignorance of what was going on.
Dovid K was confused between Gottliebs. We’re discussing Dr. Michah Gottlieb’s recent book on Mendelssohn, not R. Dovid Gottlieb’s book on faith.
FKM: Note that you ignored the point re R. Saad’ya Gaon. Not that that matters right – the people you’re doing “kiruv” on have short enough attention spans that they’ll forget about that.
When you address me with a modicum of respect, then I’ll respond. Otherwise, I’ll continue to let rant about the people I’m allegedly doing kiruv on. I guess posting on Hirhurim is cheaper than going to therapy to work out your issues…