It's interesting that modern Jews, at least in my experience, seem so adverse to thinking of God as a corporeal being.
Obviously Maimonides had a huge influence on Jewish conceptions of God to the point where it is considered heresy nowadays by most Orthodox Jews to talk about God's hand or face...
But I think it's more than that. People feel, or at least I used to feel, that a corporeal God was a ridiculous idea. God as a man on a mountain with a big white beard was an absurd notion... Of course God has no body! How could one even think otherwise?
But if you think about it. The notion of a big man with a flowing white beard and a huge golden throne perched on Russel's teapot and directing the events of the world - has just as much evidence supporting it as an incorporeal God.
And I can understand what a big man is, I can imagine it... I can't understand what "incorporeal" means or even explain it. "It's there but it's not physical" What the hell does that mean?
So as far as I'm concerned - if you believe in God - God should be described corporeally - for the simple reason that you can imagine a big skyfather. Jews shouldn't fancy themselves sophisticated just because they avoid describing God with a body. Truth is it's just as silly.
Evidence is evidence and if it's lacking it doesn't matter whether God is an invisible force or a glowing Olympian God.
Posts
No New Post Today
1 day ago
16 comments:
The two ideas are NOT the same. When people deny the corporeal god, they are taking a step closer to truth.
Somebody (I can't remember who) asked, based on the midrash that Avraham Avinu did not come to belief in HaShem until age 40, why did'nt Avraham just do whatever everybody else in his home was doing. Even if he did not believe in the wood and stone idols of his day, he had no better idea to replace them. The answer was that Avraham knew that the idols were false and even if he did no yet know the Truth, at least he knew what was false and he could not bring himself to worship falsehood. so too, if a person comes to recognize that a "corporeal" god is a false idea, then even if he has not yet come to the "truth", at least let him not hold on to what he knows to be untrue.
Interesting idea.
How about this thought - in a reality where a Geiger counter had not yet been created - how would you describe "radiation"? Is it really any different than "incorporeal" from the physical view that you can see and describe? All you could show is the outcome and effect of radiation - not it's essence. But yet - you currently accept it as reality. (have you ever actually even seen a Geiger counter in action?)
So what if someone would create a scientifically sound God-detector device (with falsifiable and peer-approved methods of evidence) - would you still have a problem with not being able to describe God?
The difficulty is reconciling those parts of Navi where God is described (like the first chapter of Yechezkel) with those parts of Torah where He is specifically described as having no form.
God certainly does not have a physical body like we understand physicality. The question is: Did He ever create an image that people could view and conclude was Him?
If God is physical then you run into the issue of "who created God".
Judaism has a certain concept of God's nature which I have tried to define here.
http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/12/higher-power-as-i-understand-him.html
> And I can understand what a big man is, I can imagine it... I can't understand what "incorporeal" means or even explain it.
That’s the point. The less understandable, the less human He is, the more Godly God is.
>God certainly does not have a physical body like we understand physicality.
Why?
its not that i have a problem not being able to describe God it's just that i don't see the point...
is the truth no god?
i mean all you're saying by saying he's incorporeal is "he is something - i dunno what - and therefore I won't apply physics or anything else to him"
You could just say "he is an old man and physics and anything else don't apply to him - i dunno why"
Ok but is that what God has to be - the most unhuman thing possible...
But I guess I see your point..
As defined in the Torah and subsequent Jewish literature, God is the being that created the entire universe including time itself. He exists outside the four dimensions we inhabit and is not bound by them. How can He have a physical body when that would imply He's limited by physical dimensions when the definition of Him is that He's not?
Where in Torah does it say God created the entire universe? Where in the Torah does it say he exists outside of the four dimensions? Where in the Torah does it says he's omnipotent? And even if it did why does being physical negate omnipotence...
All the things you are saying are just Maimonides not "Judaism".
>ll you could show is the outcome and effect of radiation - not it's essence.
I'm not sure what it would mean to show its "essence," but if you can show that something has an observable effect in the universe, then yes, that's a key step.
How exactly would you make a God-detector device, though, if God is incorporeal? The problem with incorporeality is that, by definition, it makes God undetectable.
"What's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?"
-Carl Sagan
>"It's there but it's not physical" What the hell does that mean?
It always seems like a confusion to me when people refer to "non-physical entities." It seems like an oxymoron, or a misuse of language. (We use "justice" as a noun, and we're taught nouns refer to people, places, or things--so we think there's some "non-physical entity" called "Justice" floating out there.)
Well, obviously my intent WAS that the God-detector would detect His observable effect. Would God having a detectable effect on the universe contradict "incorporeality" according to the Rambam? That is itself an excellent question - what happened at Har Sinai? Was that itself not a detectable effect on the universe and therefore a contradiction to incorporeality? I think MOST Orthodox Jews are taught to believe that there was an actual "hearing" of God for at least the first 2 dibros (though I think it can be argued according to the Morfeh Nevuchim that there was NO actual hearing by the people)
Post a Comment