Blind Faith

Every religion is based on a certain number of beliefs. Belief in G-d, belief in prophecy etc.

But what is belief?

The inquiry into the nature of belief is best captured in the following two-sided question:

Is belief rational or irrational? Meaning, is it a conviction one acquires from real observation and logical reasoning or is it a conviction one simply has as a result of a higher sense or spiritual Intuition?

Saadia Gaon, in his famous “Haemunos Vhadeos”, is a proponent of the first approach. He does not subscribe to the mystical or spiritual notion of belief. To him, any set of beliefs must be firmly grounded on human observation or concrete rational reasoning. Any idea which cannot be corroborated by either experience or logic should be rejected. 

Thus, he deals at length in his introduction with the proper methods of acquiring beliefs and the rigid set of tests one should put every idea through before accepting it as truth.

Here is a summary (in my own words) of his position:

Belief is a conviction that arises within one’s soul after his having concluded an investigation into the matter. After thoroughly investigating something, a truth emerges and the conviction of it is acquired by the soul.

There are two characteristics to belief according to Saadia. 1. It is acquired. Belief is not something you simply have (or don’t have) it must be acquired. 2. It is acquired through intellectual investigation. It is not some magical divinely inspired insight.

There are four methods by which true beliefs can be adopted and acquired:

1. Knowledge gained by observation. This includes anything perceived through the 5 senses of sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste. When we sense something with any of these senses, we ought to accept that as truth.

2. Intellectual intuition. These are principles that the human intellect intuitively knows to be true, such as the approbation of truthfulness and the disapproval of mendacity.

3. Knowledge inferred by logical necessity. Example: if one hears words coming from the other side of a wall, he can logically infer that there is a human being on the other side as only that could explain how words were coming over the wall.

4. Authentic tradition. Meaning if people that came before us observed something (with

their 5 senses) and passed this information down to us; provided the chain of transmission is reliable and uninterrupted, we should accept those observations as true even though we personally may not have observed them.

These are, according to Saadia, the only foundations upon which any claim can be accepted as true. In the absence of these four conditions, any claim being put forward should be rejected on account of having no basis whatsoever.

This approach is most contrasted by Rabbi Shneur Zalman’s, in his famous work - the Tanya.

Tanya Ch. 18:

“It should be recognized with certainty that even the person whose understanding in the knowledge of G-d is limited, and who has no heart to comprehend the greatness of the blessed En Sof, ... it is a "very nigh thing" for him to observe and practice all the commandments of the Torah ... in true sincerity, with fear and love; namely, the hidden love in the heart of all Jews which is an inheritance to us from our Patriarchs.

However, we must, first of all, preface a clear and precise explanation of the origin and essence of this love, how it became our inheritance, and how awe is also incorporated in it.

The explanation is as follows: The Patriarchs verily constituted the "Chariot," and therefore they merited [the blessing of] transmitting to their descendants, coming after them forever, a nefesh, ruach and neshamah from the ten holy Sefirot of the four worlds of Atzilut, Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah, to each according to his station and according to his works.

Even the most worthless of worthless men and the sinners of Israel are thus endowed, at the time of marital union, with, at any rate, a Nefesh d'Nefesh of Malchut d'Asiyah, which is the lowest grade of holiness [in the world] of Asiyah. Nevertheless, since the latter is of the ten holy Sefrot it is compounded of them all, including Chochmah d'Asiyah, wherein is clothed Chochmah d' Malchut d'Atzilut, incorporating Chochmah d'Atzilut which is illuminated by the light of the blessed En Sof itself, ...Thus it comes to pass that the blessed En Sof is garbed, as it were, in the Chochmah of the human soul, of whatever sort of a Jew he may be. [In turn,] the soul's faculty of Chochmah, together with the light of the blessed En Sof that is vested in it, spreads throughout the entire soul, animating it "from head to foot," so to speak...

Hence all Jews, even the women and the illiterate, believe in G-d, since faith is beyond understanding and comprehension, for "The simple believeth every thing, but the prudent man understandeth. . . ." ...

Therefore even the most worthless of worthless and the transgressors of the Israelites, in the majority of cases sacrifice their lives for the sanctity of G-d's Name and suffer harsh torture rather than deny the one G-d, although they be boors and illiterate and ignorant of G-d's greatness. [For] whatever little knowledge they do possess, they do not delve therein at all, [and so] they do not give up their lives by reason of any knowledge and contemplation of G-d. Rather [do they suffer martyrdom] without any knowledge and reflection, but as if it were absolutely impossible to renounce the one G-d; and without any reason or hesitation whatever. This is because the one G-d illuminates and animates the entire nefesh, through being clothed in its faculty of chochmah, which is beyond any graspable and understood knowledge or intelligence.

Ch. 29:

Indeed, we find this explicitly stated in the Torah in connection with the Spies who, at the outset declared, "For he is stronger than we"— "Read not 'than we,' but 'than He,' "etc., for they had no faith in G-d's ability. But afterwards they reversed themselves and announced, "Lo, we will readily go up... ," Whence did their faith in G-d's ability return to them? Our teacher Moses, peace unto him, had not meanwhile shown them any sign or wonder concerning this. He had only told them that the Lord was angry with them and had sworn not to allow them to enter the Land. Why should this have influenced them, and of what avail was this to them, if they did not believe, Heaven forfend, in the Lord's ability to subdue the thirty-one kings, for which reason they had no desire whatever to enter the Land?

But undoubtedly, since the Israelites themselves are "Believers, the descendants of believers," except that the sitra achra— which is clothed in their bodies— had risen against the light of the holiness of their divine soul, in her impudent haughtiness and arrogance, without sense or reason— now, therefore, as soon as the Lord had become angered against them and thundered angrily, "How long shall I bear with this evil congregation. . . . Your carcasses shall fall in this wilderness.... I the Lord have spoken, I will surely do it unto all this evil congregation," their heart was humbled and broken within them when they heard these stern words... Consequently, the sitra achra toppled from its dominion, from its haughtiness and arrogance, leaving the Israelites to their inborn faith.

From the above, every person in whose mind enter doubts as to [his] faith, can deduce that they are nothing more than empty words of the sitra achra, which raises itself against his soul. But the Israelites themselves are faithful... ,

Furthermore, the sitra achra itself entertains no doubts about faith, except that she has been given permission to confuse man with words of falsehood and deceit, in order that he may acquire greater rewards, as the harlot seeks to seduce the king's son with falsehood and deceit, with the king's approval, as [in the parable] mentioned in the holy Zohar.

Ch. 42:

The Holy One, blessed be He, however, is not, Heaven forbid, affected by the accidents of the world and its changes, nor by the world itself, for they do not affect any change in Him, G-d forbid. In order to help us perceive this well with our intelligence, the Scholars of Truth have already treated of it at length in their books. But all Jews are "Believers descended from believers," without human intellectual speculation whatever, and they declare: "Thou wast the same ere the world was created," and so forth,

Further illustration of this school of thought is presented by R Menachem Mendel of Chabad, in his discourse Ve’atah Tetzaveh.

Ve'atah Tetzaveh, Part V

.... based on two different explanations [of the uniqueness] of the Jews’ belief in G-d, i.e., that they believe with simple faith and do not require [any] proof:

a) To borrow an expression. “His mazal perceives,” i.e., the soul as it exists in the spiritual realms sees [G-dliness] (indeed, [the soul’s] perception transcends the power of thought). This, [in turn,] affects the soul as it is enclothed within the body, [imbuing] it with faith.

b) Faith is rooted in the essence of the soul (a level above that of “his mazal perceives”). The essence of the soul is connected with G-dliness through an essential bond (a connection that does not depend on any external factors whatsoever, above even the quality of perception that transcends thought). [Since this is true of the essence of the soul, even the soul as it exists within the body is connected with G-dliness by bonds of faith.]

From the above sources it is evident that the thinkers of the Chabad school of thought, clearly ascribed to a “faith” which is entirely irrational and of a spiritual origin. It is not based on observation or calculation; rather it’s rooted in the innate nature of the G-dly soul found within every Jew.

It seems then that we have from the Chassidic masters a very different approach to Saadia’s and one that argues for complete irrational blind faith.

However, this notion of faith can be challenged on the basis of five arguments:

1. Who says?! On what basis do we just assume that this soul even exists and that it indeed possesses these powers? Granted, once we “believe” in the G-dly soul and its inherent knowing of G-d we can then assume this kind of faith, but why should we accept this “first” claim in the first place? How can this process even begin, when there is a leap of faith required, right at the very beginning?

2. How is this any different from all the other groups and religions, which (can) claim the same thing? Any sect, cult or religious group can make the very same argument to its followers; why then should we accept this set of Jewish beliefs over those put forward by others? Once we discard with reason all together, there is no yardstick by which to measure the authenticity of the claims and no way to defend them from contrary ideas and beliefs?

3. The facts show that even Jews don’t believe in G-d naturally. Besides for the many agnostic and atheistic Jews that exist; even the believers, don’t begin believing until they are informed about G-d from an outside source. If the Chassidic masters are correct, even a Jew who grew up alone on an island somewhere should automatically believe in G-d. Since this is clearly not the case, it seems that we don’t simply believe naturally or instinctively. Why then should we blindly accept it after it is taught to us?

4. Even the so-called natural belief of the soul, is only recognized by us within our brain. Without our thinking about it and processing it in our minds, we would never be conscious of it. The soul knows “it” has no bearing on the living walking and talking individual until he chooses to make himself aware of it in his mind. How then is this bridge crossed? When it comes to the mind accepting the conviction of the soul, why would it blindly do so without observation or rational calculation? If we felt the soul’s impact directly, this would work - the soul knows therefore we know. However since this is not the case and instead we must utilize the brain in order to know anything; the problem would return as to why the brain should ever accept anything blindly without it knowing on its own terms?

5. It removes the possibility for free choice and accountability. If you argue that a Jew simply believes on account of his soul, then a Jew who doesn’t believe cannot be held accountable. He has no control over the inner workings of his own soul. How can he be faulted for being a non-believer? Furthermore, what free choice is there in the matter of believing? You either do or you don’t. There is nothing to be done either way. If we are dealing with a matter of a person’s nature; they either have that nature or they don’t?

For all the above reasons, I believe we are forced to take a second look at what the Chassidic masters were saying and interpret them in a very different way.

There is simply no way to make the case for a completely blind version of “faith”. A human being can never be expected to accept anything blindly even with the assertion that his soul intuitively knows it anyway. For all the reasons we explained, R Saadia’s position is unshakable; we can and should only believe that which is based on empirical evidence.

So what then did the Chassidic master mean?

Perhaps the following can be suggested:

The Chassidic masters were addressing an entirely different question all together.

There are two different questions that might be asked and each one requires a very different Answer.

One question is: Why should one believe in G-d (or any other religious claim)? On what basis should we accept religious claims? This is the question that Saadia Gaon is addressing. This question is dealing with the very establishment of the religion in the first place. It is dealing with point zero, where no beliefs have yet been established and is asking the basic question of why should anything be accepted? There can be only one answer to this question and that is Saadia’s - empirical evidence. If you tried to answer this question with the approach of the chassidic masters, you’d get nowhere. “The soul knows” would never be enough to move off point zero and religious tenets could never be founded based purely on it.

The second question is entirely different It is: How do we explain the phenomena that Jews seem to believe in G-d naturally without issue. We find this even by very simple Jews and we find that their belief is to the point of giving up their lives for it. How can this behavior be explained? This is the question the chassidic texts are addressing. Here the starting point is the exact opposite. We are looking at an existing phenomenon of a Jew simply believing and we are providing an explanation as to how this is possible. It is about explaining a certain psychological behavior not about the basis of religion.

In other words: when the question is “why should I believe?”, the answer must be Saadia’s. When the question is “why do I find myself believing”, the answer is the chassidic masters’.

If this is correct, a fascinating insight emerges.
Chassidus does not tell us or expect us to believe blindly. This is simply the wrong interpretation of what it meant to say. Chassidus too concedes that in the absence of empirical evidence, nothing begins. Beliefs can only be founded on concrete foundations. Any new idea must therefore be subjected to rigorous analytical testing before being adopted as a truth. The approach of Chassidus should never be used to answer a person who is holding at point zero and asking why he should begin to believe anything. A person however who finds himself believing or sees how easily and naturally belief comes to others and is wondering how this is possible, can be provided with the explanation of Chassidus.