The Purpose of Creation - Conclusion
That is why I believe Moses would have been in at least general agreement with Hasdai Crescas.[13] [14] [15]
The reader will recall that I set out above to identify both the purpose that God has for His creation, and our individual purpose within His creation. The former of these is found in part 8 of the explanation, and reads: God's ultimate purpose in creating is that He shall have the experience of perfect and eternal love in relation with those of His creatures who are endowed with the capacity to love Him. The latter ends part 9 of the explanation, and reads: Therefore the individual purpose of each and every one of us is to love God as fully as we are able.
As for the Shema, twice every day, morning and evening, Jews give pride of place in their lives to their affirmation that God is one in His Person and perfect in unity in the condition of His existence (Deut.6:4), and, although they might not be aware of it, they follow this affirmation with a declaration of the purpose of each and every person in Creation (Deut.6:5), which purpose is implicit in the understanding that God is one in His Person and perfect in unity in the condition of His existence. This seems to me to be an excellent way to begin and end every day, indeed the perfect way to do so, and so it appears to me that by any reasonable and objective standard Moses and Judaism have got this exactly right. [16]
To love God is one of the 613 commandments traditionally identified in the Torah. However, we are also commanded to fear Him (Deut.4:10, 6:13, 10:20), and some might understandably wonder how these two commandments can be reconciled, especially in the same person and at the same time. Indeed some people might wonder why anyone should fear God at all. That He has complete power over the whole of Creation is obviously good enough reason to fear Him, but many will know from experience that those who pay no heed to God are not directly struck down, and the possibility of being struck down in some manner after they die is apparently too remote to be persuasive. However, I believe there is a much better reason to fear God, especially for those who already love Him. That reason finds expression in the concept of Devekut, the mystical cleaving to God, which in Kabbalah refers to the experience of both loving God and fearing Him. [17]
Many people understandably wish to get as close as possible to God while they are alive, and for the thinker the effort to do so includes thinking our way towards Him. I take it as axiomatic that the more we understand of God through contemplation, the more do we know Him in reality, and the more we know Him in reality the greater will be His presence in our lives, and the greater His presence in our lives the greater an impact will His Personal reality make upon us. Under certain circumstances, that impact can be so great as to cause us to experience fear. I believe that the experience of fearing God is an entirely natural response to an authentic encounter with the infinitely impressive Personal reality that is God. Perhaps this fear is the experience of one who is limited encountering the One who is unlimited, of the finite encountering The Infinite. Or perhaps it is the experience of the creature encountering the ineffably awesome mystery and perfection of their Creator. Whatever the reason, I do believe it is both entirely natural and deeply spiritually healthy to experience fear of God.
When contemplating God causes the thinker to experience fear, that fear will in time always result in an increase in love for Him. I say this because when we experience fear of God through contemplation, we do so because we have come to understand Him more fully, and in that greater understanding we encounter Him more fully, and in that fuller encounter we grow in love for Him because, after all, He is perfect. Perhaps that is why it is written that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge (Prov.1:7, 2:5, 9:10). Conversely, I would suggest that the experience of fearing God should be recognised as the point of closeness to Him that is right for the thinker at that point in time, and so it can be regarded as both a sign of increased closeness to God and as a boundary beyond which the thinker should not at that time venture.
I believe there comes a time for every dedicated, truly-monotheistic and unswervingly-rational thinker when they will experience fear of God as they think their way towards Him. However, contemplating God should never be terrifying, because terror can be very off-putting. That is one reason why I would recommend the writing of, and use of, stepwise reasoned explanations when thinking one's way towards God. Such explanations allow the thinker to contemplate God at their own pace and provide them with a structured and accessible way into and through what can be a daunting and very demanding undertaking. They also make it much less likely that the thinker will take a wrong turn in their reasoning, which is very easy to do and very commonly done, as the endless volumes of theological error churned out by Christian thinkers testifies. Moreover, just as an explanation is a pathway forward towards God, it can equally well serve as a pathway back to wherever it was the thinker last felt comfortable and secure while on their contemplative journey. Having such a securely established pathway back to familiar ground makes it far less likely that they will ever be lost, confused and alone in an unfamiliar and conceptually challenging place, which can be a very unsettling experience.
This method also has the merit of enabling thinkers to communicate their understandings more effectively to others, which is not only very satisfying but also very important in the greater scheme of things. I say this because I believe that all that can be understood of God must in time be understood, because God must surely be understood as fully and universally as possible before His purpose can be brought to pass. Moreover, the Tanakh tells us that Israel is to be a nation of priests (Exod.19:6; Isa.61:6) and there would be little point in a nation of priests being priests only unto themselves. So we can safely assume that Moses and the great prophets of Israel had in mind a mission to all Humanity. The truths of Judaism may be self-evident to many Jews, but they are not recognised as truths by a great many others, and so it is clearly right and highly desirable to explain these truths to those who do not yet understand them.
Indeed priests and religious teachers who are privileged to live in an increasingly rational world should expect to be asked to explain their beliefs, and so it would be very useful for them to be able to do so, and to do so clearly and persuasively. Some religions are at a great disadvantage in this regard because their beliefs do not make demonstrable rational sense. Because of this irrationality they euphemistically designate several of their key beliefs as "mysteries". I am certain that these so-called "mysteries" are a cause of great dissatisfaction and disbelief among their adherents, many of whom would no doubt be extremely pleased and relieved to have an understanding of God that does make demonstrable rational sense; one such as underpins Judaism.
There is only one true mystery that I am aware of, and that is the absolute and infinite mystery of The Perfect One. Jews and other truly-Mosaic monotheists are therefore not at a disadvantage in explaining their reasoned understandings of God, because their understandings must be derived from and thus fully conformed to this mystery. That God is The Perfect One in every conceivable sense is the truth that underpins all other truths, and is the starting point for all reasoned understandings of the God of Mosaic Monotheism. Many people, Jews included, would no doubt find it very helpful to have these understandings explained to them, because not everyone has either the ability or the personal disposition for such endeavours. I consider Judaism to be not only the most profoundly truthful and beautiful of all religions, but also the most demonstrably reasonable. Because of this I feel strongly that clear, concise and comprehensive explanations should be employed to demonstrate the rational credentials of Mosaic Monotheism to those who yearn for a religious adherence that allows them to believe without doubt and without the requirement to abdicate their rational faculties.
It is of course not only capable and right-minded Jews who can and should explain the theological validity of Mosaic Monotheism. All capable thinkers with a clear conceptual grasp of Mosaic Monotheism, and with the necessary motivation to explain it, are equally well suited to this undertaking. Moreover, the latter bear an equal responsibility to Jews in seeing that it gets done, whether or not they directly associate their endeavours with Judaism. Furthermore, being a Jew does not confer any advantage on a monotheistic thinker, or upon any would-be explainer of truly-monotheistic understandings. Indeed, in the latter department I believe Jewish thinkers have been found wanting, with the result that today there is scarcely any recognition of the existence of a distinctively Jewish rational theology. Worse still, it has been suggested by one very distinguished Jewish scholar (Adin Steinsaltz) that the often impenetrable, ambiguous, dualistic and self-contradictory mystical writings that constitute Kabbalah are "the official theology of the Jewish people". For any rational thinker in search of an accessible and systematic presentation of the Jewish understanding of God, such a statement will be very discouraging. Kabbalah is certainly fascinating and profound, but it is not a systematic rational monotheistic theology, and that is what Judaism and indeed Humanity needs. However, Steinsaltz's statement is nontheless helpful, because it does at least confirm that there is a tremendous lack of, and therefore need for, explainers in the sphere of Mosaic Monotheism. This need is in my opinion the most important unfilled vacancy in World Religion, and so in all human endeavour.
Returning briefly to the subject of fearing God; if at any point a person experiences fear when thinking their way towards God, then I would suggest they pause and dwell at that point of understanding until they feel at ease with it. They should not try to avoid fear by finding a way forward that does not cause them to experience it, because they will go astray if they do. They should accept the need to pause and acclimatise as a necessary and natural part of their journey. When in time they again feel comfortable and confident in their place of understanding they will spontaneously resume their search, and they can do so with the confidence that they are then ready. I believe they can safely proceed in this way until they reach the point where they experience fear whenever they search for a deeper understanding of God. At that point they will have arrived at their contemplative destination. They will have done all the thinking they need to do to for their own sake and must now discover their unique pathway in life, one that will best facilitate living fully and productively according to their now fully-confirmed Mosaic-Monotheistic faith, and which might well involve explaining to others what they have come to understand for themselves. Their pathway should be entirely of their own determination, because prescribed religious lifestyles are not made-to-measure and are unlikely to satisfy a free-thinker. By contrast, walking their own pathway with a steady resolve will ensure that they will never again be spiritually idle, and that they will not stray from achieving their individual purpose in Creation.
The simultaneous experience of loving and fearing God is amongst the finest I have known, and although frightening is very beautiful. That is why I have no doubt that the commandment to fear God is not only reasonable but also highly desirable, and second only in desirability to loving Him. To love God with all of our heart and with all of our soul and with all of our might is in my opinion and without any doubt the ultimate purpose of all of our strivings.
13th of December 2011
Footnote number 13-17:
[13] Crescas H., Sefer Or Adonai. The Sefer Or Adonai is not available in English, but substantial extracts of it are available in: Wolfson H., Crescas' Critique of Aristotle, (Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1929). An extract from Wolfson's text is available at: http://www.dvjc.org/discussion/messages/323.html, where you will find the following: "Just as objects produced by men have a purpose, so the Torah, produced by the Prime Intellect (God), must have purpose. It is the purpose of the Torah to effect in the one to whom it is addressed love for man, correct opinions, and physical felicity, which are all subsumed under one final goal—spiritual felicity, the infinite love for God. But even for God, the Commander, the Torah has a purpose, namely to bestow His infinite love upon His creatures. Against both Platonism and Aristotelianism, Crescas argues that God's love for man is stronger than man's love for God, for God's infinite essence is the source of both loves. Man's love for God results in devekut ("conjunction" or "communion") with God; for among spiritual beings, as well as among physical objects, love and concord are the causes of perfection and unity. Love, the purpose of Torah, is the purpose also of man, and, further, of all that is".
[14] To read what Maimonides has to say about the purpose of creation, see: Maimonides M., Guide of the Perplexed, Part 3, Ch.13 (XIII), available at: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp149.htm.
The following are extracts from his essay on the subject, and a brief analysis of it. His words are in italics and my comments in brackets.
Page 1....."Intelligent persons are much perplexed when they inquire into the purpose of the Creation. I will now show how absurd this question is." (His opening words.)
Line 2....."An agent that acts with intention must have a certain ulterior object in that which he performs. This is evident, and no philosophical proof is required." (Here, despite his opening words, he appears to be acknowledging that God must have created with a purpose.)
Line 9....."According to these propositions it is clear that the purpose is sought for everything produced intentionally by an intelligent cause; that is to say, a final cause must exist for everything that owes its existence to an intelligent being" (Again he seems to be acknowledging that there must be an ultimate purpose to creation, because God is 'an intelligent agent'.)
Page 273, L.8....."But the existence of an ultimate purpose in every species, which is considered as absolutely necessary by every one who investigates into the nature of things, is very difficult to discover: and still more difficult is it to find the purpose of the whole Universe" (This is where his difficulty with the subject becomes apparent, and where his thinking begins to go astray. Maimonides evidently hadn't made sense of the purpose of creation to his own satisfaction, and in order not to leave his readers in a state of perplexity he did the only other thing he could do, which was to set about demonstrating that there is no purpose to creation.)
Page 274, L.5..... "Even if the Universe existed for man's sake and man existed for the purpose of serving God, as has been mentioned, the question remains, what is the end of serving God? He does not become more perfect if all His creatures serve Him and comprehend Him as far as possible; nor would He lose anything if nothing existed beside Him" (Note that Maimonides here considers the possibility of man having been created for a purpose, but his conception of God was such that he could not consider a true relationship between God and man, for which see Guide Ch.52 (LII) p.71 at http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp062.htm. Maimonides thought of God primarily in terms of His essential (metaphysical) perfection, and I believe did so to the detriment of His Personal perfection. Of course we do not have any effect upon God's essential perfection, but we must have an effect upon His Personal experience of perfection or else we wouldn't be here, as I have explained above.)
Page 274, L.10....."We must in continuing the inquiry as to the purpose of the creation at last arrive at the answer, It was the Will of God, or His Wisdom decreed it; and this is the correct answer" (At this stage it is clear that Maimonides has in fact given up discovering the purpose of creation.)Page 276, L.7....."Just as we do not ask what is the purpose of God's existence, so we do not ask what was the object of His will, which is the cause of the existence of all things with their present properties" (With sincere respect to Maimonides, this statement is nonsense. The question of God's existence having a purpose is not only inadmissible; it is absurd. It is absurd because even to entertain the notion of a purpose beyond God is to posit a cause for the being of God, which is in turn to posit the existence of a creator of God, which is in turn to posit a god beyond God, which is absurd. The question of why God created has no rational connection with this absurdity, and so this association is very misleading. I should stress that Maimonides was aware of the absurdity of considering a purpose for God's existence, and my criticism of him here is only that he should not have associated this absurdity with the entirely valid and extremely important question of God's purpose in creating simply in order to discredit this question.)
Page 277, L.5......"We must be content, and not trouble our mind with seeking a certain final cause for things that have none" (In his concluding statement.)
[15] For an anthology of Jewish writings on the subject of the purpose of creation, see: Alter M., What Is The Purpose Of Creation, A Jewish Anthology, (NJ: Jason Armstrong Inc., 1995). Note that Crescas' opinion in not included in this anthology.
[16] For the importance of these verses in Judaism and a selection of commentaries on them, see: Chill A., The Mitzvot, The Commandments And Their Rationale (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 2000), pp.371-373. For a more detailed and Orthodox treatment, complete with Talmudic, Midrashic, and Rabbinic sources, see: Zlotowitz M., Shema Yisrael, The Three Portions Of The Shema, (NY: Mesorah Publications Ltd., 2004), pp.14-24.
[17] See Scholem G., Encyclopedia Judaica CD-ROM Edition→Kabbalah→The Basic Ideas of Kabbalah→The Mystic Way→Devekut, (Jerusalem, Keter Publishing House Ltd.). See also: Deuteronomy 10:20, 11:22, 13:5 and 30:19-20.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
