Secular Theology as a Challenge for Jewish Atheists

Avner Dinur
{"title":"Secular Theology as a Challenge for Jewish Atheists","authors":"Avner Dinur","doi":"10.31826/mjj-2016-120114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper uses the term “secular theology” to criticize Jewish-religious approaches on the one hand and atheism on the other hand. It shows that the assumption of many that atheism stands at the centre of secular thought is baseless. The first part, largely assuming an Israeli context, claims that this assumption is problematic from a sociological and historical perspective. The second part follows Jewish philosophers who use theological ideas at the centre of their thought, and at the same time do not fit into the realm of Jewish religious writing of the 20th century. The distinction between the ontological and the ethical “role” of God in the theology of Hans Jonas, Emmanuel Levinas and Martin Buber, is used to create new borderlines between the secular and the religious – “soft” borders that do not exclude God from secular world-views. This paper is a critique of a common secular approach that is based, I argue, on a misunderstanding of religion in general and Jewish religion in particular. This approach, which I call “naïve atheism,” claims that atheism is the main pillar of secular world-views, and that through modern science we can see how ridiculous religious doctrines are, understand that God does not exist, and thus recognize that we should struggle to push religion into a dark corner of society. A deeper understanding of Jewish religion and culture, I argue, will enable us to find a place for the belief in God within Jewish secular world-views, and hence will promote a “secular theology.” This line of thinking is based on the one hand on a strong critique of central religious beliefs, but on the other hand, aspires to promote a better society on the basis of theological ideas that are inseparable from Jewish thought throughout the generations. The discussion, and a few of the definitions I will use for terms like “Jewish-secular identity” (Zehut Yehudit Chilonit תינוליח תידוהי תוהז), or “Traditional Jews” (Mesorati’im – םייתרוסמ), is in general an Israeli one, and it builds upon the unique definitions of secularism and religiousness found in Israel,1 but the thinkers I draw from, Hans Jonas, Emmanuel Levinas, Martin Buber and others, are not necessarily Israeli, and the conclusions, I hope, can be relevant for other readers – Jews in the diaspora, secular nonJews, and others. My suggestion is to read the Jewish philosophy of these thinkers under the umbrella term “secular-theology,” and to use this concept as an analytical category by * Lecturer of Jewish Studies at Sapir College and Seminar-Hakibbutzim. Email: avnerdinur@gmail.com A previous version of this paper appeared in Hebrew in Akdamot 30 (2015): 65-76. 1 Many studies on this uniqueness can be found, including the studies in the following three collections: Yossi Yonah and Yehuda Goodman, eds., Maelstrom of Identities: A Critical look at religion and Secularity in Israel [Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Van Leer & Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2004); Gideon Kats, Shlalom Ratzabi and Yaacov Yadgar, eds., Beyond Halacha: Secularism, Traditionalism and ‘New Age’ culture in Israel [Hebrew] (Sede Boker: Ben-Gurion University Press, 2014); and the recent: Yochi Fischer, ed., Secularization and Secularism: Interdisciplinary Perspectives [Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Van Leer & Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2015). MELILAH MANCHESTER JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES 12 (2015) 132 which one can offer observations on the limits of atheist-secular Jewish identity on the one hand and religious identity (both orthodox and reform) on the other. Understanding secular identity as if it is based on atheism is very common and seems obvious for many. Religion, they claim, means the belief in God, and if one is secular, one should not believe in God or in the stories that religions present. In the English speaking world one can hear this line of thinking from the well-known biologist Richard Dawkins, who is sometimes referred to as “Darwin’s Rottweiler,” 2 for his aggressive attack on “Creationist” religious thinking. In the Jewish world strong atheist statements are rarely used by Jews in the diaspora, but in Israel they are quite common. In the Israeli context one can hear them from atheists like Dan Meler, Yaron Yad’an, and others. One of them, Dan Boneh, in his popular book The God Fallacy [Hebrew],5 refers to a poem by Yehuda Amichai called “The Destiny of God,” in which the poet says that “God is destined to stay with us.” Boneh, who seems not to understand the metaphoric and ironic depth of the poem, presents a harsh critique which is worth reproducing here at length as a representative example for naïve-atheist polemic: This kind of Pilpul (empty talk לופלפ) is an example of the way secular people fall into the trap that prolongs the concept of God – they insist on keeping it and using the concept for their own benefit. “God is love,” “God is me,” “God is nature,” “God is eternity,” “God is the unity of being” – and other definitions that secular people accept so they can create a God of their own. [...] My approach in this book criticizes this tendency. God is a well-defined monotheistic concept. For religious believers he is tangible and clear. Most of them will accept the definition that we used, common to all monotheistic religions – “a super-natural being, wilful, creator of the world and manager of the universe”. It is preferable that this definition will be used in the public discourse as the basic definition of the concept, just like a dictionary definition and like the definition that religious believers use. Boneh claims that secular Jews, who define the term “God” differently to him, are cooperating with religious people and giving religion authority in a time when it should have lost all its powers long ago. He thinks that if we persuade the multitudes that God never existed (Lo Haia Velo Nivra ארבנ אלו היה אל), as the title of his book in Hebrew shows, we will promote a better society that is not worsened by the burden of religion. The difficulty that Boneh encounters, and is evident in this quote, is that for many Jews (Amichai among them), God does not conform to the easy-to-use definition that Boneh suggests. For many Jews, both religious and secular, God is not the manager of the universe and hence for them, the “scientific” and modern understanding of the world does not lead to disbelief in God. 2 See Stephen S. Hall, “Darwin’s Rottweiler,” accessed 22 December 2015, http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep /darwins-rottweiler. 3 See many of Dan Meler’s articles, and other writers who use similar jargon, in the journal “תישפוח תודהי”(Yahadut Hofshit free Judaism), and “שפוח” (Hofesh – freedom) website, accessed 22 December 2015, http://www.hofesh.org.il. 4 See website Daat-Emet (true knowledge, תמא תעד), accessed 22 December 2015, http://www.daatemet.org.il. See also Yaron Yadan’s blog, accessed 22 December 2015, http://www.orr.org.il/wordpress. 5 Dan Boneh, The God Fallacy [Hebrew] (Bney Brak: Hakibutz Hameuhad, 2011). The title in Hebrew reads: “הרודס תיטסיאתא הנשמ :ארבנ אלו היה אל” (Lo haia velo nivra Never Existed – A Well-Structured Atheist Doctrine). According to the publishing house it is a best seller. The first two editions were each sold out in a month. 6 Yehudah Amichai, Achshav Bera’ash: Poems 1963-1968 [Hebrew] (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Shoken, 1968), 36. 7 Boneh, The God Fallacy, 265. Emphasis added. SECULAR THEOLOGY AS A CHALLENGE FOR JEWISH ATHEISTS (DINUR) 133 Secularism is not Atheism a sociological-historical perspective The almost automatic identification that many make between secularism and atheism is baseless. It is problematic from a theological-philosophical perspective as I will show later, and it is just false if one looks at it from a sociological or historical perspective as I will show now. Most surveys that articulate approaches to tradition and self-definition in Israel during the last 30 years show that while about 50% of the Jews in Israel identify themselves as “secular,” about 80% say that they believe in God, and an even larger percentage say they participate in central practices of Jewish tradition – for example, 94% circumcise their children, 91% have Bar or Bat Mitzva, 90% celebrate Seder-Pesach, and 82% light Chanukah candles.8 From these numbers we can deduce that most secular Israeli Jews (and here the focus is on Israeli society because away from Israel far fewer Jews define themselves as secular) do believe in God and are committed to the ongoing survival of Jewish tradition, and thus, at least according to self-definition, it is clear that for a great majority of these secular Jews atheism and secularism are fundamentally distinct. It is worth noting that the Gutman surveys that I draw upon, although they are very extensive and seem to be well structured, are not consistent enough in their use of the term “secular” – a few of these polls use the term “not religious” or even “anti-religious,” but parallel polls, a few years later, use “traditional-secular,” and others “not observing the Mitzvot.” These inconsistencies should not be seen simply as a sign of unprofessional surveys – rather, they are a symptom of the inherent difficulty of pinning down Jewish secular identity, and of finding unambiguous definitions for secular and religious in the Jewish world in general and for Israeli-Jews in particular. This difficulty is unique to the Jewish culture and it builds on the problematic combination of religion and nationhood. Clear-cut definitions are indeed very hard to find, and even though in what follows I will suggest a few new guidelines to differentiate between a religious and a secular approach, I do not believe in the utility of such distinctions for future surveys. Here they serve a different purpose. Boneh and his atheist colleagues might claim that the majority of “secular believers” who said in the polls that they are secular but do believe in God, have false ideas about religion – for these people, who in most cases come from Mizrahi","PeriodicalId":305040,"journal":{"name":"Melilah: Manchester Journal of Jewish Studies (1759-1953)","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Melilah: Manchester Journal of Jewish Studies (1759-1953)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31826/mjj-2016-120114","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper uses the term “secular theology” to criticize Jewish-religious approaches on the one hand and atheism on the other hand. It shows that the assumption of many that atheism stands at the centre of secular thought is baseless. The first part, largely assuming an Israeli context, claims that this assumption is problematic from a sociological and historical perspective. The second part follows Jewish philosophers who use theological ideas at the centre of their thought, and at the same time do not fit into the realm of Jewish religious writing of the 20th century. The distinction between the ontological and the ethical “role” of God in the theology of Hans Jonas, Emmanuel Levinas and Martin Buber, is used to create new borderlines between the secular and the religious – “soft” borders that do not exclude God from secular world-views. This paper is a critique of a common secular approach that is based, I argue, on a misunderstanding of religion in general and Jewish religion in particular. This approach, which I call “naïve atheism,” claims that atheism is the main pillar of secular world-views, and that through modern science we can see how ridiculous religious doctrines are, understand that God does not exist, and thus recognize that we should struggle to push religion into a dark corner of society. A deeper understanding of Jewish religion and culture, I argue, will enable us to find a place for the belief in God within Jewish secular world-views, and hence will promote a “secular theology.” This line of thinking is based on the one hand on a strong critique of central religious beliefs, but on the other hand, aspires to promote a better society on the basis of theological ideas that are inseparable from Jewish thought throughout the generations. The discussion, and a few of the definitions I will use for terms like “Jewish-secular identity” (Zehut Yehudit Chilonit תינוליח תידוהי תוהז), or “Traditional Jews” (Mesorati’im – םייתרוסמ), is in general an Israeli one, and it builds upon the unique definitions of secularism and religiousness found in Israel,1 but the thinkers I draw from, Hans Jonas, Emmanuel Levinas, Martin Buber and others, are not necessarily Israeli, and the conclusions, I hope, can be relevant for other readers – Jews in the diaspora, secular nonJews, and others. My suggestion is to read the Jewish philosophy of these thinkers under the umbrella term “secular-theology,” and to use this concept as an analytical category by * Lecturer of Jewish Studies at Sapir College and Seminar-Hakibbutzim. Email: avnerdinur@gmail.com A previous version of this paper appeared in Hebrew in Akdamot 30 (2015): 65-76. 1 Many studies on this uniqueness can be found, including the studies in the following three collections: Yossi Yonah and Yehuda Goodman, eds., Maelstrom of Identities: A Critical look at religion and Secularity in Israel [Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Van Leer & Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2004); Gideon Kats, Shlalom Ratzabi and Yaacov Yadgar, eds., Beyond Halacha: Secularism, Traditionalism and ‘New Age’ culture in Israel [Hebrew] (Sede Boker: Ben-Gurion University Press, 2014); and the recent: Yochi Fischer, ed., Secularization and Secularism: Interdisciplinary Perspectives [Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Van Leer & Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2015). MELILAH MANCHESTER JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES 12 (2015) 132 which one can offer observations on the limits of atheist-secular Jewish identity on the one hand and religious identity (both orthodox and reform) on the other. Understanding secular identity as if it is based on atheism is very common and seems obvious for many. Religion, they claim, means the belief in God, and if one is secular, one should not believe in God or in the stories that religions present. In the English speaking world one can hear this line of thinking from the well-known biologist Richard Dawkins, who is sometimes referred to as “Darwin’s Rottweiler,” 2 for his aggressive attack on “Creationist” religious thinking. In the Jewish world strong atheist statements are rarely used by Jews in the diaspora, but in Israel they are quite common. In the Israeli context one can hear them from atheists like Dan Meler, Yaron Yad’an, and others. One of them, Dan Boneh, in his popular book The God Fallacy [Hebrew],5 refers to a poem by Yehuda Amichai called “The Destiny of God,” in which the poet says that “God is destined to stay with us.” Boneh, who seems not to understand the metaphoric and ironic depth of the poem, presents a harsh critique which is worth reproducing here at length as a representative example for naïve-atheist polemic: This kind of Pilpul (empty talk לופלפ) is an example of the way secular people fall into the trap that prolongs the concept of God – they insist on keeping it and using the concept for their own benefit. “God is love,” “God is me,” “God is nature,” “God is eternity,” “God is the unity of being” – and other definitions that secular people accept so they can create a God of their own. [...] My approach in this book criticizes this tendency. God is a well-defined monotheistic concept. For religious believers he is tangible and clear. Most of them will accept the definition that we used, common to all monotheistic religions – “a super-natural being, wilful, creator of the world and manager of the universe”. It is preferable that this definition will be used in the public discourse as the basic definition of the concept, just like a dictionary definition and like the definition that religious believers use. Boneh claims that secular Jews, who define the term “God” differently to him, are cooperating with religious people and giving religion authority in a time when it should have lost all its powers long ago. He thinks that if we persuade the multitudes that God never existed (Lo Haia Velo Nivra ארבנ אלו היה אל), as the title of his book in Hebrew shows, we will promote a better society that is not worsened by the burden of religion. The difficulty that Boneh encounters, and is evident in this quote, is that for many Jews (Amichai among them), God does not conform to the easy-to-use definition that Boneh suggests. For many Jews, both religious and secular, God is not the manager of the universe and hence for them, the “scientific” and modern understanding of the world does not lead to disbelief in God. 2 See Stephen S. Hall, “Darwin’s Rottweiler,” accessed 22 December 2015, http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep /darwins-rottweiler. 3 See many of Dan Meler’s articles, and other writers who use similar jargon, in the journal “תישפוח תודהי”(Yahadut Hofshit free Judaism), and “שפוח” (Hofesh – freedom) website, accessed 22 December 2015, http://www.hofesh.org.il. 4 See website Daat-Emet (true knowledge, תמא תעד), accessed 22 December 2015, http://www.daatemet.org.il. See also Yaron Yadan’s blog, accessed 22 December 2015, http://www.orr.org.il/wordpress. 5 Dan Boneh, The God Fallacy [Hebrew] (Bney Brak: Hakibutz Hameuhad, 2011). The title in Hebrew reads: “הרודס תיטסיאתא הנשמ :ארבנ אלו היה אל” (Lo haia velo nivra Never Existed – A Well-Structured Atheist Doctrine). According to the publishing house it is a best seller. The first two editions were each sold out in a month. 6 Yehudah Amichai, Achshav Bera’ash: Poems 1963-1968 [Hebrew] (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Shoken, 1968), 36. 7 Boneh, The God Fallacy, 265. Emphasis added. SECULAR THEOLOGY AS A CHALLENGE FOR JEWISH ATHEISTS (DINUR) 133 Secularism is not Atheism a sociological-historical perspective The almost automatic identification that many make between secularism and atheism is baseless. It is problematic from a theological-philosophical perspective as I will show later, and it is just false if one looks at it from a sociological or historical perspective as I will show now. Most surveys that articulate approaches to tradition and self-definition in Israel during the last 30 years show that while about 50% of the Jews in Israel identify themselves as “secular,” about 80% say that they believe in God, and an even larger percentage say they participate in central practices of Jewish tradition – for example, 94% circumcise their children, 91% have Bar or Bat Mitzva, 90% celebrate Seder-Pesach, and 82% light Chanukah candles.8 From these numbers we can deduce that most secular Israeli Jews (and here the focus is on Israeli society because away from Israel far fewer Jews define themselves as secular) do believe in God and are committed to the ongoing survival of Jewish tradition, and thus, at least according to self-definition, it is clear that for a great majority of these secular Jews atheism and secularism are fundamentally distinct. It is worth noting that the Gutman surveys that I draw upon, although they are very extensive and seem to be well structured, are not consistent enough in their use of the term “secular” – a few of these polls use the term “not religious” or even “anti-religious,” but parallel polls, a few years later, use “traditional-secular,” and others “not observing the Mitzvot.” These inconsistencies should not be seen simply as a sign of unprofessional surveys – rather, they are a symptom of the inherent difficulty of pinning down Jewish secular identity, and of finding unambiguous definitions for secular and religious in the Jewish world in general and for Israeli-Jews in particular. This difficulty is unique to the Jewish culture and it builds on the problematic combination of religion and nationhood. Clear-cut definitions are indeed very hard to find, and even though in what follows I will suggest a few new guidelines to differentiate between a religious and a secular approach, I do not believe in the utility of such distinctions for future surveys. Here they serve a different purpose. Boneh and his atheist colleagues might claim that the majority of “secular believers” who said in the polls that they are secular but do believe in God, have false ideas about religion – for these people, who in most cases come from Mizrahi
世俗神学对犹太无神论者的挑战
本文用“世俗神学”一词一方面批判犹太宗教的方法,另一方面批判无神论。它表明,许多人认为无神论是世俗思想的中心是毫无根据的。第一部分主要以以色列为背景,声称从社会学和历史的角度来看,这种假设是有问题的。第二部分是犹太哲学家,他们以神学思想为思想中心,同时又不符合20世纪犹太宗教著作的范畴。在汉斯·乔纳斯、伊曼纽尔·列维纳斯和马丁·布伯的神学中,上帝的本体论“角色”和伦理“角色”之间的区别,被用来在世俗和宗教之间建立新的界限——“软”边界,并不把上帝排除在世俗的世界观之外。我认为,这篇论文是对一种普遍的世俗方法的批判,这种方法是基于对宗教的误解,尤其是对犹太宗教的误解。这种方法,我称之为“naïve无神论”,声称无神论是世俗世界观的主要支柱,通过现代科学,我们可以看到宗教教义是多么荒谬,明白上帝不存在,从而认识到我们应该努力将宗教推向社会的黑暗角落。我认为,对犹太宗教和文化的深入了解,将使我们能够在犹太人的世俗世界观中找到信仰上帝的位置,从而促进“世俗神学”。这一思路一方面是基于对核心宗教信仰的强烈批判,另一方面,它渴望在神学思想的基础上促进一个更美好的社会,而神学思想与世世代代的犹太思想是分不开的。讨论,以及我将使用的一些定义,如“犹太-世俗身份”(Zehut Yehudit Chilonit),或“传统犹太人”(Mesorati’im -),总体上是以色列的讨论,它建立在以色列对世俗主义和宗教性的独特定义之上,但我引用的思想家,汉斯·乔纳斯、伊曼纽尔·列维纳斯、马丁·布伯和其他人,不一定是以色列的,我希望结论是:可以与其他读者——散居海外的犹太人、世俗的非犹太人以及其他人——相关。我的建议是把这些思想家的犹太哲学放在“世俗神学”这个总称下阅读,并把这个概念作为萨皮尔学院和研讨会犹太研究讲师哈基布兹的分析范畴。本文以前的希伯来语版本出现在Akdamot 30(2015): 65-76。1关于这种独特性的研究有很多,包括以下三个集子中的研究:Yossi Yonah和Yehuda Goodman主编。《身份的漩涡:对以色列宗教与世俗的批判》(特拉维夫:Van Leer & Hakibbutz Hameuchad出版社,2004);Gideon Kats, Shlalom Ratzabi和Yaacov Yadgar编。《超越哈拉卡:以色列的世俗主义、传统主义和“新时代”文化》(Sede Boker:本-古里安大学出版社,2014);最近:Yochi Fischer主编,《世俗化与世俗主义:跨学科视角》(特拉维夫:Van Leer & Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2015)。MELILAH MANCHESTER JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES 12(2015) 132一方面可以提供对无神论者-世俗犹太人身份和宗教身份(正统和改革)的局限性的观察。将世俗身份理解为基于无神论是非常普遍的,对许多人来说似乎是显而易见的。他们声称,宗教意味着对上帝的信仰,如果一个人是世俗的,他就不应该相信上帝或宗教所呈现的故事。在英语世界,人们可以从著名的生物学家理查德·道金斯那里听到这一思路。他有时被称为“达尔文的罗威纳犬”,因为他对“神创论”宗教思想进行了猛烈的攻击。在犹太人的世界里,强烈的无神论言论很少被散居在外的犹太人使用,但在以色列,这是相当普遍的。在以色列的背景下,你可以从Dan Meler, Yaron Yad 'an等无神论者那里听到这些。其中之一,Dan Boneh,在他的畅销书《上帝的谬论》(希伯来语)中,引用了耶胡达·阿米查的一首诗《上帝的命运》,诗中诗人说“上帝注定与我们同在”。Boneh似乎不理解这首诗的隐喻和讽刺深度,他提出了一个严厉的批评,值得在这里详细地复制,作为naïve-atheist论战的一个代表性例子:这种Pilpul(空谈)是世俗人们落入延长上帝概念的陷阱的一个例子——他们坚持保留它,并为了自己的利益使用这个概念。“上帝是爱”,“上帝是我”,“上帝是自然”,“上帝是永恒”,“上帝是存在的统一”——以及其他世俗的人接受的定义,这样他们就可以创造出自己的上帝。 […我在这本书中批评了这种倾向。上帝是一个定义明确的一神论概念。对于宗教信徒来说,他是有形而清晰的。他们中的大多数人会接受我们使用的定义,所有一神论宗教都使用这个定义——“一个超自然的存在,任性的,世界的创造者和宇宙的管理者”。这个定义最好是在公共话语中作为概念的基本定义,就像字典中的定义一样,就像宗教信徒使用的定义一样。Boneh声称,世俗的犹太人与他对“上帝”一词的定义不同,他们与宗教人士合作,在宗教早就应该失去所有权力的时候赋予宗教权威。他认为,如果我们说服大众相信上帝从未存在过(正如他的希伯来书的标题所示),我们将促进一个更好的社会,而不会因宗教的负担而恶化。Boneh遇到的困难,在这段引文中很明显,对许多犹太人(其中包括Amichai)来说,上帝并不符合Boneh所建议的简单易用的定义。对于许多犹太人来说,无论是宗教的还是世俗的,上帝都不是宇宙的管理者,因此对他们来说,对世界的“科学”和现代理解并不会导致对上帝的怀疑。2参见Stephen S. Hall,“达尔文的罗威纳犬”,访问2015年12月22日,http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep / Darwin - Rottweiler。3参见Dan Meler的许多文章,以及其他使用类似术语的作者,在“yahdut Hofshit free Judaism”(Yahadut Hofshit free Judaism)杂志和“yahesh - freedom”(Hofesh - freedom)网站,2015年12月22日访问http://www.hofesh.org.il。4见2015年12月22日访问的网站Daat-Emet (true knowledge,) http://www.daatemet.org.il。另见Yaron Yadan的博客,于2015年12月22日访问http://www.orr.org.il/wordpress。5丹·波内,《上帝谬误》[希伯来语](布尼·布拉克:哈基布兹·哈默哈德,2011)。希伯来语的标题是:“永永永永永永永永永永永永永永永永永永永永永永”(Lo haia velo nivra从未存在过-一个结构良好的无神论教义)。据出版社说,这是一本畅销书。前两版都在一个月内售罄。6耶胡达·阿米查,《阿奇沙夫·贝拉阿什:诗歌1963-1968》[希伯来文](耶路撒冷和特拉维夫:Shoken出版社,1968),第36页。Boneh,《上帝的谬论》,265页。重点补充道。世俗神学对犹太无神论者的挑战(DINUR) 133世俗主义不是无神论——社会学-历史的观点许多人几乎自动地把世俗主义和无神论等同起来是没有根据的。从神学哲学的角度来看,这是有问题的,我稍后会讲到,如果从社会学或历史的角度来看,这是错误的,我现在会讲到。在过去的30年里,大多数关于以色列传统和自我定义的调查表明,虽然大约50%的以色列犹太人认为自己是“世俗的”,但大约80%的人说他们相信上帝,甚至更多的人说他们参与了犹太传统的核心实践——例如,94%的人给孩子行割礼,91%的人有犹太成年礼,90%的人庆祝逾越节,82%的人点光明节蜡烛从这些数字中我们可以推断出,大多数世俗的以色列犹太人(这里的重点是以色列社会,因为在以色列之外,很少有犹太人认为自己是世俗的)都相信上帝,并致力于犹太传统的持续生存,因此,至少根据自我定义,很明显,对于大多数世俗犹太人来说,无神论和世俗主义从根本上是截然不同的。值得注意的是,我所引用的古特曼调查,虽然范围很广,结构也很好,但在使用“世俗”一词时并不一致——其中一些调查使用“非宗教”甚至“反宗教”一词,但几年后的平行调查使用“传统世俗”,而其他调查则使用“不遵守Mitzvot”。这些不一致不应被简单地视为不专业调查的标志-相反,它们是确定犹太人世俗身份的固有困难的症状,以及在整个犹太世界,特别是以色列犹太人中找到世俗和宗教的明确定义。这种困难是犹太文化所特有的,它建立在宗教和国家的问题结合上。明确的定义确实很难找到,即使在下面我将提出一些新的指导方针来区分宗教和世俗的方法,我不相信这些区分在未来的调查中有用。在这里,它们有不同的用途。Boneh和他的无神论同事可能会声称,大多数在民意调查中说自己是世俗的,但确实相信上帝的“世俗信徒”对宗教有错误的看法——对这些人来说,他们大多数来自米兹拉希
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信