In short, we're all in the dark. Sometimes human reason is a flash of light. Sometimes it is the darkness itself. 

Jewish sources describe Abraham as the ultimate thinker. He was the rationalist extraordinaire for much of his early life. Then he reached the realization that, in short, we're all in the dark. That there was a limitation to even his formidable reasoning powers. Some say that is was precisely at that point, when he reached the limits of human reason, and realized how in the dark he was, that God first revealed Himself to him. 

BS"D

I refuse to pray to any god who is commanding the murder of any human being.

I find it difficult to pray to any god who commands the sacrifice of any plant or animal on behalf of a human being.

I find it annoying to pray to any god who is prayed to under any other name by others who joyously embrace either of the above and I refuse to admit it is in any way the same god.

May 1, 2012 -- 2:08PM, JAstor wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 1:32AM, Lilwabbit wrote:

It's possible to regard the Book as the sole authority. Unquestionably. But the Book shouldn't even be accepted in the first place if you find it counter to reason (reason) and if it doesn't speak to your heart (intuition). The Book itself should encourage the maximum use of human reason and insist that religious truth, in its purest form, never runs counter to reason. If it does contradict reason, it is not of God.

That's equating human reason with God's reason. If you look in history, you will see that the definition of human reason swerves and meanders in different cultures and epochs, and even within a culture and epoch, depending upon who you talk to. In short, human reason is not a reliable arbiter of truth. 

Now, that doesn't mean it has no place. To the contrary, it does. But if a Book says X and your reason says Y perhaps it's not the Book that needs revision. 

Indeed our reasoning may be faulty at times. But sometimes the book too contains obvious logical contradictions. Then, either, we got it wrong or the book got it wrong. The latter, obviously, is an anathema for a word-for-word book believer. Yet, many holy books, particularly (but not exclusively) from the ancient world, contain numerous logical contradictions and statements counter to contemporary scientific consensus (no matter how figuratively one tries to interpret certain evidently literal-reading passages and to thereby water down obvious contradictions).

God is obviously beyond reason, but He is not against reason. That would imply being below reason, i.e. irrational. Suprarational does not equate irrational. He gave reason for us as a gift and a criterion of truth, not as a distraction from the truth, whether or not St. Augustine would agree.

May 2, 2012 -- 12:27AM, Lilwabbit wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 2:08PM, JAstor wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 1:32AM, Lilwabbit wrote:

It's possible to regard the Book as the sole authority. Unquestionably. But the Book shouldn't even be accepted in the first place if you find it counter to reason (reason) and if it doesn't speak to your heart (intuition). The Book itself should encourage the maximum use of human reason and insist that religious truth, in its purest form, never runs counter to reason. If it does contradict reason, it is not of God.

That's equating human reason with God's reason. If you look in history, you will see that the definition of human reason swerves and meanders in different cultures and epochs, and even within a culture and epoch, depending upon who you talk to. In short, human reason is not a reliable arbiter of truth. 

Now, that doesn't mean it has no place. To the contrary, it does. But if a Book says X and your reason says Y perhaps it's not the Book that needs revision. 

Indeed our reasoning may be faulty at times. But sometimes the book too contains obvious logical contradictions. Then, either, we got it wrong or the book got it wrong. The latter, obviously, is an anathema for a word-for-word book believer. Yet, many holy books, particularly (but not exclusively) from the ancient world, contain numerous logical contradictions and statements counter to contemporary scientific consensus (no matter how figuratively one tries to interpret certain evidently literal-reading passages and to thereby water down obvious contradictions).

Here's the problem with that. Maybe it is one's faulty or deficient reasoning abilities that lead one to conclude that a text contradicts itself. Or maybe it is plain lack of information.

I would contend that Torah does not contradict itself. I say that with confidence because I have spent the better part of three decades studying it in the traditional method, which if it could be summarized would be: looking for apparent contradictions to get to a deeper and broader understanding of what the text says. 

In short, the Written Torah is just the tip of the iceberg. The full body of Jewish law and philosophy cannot be contained even in a text revealed to the greatest prophet word-for-word by God. It is infinite. Therefore, it must be studied and mined for the fuller understanding. That is what Jewish scholarship for 3,000 years has been dedicated to. 

Again, reason has its value but also its limits. If the designation of something as irrational or suprarational is going to come down to human reason, that designation suffers from the same limits as all attempts to base everything exclusively on human reason. Yes, there are times when something is irrational because it is wrong. But there are times when something may seem irrational, but that is only due to the limits of the one assessing the "something" with his finite human reasoning. 

May 2, 2012 -- 10:01AM, Lilwabbit wrote:

May 2, 2012 -- 9:53AM, JAstor wrote:

Here's the problem with that. Maybe it is one's faulty or deficient reasoning abilities that lead one to conclude that a text contradicts itself. Or maybe it is plain lack of information.

I would contend that Torah does not contradict itself. I say that with confidence because I have spent the better part of three decades studying it in the traditional method, which if it could be summarized would be: looking for apparent contradictions to get to a deeper and broader understanding of what the text says.

Since I respect you and your faith, I will not pursue the matter of internal Torah contradictions further. I think there are numerous, but I also think they do not invalidate the essential message and validity of the Torah.

A shame, because I would have welcomed and enjoyed addressing your attempts to point out the alleged contradicitons. In fact, feel free to do so and I will try my best not to take it as disrespect, but rather honest inquiry. 

May 2, 2012 -- 10:01AM, Lilwabbit wrote:

May 2, 2012 -- 9:53AM, JAstor wrote:

Again, reason has its value but also its limits. If the designation of something as irrational or suprarational is going to come down to human reason, that designation suffers from the same limits as all attempts to base everything exclusively on human reason. Yes, there are times when something is irrational because it is wrong. But there are times when something may seem irrational, but that is only due to the limits of the one assessing the "something" with his finite human reasoning. 

And there are times when we explain the uncomfortably irrational away by declaring it as a divine mystery.

Kind regards,

LilWabbit

True. It goes both ways.