1

according to Jewish tradition does the mitzva of emuna mean to believe without rational reason (blind faith). Or does it mean to investigate and come to a conclusion based on the evidence.

(hence if the mitzva is blind faith, then if one investigates and comes to a conclusion based on the evidence then he has not fulfilled the mitzva since his faith is based on reason. conversely, if the mitzva is to investigate, then one has not fulfilled the mitzva by blind faith alone.)

ray
  • 21,206
  • 2
  • 45
  • 103
  • 1
    Those aren't the only two possibilities. – Yishai Apr 01 '15 at 14:12
  • @Yishai what else? – ray Apr 01 '15 at 16:16
  • 2
    I feel like this is a duplicate of http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/28621/5083 (and by same user) – הנער הזה Apr 01 '15 at 17:04
  • Ray, faith based on Mesorah, faith based on reasoning (this does not mean evidence-based investigation), inspired faith (that is motivated by outside experience - it is more of an emotional experience), etc. – Yishai Apr 01 '15 at 17:48
  • @Matt the question there was what is the distinction between blind faith and simple faith. here i am asking what is the mitzva of faith that we are obligated in. i.e. is it enough to believe blindly or one must investigate. conversely, if one investigates and believes through the evidence, perhaps this is not enough until one believes blindly. – ray Apr 01 '15 at 18:23
  • @Yishai mesorah, you mean something like the kuzari argument? inspired faith i think is in the category of blind faith, no? – ray Apr 01 '15 at 18:37
  • No, I don't mean the Kuzari argument, I just mean trust in tradition, without any specifics about why this particular tradition is more valuable other than it is yours. Inspired faith means you experienced something motivating and inspirational that you think is real and valuable, even if it isn't intellectual. Re: Your edit, it is better, but it still suffers from a false dichotomy, IMO. – Yishai Apr 01 '15 at 18:44
  • @Yishai some people can feel this meaningful inspiration by reading about greek mythology or hindu philosophy. if that is the basis of your faith, then it is not based on reason. I termed blind faith as referring to all non-rational inquiry based. – ray Apr 01 '15 at 18:49
  • @ray, right, that is why I was picking on your question. It says there is "rational" being defined as evidence based investigation and there is "not-rational" as everything else. But maybe the answer is some subset of the "not-rational" category. Plenty of people who claim to be doing evidence-based investigation come to differing and opposite conclusions, so I'm not sure why the fact that people use the method and come to wrong answers disqualifies anything. – Yishai Apr 01 '15 at 19:02
  • Who says there is a mitzvah of emunah? – mevaqesh Dec 02 '16 at 08:19

2 Answers2

1

There are many sources that discuss this issue, some of which give complicated accounts as to exactly what "emunah" should be, and suffice it to say that this is subject to significant dispute. While some did believe that the better form of faith is one that you might call 'blind', it appears that most of the Rishonim held that the commandment to believe in God (assuming it exists) is to know that He exists by reasonably justifying this belief, so that your knowledge of Him isn't like a statue that might fly away. Rabbi Obadiah Seforno defends this position at length throughout the first two sections of his work, Ohr Amim. Similarly, according to the Rokeach on the Rambam (Yesodei HaTorah 1:1), the Malbim (to Shemos 20:2) and the Maharam Shick (Taryag Mitzvos no. 25), there's a commandment to justify one's belief in God.

This blog post of Gil Student's may help answer your question as well as show you that the true picture is probably rather grey (as in, not 'black and white')

Community
  • 1
הנער הזה
  • 22,239
  • 1
  • 82
  • 127
-1

You touched upon the difference between two complimentary themes - emunah vs. bitachon. Ramba"m discusses this quite extensively. I'll try to link a source, later, b"n.

However, I think that this article explains the main concepts quite well. The example about Pharoah to illustrate the difference, I think, is very good. Some excerpts:

The Rambam defines emunah as the knowledge that HASHEM created and continues to run all of Creation. Simply put, nothing can exist and no activity can occur without HASHEM.

Bitachon, however, is a quite different. The Chovos Halevovos defines bitachon as trusting in HASHEM. It is a sense of relying on HASHEM to watch over and protect me, as if to say, “I take my heavy burden and place it on HASHEM.” While I am responsible to be proactive, I am not in charge of the outcome, and I am not the determinant of the results. I rely on HASHEM to care for me.

Emunah is a state of understanding; bitachon is a state of trust. Emunah means knowing that HASHEM is involved in every activity on the planet; bitachon means trusting in HASHEM in every situation.

A person can have emunah and not bitachon

Aperson can have emunah and not bitachon. Pharaoh was a classic example. When threatened by the Jewish overpopulation, Pharaoh’s solution was to throw the baby boys into the Nile. The Medrash explains that this wasn’t a flippant reaction – it was highly calculated. Pharaoh knew that HASHEM promised Noach that He wouldn’t bring another flood. He also knew that HASHEM pays back “measure for measure.” Therefore, Pharaoh determined that HASHEM would want to bring a flood to pay back the Egyptians for drowning the babies, but because of HASHEM’s promise to Noach, that couldn’t happen, so he felt protected from HASHEM’s wrath.

Clearly, Pharaoh understood the power of HASHEM. He realized that HASHEM watches over the world. He also understood that HASHEM acts with justice. Pharaoh had no problem with emunah, but he sure didn’t trust in HASHEM – he rebelled. He had emunah, but no bitachon.

Growing in emunah

Both emunah and bitachon are based on relating to the world in a deeper manner. Emunah is the understanding that HASHEM is involved in more than just the big picture issues: life and death, war, famine, disease. . . HASHEM is involved in the minutiae of my daily life. HASHEM is there with me, 24/7, 365, all day, every day, from morning to night.

Amazingly, I can have this understanding and yet lack a level of trust in HASHEM.

What I infer from this is that emunah is not "blind" faith. If it were, we'd be "dummies" or "zombies", just performing our activities without thinking through it at all. It seems that emunah requires at least some minimal understanding that G-d exists and is in control of all. Atheists, thus, have no emunah, based on this definition. Perhaps, this is why David in Tehilim (I think it's ch. 11 or 13?) calls them fools.

DanF
  • 70,416
  • 8
  • 59
  • 244
  • 1
    Blind faith can also be considered Emuna. @ray check Chovat halevavot. I might be able to bring sources by weekend. – Zeev Apr 01 '15 at 14:31
  • @Zeev - Interesting. I would like to see this. If you do find something, that effectively disproves my thinking, please include as an answer, rather than a comment. If my answer is completely off, I may decide to delete it, and then your useful comments would disappear as well. – DanF Apr 01 '15 at 14:36
  • I actually have quite alot (but not near me atm). The point is, BOTH are correct, each has its pros and cons.For example, if you don't have any 'blindfaith' at all, and you didn't manage to effactivly 'understand' emuna, what are you suppose to believe in/how do you live in the meantime ? – Zeev Apr 01 '15 at 14:40
  • @Ze'ev Offhand, it seems that the O.P. is asking if blind faith is the ONLY option. It seems that it is one of a few options, if I understand correctly. – DanF Apr 01 '15 at 21:38
  • Oh, I agree that. – Zeev Apr 02 '15 at 08:13