Faith vs. Intellect?

In a post back in March ("Anti-Academic Judaism") I discussed a trend, in some Jewish circles, against the intellectual, analytic approach of academia; there is a school of thought which views such a derech as a dangerous challenge to religious faith.

In a thought-provoking debate in the comments, as well as on another blog, various posters discussed multiple aspects of the issue.

Last week, in preparing a Shavuot shiur, I came across the following relevant passage in Rav Kook's Orot Yisrael (Chapter 1); I think one could take it in multiple directions, but I like it anyway:

The original Hebrew:

חולשת האדם גורמת, שבהיותו מוכשר למחקר שכלי יוחלש בו יסוד הנטיה האמונית, ובהיותו שלם באמונה הוא עלול למעט בהשכלה וחכמת לב. אבל תכלית דרך הישרה היא, שכל כח לא ימעט את חברו, ולא יתמעט על ידו, כ״א יתגלה בכל מלא עזו, כאילו היה הוא השולט לבדו. כת האמונה צריך שיהיה שלם כ"כ כאילו אין לו שום אפשריות של מחקר, ולעומת זה צריך שיהיה כח החכמה כ״כ מעולה ומזורז כמו לא היה כלל כח של אמונה בנפש. ״אדם ובהמה״ — ערומים בדעת ומשימים עצמם כבהמה.

My translation:
"Human frailty causes a person who is gifted in intellectual analysis to have a weaker inclination toward faith, and a person who is whole in faith to reduce his intellectual insight and wisdom of the heart. But the goal of the straight path is that each strength not reduce the other, and not be reduced by the other, but rather that both be revealed in their full strength, as though it alone was in control.

"Faith must be as complete as if there was no possibility of analysis, and complementing this must be a force of intellect which is elevated and energized, as though there were no force of faith in the soul. "Man and animal (Tehillim 36)" – clever in intellect, and making themselves as [unthinking] beasts."

What do you think?

Anti-Academic Judaism

[Take a look at Circling the Gates of Jerusalem on Adar, at the Muqata]

Some months back, a friend noted the rising popularity of a rabbi whose approach is rather anti-intellectual, anti-academic. It fit, I thought, with the recent attraction to Breslov, to Chabad, to Rav Amnon Yitzchak (who I discovered, a couple of weeks ago, is a lot of fun to watch on YouTube when you’re stuck in a rut on a Motzaei Shabbos working on a shiur) and so on.

This trend is surprising in that it has taken hold among Jews who go to university, who live in an academic world.

On the other hand, it actually makes a lot of sense, based on an observation by another friend, Dr. L, a professor of religion at an American college.

Dr. L noted the rise of kabbalah in Christian lands in the later Middle Ages, and he argued that the popularity of mysticism at that moment in Jewish history was not coincidental. This was a time when the Church forced Jews to attend sermons, to participate in debates, and to otherwise face Christianity on an intellectual level. The Christians of the time believed that their faith could be proved correct through analysis and debate. All they needed to do was bring Jews into the proper forum, and the Jews would readily convert.

Jews, of course, had no way to win – either ‘lose’ the debates and accept Christianity, or continue in stubborn insistence that they were right and be accused of heresy.

Faced with this dilemma, Jews found a third approach, orthogonal to the playing field. They abandoned intellectual debate altogether, and adopted a school of thought which, by definition, could not be debated and discussed in any rational way. It had its own givens and stipulations, it was neither provable nor testable, and it did not claim fealty to any logical system or extant, accessible text. This was mysticism, and its adoption made perfect sense. If I can’t debate you, I can refuse to debate you.

And I suspect a similar appeal in today’s anti-academic, anti-intellectual adoption of faith-based and mysticism-based Judaism. (This is not to question the legitimacy and meaning of these approaches; they are Torah, too. I'm only discussing why they enjoy such popularity now.)

The world of the university lays claim to truth, and it’s very hard to argue the point against a world of scientific scholarship. To argue the point from a scholarly perspective is to invite charges of naivete at best, and dishonesty at worst, from the legions of people who believe that Judaism cannot be reconciled with scientific analysis.

To concede the point is to be forced to convert, so to speak.

And so many of today’s Jews opt out, choosing anti-intellectual schools of kabbalah or emunah peshutah (simple faith) or chassidus of custom rather than logic (a form of orthopraxy?), rather than engage in what they fear is a losing battle.

Call it a post-modern Orthodoxy.