This past week Shmuley Boteach debated Christopher Hitchens over the existence of G-d. By all accounts he seems to have lost. It is unfortunate, because from my perspective the existence of G-d is a given and proof of his existence rather simple. The problem with most discussions about the existence of G-d is that they begin with creation, travel through evolution, and end in some type of emotional argument that morality is not driven by the divine.
There are a variety of proofs; ontological, teleological, and historical that lay a foundation for the existence of G-d. As the Boteach- Hitchens debate set forth, the burden of proof is on the side of religion. To disprove an atheist all one has to do is prove some idea of the divine. As Neil Gilman lays out in his moderation, there are a variety of concepts of G-d; Maimonidean, Kaplanian, Spinozan, etc. One could add to this Aristotelean and Platonic as well. For the atheist to lose the argument only one of these arguments has to be proven correct. Instead, atheist shifts the debate to religion and the personal practices of the religious. Shmuley found himself trying to defend all of religious practice and thought and doing a rather poor job of it.
The existence of G-d can be proven with one quick argument, “Can people change?” If G-d does not exist, then humans are merely complicated monkeys. Their DNA, their instincts, even their feelings of solidarity and self sacrifice are hard wired. Spinoza lays out the argument very clearly when he describes his conception of G-d. G-d for Spinoza is the first cause, the beginning, the unfolding equation that is everything. According to Spinoza, man has freedom of choice only because he is not intelligent enough to realize the causal connections in the world. In the same way, that I can not choose to be in Cancun, without first buying a ticket and getting on the plane, so too, a person can not make choices that conflict with their essential wiring and environment. A certain DNA, a certain brain chemistry, a certain environment will produce a certain outcome.
But, for Jews the existence of G-d supposes the possibility of change. People can improve, they can make amends, they have the ability to rise above their wiring and choose right or wrong. This debate can be seen clearly in “House MD” Season 4 episode 12. In this episode, a Chassidic couple is treated by the diagnostic team. We see a conflict between the philosophy of the observant Jews, where a former record producer is now Chassidic, and that of House, who denies the existence of G-d and feels that people can never change. House checks the woman for drugs and STDs. He is sure that there is a skeleton in the closet that will explain her medical problems. In the end it is merely a loose kidney. House has an epiphany. He realizes that people can change and this affects House’s relationship with his friends.
This is great, an observant Jewish story line. As an observant Rabbi, I could not agree with every detail of the storyline. Yet, this is really not the excitement. The excitement lies in the correlation to the Torah portion. This week's Parsha was Trumah. It talks about the Mishkan, the dwelling place in the desert and the sacrifices that take place there. The whole foundation of the Mishkan is predicated on the idea of self sacrifice. You shall take for me a terumah..... a donation. G-d lays out a promise that if the Jews come together and build a home for him, he will dwell amongst them. Our sages point out that the word should have been "it", I will dwell in it. Instead, it was amongst "them" - If we give of our selves, G-d will be amongst us. What was the House episode discussing? Self sacrifice as well.
