What do you think?
Rate this book
A Question of Faith: An Atheist and a Rabbi Debate the Existence of God
'This spirited encouter between a hardheaded atheist and a sophisticated theologian on the nature and existence of God can serve as a model for how to conduct a passionate and intelligent conversation on this most ultimate of issues.'―Rabbi Neil Gillman, Jewish Theological Seminary of America
226 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 1994
6 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
August 12, 2024
A CORDIAL WRITTEN DEBATE BETWEEN A RABBI AND A JEWISH ATHEIST
William E. Kaufman is a Conservative Jewish rabbi and a "process" theologian, as well as the author of the Case for God; Morton Shor is Jewish by heritage, but an atheist. The debate consists of a series of letters between the two parties.
Shor states, "the atheist can reply, 'Why can't EVERYTHING be contingent? Maybe the universe is just a brute fact. Why does the universe have to be intelligible?' This is one of the apparent stalemates between the theist and the atheist." (Pg. 35) Later, he asks, "Bill, how do you know all of these wonderful characteristics of God? How do you know that He (She or It) is persuasive rather than coercive?; that He grows and develops in process with the world?; that He lures the good?; that He has a divine memory? an eternal memory? How do you know all the attributes you give Him?" (Pg. 84-85)
Kaufman replies, "you make your claim of nihilism ... dogmatically. How do you KNOW there is no meaning in the universe other than human meaning? Since religion is such a pervasive element of human culture, wouldn't it be odd to find that there is nothing to it and those who believe in it are just plain stupid or credulous?" (Pg. 92)
Shor asserts, "I assume that the universe is the result of chance, and you assume that it is the result of God. Why do I consider my assumption more valid than yours? First, I assume that the universe was created by 'nothing.' You find it necessary to postulate an inventor with an infinitely complex mind and, to believe the modern theologians, with an ethic and a conscience. My 'nothing' is so much simpler that it can hardly be called an assumption." (Pg. 126-127)
Kaufman says, "I agree that a law of nature is simpler than a Supreme Being, but a law of nature is NOT an explanation of the universe. A law of nature is a description of the universe, which cries out for an explanation." (Pg. 156) He adds, "I know nothing about God. I BELIEVE that God exists because, at present, I believe the religious hypothesis (i.e., God) is the best explanation of the universe." (Pg. 164)
Although neither convinces the other, this is a very interesting and broad-ranging debate, that will be of interest to anyone concerned with the philosophy of religion (and certainly not just those of the Jewish persuasion!).
William E. Kaufman is a Conservative Jewish rabbi and a "process" theologian, as well as the author of the Case for God; Morton Shor is Jewish by heritage, but an atheist. The debate consists of a series of letters between the two parties.
Shor states, "the atheist can reply, 'Why can't EVERYTHING be contingent? Maybe the universe is just a brute fact. Why does the universe have to be intelligible?' This is one of the apparent stalemates between the theist and the atheist." (Pg. 35) Later, he asks, "Bill, how do you know all of these wonderful characteristics of God? How do you know that He (She or It) is persuasive rather than coercive?; that He grows and develops in process with the world?; that He lures the good?; that He has a divine memory? an eternal memory? How do you know all the attributes you give Him?" (Pg. 84-85)
Kaufman replies, "you make your claim of nihilism ... dogmatically. How do you KNOW there is no meaning in the universe other than human meaning? Since religion is such a pervasive element of human culture, wouldn't it be odd to find that there is nothing to it and those who believe in it are just plain stupid or credulous?" (Pg. 92)
Shor asserts, "I assume that the universe is the result of chance, and you assume that it is the result of God. Why do I consider my assumption more valid than yours? First, I assume that the universe was created by 'nothing.' You find it necessary to postulate an inventor with an infinitely complex mind and, to believe the modern theologians, with an ethic and a conscience. My 'nothing' is so much simpler that it can hardly be called an assumption." (Pg. 126-127)
Kaufman says, "I agree that a law of nature is simpler than a Supreme Being, but a law of nature is NOT an explanation of the universe. A law of nature is a description of the universe, which cries out for an explanation." (Pg. 156) He adds, "I know nothing about God. I BELIEVE that God exists because, at present, I believe the religious hypothesis (i.e., God) is the best explanation of the universe." (Pg. 164)
Although neither convinces the other, this is a very interesting and broad-ranging debate, that will be of interest to anyone concerned with the philosophy of religion (and certainly not just those of the Jewish persuasion!).
Displaying 1 of 1 review