Atheism and "Negative" Belief
|
by David Linwood
The positive aspects in our language have often been favored
as being “good”, “in the majority”, “correct”, etc.
For example: “Do unto others as you would have them do
unto you.” The so-called Golden Rule, as favored by Jesus of Nazareth and
many other Pharasaic Rabbis. It requires a “positive” or “active” role. You
have to “do” something. You have to act. It won’t happen all by itself.
The negative aspects in our language have been associated
with “neglect”, “laziness”, “sloth”, “minority”, etc. “Atheism” has been
interpreted as a negative word, and was probably coined originally by “believers”
for that reason. The usage of the word, and a common reaction to it, indicates
that the action has “negative” aspects.
This is an “acquired” usage, an interpretation of the
English language that has been very destructive at times.
In the Hebrew language, the negative has “culturally” been a
preferred mode. For example, Rabbi Hillel, a contemporary of Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth, preferred the “negative” form of the Golden Rule: “Do not do unto others
that which is hateful to yourself.”
Hillel explained that the so-called “positive” form was an
unattainable command, could never be a “completed” action. There was always
something more you could “do”.
On the other hand, the negative form was completely
attainable by the common person in the street without having to go to
extraordinary lengths. He/she simply had to refrain from hateful behavior.
Much easier – easy to “complete”, and it gets the job done.
If you take a close look at the Ten Commandments it is
obvious that the last five are commandments to refrain from hateful behavior –
they are “not- oriented” commands. “Thou shalt not (murder,
steal, commit adultery, bear false witness, covet stuff).” There are even some
“nots” in the first five Commandments. “Thou shalt (have no other Gods
before me, not take My Name in vain, not make an image that may
be worshipped).” In fact, of the Ten there are only two Commandments that are
phrased in a positive manner: Thou shalt (keep the Sabbath, honor thy
father and thy mother) .
Why these two? Well, if one looks carefully one finds that most
of the required activity is “negative” anyway (refrain from work on the
Sabbath, do not walk more than a certain distance, etc. Do not
insult your parents, upon pain of death, etc.).
The dietary laws are also “negative” (don’t eat this,
or that).
Are there any “positive” Laws? Yes. Some very
important ones. For example: in the seven Noahide Laws which are required of
any human (Jewish or not) as “decent” behavior: You shall establish
Courts of Law: a Common Court, a Court of Appeals, and a Supreme Court. All
shall be equal under the Law, rich or poor, strong or weak, the Jew or the
stranger in your land.
What is the penalty for not obeying these Noahide Laws?
An observant Jew is not allowed to share a meal with a person who does not
observe the Noahide Laws (which are a “minimum” subset of the Jewish Law).
One is not allowed to persecute, in any way, a person who does not
observe these Noahide Laws, whether stranger or not, but only not allowed
to share a meal, and advised not to do business with them.
Another important “positive” rule: One must defend
oneself, one’s family, one’s neighbors, whether strangers or not, one’s lawful
police, and one’s country against any and all violence. There is no
“conscientious objection” allowable: Thou shalt defend.
So what about “Atheists”? So what about them! They have not
broken any Law because of their disbeliefs. The Commandment was: “Thou
shalt have no other gods before Me.” If they have no
gods, they certainly are in compliance. That’s the beauty of the negative
statement of Law.
God does not require belief in Him. It is enough that He
knows what He “is” or “is not” (“I am that I am, and, I will be what I will be”).
He has given us the “free will” to disbelieve.
Agnostics seem more realistic. They simply say “I don’t
know.” — or even, “I don’t care.” An atheist says, “I really do
know. There isn’t any God” — much less believable.
Some people simply do not have God in their life. It has no
meaning for them. Whether they are atheists or agnostics God accepts that as an
act of “free will”. And some have God in their life only at times of stress,
or at “turning points” when they ask for guidance. And some walk with God
every day of their life.
In general semantics, the map is not the territory.
The map is not (a map of) all the territory. The map is
self-reflexive. Two out of three negatives. Not bad!
David Linwood
November 25, 2006
|
