Thinking about Kaplan

Last night I was arguing with my mother about Kaplan. I manage to convince her that Kaplan’s analysis of God in The Meaning of God in Modern Jewish Religion was the only justifiable way to understand God in a modern context. This was no easy feat, considering that she is a very traditionally pious woman and it was done through instant messenger. For Kaplan, God cannot be understood in the modern context as a supernatural being. The universe is simply the way that it is; there is no divine purpose nor was it created by a Creator. This is the widely accepted perspective of those who reject supernaturalism; their focus is to observe and explain the universe solely in natural terms. This perspective has been very useful because it encourages a never ending quest for answers. A supernatural perspective requires that a point be reached when we must acknowledge inexplicable supernaturalism and cease in our quest. Traditionally, God is seen as a supernatural being that created the Universe. Therefore, belief in God must seem to be at odds with the naturalist perspective that the universe is comprised solely of purely natural phenomenon. In order to maintain both the perspective of a naturalist and belief in God, Kaplan had to change the way that God has been traditionally conceived. Instead of believing in a supernatural God created humans, Kaplan believed that humans have created a natural God. This is not to say that for Kaplan, God was simply a delusion of the human mind as others have argued. Kaplan was no atheist. Even if God were solely the product of the human mind, God is such a compelling force that to say that God doesn’t exist in some manner would be sheer lunacy. Everything that we hold dear and true in our lives is a force that we associate with Godliness. For example, our experience of love and justice is so uniform and overpowering that surely those attributes can be symbolized by a God that is both loving and just. If the symbol is the same as the experience, and we know that the experience is real, then of course the symbol is real as well. However, I woke up this morning and realized that I do not completely agree with Kaplan. I agree with Kaplan that a natural account of the universe is in many ways superior to a supernatural account. But I find that there is also something existentially compelling about a supernatural God that created the universe and is deeply concerned with His creation. It makes my life not dependent upon chance but upon a purpose greater than my own.