So why do this...

There are lots of people who blog. And they all have their own passions about which they blog. The "blogosphere" is huge. I've personally tried to tend away from my own passions as they seem to get me into trouble. That doesn't mean I don't want to write or that I am not passionate about things, but I have tried to limit my passions to things that are not personal. Things that are external to me, and not simply things that represent my interests.

True, I am interested and passionate about this topic, but this topic exists outside of me. It's not something I am conjuring up out of my own unique personality and creativity. At least, that is my fundamental standpoint. And that is sort of the crux of the issue.

If God does not exist, then this blog is about as useful as a blog describing my personal feelings toward something like, say, video games. But, if God does exist, then I feel like I have chosen the thing that matters most in the universe about which to write. And if the purpose of this journal is a "mitzvot" to bring me closer to God, then what better subject matter could there be?

I guess, for me, it comes down to that above paragraph. I am an "either/or" sort of person. That black and white thinking has gotten me into trouble, but in this setting, I think it is justified. Either God exists or He does not. I am not sure there is a "both" option.

Either there is a "moral order" to the universe, or there is not. By "moral order," I mean an external moral reality of absolute right and wrong against which all human experience can be judged. If the latter, if there is not a moral order, then all questions of morality by definition become questions of ethics belonging to the closed system in which they were raised. Was the holocaust "moral?" If there were no absolute moral order, then someone would find some way to justify it, and believe in its morality, without anyone else being able to pull rank on a higher "moral order" (because we have said for this argument that it doesn't exist) and strike down their argument.

But if there is a higher, external, absolute moral order to the universe, then all questions of human morality become secondary to that absolute morality. We can never falsely justify something "immoral" because it can be externally judged as such.

To me, it seems this is something ingrained in humanity. As children, we cry out, "it's not fair" as though we know, deep down, there is a "fairness" doctrine outside of our little family life to which we can appeal. And, as children, we seek validation from our parents for our mudpies or any other human endeavor. Who hasn't said, "Mom, look at me, look at me?" How many mothers have heard those words...

As we grow into adults, maybe we get cynical and come to believe that there is no "fairness," there is no "moral order." Or we grow up and learn not to seek validation in others. But do our beliefs in the lack of existence of something make that lack a reality? Just because we begin to believe that life is not fair, does that really make life not fair? Or is life completely fair? Is there a moral order from which this fairness springs?

It's my belief that there is a moral order. There is a fundamental meaning. But what drives me is how to get there. If language is imperfect, according to Derrida, then how can something written in language get us to an understanding of a perfect moral order? And if we cannot get there, by definition, why try? Are we still just making mudpies? "Hey God, look at me, look at me..."

If there is a fundamental moral order to the universe, if God exists, then there is another argument. There either is, or is not, a written document that exactly depicts this "God." There either is or is not a perfect representation of His revelation in human terms.

One could say that the Bible is it. But which version? Which of the 10+ English translations is it? Is it even the English version, or is it the Spanish version? And if we find one version that is "perfect," does following it to the letter simply just represent legalism?

I believe in a fundamental moral order, But I have a hard time believing that there is a perfect human representation of that moral order, and if there is not, then how much room for interpretation is there? That is, if there is a document which most closely represents the expression of God in human understanding, but is not "perfect," then how much room is there for an individual to take what he or she wants from it like some sort of Chinese menu?

Even if we go the other way, and say that the Torah, perfectly copied, is the divine revelation of God's word, we still leave room for human interpretation.

So, how do we go about the search for ultimate meaning when we know that search can never be ultimately satisfied? I have come to believe that it is in the search that meaning lies. And therefore, my mitzvot, my task to bring me closer to God, will be in this search, through a dedication to this process.