P.S. (see below first)

If I was bothered by your question, then I would say the following:
It is very possible that the God was made up by humans, since the idea of His existence and His caring about the happenings of the world, and especially the afterlife, are very comforting. However, the comfort of being a believer is much stronger in some other religions, especially Christianity, than it is in Judaism. We spoke last Shabbos about cases in which halachik lifestyles are often not healthy nor comforting. In fact, they can sometimes be quite the opposite.
Personally, though, I never get insulted or bothered when people make derogatory statements about religious Judaism. This is mostly because they are things I used to think myself. However, the only comments I get from non-religious people that actually frustrate me are ironically the comments that people make when they're trying to be nice. I often hear things like "[religious observance is not necessary but...] if that's what you need for your inner peace, then good for you." Or, "everyone needs something to believe in." I don't hold it against the people who say these things, since not only do they not no any better, but they also mean to be nice. However, the fact is that this prevailing view of religion (which may have been caused by Christian influence) is very far from the truth when it comes to halachic Judaism. I would elaborate on this more, but Rav Soloveitchik is a better writer than I am, and he goes on a tangent about this for a while (See footnote 4-I think- in Halakhik Man).
But I am curious what Shoshi thinks about this religion being for comfort issue, since she believes in a comfort level for halachik observance. Please do respond (and yes, I will have follow-up questions on whatever you decide to say). Liat was actually never really said clearly what she thinks about comfort and halacha. Sooo, although I'm not so bothered by the question posed (see my previous post), I am very interested in what Liat thinks about the following questions: Is Halacha for comfort? Should we only do it if it's comfortable? If it's not comfortable, how important is it to try to make it comfortable? etc...
-Shavua Tov

Sorry for the delay...

I was (and still am) planning on responding to your first post, but you sufficiently provoked me to respond to your second post. I don’t think the question you raise (which many people ask, and many atheists like to advocate- though I'm certainly not accusing you of this, since I know you're just playing devil's advocate) should not anybody. Of course it is true that given the current makeup of the human psyche, humans could "create" the idea of God, for the reasons you mentioned. However, that is irrelevant to the question of whether or not God exists. The idea shows that given a theoretical universe where God doesn't exist, the existence of the "God idea" in people's minds could be satisfactorily explained psychologically. It may prove that the fact that humans have the concept of God can not alone prove that God exists (although most versions of St. Anselm's ontological argument probably still hold up against this question… even though they mostly don’t hold up in general). But contrary to the writings of some of the popular atheists (and by popular I imply both meanings of the word) it certainly does not negate the notion of God's existence. One could easily believe that the idea of God could have been made up, but it happens to not be made up, since He exists.

Furthermore, the idea that humans could conjure the idea of God may also be a result of the human soul, which has a longing for meaning (assuming we have a soul, which is assuming God exists). Therefore, the idea that “God was created by humans may only be relevant if one is already assuming that God does not exist. There is no contradiction in believing in God, and also believing that humans could have made up the idea of God. Just like some of the things we discussed last Shabbos, this is all an issue of perspective.

A parallel to this that we already talked about is Bible criticism. The documentary hypothesis shows that given the theoretical situation that the Torah was written by several authors, we could figure out how to read the Torah accordingly. This does not pose a direct contradiction to the notion that God dictated the Torah. In other words, one could easily believe that the Torah could be read as if written by four authors, but still believe that it doesn’t have to be, because it was in fact written by God/Moses. Therefore, the documentary hypothesis is not related to the question of whether or not God wrote the Torah.

Another parallel is the argument about evolution. In order to "save the Torah," some people will claim that all of our evidence for evolution was planted by God in order to test our faith. This is silly, but it can't be disproven by any amount of evidence. Therefore, belief in evolution is also a question of perspective.
However, unlike Bible criticism one can fully believe in Torah and also in evolution, because they especially do not conflict for many reasons (I actually wrote a whole article about this in YU's Jewish thought magazine). Evolution is also different than the documentary hypothesis since it has hard scientific evidence.
A relevant anecdote I was told by a Rabbi/Professor (I would use names, but should I on the internet?): A Rabbi/biologist was discussing evolution and saying that the theory that God planted evidence of evolution to test our faith is not something that God would do. A Bible Professor chimed in, “Then why did God make the Torah look like it has four authors!?” (Note: everyone in this story accepts evolution and does not accept the documentary hypothesis)

Combining both of these topics again, another Rabbi/Prof likes to joke that the debate about the authorship of Torah is one large proof of evolution, because each side has adapted their position to such an extent that they will be able to incorporate any evidence thrown at them by the other side into their own view. In other words, any ‘evidence’ mentioned by Bible critics about different styles of writing, or even duplicate stories is understood by traditionalists to be a manifestation of the complexity of God and his Torah. And any time the traditionalists will throw a verse at the Bible critics that seems to not fit within their hypothesis, they will simply respond that it was added later, or for stylistic reasons, etc.

To summarize, all of these are issues of perspectives, and therefore not really bothersome. If one assumes God can’t write or talk, or assumes miracles or prophecy are impossible, then he can make sense of the Bible through Bible criticism. Without the perspective of those assumptions, the documentary hypothesis is just another alternative reading that is not any more compelling (maybe even less compelling) than the traditional view. Also, if one wants to assume there is no God, then he can explain the ‘God idea’ through psychology. Without that perspective, the conjuring of God by humans is just a theoretical alternative to what actually happened: that the God idea exists because God Himself exists. Since both of these are issues of perspective, it is almost by definition that neither side can ever disprove the other side, whatever evidence they bring. Therefore, the two sides are not in direct conflict.

First Aid

To walk through the world is a project that quickly grows tiring, and often quite difficult. This is not to say that life does not have its joys, but dealing with its challenges takes up much, if not most, of our time on Earth. Many of us find solace and meaning in religion. In fact, in his archetype theory, Carl Jung said that all humans have a God-archetype, or an idea that an old man with a white beard runs the world and is watching over us, because we need to believe that. So to start this blog (interactively!), I'd like to ask you what you think: is the function of religion merely a band-aid to help us deal with the chaos of life? Have we created the idea of religion and of God in order to delude ourselves into believing that there is some divine order and meaning in life?

Disclaimer: I have definitely played up my inner devil's advocate for this post.

Under Construction

"To exist is to change, to change is to mature, to mature is to go on creating yourself endlessly" (Anonymous).

In most aspects of life, we face the option to join various sorts of "teams." We are able to chose our religious affiliations, our political parties, our favorite sports teams, etc. This is a precious, thrilling freedom, but it is one that can easily become overwhelming.

The world is so full of (often conflicting) ideas and philosophies... how can we chose just one?

As for me, I often feel tempted to join the teams into which I was born, by willing myself to agree with these groups' perspectives on all issues. Interestingly, some accuse those who make this decision of "taking the easy way out," while to others it may seem like an impossible task. Either way, should we waste our ability to form our own opinions by adopting those that have been formed by others?

I have created this blog and named it "Souls Under Construction" because I have asked myself the above question and answered it in the negative. At times, forcing myself to agree with the opinions I hear around me seems like it would make my life so much easier. But at the same time, I know (from experience) that as hard as I try, I will never be able to do that.

So, as difficult and uncomfortable as it may be to ask oneself the tough questions, I decided a long time ago that I would do just that. I have pledged to answer truthfully when I can. When I'm stumped, I hope I will be brave enough to admit it. And when yesterday's answers seem wrong, I will ask the question again.

I invite you all to do the same. I invite you to go on "creating yourselves endlessly," because after all, to exist is to change. It is to find the courage to declare yourself "under construction."