1. ‫ב”ה‬
A Rational Theology of Judaism
by
Boris and Hella Schapiro
Schapiro Center for Jewish Studies
Kluckstr. 25, 10785 Berlin
boris@schapiro.org
Tel.: +4930 797 3446 or +49172 300 8947
Synopsis
We are concerned here with the instruments of human thought and with the awareness of God
within a rational framework. Both were part of fundamental theology in the Middle Ages. We
continue the rational theology tradition with the help of paradigm theory.
We define paradigms as metaconcepts, in the most general sense, as generative processes of
being. The representations of paradigms in the feature space of the individual observer consti-
tute, in their totality, a universal, metaconceptual instrument for apprehension, assessment and
creation. We focus on decision paradigms and ultimately consider God as the universal, ideal,
autopoietic decision paradigm, thus as “self-creating creator”.
We maintain that the entire process of being, God, the world and mankind, cannot be adequa-
tely apprehended with traditional conceptualization. They can, however, be understood with
the much more powerful, metaconceptual instrument – the representations of paradigms.
Our work is directed at those with philosophical, theological, scientific or generic interest, at
readers searching for rational answers regarding their own beliefs, at members of all religions
as well as at atheists.
1. Maimonides Theological Approach
To begin, we present an example of the clasic Jewish rational theological approach from the
Middle Ages:
“Know now, my son, that as long as you concern yourself with the mathematical sciences and logic,
you will belong to those who walk around a palace in order to find the entrance. If, however, you stu-
dy natural science, then you have already entered the forecourt of the palace. And when you have
entirely completed these and and engage yourself with metaphysics, then you have entered the palace
of the king and wander in the corridors of the forecourt. This is the stage of the sages. These, also,
achieve various levels of perfection. But whoever, after achieving perfection, concentrates all his thin-
king upon the godhead, gives himself completely to God, turns his thoughts away from all else and
devotes all intellectual faculties concerning existing things to achieving awareness of God through
them and to perceive how God rules all things, is among those who have truly entered the palace of
the king. ”
Mose ben Maimon (Maimonides),
The Guide for the Perplexed, (1180/91),
Third book, fifty-first chapter,
4. Paragraph, page 343 in the translation
with commentary by Adolf Weiß
published by Felix Meiner Verlag, Hamburg 19952.
The German version of our book see under www.schapiro.org/boris/Rationale_Theologie.pdf

2. Boris und Hella Schapiro A Rational Theology of Judaism
2. Introduction
For quite some time we have asked ourselves how we can make belief believable for modern
man. We, also, had doubts, atheistic negativism, fear of saying yes to God and to ourselves
while growing up and maturing. We, too, went through phases of arrogance and dismissal of
the liturgy as theatrical profanation and manipulation of emotions. We, too, were influenced
by primitive materialism and considered religion a purely social and psychological matter.
With accumulating experience of life, however, we realized that God is not belief’s problem,
but rather the lack of an adequate conceptualization of God, one that satisfies the rquirements
of the science-oriented world on the one hand and, on the other, does not simplify and distort
God to the point that God can be neither trusted nor believed in. We also lacked plausible
criteria with which to test the perceptions of the sages in order to verify convincingly how
much of what they conveyed actually described the essence of God and what was simply a
tribute to the ruling tenor of the times because they lacked suitable tools for rational analysis.
This essay is the first chapter of an as yet unpublished book of the same title.
3. Ancient Concepts of God and the Modern Worldview
Innovations in science and technology continue to disprove time-honored and trusted beliefs,
bringing about a new understanding of mankind, its history and its future. Scientfic advances,
especially in the West, have made the question of God superfluous for an important part of
society today. For many, God no longer fits into a modern world view.
Vigorous resistance against such an atheistic conviction is growing in movements such as the
“creationists” and among the proponents of so-called “intelligent design”, among others. With
speculative, pseudo-scientific arguments and a massive amount of social engagement, such
and similar crusades intend to reinstate God to His position as “creator of the universe”.
4. The Goal of Rational Theology
As long as God is not defined as a specific complex of characteristics within a feature space,
one can make neither an empirical nor a theoretical judgement concerning His existence. For
many, the understanding of theology is similar to the task already posed in fairy tales: “Go
somewhere, I don’t know where, and bring (apprehend for) me something, I don’t know what,
but do it fast, do it right and, above all, keep it simple”. This is either nonsense or a task that
any thing will satisfy.
We, on the other hand, understand theology to be a doctrine concerning the entity God, the
results of which should be a usable cognizance of God. Rational theology should provide such
a cognizance of God. Ideally, it should be an operationally verifiable theory of God.
5. The Personal Decision Concerning the Existence of God
In our opinion, the existence of God is neither a theological nor an empirical question today.
It is a question of decision. The modern, scientific view of the world does not include the ca-
Page 2 of 8

3. Boris und Hella Schapiro A Rational Theology of Judaism
tegory “God”. All philosophical proofs of God’s existence have proven themselves inconsis-
tent. Even the classic reasons for believing in God such as ancestry, family, social status,
sickness, aging, death or general fear of life no longer provide a compelling reason to ackno-
wledge God. This question each individual must decide personally.
Our God-given free will can be truly and completely realized only when employed to make
personal decisions about God. Atheists also employ their free will when they decide about
God; for example, that He does not exist.
With this personal decision, one either binds oneself to God and becomes a constitutive part
of Him. Or one excludes oneself with a kind of megalomania, thereby defining oneself as so-
meone who has nothing to do with questions concerning God, at least consciously, and who
has therefore put himself in the position of being unable to judge externally what he cannot
experience internally because of his decision.
6. The Rational Method
In order to move beyond social and psychological aspects relating to the question of God, we
employ the rational method in examining the cognizance of God. Our question is very direct:
Who or what is God? We address this question in four steps:
− First we determine the appropriate category for God. Our conclusion is that God is an
idea.
− Then we construct the entity God within the selected category. Based on our life expe-
rience or decisions, we consider God as the ultimate decision paradigm. The decision
concerning the entity God is made within the context of the person making the decision.
Thus one decides about God and man simultaneously.
− Next we construct functionally specific hypotheses concerning God, man and the world,
as well as their relationship. With their help, we attempt to integrate the formulated
concepts arrived at into real life. Should this be unsuccessful on a rational basis, we then
change the hypotheses until integration is achieved. If all attempts at hypothesis correction
have been exhausted, then we attempt a new construction of the entity God and endeavor
to achieve rational integration. Should these efforts fail as well, we then attempt to rethink
the categorization of God and repeat the entire cycle until a rational integration into real li-
fe of the formulated concepts is achieved. One of the most important criteria for genuine
success is the prediction and control of reality.
− Ideally, success will enable us to explicate the paradigm God. This should then provide
us with a theory of God. Should success not be forthcoming, all we can do is continue to
improve and develop ourselves in the hope that the enlightenment after will be achieved
sometime.
If one decides, for example, that man is a slave, then God is the ultimate slave master. If one
decides that man is a living being just like every other, determined by the laws of nature, so-
ciety and psychology, in short, that man is a biological and social automaton, then one needs
no God. If one decides that man is a child, then one seeks a father in God. If one sees man
aesthetically and classifies him according to functional and aethetic optimization, then one
needs God as “the measure of all things” and thereby as “most perfect being”.
Arguments for and against each concept of man and God can be constructed and checked for
Page 3 of 8

4. Boris und Hella Schapiro A Rational Theology of Judaism
consistency. We decide consistently that God is very powerful, but not omnipotent. For us,
God is “only” powerful enough to play His part in the covenant with mankind conscientious-
ly.
7. The Gnostic Theologem
Generally speaking, a person can decide among various concepts of God and man. Thus, not
only one but many decisions can be consistent in principle. For this reason, consistency is a
necessary but by no means sufficient attribute of its truth. Therefore one can not deduce the
validity of a concept of God based solely on the fact of its consistency.
The existence or nonexistence of God is therefore exclusively the result of a personal deci-
sion. We, too, must and want to decide at this point. We acknowledge this issue with the
adoption of the Gnostic Principle: God wishes to be known and understood. Therefore, He
can be known.
From a philosphical point of view, the Gnostic Principle is a principle. From a theological
point of view, the Gnostic Principle is the first – gnostic – theologem of rational theology.
Hardly anyone wishing to be taken seriously and not be considered a fool would deny that the
idea of God exists in one form or another even among those who deny his existence. For us,
this is sufficient basis for deciding in favor of the Gnostic Theologem. The Gnostic Principle,
that is, the Gnostic Theologem, and its axioms are the foundation for our decisions concerning
God, ourselves and the world.
8. The Decidability Theologem
Why are qustions concerning being, God, the world and man even decidable? Was not eve-
rything already decided in the first seconds of evolution, that is, creation? Does the process of
being not proceed according to the unalterable laws of nature? Since ancient times, all these
questions involve the deterministic hypothesis in one form or another, sometimes ideally, as
with Plato, sometimes materialistically, as with Democritus.
In modern times, many natural scientist and philosophers transmute their version of the de-
terministic hypothesis with the reductionist principle. According to the reductionist principle,
all events on one of the world’s organizational levels are always causally reduceable entirely
to events on lower organizational levels, such as economic, social, psychological, medical,
biological or physical.
Our answer to that is: the fundamental questions concerning God, the world, mankind and
being in general are, in principle, decidable, because we have decided on this decidability.
This metadecision concerning the decidability of fundamental questions comprises the se-
cond theologem of rational theology. We call this theologem the Decidability Theologem.
We rebut the arguments concerning the undecidability of fundamental questions from the
standpoint of the deterministic hypothesis or the reductionist principle with the insight that
the reductionist principle is a context-dependent hypothesis. It is valid only in specific
contexts and for specially defined issues, but is not universally valid.
Page 4 of 8

5. Boris und Hella Schapiro A Rational Theology of Judaism
We would like to point out in advance that the relationship between the Decidability The-
ologem and the Gnostic Theologem represents an anticipatory illumination of the theologem
concerning the nature of (theological) man, based on biblical texts. Namely, the “biblical the-
ologem” know as Zelem Elohim maintains that the essential nature of man resembles the na-
ture of God, as “God created man in his own image” Bereschit (Genesis) I, 27. In the Hebraic
bible, this generic God-man relationship which is the basis of the Similarity Theologem, is
embodied in the expression ‫.צלם אלוהים‬
9. The Decision Theologem
The potential to make decisions is, in principle, already inherent in the physical foundations
of the material world. In addition to the material constituents of the universe and the relati-
onship between cause and effect, known as natural laws, there exist further operative elements
of the process of being, namely sumjects. We derive the word sumject from the Latin expres-
sion sum = “I am”. In short and still unprecise, sumject is a generalisation of the terms “sub-
ject” and “object” in regard to the universal characteristics of action and self-action.
With the term sumject, God can be characterized as “self-moving mover”, rather than Aristot-
le’s “unmoved mover”.
As mover, especially as self-moving mover, God makes decisions concerning others and
concerning himself. Thus the God paradigm must be a decision paradigm at the very least.
Viewed paradigmatically, God is the highest decision paradigm (Decidability Theolo-
gem). As such, He enables our own capacity to freely decide. With this capability, we can
free ourselves from our biological and biographical constraints and make decisions concer-
ning ourselves – whether we should accept the Gnostic Principle or not, for example. Before
we decide on acceptance, it is the Gnostic Principle. After we decide to accept it, it beomces
the Gnostic Theologem.
10. The Theotrope Theologem
Employing paradigm theory enables the positive and constructive awareness of God. Consis-
tent therewith is the emergence therefrom of the theotrope principle as an answer to the teleo-
logical question of the meaning and goal of evolution and all creation.
The Theotrope Principle (Theotrope Theologem) asserts that the goal of all creation and the
development of the world is the emergence of God.
11. What is Benefit of Theology?
Why does one need a theology? One can believe intuitively, without detailed conceptualiza-
tion, without doubt, without questioning oneself or one’s faith. How convenient! Theology
addresses precisely such uncomfortable themes such as doubt and the correctness of concepts
and articles of faith, making life tedious but, in turn, responsible. It impedes impetuous action
and blocks the widespread fallacy: “If B follows from A and B is convenient (agreeable, use-
ful, advantageous, etc.) then A is true (right, reasonable, etc.)”.
Page 5 of 8

6. Boris und Hella Schapiro A Rational Theology of Judaism
None of the world’s fundamentalists of whatever stripe rely on a theology or only pro forma.
They believe they possess the absolute truth and consider the lack of any doubt to be a virtue.
The consistency of their views blinds them, rendering them incapable of making independent
decisions in the complex process of living. Instead, they become compliant marionettes, allo-
wing their religiosity to be misused for politcal and extremist purposes.
Generally, extremist fundamentalists bring death and defile human dignity, completely
contrary to the religion in whose name they act. Without a well-developed theology, they
reach a very simple decision which makes them slaves. In the name of God, they turn them-
selves into murderous and suicidal automatons in the service of dubious earthly interests.
We need theology to protect ourselves from the misuse of our own wills.
12. The Covenant Theologem
When we speak of the rational theology of Judaism, we by no means intend to imply that ra-
tional theology exists only within Judaism. Rational elements and endeavors exist and have
existed in all major religions. The Madhyamaka school of Mahayana Buddhism, for example,
provides a rational approach to religious and mystical experence. The newly arisen Christian-
ity of Paul is based primarily on the Hellenic philosophers. It was especially popular with
philosophically educated women for whom the near eastern mystery religions were intellectu-
ally inadequate.
The Mithras cult of the Roman soldiers appears in a clear light when one learns that the name
“Mithras” means agreement. An agreement as the basis for the relationship between man and
God is entirely rational. Gnostic trends following Plato and Plotinus developed vast panora-
mas of the world and the soul. A rational approach to questions of belief was declared a prin-
ciple by the Kalam movement in Islam during the early Middle Ages. All these provided the
spiritual backdrop and the historical context for classic rabbinical Judaism, which had develo-
ped previously and in parallel.
The religious paradigm of Judaism is based on the covenant between God and the people
Israel, represented by every individual Jew. The convenant is a agreement. It implies that
both parties have free will as well as the capacity to make decisons and enter agreements.
(Covenant Theologem).
13. The Brotherly Love Theologem
In rational theology, the concept of God emanates from the transcendence of God. Here,
transcendence should be understood as a mathematical term. Rather than the traditional and
widespread belief in the absoluteness of God, what emerges from paradigm theory is the re-
cognition that God is “absolutely” context dependent. Therefore, all the omni qualifiers such
as omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. cannot correctly be applied to God. Only thus
can God be a personal God who can manifest within the context of each individual. (Context
Dependent Theologem).
The day has come for the insight that the center of every Jew’s life is the personal decision for
the covenant with God as well as the corresponding actualization of this decision in his perso-
Page 6 of 8

7. Boris und Hella Schapiro A Rational Theology of Judaism
nal life. The content of this agreement, generally speaking, is devoted to life and the preserva-
tion of human dignity. Hillel’s maxim “Do not unto others that which you would not have
done unto you! ” remains a central, binding message of all Judaism. Confucius taught the
same thing 500 years earlier. This message is the fundamental doctrine at the heart of the
Torah, Wajjikra (Leviticus) XIX, 18: “Seek not revenge nor bear any grudge against the chil-
dren of your people, but rather love your neighbor as you love yourself... ” In Verse 34 of the
same chapter we find: “The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born
among you and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Mizra-
jim (Egypt).” The Golden Rule (Brotherly Love Theologem).
14. The Soul According to Rational Theology
A rational theological view of the soul and the constructive integration of mysticism and mys-
tical experience into the rational theology paradigm are additional important themes. The
soul, as we undeerstand it, is a functional organ, that is, without substance, with which a
being may perceive God and itself, thereby actualizing life within itself. The soul is the
vital principle and embodies the connection between the ideal and the material. Just as God
is the root of all existence, so is soul the root of individual life.
God and self cannot be completely apprehended with the aid of material appearances alone.
The “soulful” and the “soulless” person are differentiated solely by their conduct, by the deci-
sions they make and whether and how they implement these decisions. A being’s soul can
also be considered an abstract “projection of essence” of self and classified according to its
conduct.
The soul is a mystical phenomenon. We will address further important themes such as love,
justice, mercy and many others from a paradigmatic perspective in an expanded version.
15. Some Articles of Our Faith
In keeping with tradition, we list a number of articles of faith for our understanding of the
rational theology of Judaism. They correspond to our theologems in a shorter, simpler form.
By no means is there a consensus within Judaism about these articles of faith, even though
they are deeply rooted in Jewish tradition.
(1) We decide that the Lord wishes to be known and understood and that therefore He can
be known.
(2) The Lord is our God. God is One.
(3) God is the goal and purpose of all existence and being.
(4) God is powerful enough, but not omnipotent.
(5) God violates no natural law.
(6) God keeps His promises. He abides by commitments He takes upon Himself.
Page 7 of 8

8. Boris und Hella Schapiro A Rational Theology of Judaism
(7) God acts through His Name and His example.
(8) God made His decision for existence and for the good. For Him, life is holy.
(9) Every person is free to make his own decisions in keeping with God’s example once
he decides he has freedom of choice.
(10) When a person decides for the good, he enters into an agreement with God. In the ag-
reement between God and man, both are unequal but have equal rights.
(11) He who accepts the covenant between God and the people Israel is a Jew, whether by
birth or by decision.
(12) The people Israel is obliged to accept personal responsibility for its own survival with
God’s help and to hand down its legacy.
(13) When all the world’s decision makers make their decisions within God’s purpose, then
the messianic time will come.
Page 8 of 8