Emuna

 Seridei Aish (L’Perakim #26): … I want to note that I am concerned with the genuine concept of emuna (faith) and not the emuna of the philosopher that is not deserving of the name. It is known that there were Rishonim who attacked the Rambam and his supporters who had tried to “prove” emuna with logical philosophical proofs. These Rishonim claimed that emuna does not require justification from philosophy which is an inherently flawed and inadequate support. It is quite clear that “emuna” which is based upon proofs and logical rationalization is in fact not included in the concept that we call emuna. The factor of logical proof inherently takes it out of the realm of emuna. Simply put one who bases his faith on philosophical proofs ceases to be a believer and becomes a thinker or intellectual. After emuna dies from the heart of a person, it begins to be in the thoughts. … Emuna and kefira are in essence not issues of thought and recognition but are psychological visions. The sharp scalpel of intellectual analysis is not appropriate to deal with them…. A psychologist is equipped to deal with them and not a philosopher of logic. … Emuna and kefirah are revealed … when a person wants to establish… the relationship between himself and other individuals, between himself and society as well as all that exists outside himself… This is something which is inherently not limited to religious issues … but includes all that enters into the realm of his innate personal feelings. … Emuna and kefira expressed in the language of psychology is the acceptance and integration of something into the inner world of the person or its rejections and expulsion. A very simple example will clarify our words. Reuven claimed that it rained in another city. Shimon believed him while Levi was doubtful. What does it mean to say he believed? It means that that which he heard with his ears from the mouth of another was admitted into his private inner world as clear knowledge.