Q&A: On Occam’s Razor and the Boundaries of Judaism
On Occam’s Razor and the Boundaries of Judaism
Question
Hello,
From Occam’s Razor we learn that it is preferable to minimize assumptions as long as they suffice to explain the full range of phenomena. I recently read what you wrote “against” the interpreters of the Torah, “against” providence in our time, and various other phenomena in Judaism. Doesn’t a partial explanation of the phenomenon of Judaism point to a deficiency in the theory as a whole? One can argue against Rabbi Kook’s harmonistic approach, but he has one very strong point: that none shall be cast away, and every utterance—even every bit of Torah chatter—receives meaning and joins the whole.
In other words, is your interpretation of the Torah interpretive-explanatory, or legislative?
And so as not to leave the email dry: I heard people complaining about Your Honor that you mention the sages of the nations too much, and I said I’d answer my share as well 🙂
Instead of saying in your lectures that there is a refutation of the a fortiori argument of “if two hundred includes one hundred,” that if one may sell two liters of beer then three are certainly permitted, you could mention the words of the Talmud at the end of Bava Kamma (118b): one may not buy two sheep from a shepherd lest they be stolen, but four are permitted, since the owner will notice.
A good and blessed New Year to all of us,
With blessings,
Answer
Hello,
Many thanks for the example. It is indeed nice and apt (although it seems to me that one can draw some distinctions, but this is not the place).
As for the principle of the razor: once I heard an objection, based on Occam’s Razor, to dualism—that it is a less simple theory than materialism, since it has two components whereas materialism has only one. Occam’s Razor is a principle used to decide between correct theories. Of those, one chooses the simplest. But one should not support an incorrect theory because of its simplicity (and I elaborated on this in my book Stable Untruth). And let the wise hear and become wiser…
And beyond all this, the question is: what is Judaism? Is every view stated by a sage or sages, however important they may be, Judaism? In my view, Judaism or Torah is the word of God. Therefore my claims do not undermine part of Judaism; they focus on Judaism and try to remove from it what is not Judaism. This reminds me of Kobi Midan’s regular radio segment (I think it is called “Thus Said Our Sages”), where I once heard him bring a saying of Amy Winehouse (one of “our sages”). Consider this very carefully.
Discussion on Answer
“But one should not support an incorrect theory because of its simplicity” — on what basis do you decide that something is correct? On intuition alone? But what happens when there are conflicting intuitions (for example on the issue of free choice)? Why do you decide by lex specialis rather than by Occam’s Razor and simplicity?
It depends on the context. I don’t have an across-the-board criterion.
Lex specialis is the simple (reasonable) solution.
Baruch,
In my opinion, the questioner raised a very important question, one that I also sometimes reflect on when I read your words.
What is Judaism? As I understand it, your Judaism includes belief that the Torah is from Heaven and sees this as a critical component. Even if one makes every possible reduction in that belief, a problem still remains.
When someone believes such a thing, I would expect that when he opens the Torah he would find pearls in it, and that every verse would illuminate him. If the Torah was indeed given by God—that is what one would expect from it.
But when the Rabbi opens the Torah, he encounters a mass of difficulties that he has to explain away, so according to Occam’s Razor it is not clear why he does not adopt the simpler theory—that the Torah is not from Heaven.
Take, for example, the book of Genesis, full of miracle stories and legends that I find it hard to believe you take literally. Surely you would have to say that this is a parable or something of the sort, and not a story that actually happened.
Let’s move to the issue of providence, which the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) is full of. Here too you would have to offer all kinds of explanations, such as that in the past providence existed at a high level and today less so (an assumption with no basis at all).
Let’s continue with the commandments—here you see many of the commandments as something archaic and senseless, and again you would have to give explanations: times have changed, and so on.
Of course, more examples could be given, such as in the area of feminism and more.
And I ask—why all this? Isn’t it a much simpler theory to say that the Torah was not given by God?
5 months ago
Michi
Hello Baruch. These are the kinds of questions that are very hard to answer. You have to weigh the two theories against one another. Note that in such a comparison you also have to take into account the drawbacks of the theory you are proposing (that the Torah is not from Heaven). That raises some non-simple difficulties (for example: why would human beings create such strange commandments? Or how should we relate to the tradition we received about Torah from Heaven, to the unique history of the Jewish people, its contribution, prophecies that come true, and much more. See the fifth notebook on the site. Those who deny this resort to rather convoluted theories, and for some reason nobody comes to them with complaints about that).
For me, the giving of the Torah is very plausible, but to be honest I see that the content given there is unclear (its scope and content), and so I offer various explanations for this. But usually those explanations do not seem forced to me (on the contrary, without them the theory comes out forced), and therefore in my view the traditional theory is preferable (in my version of it, including the explanations I offer).
That is in general, and now specifically regarding your comments.
1. I do not expect to find pearls in the Torah. Not at all. In all my life I have never found even one pearl in the Torah. In physics I have found many more pearls, much more wisdom and much more intellectual brilliance. What there is in the Torah is instructions for us. The assumption that pearls ought to be found in it is something plucked from thin air, and in my eyes it has no basis at all.
2. Part of the Torah may indeed not be from Heaven, but rather later additions. What is forced about that? If not all the Torah is from Heaven, must I conclude that nothing at all was given there? Why?
3. I do not know what existed at the time when the Holy One, blessed be He, revealed Himself more directly. All kinds of things could have existed there, such as miracles and wonders, and so I have no opinion about them. The creation of the world was also a far greater miracle, and I certainly believe in it. Prophecy too existed then and disappeared, and the same is true regarding providence. All of these are part of the Holy One’s policy of withdrawing as we mature. Why is that forced?
4. As for the commandments, I do not see in them an intelligible rationale, and I do not think there has to be such a rationale in them. The purpose of the commandments is not morality nor social reform, but a religious purpose (see Column 15). Therefore, contrary to your description, I actually do not need to say that times have changed in order to explain commandments.
5. As for feminism, I do not see any problem at all. The Torah is not the collection of instructions written in the Talmud, since those too were created by human interpreters. So why shouldn’t we continue that interpretation in accordance with our own conceptions? Why do you think there is any problem here regarding the Torah? This is not a change in what the Holy One gave, but its development and refinement. As I understand it, the Torah given at Sinai is only the raw material, and Jewish law is a human interpretive layer that was created and continues to be created (or at least should continue) around it. What is forced about that? Do you really think that what is written in the Written Torah can establish any Jewish law whatsoever?
And still, bottom line, you are right that one must compare the alternatives, but in such a comparison one must take into account the advantages and disadvantages of all of them, and not only of one.
5 months ago