Q&A: Rational Arguments as an Influence on Changing One's Position — Failure
Rational Arguments as an Influence on Changing One's Position — Failure
Question
Hello and blessings,
I am eagerly reading your wonderful books (the new trilogy). The books are edited much more successfully than the earlier ones, and the very choice to convey the ideas through dialogue is enough to create that difference. It's a shame that this dialogue format didn't continue into the third part of the book.
To the point: in the first book you presented arguments to justify belief in God. And I would like to challenge this point. What underlies the motivation to formulate arguments as proofs for God is simple: if it is a good proof, it should cause a change in one's position. But I am sorry to disappoint you and many like you: a human being is not a rational machine. A person does not act according to his intellect, certainly not in the meaningful and value-laden decisions of his life. I'll put it a bit imprecisely: a person has an inner point where he feels a connection to something, and that is how he has a stance toward many things in the world. On that basis he justifies his positions. And in our case: a person who feels estranged from the idea of God, of chosenness of a people, of the commandments of the Torah, etc. — will never be convinced about the existence of God or by proofs for the Jewish tradition. To reach such a state, something else has to be done — to get him to connect to the tradition, or alternatively to the idea of God — and that is by creating some kind of experience in him, or a feeling that these things are serious enough to justify them rationally. Therefore, what you wrote definitely will not bring about these changes, because your words are written מתוך a mistaken conception.
Let me just give you a parable to conclude the matter: imagine that a close acquaintance of yours tells you that he is in close contact with the Queen of England and that they discuss pressing issues together by letters and occasionally by phone as well. Of course you would think he is mentally ill or that something happened to him. And if he brings you proofs of it? You still would refuse to believe it. You would interpret the proofs differently or try to explain why they are forged. Why? Because you have a prior stance that says this is nonsense. And that is the prior stance I am talking about…
Answer
There is quite a bit to comment on in what you wrote, and I’ll do so briefly.
First, whoever won’t be convinced — won’t be. I write for those to whom these things speak. Experiences and existential approaches have already received plenty of attention from many authors, and whoever is looking for them has where to find them.
Second, I do not agree that every person follows only emotion and experience. Logical consideration is definitely significant for many people.
And third, most important: your example shows that you are mistaken about a very basic distinction that I have discussed in several books (especially Two Carts and Truth and Unstable). Clearly, at the foundation of every argument stand assumptions, and those are determined by intuition, not by logical argument. So of course an argument can work only on someone who accepts its assumptions. But that is a feature of logical arguments in general. Does that mean there is no point in using logic? The fourth conversation in the first book clarifies the matter (and in those books of mine I explained it more fully). That is what rhetoric is for: it examines assumptions and can change initial intuitions. So there definitely are situations in which people become convinced of new assumptions, and then the argument becomes relevant for them. This reflects the fact that until now they were mistaken (they thought they were assuming X, but it became clear to them that they were not — that is what an exposing or “theological” argument does), or that they have now changed their mind.
And in your example, if that person brings good arguments, I would definitely be convinced that he is in contact with the Queen of England, despite the fact that I am initially inclined not to accept it. Your description of human thinking is too simplistic. It seems to me that in my books I bring the example of rationalism versus rationality (which I also brought on the site), and the example of the jaundice patient. Take them from there.
Discussion on Answer
It seems to me we are repeating ourselves. I explained what needed to be explained, and in my opinion I answered all your questions. Apparently we do not agree (and perhaps that itself proves your point. Except that according to this, I don’t understand why you are raising arguments to me if in any case I won’t be convinced).
See here a beautiful demonstration:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2750536848303001&id=237561492933895
Hi, the demonstration was nice. You claim that we’re just recycling the same points. So I’ll try to ask you a question: do you think that teenagers who leave religion do so because of rational arguments? I think most people who work with youth will tell you — and even show you, through things that I would say are close to proof in terms of the data — that these are emotional claims, problems from the home, and so on and so forth. On the other hand, that same youth may believe and be willing to accept the existence of a Creator of the world and that the Torah was given at Sinai.
This contradiction, in my view, shows that people make their important decisions on the basis of non-rational considerations. What do you think about that? I’d be glad if you would address this example too.
Thank you.
You are repeating yourself again. This recycled argument, as though anyone who leaves always does so for emotional reasons, is not correct. Every step a person takes is made for complex reasons, emotional and rational alike. Therefore, if one addresses the philosophical planes, that affects the decision too, even if not absolutely. According to your approach, there is no point at all in dealing with logic, because emotion is always the exclusive determining factor. That is complete nonsense, of course. I already explained to you that according to your approach there is no point in this discussion itself either (with me). Why are you raising arguments and expecting answers, if in any case each of us is driven by emotional reasons? That’s it. As far as I’m concerned, the discussion is over..
I recently came across a nice example of the need for an intellectual foundation for faith / belief:
https://www.akshiva.co.il/%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94/%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%99-%D7%92%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%9C%D7%99-%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%A4%D7%A9-%D7%94%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%97%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%9B%D7%9C/
I think both of you are right. On the one hand, there is the “psychological stance” (you call it “emotion”). On the other hand, the intellectual arguments — all of them lead to faith / belief.
I think the psychological stance is usually the deciding factor, and it is the basis for how a person’s life will be conducted. If a person comes from a place of accepting faith / belief (a psychological stance of humility), it will be much easier for him to accept the intellectual arguments. And conversely, a person who comes from a psychological stance of pride will find it very hard to accept intellectual arguments in favor of faith / belief, even though intellectually he understands them and may even support them. That is probably why it was said: “I and he cannot dwell together in the same world.”
Even though the psychological stance is the foundation, in my opinion it is very worthwhile to have very sharp intellectual arguments, because in difficult moments of one’s psychological stance, it is very worthwhile for the intellectual arguments to be there, in order to continue believing.
Hello,
Allow me to disagree with you.
I am mainly speaking about the third point — which is really your response to my main claim regarding the relevance of intellect to determining and shaping our positions in life.
You said that if they brought you strong evidence, etc., you would accept the belief about your friend’s connection with the Queen of England. But of course that isn’t true — you would always live with the feeling that there is something strange here. You would feel that maybe there is evidence you can’t dismiss, but on the other hand you would refuse to accept this picture and to feel a real connection to this knowledge. Some doubt would always gnaw at your heart.
Logical arguments are indeed built on assumptions, and you spoke about changing assumptions, but I am saying that even those assumptions cannot be justified by a rational argument. For example:
Can you use a rational justification to make someone eat? No. Or alternatively, to make someone live? No. All you can do is prove to a person that if he eats he will be able to live, but the very justification for living you will not be able to provide him through a logical argument. On the contrary, the more you try to justify something through a logical argument, you run into a problem: it only means that the thing itself is not the ultimate end. For example, if you try to prove to a person that it is worthwhile for him to read your books because that way he will become wise, he will ask: and why become wise? You will tell him: in order to succeed in life. (Here wisdom lost its value and became a means.) And why succeed in life? In order to live a good life. (And here success in life lost its value and once again became a means.) And why live a good life? Any rational justification will cause the thing to lose its value and become a means rather than an end…