Question

Hello and blessings, Rabbi,

First of all, thank you so very much for all your work. I (and many other people) benefit from it and learn a great deal from it. You truly are a guide for many of the perplexed…

Here is my question: since "faith" should be based on logical inferences that arise from observations of phenomena in the world, I find myself facing a logical/philosophical problem. True, after studying the matter and trying to do so honestly, without being consciously influenced by my personal inclinations and life circumstances (that I was born religious, am married to a religious woman with children, and am happy in a religious life), I can determine for myself that it is indeed probable that there is a God, that He gave the Torah at Mount Sinai to the Jewish people, and that we entered into a covenant with Him to observe His laws. And in my judgment, these facts really are the most reasonable explanation among all the available options for explaining the phenomena I observe in the world (or perhaps these explanations are even, in my opinion, in the category of "beyond a reasonable doubt"). However, it is also a fact that others, who also tried to arrive at the truth to the best of their ability just as I did, reached different conclusions. This is unavoidable given the human condition, in which each person, his perceptions, and his modes of thought differ because of his nature and environment. If so, on what basis can I presume to say that my own determination is really the most reasonable? After all, I too am a human being, and my ways of thinking are determined by my nature and environment, despite every conscious effort to analyze and judge things coolly and without bias. Why, from a logical standpoint, is it reasonable to conclude that what seems most reasonable to me really is the most reasonable thing in reality—that is, in the objective reality whose nature I am trying to determine? After all, someone else who labored just as I did reached the opposite conclusion. So what advantage has a person in all his labor that he labors under the sun? I find it hard to understand why I should rely on my own determination more than on that of all the others who concluded differently.

Now, if what I am saying is correct (and I hope it is not…), that leaves us in a rather postmodern position, unfortunately and regrettably. For then it is impossible, at least in these matters of theology (and really, according to this, in many other areas as well), ever to draw a rational conclusion about the nature of objective reality. And it would not even be rational to rely on my own logical determination any more than on all the other possible conclusions?! If so, then we have no idea where we stand, and each person will do whatever seems doubtful, pleasant, and enjoyable in his own eyes…

I would be grateful for your help in getting out of this predicament.

Thank you very much