Q&A: Mount Sinai, One Truth!
Mount Sinai, One Truth!
Question
Hello Rabbi!
1. In the first book you argue that the level of certainty of the people who experienced the prophecy at Mount Sinai is learned from the Binding of Isaac, where Abraham had no doubt at all.
My question is: what is the proof? After all, if there is an option that this was not a prophecy, then the Binding of Isaac never happened at all. So what exactly is the proof that they did not experience a hallucination or sorcery, which according to the Bible was known to be common and developed in their generation?
2. This is a stupid question, but I’ll ask it because I want to define it properly. Maybe the people who left Egypt were pagan slaves who, although they were not at the events that occurred but only at smaller similar events, nevertheless accepted the story?
3. On the topic of the Torah’s promises and risks: if it did not come true and yet you are impressed by the boldness, then all in all isn’t that also a good tactic for a human being? So how does that prove divinity? Maybe it was a human being who calculated that people would be impressed even if it didn’t come true?
And similarly regarding the waters of the suspected adulteress, the expression is “the waters test his wife.” So what does “merit suspends it for her” mean? That sounds like a forced excuse. The Torah wrote it simply, without qualifications, and this is not just a punishment but a kind of test, since she is forbidden to her husband if she had relations. So this excuse doesn’t smell good?
4. On the subject of: the rest of humanity’s beliefs. You raise the possibility that humanity has different roles.
How can you say that at the end of the book after having proved the truth? And it is also really jarring after the fact that in Jewish law there is the death penalty and lashes for those who violate the commandments (for example Sabbath desecration)?
5. But there really is a strange difficulty here: most of humanity did not examine its beliefs in an intellectual and rational way, and because of that most of them do not hold the truth. Logic says this is beyond their choice, and it comes out that their starting point is a super-fundamental and severe transgression that is not under their control. So what does God do? Create billions who will fail for the sake of 13 guys who will succeed? After all, if the whole class got the test wrong, clearly the problem is with the teacher?
Thank you very much.
Answer
1. The Binding of Isaac does not teach that; it only illustrates it. It was brought as an example. One who challenges the trust placed in prophecy argues that it should not be believed. I argue that it can be self-evident, as in the Binding, and therefore there is no difficulty. Since I am in the position of answering, not challenging, the burden of proof is on the challenger. Once I presented a possible answer, I did my part. Of course someone may choose not to accept what I said, but there is no objection against it.
2. Maybe. In my first book I explained why that does not seem likely to me. There are additional indications that there is a God and that He revealed Himself, and their testimony only completes the overall web of evidence.
3. Again, I am in the position of answering, not challenging. You are raising possibilities, but one does not raise forced objections; one gives forced answers.
4. There is punishment for someone who believes and knows that these are his obligations and does not fulfill them. Others are coerced or simply right.
5. First, examination is not necessarily philosophical analysis. Intuition is also a tool for making complex decisions. Second, the Holy One, blessed be He, also knows this, and He will not punish someone who is not guilty. Certainly He will not punish someone who is right (assuming that other beliefs are not necessarily mistaken).
Discussion on Answer
First, as I wrote, there are many people who genuinely believe but do not know how to explain why. It is based on intuition, but one has to be sophisticated enough to understand that even if I have no articulated reasoning, that does not mean the conclusion is arbitrary. Intuition is a legitimate tool. I devoted two books to this claim, so it is really not trivial. And by the way, I wrote them because I met masses of people who are mistaken about this.
Therefore I disagree with your claim that most of the world are not true believers. Most people are not philosophers and have not examined everything, but who has examined everything? It is a matter of degree, and every person makes decisions according to the best of his understanding. In that sense, in my opinion most believers are genuine believers (even if they themselves do not know how to explain it). Tell that to your sister too. People do not sacrifice themselves just because that is how they were educated. That is simply stupidity. And when it comes to their own interests, most people are not stupid.
As for the suspected adulteress, that is another question. In my view it is not stupid at all, and it can also stem from tradition or from reasoning. Those are legitimate interpretive tools. But there is no point getting into that specific topic. If you want, open a new question about it.
Answer me on one single point:
If from a person’s pattern of behavior it is obvious that if he had been born Christian or Muslim he would have held that belief,
what intuition is there in that?!
An intuition that my father must surely be right?!
The thing proves from itself that this person did not devote a second to making the decision about the foundations of his religion.
Yes, yes, people really do sacrifice themselves because they really really really believe it.
But why do they believe it??????
Because they’re idiots!!!!
And I say this painfully. Truly.
I spoke with hundreds of people, and when I presented them with the question above they blushed and made up bizarre nonsense.
Most of the world is shallow and superficial, and there is some illusion as though the fact that I feel and sense Jesus or the commandment of sending away the mother bird is a source immune to criticism and questions!!!
Look at the world demographically: most of the world is divided into religions according to residential areas.
How can you say this is healthy intuition born of reflection?
That’s really seeing the good in every Jew!!!
I answered that. People do not know how to explain why they believe, but that does not mean they do not genuinely believe.
You assume that one cannot genuinely believe in different religions, and I do not see why not. Indeed, the Christian genuinely believes in Christianity and the Jew in Judaism. See also the column dealing with peer disagreement.
Maybe an analogy will help. In physics departments they think quantum theory is true. Outside them people think it is nonsense and that the world is deterministic. Does that prove that the physicists do not know what they are talking about? They are right and the others are wrong. The same applies to Jews and Christians. Therefore, the fact that beliefs are distributed by place of birth can also be interpreted to mean that the Jew genuinely believes on the basis of healthy intuition, while the Christian is mistaken. That does not prove that the Jew is not a genuine believer.
And in general, what’s wrong with seeing the good in every Jew? 🙂
Maybe even if a Jew chose Judaism because he likes dressing up on Purim, that proves healthy intuition, since it’s the truth and the Christian is mistaken?!
Come on!!! What is this: “It can be interpreted that the Jew genuinely believes and the Christian is mistaken”?!
But the simple observation—and this is the mother of all intuitions—is that people are sophisticated goats and they simply continue their ancestors’ lives.
I do not agree in any way with this strange charitable judgment!!!!
Just as with a Christian you do not say there was healthy intuition here, so too a Jew should not be defined as having healthy intuition when both act in the same way, and you see that the Christian was mistaken by that route, so the Jew simply had good luck.
You didn’t answer me on that!!!!
I don’t understand how you don’t see it.
Well, apparently I’m mistaken.
Okay. So I understood the point that you’re only trying to show a reasonable possibility for an event that could plausibly happen even without testimony.
But with the suspected adulteress, it’s annoying! It feels unreal.
And what is this, “not necessarily mistaken”? Most of the world is necessarily mistaken. The beliefs explicitly contradict each other?!
And what is “intuitions without philosophical analysis”?! We’ve seen where that led—a billion Christians believing a prostitute, in a story with no logic and no evidence (Jesus’ mother)?!
Come on, let’s admit the truth: most of the world believes and keeps believing only because that’s how they were raised. It’s obvious to all of us that 90 percent of Jews, if they had been born in America, would be Christians—not intuition and not anything.
And that basically raises a hard question for me: is there room to appreciate all these people (and especially women—see the introduction to The First Existent by Rabbi Michael Abraham; my sister, for example, openly admits that she believes only because that’s how she was raised and educated, and she is remarkably self-sacrificing in observance of the commandments)—so is there room to appreciate someone who basically behaves like a goat?! Maimonides in Guide for the Perplexed 3:51 writes: “One who thinks about God and frequently mentions Him… based on a belief he received from someone else, does not truly mention God and does not truly think about Him, for the thing in his imagination, which he mentions with his mouth, corresponds to no existent thing at all. Rather, his imagination invented it.”