Q&A: Why serve God
Why serve God
Question
When people ask you this question, you answer: “Just because. It’s the most basic value; it is a value, and therefore it is an end, and it does not come to serve another value, so it doesn’t require any further grounding,” etc.
But why don’t you simply answer, “Because I believe in God”??
More generally, when you discuss this question/topic — “Why obey this value?” — with Leibowitz and all that, you say that one cannot answer, “I obey it because one should do …” (for example: Why keep a commandment? Because through them we serve God. Why not walk into the road at a red light? Because one should preserve life as much as possible. And so on.) Because if so, then that value which I obey is no longer a value but a means of reaching the value I mentioned in my answer. You assume that all the answers we receive to the question “Why obey value X?” will be structured in this way: “Because one should obey value Y.” And then your claim (that the more basic value is Y) is correct.
But why not imagine answers that are not structured that way? For example: “Why should one obey value X?” — “Because I believe in it,” “Because it’s good for me that way,” “Because I think it is good,” and so on.
Answer
The fact that I believe in it does not mean that there is an obligation to obey it. A factual claim does not ground a value. That is the naturalistic fallacy. Only a value-assumption can ground a value-obligation.
Discussion on Answer
Well then, what is your question? Right now you’re saying that I myself ground this in belief, but at the beginning of the thread you asked why I do not ground it in belief. Do you follow your own line of thought? I don’t.
My claim is that the concept “God” includes within it the obligation to obey Him (God is a being whose commands one is obligated to obey). If you ask why, the answer will be: just because.
1) I believe in God
therefore I am obligated to Him
Where is the naturalistic fallacy here? Seemingly there isn’t one, since the concept of God includes within it the obligation to Him, no?
2) Whenever we ask ourselves, “Why do I obey X,” will the answer necessarily be in the style of “Because I am obligated to Y”?
3) The “just because” that you answer means: “I have an intuition that this is a correct and most basic value that cannot be grounded by another value,” right?
EA, you didn’t answer me about the contradiction in your questions. I’ll address the new formulation you raised here:
1. A naturalistic fallacy is deriving a value from a fact. If you believe in God, that means that God exists. That is a fact. How can one derive from this a value or a value-obligation? Only if you add that the definition of God, by the very concept itself, is a being whose commands one is obligated to obey, does the argument become valid — and then of course there is a hidden value-assumption here (that the existence of God includes an obligation to obey Him). Now the argument is valid, and I fully agree with it. But that is exactly the “just because” I’m talking about, so what is your question?
2. At the end of the day: yes.
3. Exactly. See the end of point 1 in this message.
There’s no contradiction; it was just a progression:
Q: Why doesn’t the Rabbi answer the question “Why do you obey God?” with the answer “Because I believe Him”?
A: Because one does not derive a value (“I am obligated”) from a fact (“I believe”).
Q: But from the fact “I believe,” I actually can derive that “I am obligated,” because built into the very meaning of belief is that I am obligated. To believe in an authoritative source without being obligated is simply an oxymoron.
A: You explained to me that this very explanation of the meaning of belief (that belief is a concept that also includes obligation) is a hidden bridging premise that makes it possible to derive my obligation from my belief.
In the end, why do you serve God? Because you believe in Him as an authoritative source who can command you to do something. Why do you believe in Him? Because you reached the conclusion, based on evidence and intuition, that He exists. And all of this = “just because” (though of course you answer “just because” without going through all this, because here we are talking to people who already believe, and are only asking themselves: okay, I believe, but why obey Him?)
Did I understand correctly?
Precisely.
Happy holidays!
There was a debate around the table during the holiday among family members: if God told you, “Do such-and-such,” but you would receive neither reward (if you obeyed) nor punishment (if you did not), would you obey Him?
One of the proofs raised was: if the Knesset told you, “Pay taxes equal to 30% of your salary, but don’t worry — if you don’t pay, we won’t punish you,” would you pay?
Why not? Quite apart from reward and punishment, it’s the right thing to do. As for the tax, if I thought that was the right thing (and others were also paying), I would pay as well.
But you yourself say that “I believe in Him” without “I am obligated to Him” has no meaning. To believe in God means to accept His authority.