Q&A: A Question About the Validity of Commandment Observance in a Unique Situation
A Question About the Validity of Commandment Observance in a Unique Situation
Question
Does someone who is absolutely convinced that the Torah is from Heaven and that God exists, with the strongest possible intuition, but whose proofs are, let us say, based on error—for example, in his view, if there are reports about Noah’s Ark on Mount Ararat based on the testimony of someone who is a fraud, that is conclusive proof of the truth of the Torah; I’m intentionally being extreme just in order to paint in vivid colors the supposedly evidentiary basis of his faith, which in fact has no basis, so please don’t get hung up on the example if it’s not a good one, just understand the principle—and he is not the sort of person who can step outside his box and challenge himself as to why his proofs are incorrect, and understand that his faith rests on error; for him, this brought him to a deep conviction that Moses is true and his Torah is true, like any thoughtful believer who relies on reasonable proofs, and he observed the Torah and the commandments all his life with devotion—according to the Torah’s definition, is there any flaw in his observance of the commandments, and are they on the same level as those of someone whose faith is based on correct, reasonable proofs? Or are his commandments, by definition, not really commandments because they are based on error, except that he would receive reward for good intentions like any coerced person or captive infant who fulfilled a commandment without intending it as fulfillment of the Creator’s commandments?
Answer
I don’t know how to answer that. My feeling is that it’s obvious this is worth less, if it counts at all. In essence, this is an atheist in disguise. But of course, that is a description of an idealized state. A concrete human being is never really like that. His faith is based also on religious intuition, and also on correct arguments and also on incorrect ones. Regarding such a person, it seems clear to me that his commandments are commandments and everything is fine. I think most of us are like that.
Discussion on Answer
I explained this in the past—that such a person is an atheist in disguise (for example, in the first column on “Do not stray after your hearts and your eyes”).
As for the rest, I already answered it.
Interesting—I hadn’t even considered saying, even as one side of the above doubt I was entertaining, something that sharp, that his definition might be “an atheist in disguise.” But after you wrote that, I thought about it, and really it’s not far-fetched. (By the way, this doubt came to me בעקבות the last post you put up about secular people nowadays.) And what you said about most of us, that we rely on evidence that is partly correct, etc.—I agree that seems plausible. But perhaps there may be exceptional cases: for example, a father who converted or became observant again while his children were under age 13, and they followed him without examining or understanding the process that led their father to that, but simply trusted that he understands and knows what he’s doing. Their very reliance on their father, according to how you defined things, doesn’t seem as though it would itself count as a solid basis if everything depends on whether their father’s basis is correct and has what to rely on. [This may be different from someone who has been Torah- and commandment-observant from birth, where reliance on his father is basically a kind of testimony in the chain of generations back to the founding father who stood at the foot of Sinai. And perhaps this definition could even be extended to a penitent as well, aside from a convert as above, for although the chain was broken, clearly his ancestors did observe Torah and commandments, and if so, when he returned, it is as though he reconnected in a lasting bond to the chain of generations again—this requires further analysis.] Another idea that occurred to me from your words is that, according to this, on the other hand, an apostate who became Christian or Muslim or a Bates believer or a Sadducee and the like—since we know that his proofs are mistaken (perhaps even without examining them, simply from the fact that we know our faith is the correct one and there is no room for any of the above)—if so, that stands to his credit, because in effect, on the model of your definition but in reverse, he is “a believer in disguise,” since before he took that step he presumably was like us (as you defined it, that most of our faith is based partly on correct arguments).