Question

Once, when Pascal’s theory was presented to me, it sounded reasonable. In general, many people take risks in their lives with odds far higher than 50%, so for many people it isn’t really relevant anyway. Then I thought of another possibility that seems to require a new discussion. Not whether, for example, one should keep the Sabbath or not, but whether either one should keep the Sabbath or one should desecrate the Sabbath—and likewise with the other commandments. More broadly: not that religion is either true or false, but maybe one is actually supposed to do the opposite of what it says. What arguments could there be for that? For example: that God is a good father and wants you to choose a life of freedom, and so He challenges you a bit to see whether you will obey His restrictions—but the real test is דווקא not to obey. Then the moral problem comes in regarding “do not steal,” “do not murder,” and the other interpersonal commandments. There I used to argue that this is wrong in my eyes no matter what the truth is, and in my view it is forbidden to do such things—but there is nothing that truly obligates it. Today I say that one can take the moral rules in the Torah and stick to them no matter what; even if God Himself were to appear and tell me that I have to violate them, I wouldn’t care. And not only from a personal angle—according to me, everyone is obligated to adhere to such morality, one that does not change. So basically I was an agnostic, and afterward I became a believer. What does one do with this kind of catch-22 thinking, which pushes aside the 50-50 discussion and opens a new one in which either it is true or it is the opposite?