On Ockham’s Razor and the Borders of Judaism
peace
From Ockham’s razor we learned that it is better to minimize assumptions as long as they are sufficient to explain the totality of phenomena. I recently read what you wrote ‘against’ Torah commentators, ‘against’ providence in this time, and all sorts of other phenomena in Judaism. Isn’t a partial explanation of the phenomenon of Judaism enough to indicate a deficiency in the entire theory? One can argue against Rabbi Kook’s harmonist path, but there is a very strong point in him, and that is that he will not reject anything that is out of place, and every word, even chatter, from the Torah, receives meaning and joins the whole?
In other words, is your interpretation of the Torah interpretive or legislative?
And so as not to leave the email incomplete: I heard complaints about His Honor mentioning the sages of the Gentiles too much, and I said I would answer partially as well 🙂
Instead of saying in your lessons that there is a halal ban for a total of two hundred servings of two liters of beer, but three are permitted, you could mention the words of the Talmud at the end of the Book of Revelation (18:2) that two sheep are forbidden to be bought from a shepherd, lest they be stolen, but four are permitted, since the Shevab will feel it.
Happy and blessed New Year to all of us.
Best regards,
Hello.
Thank you for the example. It is indeed beautiful and in place (although I think there is a bit to share, and that’s okay).
As for the razor principle, I once heard a discussion based on Occam’s razor about dualism, which is a less simple theory than materialism, since it has two components and in it there is only one. Occam’s razor is a principle that is used to decide between correct theories. Of these, the simplest is chosen. But one should not side with an incorrect theory because of its simplicity (and I have also expanded on this in my book Unstable Truth). And let the wise and wise know more…
And beyond all of this, the question is what Judaism is. Is every opinion expressed by a sage or sages, no matter how important, Judaism? In my view, Judaism or Torah are the word of God. Therefore, my arguments do not harm any part of Judaism, but rather focus on Judaism and try to remove from it what is not Judaism. This reminds me of Kobi Maydan’s regular segment on the radio (I think it’s called “This is what our sages said”), where I once heard him quote a quote from Amy Winehouse (from our sages). And pay close attention to all of this.
Baruch
In my opinion, the questioner has raised a very important question here, which I also sometimes ponder when I read your words.
What is Judaism? As I understand it, your Judaism includes the belief in the Torah from heaven and sees it as a critical component. Even if you make all possible reductions to this belief, you still remain in a problem.
When someone believes in such a thing, I expect him to find pearls in it when he opens the Torah, and that every verse in it will enlighten him. If the Torah was indeed given by God, that is what is expected of him.
But when the rabbi opens the Torah, he encounters a lot of problems that he has to explain away, so that according to Occam's razor principle, it is not clear why he does not adopt the simpler theory - that the Torah is not from heaven.
Take, for example, the Book of Genesis, which is full of stories of miracles and legends that I find it hard to believe that you believe in them as they are. You will probably have to say that there is a parable or something like that here and not a story that happened in reality.
Let's move on to the issue of providence, which the Bible is full of. Here too you will have to offer all sorts of excuses, such as that in the past there was a high level of providence and today less so (an assumption that has no basis).
Let's continue with the commandments - here you see in many of the commandments something archaic and pointless, and again you will have to make excuses, that times have changed, etc.
Of course, you can give more examples, such as in the aspect of feminism and more.
And I ask - why all this? Isn't it a much simpler theory to say that the Torah was not given by God?
5 months ago
Mikhi
Shalom Baruch. This is the kind of question that is very difficult to answer. You need to weigh the two theories against each other. Note that in such a comparison you must also take into account the shortcomings of the theory you are proposing (that the Torah was not from heaven). This raises some difficult questions (for example, why do humans create such strange commandments? Or how to relate to the tradition we received about the Torah from heaven, to the unique history of the Jewish people, to its contribution, to prophecies that come true, and so on. See the fifth notebook on the site. Those who deny this need rather elaborate theories, and for some reason they are not approached with claims about it).
From my perspective, the giving of the Torah is very plausible, but to be honest, I see that the content given there is unclear (its scope and content), and therefore I offer various explanations for it. But in general, these explanations are not compelling in my opinion (on the contrary, without them the theory comes out compelling), and therefore in my opinion the traditional theory is preferable (in my own shade, including the explanations I offer).
This is in general, and now specifically to your comments.
1. I do not expect to find pearls in the Torah. Absolutely not. I have never found a single pearl in the Torah. In physics I found many more pearls and much more wisdom and intellectual brilliance. What is in the Torah is instructions for us. The assumption that there should be pearls in it is caught out of thin air and not as if someone had given it to me.
2. Part of the Torah may not really be from heaven but rather later additions. What is so wrong with that? If not all of the Torah is from heaven, should I conclude that nothing was given there? Why?
3. I do not know what was at the time when God revealed Himself more directly. There can be all kinds of things there, such as miracles and wonders, and therefore I have no opinion about them. The creation of the wicked was also a much greater miracle, and I certainly believe in it. So too was prophecy then and disappeared, and so is providence. All of these are part of God’s policy to disappear as we grow older. Why is this so wrong?
4. Regarding the commandments, I do not see any understandable reason for them and do not think they should have such a reason. The purpose of the mitzvot is not morality or social reform, but a religious purpose (see column 15). Therefore, contrary to your description, I did not actually need to say that times have changed in order to explain the mitzvot.
5. Regarding feminism, I do not see a problem at all. The Torah is not a collection of instructions written in the Talmud, after all, they were also created by human interpreters. So why should we not continue this interpretation in accordance with our perceptions? Why do you think there is any problem with the Torah here? This is not a change of what God gave, but rather its development and refinement. In my understanding, the Torah given from Sinai is only the raw material, and the halakha is a layer of human interpreters that was created and continues to be created (or at least should continue to be created) around it. What is wrong with that? Do you really think that what is written in the written Torah can establish any halakha?
And yet, in the end, you are right that the alternatives should be compared, but in such a comparison, the virtues and vices of all of them should be taken into account, not just one.
5 months ago
‘But you shouldn't side with a wrong theory because of its simplicity’ – What do you decide on from that, right? On intuition alone? But what about when there are conflicting intuitions (such as on the subject of free choice)? Why do you decide by Lex Specialis and not by Occam's razor and simplicity?
It depends on the context. I don't have a blanket criterion.
Lex specialis is the simple (reasonable) solution.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
