On cognitive biases and certainty
In the SD
Hello Rabbi,
In a discussion I had with a member of the DTL, he claimed to me that one can never assert things with confidence, since everyone is influenced by the education they received from infancy and the values they grew up with, and therefore their mind is biased towards the side they are on, and does not consider things in a purely intellectual manner. According to him, this also explains the fact that most people in the world remain fixed in their faith and religion, Christians, Muslims, etc., because that is how they were born and raised and are unable to step out of the box and think differently. The same goes for us “religious” people who are sure that the truth is with us.
What does your honor think about this claim? Is it really impossible to ever reach a situation that is at least close to a very reasonable certainty, such as if a person were to try, for example, living for a period as a Christian and then as a Muslim and as a secularist, etc., until he tries all the religions in the world, or alternatively reads and researches them in depth? Or is it possible to reach the truth and verify it in a very reasonable way, even if I was born there and I see that its actions are honest and correct. (In my opinion, the interpretation says yes, because as long as a person thinks for himself and criticizes his actions and ways, he is likely to reach the truth?) I would be happy if you could clarify for me how to deal with this claim in the right way.
Thank you very much.
Regards
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
0 Answers
First, it is impossible to assert anything with certainty even without the biases you described. We have no way of knowing anything with certainty. Everything for us depends on basic assumptions and different perceptions and the human limitations we have. Anyone who asserts anything on earth with certainty does not know what chess is (unless it is a prophet or some other exceptional person for whom I have no understanding of how it works).
All that can be expected is probability and uncertainty. But if something seems probable to you, even if it is uncertain, then it seems to me that there is no reason to adopt it. After all, even about science you can claim that we are biased and that it may not be true. Science is uncertain. And so is everything on earth (the whole claim about bias, which itself may not be true and is created by biases that we have).
As for the argument itself, I will present it more sharply so that I can explain. We see that someone born in a religious home usually becomes religious and someone born in a secular home usually becomes secular. This is of course not necessary or absolute (and your friend the Datla-Sh will prove it), but there is a high correlation. Some conclude from this that faith (as well as lack of faith) is not real in them. This is programming that comes from the home and society. This is essentially a pluralistic conclusion from the factual correlation (which is itself a fallacy, known in philosophy as the “naturalistic fallacy,” since here a normative conclusion is drawn from facts).
I will say three things about this: 1. It is important to understand that according to this argument, every worldview is programming, not just religiosity. So is secularism, socialism, capitalism, fascism, and whatever you like. 2. It is a fact that people sometimes change their beliefs (repent or question), and therefore there is no real programming here. 3. Even if everyone were born as they were, the pluralistic interpretation is still not the only possible one for the correlation I described (between the home and environment and the faith of those who grew up in them). There is another possible interpretation of this situation. It is possible that in order to discern religious belief and commitment, cultivation is required. For example, in order to be a master carpenter, one must be a carpenter’s apprentice, and the same applies to a scientific researcher or a doctor. Does this mean that the doctor does not know more about medicine than I do? After all, he is programmed to be a doctor because that is what he does, and I do not. Clearly, he thinks differently than I do because of the knowledge and abilities he has accumulated. The difference here does not lead to a pluralistic-skeptical conclusion. So too does athletic or philosophical ability, which depends on training. “Religious ability” also depends on training, and if the environment and the home help it, it develops, and those who did not receive this assistance find it more difficult to develop in this direction. After all, even morality, which is considered more universal and self-evident, still requires nurturing and education and environmental influence. Does this mean that those who are moral are just as right as those who are immoral? not. It just means that without education and nurturing, it is more difficult to solidify and develop our morality. The same goes for faith and religious commitment.
This is at least as good an interpretive option as the pluralist one, according to which it follows that faith is the right path (even if not certain), and secularism is a type of programming (or lack of development of religious fitness).
It was of course possible to argue the opposite, that secularism is correct and religiosity is a lack of development and cultivation. But first of all, one must understand that all of these interpretations are possible, and not just the pluralistic one. And beyond that, in my opinion, the interpretation I proposed is more reasonable, since secularism is empty (not that the secular is necessarily an empty person, but secularism is empty. It is a lack of faith, nothing more). Therefore, cultivation is not required here. On the other hand, religiosity is something very non-trivial, and therefore it is likely that without assistance and education it will be difficult to formulate it (like morality).
——————————————————————————————
Asks:
All the best
In the SD
Thank you very much for the length and detail,
A clear and comprehensive in-depth analysis.
Just a small point, if you could explain to me how this answers the fact that there are devout Christians and Muslims who cultivate their religion and believe in it, since there is apparently not a complete void like in secularism. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: I can see two main options: 1. That’s really a mistake (in my opinion). I didn’t say there is no programming, but that such a situation does not necessarily indicate programming. When you expand my description and include more than two options (assuming they are all contradictory), you will get an interpretation that one of these options is correct and all the others are wrong. The two-option model only serves to refine my argument, but in practice there are of course more options. 2. There is truth in their system as well, and these are the words of the living God, although problematic additions have been added to it (this is also the case with us). —————————————————————————————— Asks: Okay, thank you very much, You helped me expand my mind on this matter. See a small note, if I may, I am trying to understand what problematic additions His Honor is talking about. If it is about regulations and customs that were added over the generations, then even though they are not from the actual Torah, they certainly have a place of honor in Judaism, both from the perspective of the Torah (and do whatever it says) and from a realistic perspective (to preserve the gehalat and the religious society), and if it is about virtues, superstitions, and false perceptions, then these do not represent the faithful Judaism that the great men of the generations advocated, and are not considered at all part of the accepted Jewish religion, and therefore, in my opinion, it is not appropriate to mention them in a single sentence with the serious problematic additions that were added to Christianity, where they are part of the actual faith that even the great men of its believers advocate (such as the mother of that man who transmigrated from the Shekhina). And so on. (And I assume that what you mean by that is to compare only in the sense that there are any additions. Neither in quantity nor in quality.) Thank you very much. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: In my words, I did not intend to compare, but to point out a similarity. But since you have raised the point, I think there are additions that have entered the core of the Jewish faith in this regard. For example, the belief in private providence and perhaps a few other beliefs that I am not sure how well-founded they are (such as the Awake! Bible, the coming of the Messiah, and so on). By the way, even in Christianity there are different and diverse perceptions and not everyone agrees on what is included and what is not (including the same confusion you mentioned, which you will of course also find with us in relation to the Holy Spirit and His Presence). —————————————————————————————— Asks: I have indeed heard from my friends at Bar Ilan about your opinions on these matters, but I have never heard or read a clear statement from you on this matter. Although at first glance I saw no reason to delve into this because it is clear to me that these are things they said based on the tradition they received, and not from an intellectual perspective (only references from the verses), and since the Sages are faithful to me in transmitting the tradition in a true and accurate manner, I see no reason why I should not trust them in this as well. PS I would appreciate your response, but I don’t want to bore you with such a long correspondence. Surely your time is short, so you will feel comfortable ending it here. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: They are loyal to me too, but I did not see in their words that this is a tradition. It is certainly possible that this is a Dilhun interpretation. As we know, even when things are presented as a tradition, sometimes it only serves to strengthen the matter (and the first ones have already established this). —————————————————————————————— Asks: It does not seem to me that all the sages of Israel would overwhelmingly agree on the interpretation alone regarding these matters that predict the future, without any sage disagreeing on this. This is proof in my opinion that they accepted in tradition that this would be the case.
(And even regarding the Messiah, whom Hillel disputes and believes has already been eaten, etc., he does not dispute the very principle that there should be some kind of Messiah.) —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: First, just because something is not proven doesn’t mean it is not true. Here tradition has become a belief, and there is room for discussion and debate about beliefs. After all, I also wrote that I am not sure. Secondly, after this became a binding example (in their dream), people thought that it was a tradition that had to be accepted. And third, you yourself brought up Rabbi Hillel, and if belief in the Messiah can be reconciled with the notion that he has already been eaten, then why is belief in the Hereafter not reconciled with notions that it is a metaphor or something that already existed, or anything else? And fourth, the words of the Rav are already known about the belief in the incarnation (many better than the Rambam believed in it), and the words of Rabbi Albu on the Rambam’s principles.
Thank you very much for the length and detail,
A clear and comprehensive in-depth analysis.
Just a small point, if you could explain to me how this answers the fact that there are devout Christians and Muslims who cultivate their religion and believe in it, since there is apparently not a complete void like in secularism. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: I can see two main options: 1. That’s really a mistake (in my opinion). I didn’t say there is no programming, but that such a situation does not necessarily indicate programming. When you expand my description and include more than two options (assuming they are all contradictory), you will get an interpretation that one of these options is correct and all the others are wrong. The two-option model only serves to refine my argument, but in practice there are of course more options. 2. There is truth in their system as well, and these are the words of the living God, although problematic additions have been added to it (this is also the case with us). —————————————————————————————— Asks: Okay, thank you very much, You helped me expand my mind on this matter. See a small note, if I may, I am trying to understand what problematic additions His Honor is talking about. If it is about regulations and customs that were added over the generations, then even though they are not from the actual Torah, they certainly have a place of honor in Judaism, both from the perspective of the Torah (and do whatever it says) and from a realistic perspective (to preserve the gehalat and the religious society), and if it is about virtues, superstitions, and false perceptions, then these do not represent the faithful Judaism that the great men of the generations advocated, and are not considered at all part of the accepted Jewish religion, and therefore, in my opinion, it is not appropriate to mention them in a single sentence with the serious problematic additions that were added to Christianity, where they are part of the actual faith that even the great men of its believers advocate (such as the mother of that man who transmigrated from the Shekhina). And so on. (And I assume that what you mean by that is to compare only in the sense that there are any additions. Neither in quantity nor in quality.) Thank you very much. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: In my words, I did not intend to compare, but to point out a similarity. But since you have raised the point, I think there are additions that have entered the core of the Jewish faith in this regard. For example, the belief in private providence and perhaps a few other beliefs that I am not sure how well-founded they are (such as the Awake! Bible, the coming of the Messiah, and so on). By the way, even in Christianity there are different and diverse perceptions and not everyone agrees on what is included and what is not (including the same confusion you mentioned, which you will of course also find with us in relation to the Holy Spirit and His Presence). —————————————————————————————— Asks: I have indeed heard from my friends at Bar Ilan about your opinions on these matters, but I have never heard or read a clear statement from you on this matter. Although at first glance I saw no reason to delve into this because it is clear to me that these are things they said based on the tradition they received, and not from an intellectual perspective (only references from the verses), and since the Sages are faithful to me in transmitting the tradition in a true and accurate manner, I see no reason why I should not trust them in this as well. PS I would appreciate your response, but I don’t want to bore you with such a long correspondence. Surely your time is short, so you will feel comfortable ending it here. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: They are loyal to me too, but I did not see in their words that this is a tradition. It is certainly possible that this is a Dilhun interpretation. As we know, even when things are presented as a tradition, sometimes it only serves to strengthen the matter (and the first ones have already established this). —————————————————————————————— Asks: It does not seem to me that all the sages of Israel would overwhelmingly agree on the interpretation alone regarding these matters that predict the future, without any sage disagreeing on this. This is proof in my opinion that they accepted in tradition that this would be the case.
(And even regarding the Messiah, whom Hillel disputes and believes has already been eaten, etc., he does not dispute the very principle that there should be some kind of Messiah.) —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: First, just because something is not proven doesn’t mean it is not true. Here tradition has become a belief, and there is room for discussion and debate about beliefs. After all, I also wrote that I am not sure. Secondly, after this became a binding example (in their dream), people thought that it was a tradition that had to be accepted. And third, you yourself brought up Rabbi Hillel, and if belief in the Messiah can be reconciled with the notion that he has already been eaten, then why is belief in the Hereafter not reconciled with notions that it is a metaphor or something that already existed, or anything else? And fourth, the words of the Rav are already known about the belief in the incarnation (many better than the Rambam believed in it), and the words of Rabbi Albu on the Rambam’s principles.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
