The Divine Source of the Torah
I accept your series of evidence for the existence of God (including the evidence from morality). You then claim that if we accept such a God, it is likely that he wants to reveal himself to us and give us instructions beyond morality. Therefore, it makes the most sense in your opinion to follow the Jewish tradition of all other revelations (it is difficult to instill a lateral lie, etc.).
This leap is very difficult for me to accept:
1. The claim that if God created a universe that has existed for 14 billion years, then he probably wants something from us and therefore must reveal himself sounds very weak to me. There is some personification of him here who probably wants something. He did not get what he wanted for billions of years because there were no beings here who could do what he wanted. The way in which he revealed himself is very unconvincing thousands of years after that revelation. It is not difficult to invent traditions and myths out of thin air, certainly in the period in question.
2. There is nothing special that indicates divinely inspired writing in the Torah. A text that is similar in syntax and structure to other texts from the same period. Laws that are of a similar future nature. Lack of historical accuracy and that requires twists and turns such as the Torah is not a history book on every step, etc., etc.
3. On the subject of miracles, you are forced to "pay" for the strange notion that God once performed miracles and then suddenly stopped sometime in the last thousands of years. Very strange. Not an easy price to pay in terms of explanation.
4. The same Torah that claims to have a divine origin is subject to such plastic interpretation that it has no practical meaning. As you often rightly explain, it is not clear what the value of the Torah in particular and the Bible in general is. So God chose to reveal himself through a text that no one can truly understand unambiguously and trusted humans over thousands of years to derive the Creator's will from it? Unlikely.
Bottom line: It is very unclear to me why you dedicate so much of your life to living according to the formulation of Orthodox Jewish law as it exists today.
The "therefore" in the opening paragraph is incorrect. I have come to the conclusion that there must be a revelation and that it probably contains something beyond morality. From here on out, everyone will make their own judgment and choose their own path. I personally believe that our tradition is the most reliable, and it is also the first, and the others that followed it also accept it, and therefore the burden of proof is on them. But at the same time, I also wrote that I am aware that I have a bias because I am a product of Judaism and Jewish society, and therefore, in my opinion, there is no true exclusivity of right and wrong between the beliefs. Someone who naively comes to the conclusion that Christianity or Islam are the right ones and acts accordingly, in my opinion, will not be treated differently from the treatment I receive. God does not come in complaint with His creatures. In my opinion, the exclusive discourse is intended for internal purposes (to strengthen believers on their path and give them a sense of what the world is built on). I will clarify that I also feel that our faith and tradition are more reliable and correct, but I am aware of the possibility of bias, which is why I added the argument about exclusivity, which tells me not to be too bothered by these concerns.
So much for the opening paragraph. I will now briefly address the sections that followed.
1. This is not personification. Anyone who creates something probably does so for some purpose. I may be wrong, but the burden of proof is on those who claim otherwise. This is the logical starting point. It also adds to the tradition that has come down to us that this is indeed the case. The question of the delay of billions of years does not bother me. What He wants is realized by the entire process in which people are created and do all sorts of things. There is no necessity for all this to take place at every moment. This entire process is the realization of His will. Remember that a billion years from His perspective is no different than a second.
2. I agree. The content of the Torah does not convince me of its divinity.
3. It is not strange. I also offered a logic in this policy, and first and foremost these are the facts. Over the generations, prophecy and miracles have disappeared.
4. Indeed, I too question the value of the Torah. Although in its time it had value, since the morality and values of humanity were greatly influenced by it. But today I do question the value of studying the Torah itself. But I am a Toshab. Regarding the ability to derive things from the Torah, I assume that in the past there were tools that were lost to us (such as the virtues of preaching).
Regarding "there must be a revelation that goes beyond morality," your entire argument is based on the fact that God could have not created the world and thus there was no need to be moral. Again, I see a bit of personification here, but your explanation is also unconvincing. He could have created the effect of observing the laws even without humans observing the laws. Of course, you will explain that it is probably impossible. It seems weak to me anyway. You once brought up, in the name of Rabbi Kook, that God cannot be perfect because he is perfect. Maybe he only wants morality from us so that he can be perfect through us. What do you say?
3. The facts are that there are no miracles today. More likely, there have never been any miracles. You have to insist that this has changed. Miracle stories and myths have always existed in all cultures, and miracles are slowly "disappearing" as science advances. Trends think critically.
In your choice to follow Orthodox Judaism as it has taken shape today, you are a bit "apologetic": I know you are biased because of how you were raised. I am not at all sure that we have the whole truth. I sense that you also feel the evidential weakness of the divine origin of Judaism, I do not remember you expressing yourself in a similar way in any other discussion, after all, there are always biases and psychological considerations that can affect a philosophical discussion or any discussion about another truth claim, am I wrong?
As mentioned, the question of anthropomorphism is incorrect (in my opinion). It is a simple assumption that is correct for any entity. Of course, it is not necessary, and it is possible that a non-human entity acts differently. But a priori it makes sense not necessarily for a human, until proven otherwise. Therefore, the burden of proof is on those who claim otherwise.
It is impossible to achieve results without humans creating them, as they are supposed to be created by choice. It is not for nothing that we were given free will. This indicates that the goals were not the bottom lines, otherwise we would have been programmed to reach them and that was that. God apparently wants us to be chosen to do the right thing and not just do it.
The possibility that morality is the goal for us and that all of this is intended to complete God does indeed exist. And yet the conclusion that morality in itself cannot be the goal is correct. However, now, according to your suggestion, we have several options: 1. Perhaps the goal is the completion of God, which is accomplished through morality. 2. Perhaps there is another goal. We have received a tradition that the goal is different, and therefore there is no reason to adopt the first option.
3. Regarding the likelihood that there never were miracles, I disagree. See in the series Torrey 671-3 on David Hume's witness argument against miracles. If you accept the assumption that there is a God, it seems to me that the claims about miracles are no longer unfounded on their face. That is why I always make sure to create the entire chain, from the philosophy about the existence of God to the religious commitment. [Incidentally, the creation of the world is itself a miracle, meaning that something must have happened once that is not happening today. My argument is that creation is a continuous process, and concerns not only the first point in time. Today we are in a situation where the world already exists on its entire surface and there is no need for miracles. See again Torrey above.]
The fact that there were myths and miracles in many cultures is a counterargument? Doesn't that strengthen the claim that there really were miracles? It's like the claim that many cultures testify to the flood and therefore it is clearly a myth. In my opinion, if many cultures say this, it strengthens the fact that there was indeed a flood. Although in principle, of course, it could be a myth, the mere existence of evidence certainly does not weaken the authenticity of the claim but rather strengthens it.
Beyond that, the question is how reliable the testimonies and traditions about this are (in terms of the number of people present, the accuracy of transmission, the details, the survival of the content of the tradition, etc.).
Regarding your last comment, I think the "apology" you saw in my words is just a question of intonation.
I have written explicitly several times that the arguments in favor of the existence of God are philosophical and objective, while the arguments in favor of a specific tradition like ours are by definition weaker. But this is due to the very nature and type of the arguments and therefore does not indicate a fundamental weakness. The subject is not philosophical but historical, and ancient history at that. Do you expect me to bring objective philosophical evidence in a field that is not philosophical? As we know, it is difficult to reach clear conclusions in such matters, and as we know, it is also more easily biased by the various influences on the person formulating the conclusions (me). Just as psychology does not enjoy the same validity as physics or chemistry. This is not necessarily because psychologists are stupid but because of the nature of the field. Therefore, this weakness is not a reason to reject the use of psychology outright. We have nothing better in these fields.
So my words here are not an apology but a sober and honest description of the situation. That is indeed the situation. What is there to apologize for? Because of the nature of the field, we have to make decisions under conditions of uncertainty. If I have come to the conclusion that there should be revelation, then I must choose the most plausible of the various revelatory options before me. That is what I have done.
Beyond that, I added that I assume that others in other cultures and religions also did as they understood, and I am aware of the possible biases I have as well. Therefore, I argued that although in my eyes it is truly the most reasonable, exclusivity still seems to me like a discourse for internal purposes, and God does not come in discord with His creatures. Whoever finds Christianity more reasonable should be a Christian. If you choose to see this as an apology, then fine. This is just an intonation as stated. See my column on PEER DISAGREEMENT for more information.
Regarding the question of whether there is a normative goal, which is morality, and there is no need for revelation, in the fifth notebook the answer is that without revelation we would not understand that morality is not teleological (and therefore revelation is necessary), and here the answer is that there is no a priori expectation of revelation, but in fact there was. It seems that the difference between the answers is in the question of whether we will accept the most probable revelation, even if it is not so probable, or whether we will accept only a probable revelation.
A. Do you think the answer from the notebook is still correct?
B. Why would we view morality this way without revelation, and why would the revelation that actually occurred at Sinai help us see it differently? Do you think that an atheist who is committed to morality is not only a secret believer in G-d but also a secret believer in revelation?
Quote from the author:
It is possible, but it still seems to lack revelation. Without it, we would see morality as something teleological, that is, as a set of principles intended to correct society and nothing more. So, even if there is no "religious" system beyond morality, the need for revelation remains.
Quoting the relevant part of the answer above:
The possibility that morality is the goal for us and that all of this is intended to complete God does indeed exist. And yet the conclusion that morality in itself cannot be the goal is correct. However, now, according to your suggestion, we have several options: 1. Perhaps the goal is the completion of God, which is accomplished through morality. 2. Perhaps there is another goal. We have received a tradition that the goal is different, and therefore there is no reason to adopt the first option.
That answer assumes that a person's knowledge of the purpose of morality is important, and that it is not enough for him to act morally. I am not sure about that. Therefore, the answer here should be added.
As for the question of revelation: My argument is that this is why there is an expectation that there will be a revelation. This does not have to correspond to what actually happened in revelation. After all, in practice we also received additional goals beyond morality, and therefore all of this is irrelevant. This argument is an a priori argument that comes to support the fact that a revelation is expected and therefore if a tradition comes to us, it must be believed.
Beyond that, the revelation at Sinai tells us that there is a Torah command to do what is right and good. A Torah command is something that goes beyond social correction (in my opinion).
But according to the answer here, revelation is not expected, but only that there is a basis for revelation (so it is not like a teapot).
According to the answer, revelation is certainly expected here, but there is also the possibility that its content will be only the theological dimension of morality (and perhaps not even that, if theology does not require intention). In any case, even if there is no necessity for revelation, there is still an apparent expectation of revelation here that strengthens the credibility of the tradition that reports its occurrence. As you wrote, it is no longer a pot of tea, and that is an understatement.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer