Appeal against the transition to theism
Hello Michael, in moving from deism to theism, you claim that a priori revelation is expected, because the reason God gave us free choice must be for some “religious” purposes.
This statement is incomprehensible to me. While I agree with the general principle that it is unlikely that God would create something without a purpose, your conclusion sounds like an unfounded personification to me:
A- As long as we did not have a moral sense, it could not be concluded that God cares what we choose. It was possible that the very existence of a dilemma in humans, even what color shirt to wear for example, has some “religious” value for which He created us with free choice. Or for some reason he prefers the world to be non-deterministic, and able to lead itself in different directions.
This may sound a bit strange, but I don’t understand on what basis it can be determined that it is unlikely to be of value. For him. And in any case, revelation will not solve the problem, because how can one decide that putting on tefillin can be a religious goal for God, but it is not?
B – The fact that we have a moral sense means that it is logical that he requires us to behave this way, but again – no more than that. It is possible that overcoming instinct and enduring moral trials has a certain value for him, and this is the purpose for which he created us.
If someone wants to claim that the above things cannot interest him, or that there was a revelation in which he demanded additional things from us, the burden of proof is on him.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
My argument is that it is indeed possible that God expects us to behave only morally, and yet this does not mean that the purpose of creation is morality but rather man's coping with moral trials (for example).
And since we already know that this is what he demands of us (because of the moral sense) - it follows that I would not look to tradition to know what we should do.
Despite its strangeness, this could also be one of the options. And yet it is clear that there must be something more than morality. God is supposed to tell us what the right option is.
Thanks for the answers, but I still don't understand..
If it's possible that the demand on us is only moral behavior, why is it clear that there needs to be something else besides morality?
For example, if He created us (with free will) so that we can face trials, why aren't moral trials enough?
I explained it. There has to be something else besides morality, that is, besides the actual moral behavior. This something could be many things, for example: the choice to be moral, commandments that are not related to morality, standing on one foot every morning, and so on. To know which of these is the desired addition to God requires revelation. Enduring trials is also something else besides morality, and therefore it too cannot be known without revelation.
But the above things, i.e. the value that God has besides the moral behavior itself, can also be obtained from purely moral acts.
For example, a person overcomes his desire to steal and this overcoming has value for God. (Apart from the fact that no theft was committed) To make us not steal, revelation is not needed, but the moral inclination inherent in us is sufficient.
Another question that I may not have explained well in the opening message:
Apparently the starting point of the discussion is that even without morality, it is not expected that God would demand anything from us (if we assume, for example, that we did not have a moral inclination or that we did not treat it as valid), because although He gave us free choice, perhaps the goal is for us to deliberate purely for example (with all its strangeness) and He does not care what we choose.
I'm exhausted.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
