Clarification of the intention of column 661
“He who believes only by virtue of philosophical consideration, this is an external belief, and in fact some kind of gamble. The first believer claims that there is a God, and the second claims that God must exist, and only from this does he conclude that he probably does exist.”
These are your words in column 661. I read it and repeated certain parts several times and I feel confused.
I believe for philosophical reasons (since I see no other ways to reach rational belief) and of course nothing is certain. After making these two assumptions, I don’t really see a difference between the two types of believers that the rabbi described above. It seems that the first type of believer is the second type of believer, but you simply cut off the reason for the first believer’s belief. You simply wrote that he believes because he came to the conclusion that he believes, just like the second believer. I really don’t see a difference. It seems to me that the second believer is the only believer who also exists assuming that we are talking about belief for philosophical reasons. Even if I came to the conclusion that God exists 100 percent for philosophical reasons (which seems delusional), he still believes because he understands that it is more reasonable and that makes him say that he believes that God exists.
Sorry but it felt like chasing your own tail. Maybe I’m missing something here. I would be happy to explain.
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.
Can't we say that part of what convinces about arguments is that they are more plausible? What kind of person is convinced by less plausible arguments than more plausible ones?? I feel comfortable. A person makes decisions based on what is more plausible (a rational person). A person is faced with two options: there is or there is no God. There are philosophical considerations here and there, a person decides what is more plausible in his eyes (such as the principle of causality and evidence from complexity and design, etc.) and this gives greater weight to the choice that there is God. I chose after understanding the considerations. As far as I'm concerned, you could call it a gamble. An informed gamble if you like. Maybe it's just semantics. Sorry for the dig… Either I'm missing something or I'm repeating what you said without paying attention.
Please refine your words well if you can because I'm really afraid that I'm not getting to the bottom of your point
Something that just occurred to me, and maybe the Rabbi meant it, is that a person understands that there is something more likely but still isn't convinced. Then he says okay, if I had to bet then I would go with the more likely, even though that in itself doesn't convince me... I think it makes more sense. Like asking: How did the milk run out? After all, it was full when I left the house and no one has a key. So the first option (clearly unlikely) is: an alien ran out of milk. The second option: a person broke into the house, drank the milk and left without stealing anything (unlikely but more likely than the first option)
That's all I tried to argue in column 661. When I see that there is a 60% chance of something, I have two options: decide that it is enough for me and I adopt it. Decide that it is reasonable but not enough for me to adopt it. The first is a decision and the second is a gamble. There may be a person for whom 60% is enough to adopt the conclusion, and another person demands 80% and therefore will not adopt it.
That's exactly what you wrote in your last post.
I understand. Thank you very much.
The decision to adopt the faith is like making a covenant - a key principle in accepting the yoke of Torah. Even in relationships, there is marriage - which is a covenant based on a decision, and then there are the "publicly known" who are afraid to decide until there is one hundred percent certainty. The principle of the covenant similar to marriage and its implications is beautifully presented in the sermon of Rabbi Yeruham Maimir on Simchat Torah 1983.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
