Comments and questions about the fifth notebook

Comments on the article From Deism to Theism
Peace and blessings
As you wrote several times in the article, the overall picture emerges from the whole, and even if each individual consideration is perceived as weak, the totality of the considerations gains strength as the whole is stronger than the sum of its parts.
It is therefore difficult for me to address the weight of the “totality,” and yet I would like to share what I have learned from this totality and to receive your response to questions that are difficult for me.
I am saying what is obvious from the article that in the end, as in the beginning, we are dealing with one binary question. Was there a revelation at Sinai, yes or no? Was there a revelation for believers? Was there a revelation for believers, and vice versa? And yet, and in the midst of it, we are trying to reach some kind of decision on this question.

1. You start the article by saying that after we have been convinced of the existence of the pisco-theological God and have been convinced of the ontological and cosmological arguments. And even of the existence of the moral God. We are already close to understanding that there are “religious” purposes for the world. You analyze the reason for the creation of the world in that before creation there were 3 options: a. Not to create. b. To create a perfect world. c. To create and give a choice. Since there is a choice, this shows that the world was created to be corrected by something outside the world itself, but rather what preceded the universe. What is this? The answer: something that constitutes a reason for the world, namely religion – the worship of God – whose foundation is in the complex situation that God created (or to a certain extent was “forced” upon it). The secret of the reduction and the words of the Ari on “Give courage to God” But this itself is difficult, it doesn’t fit with divine perfection, it’s a bombastic title of Kabbalistic thought, but ultimately it’s an argument that says God wanted something from humans, meaning: there is an answer here that is necessary under the circumstances, but it doesn’t fit with one of the basic principles of monotheism, so we are replacing one problem with another.

Summary of this question: As stated, if there was a revelation and the “religious” G-d revealed himself to us and said that he gives Torah and wants us to keep it – he didn’t tell us about the secret of the Tzimtzum or not – it’s not that significant anymore, the main thing is that it was revealed) it was not revealed – the secret of the Tzimtzum remains another theory among theories about the world. – We have returned in a circle to the question of revelation.

1. You are making a familiar argument (I saw a note at the end of Rabbi Wasserman’s collection of notes, as well as in Rabbi Moshe Shapira’s “Ba’a Emunah”) that it is likely that God will “explain” to us what the goals of creation are and the means to advance them. A. As you write yourself: This is the personification of God, b. Even today, after the Torah was given, there is enormous ambiguity in choosing the right path, so that it seems that it didn’t really work (it’s a circular situation because they say the Torah was given so that there would be a path, but it doesn’t really seem like there is a path, and then they say that it is itself the experience and the concealment, etc., so perhaps the concealment is greater and there is no Torah rule and everyone has to search for themselves) and what about the 2000 years of chaos? Didn’t they receive a revelation??
2. The conclusion of the world is the degree of reliability of the report of the revelation. As the article shows, we have no way of measuring the chances of the revelation’s feasibility. This is certainly a departure from the natural order, but it is certainly possible. On the other hand, there is no doubt that the description of the revelation at Sinai is certainly exceptional and special in relation to other traditions. The anchors that exist to preserve the tradition of the revelation are also extremely impressive. The question is: What is the path and what is the weight that should be given when one comes to measure the truths of traditions against faith difficulties and against contradictory hysterical assertions? Tradition claims: There was a revelation: but does the fact that there has been no revelation for 2500 years not constitute a counterweight? Is it reasonable that God’s will will be transmitted in a one-time transmission for tens of thousands of years? The Ramban says that God will not make a sign for every infidel, but isn’t a sign required for the dictionaries of believers once every 2500 years? (Again, we are dealing here with the description of the “totality” and I am trying to see how to challenge the totality) and what shall we say if there is no sign for a million years? Is there any deadline or any situation that we can claim in advance that if it happens or doesn’t happen – then it will turn out that the revelation is a lie. (Like what the Rambam says at the end of the Laws of Kings about other religions that when the Messiah the King truly comes, everyone will return and know that their ancestors inherited a lie)
3. You write that the very fact that the Torah contains imperial promises constitutes weight supporting the reliability of revelation. But doesn’t the fact that there is no way to put religion to a single real test case pose a credibility problem? (When it is written that your days may be prolonged and you see a child who has fallen and died – they say in a world that is entirely long. When it is written and you gather your grain – it is in a generation that is entirely corrected. When later prophets prophesied prophecies that were not fulfilled in the return to Zion, they say that it is for the future to come. Therefore, even the biblical statements that can be empirically refuted are not impressive because there is always a mistake given to interpretation that allows belief in the text to be maintained even though it is not fulfilled. Another question: Is there one text that the public of believers sees as a text that, if it is not fulfilled literally, will constitute a ground for heresy (or is there some deadline for realizing such a text?, Example: Even a number of years defined as “Your seed shall be a stranger” is interpreted retroactively from the birth of Isaac, and it is also written once 400 and once 430.).

(An example of a credibility problem) They say that the Holy One, blessed be He, has a covenant with the people of Israel (and this is one of the roots of the argument with Christianity) and to the same extent they say that in the sin of the calf, the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to destroy the people of Israel and only Moses prevented this, etc. – perhaps you will answer that this is the fulfillment of the covenant. Moses would certainly choose to fulfill the covenant and God would certainly answer him.) Of course there are answers, but ultimately, we are in the one and only question about revelation.
A challenge to the religious view: Belief in private providence: hidden from statistics. I have not conducted empirical research and I do not know if it exists, but I have conducted unscientific attempts to find out whether there is a difference between religious and non-religious groups in the rates of cancer or accidents, etc. As far as I can tell, there are no supporting findings, and it must be said honestly that there is almost no way to isolate the cases and answer this question, because the question of what is religious? Who is entitled and obligated or what are the circumstances that cause survival or death are extremely complex, and in almost every religious component there are psychological and social components that can also change the picture. Intuitively and to the best of doctors’ estimation, there is no connection between religiosity and beliefs and the percentage of injuries. The assumption is that no difference was found between the different populations. It is important for me to emphasize that the question is not why a righteous person is bad for him and a wicked person is good for him. The question is whether the empirical and intuitive reality strengthens the thought of private providence (including the power of repentance, prayer, and charity to transfer the evil of decree) or negates it. And the answer is that it negates it. Again: we are dealing here with determining a relationship to the whole.

1. We have therefore returned to the fundamental question, the only question to what extent we can confirm the fact of revelation.

A very basic and fundamental question: Does the recognition of the truth of the story of the Exodus from Egypt and the status of Mount Sinai have religious validity or historical factual validity? If it has religious validity – it is a circular belief – with religious validity you believe in religion…. If it has purely historical factual validity – should it be examined and debated in the Faculty of History or the Faculty of Religious Affairs? In other words: To find out about the revelation, do I need to talk to a historian or a rabbi?
The same question in a different style: Why do most people who received a religious education believe that the revelation is a historical fact and most people who did not receive a religious education think that there was no revelation? If we are engaged in a debate about the existence of a historical event, the correlation should be much lower (I am not talking about people who converted after being convinced of the hysterical truth of the revelation, in this case the connection between the historical and religious perception is unambiguous, I am talking about the case of people who were born religious and people who were born non-religious, why is the view on historical facts so different? (You addressed this question under the title “Another Look at the Meaning of Religious Education” where you write that education is required to develop the tools of intuition, But my question is why a simple question like the attitude towards a historical story depends on “developing tools of intuition” or in other words, when G-d created the Mount Sinai event, which was primarily intended to provide certainty in knowledge, is there not a failure here in the ability to know what will happen? Are we humans again to blame for the medium not being clear enough?
And in the same vein: Most of the traditionalists on whom faith is based often behave in a way that is “taboo” to the faith, and therefore, for example, do not accept the facts that exist in the world, such as dinosaurs or the age of the world, in a way that raises significant suspicion about their degree of integrity (in my opinion), which raises questions about their degree of criticality regarding revelation as well. The question is whether people are capable of being critical about this issue. I would also add that the sages of Israel, who did engage in a systematic and honest attempt to understand and investigate, did not succeed in reaching understandings easily. For example, Maimonides and Harlabag, who reached borderline conclusions, receive a lot of criticism. For example, the Rivash Responsa, despite the respect it has for them, cites them as a problematic example. And to emphasize: My question is not about the issue of studying science, but about the fact that there is no way to reach definitive information about the question being asked, so that the argument is caught in its tail. There is an expectation that people will recognize the truth, but it is absent.
 

1. Attitude towards other faiths: You say that it is likely that people who grew up with other faiths in other places, such as Poland and the Sahara, hold their art in a similar way. I agree with that of course, but But to me, this itself is a disservice, because you are actually admitting that after all and before all else, this is what motivates us, those founding stories that we simply cannot detach ourselves from and that we will always find a way to verify them…. And to the point, you are saying that the inclusive discourse should be abandoned because either there was indeed a different revelation for other peoples. Or even if they are wrong, they deserve fair treatment from us and from God. I am surprised that you write that the God that your tradition describes to you is one who will accept this mistake with fairness and understanding… I don’t know what you mean? Because you yourself describe the inclusive description that is present in the entire Torah. There is hardly any inclusive discourse as you describe. On the contrary, all the laws of idolatry deal with the non-acceptance of other opinions. There is no place for idolaters, and Christianity, as is known, according to the Maimonides, is idolatry. You are saying that God does not ignore considerations of rape. Don’t you know the formulation of Rabbi Chaim on your heretic Nevecha? (Based on the Maharam) and this is only for those who erred from the simple readings.

 
I would like to add a few words.
From these questions of mine, as well as from the experience of all the sages of all generations, both Bani Brit and Bani Brit, it appears that it is probably very difficult (or there is no way) to reach a higher knowledge than what you proposed in the article. And the question is what do I expect you to answer or what do I seek to find? Perhaps my main question is: Is it still reasonable to accept a path (or should we call it a religion) that, although it is impressive from many sides, still requires the “totality” that you work so hard to generalize, and I am still all island and maybe. In the end, I keep getting the feeling that because:
A. All of us, even the wise men we have built, simply follow what is familiar to us and what our ancestors have passed down to us. That is how we are and that is how the entire world is. We are constantly conducting a “campaign for what is necessary.”
on. Since thought that differs from the principles of faith is heresy (with the deep meaning of the term), this naturally and inevitably creates a mindset that is imprisoned by many fears and morals. How can a person wake up in the morning and bless the blessings of the Torah and then freely discuss its truth?
 
So what anyway? Apparently, what emerges from reality, as long as we are not blessed with revelation (for thousands of years now), is either to try to ascertain God’s moral commands for ourselves or to understand that because we were born where and to whom we were born, religious thought is forced upon us and we have no way to verify it except to submit to it, to the extent that we succeed.