Learning from history – first question
Greetings to the Honorable Rabbi,
In “No Man Is a Ruler in the Spirit,” the Rabbi writes that God does not want to teach us anything about history (288):
“Think about a teacher who tries to teach us something and fails over and over again. You’d probably say he’s a pretty questionable pedagogue, wouldn’t you?”
“If God is trying to teach… from observing history, it is clear that He has failed all along… and especially if the failure is not our fault… the conclusion is that He is probably not trying to teach anything.”
Question for the rabbi:
The rabbi has been trying to convey his messages for many years. There is no doubt that the rabbi is a man with (dozens?) years of experience in education, and with a fairly developed intellect and even credentials (a PhD in physics, etc.).
However, the percentage of influence of the rabbi is truly zero.
Examples:
When examining what atheists think about the Rabbi’s words, on the subject of belief in God , it seems that His Holiness the Rabbi is far from convincing anyone (the public is invited to search for comments on the Rabbi’s words on atheist blogs or atheist responses to the Rabbi’s statements across the Internet). But let’s assume that the atheist public is a bad example (because we are talking about a public that closes its mind and heart).
So perhaps the rabbi’s salvation will come to the believing public, at least in the issues of providence that the rabbi presents?
Not really. The rabbi does say that he knows stories of people he actually saved and changed their worldview.
I do not doubt the stories, and I believe there are some, but in my opinion no more than a few dozen, at best (if the rabbi knows that he has changed the worldview of more than a few dozen, I would be happy for him to state it here).
My assumption is that among the national religious and ultra-Orthodox public, there are far more than a few thousand (and likely even tens of thousands) who have been exposed to the Rabbi’s arguments on one platform or another (literature, the Internet, personal conversations with the Rabbi, etc.), and only a very small percentage have understood, internalized, and accepted the Rabbi’s words. The Rabbi’s opinions are very interesting and many read them, but again, the percentage of acceptance and agreement is truly extremely low.
So my question to the Rabbi is:
What does the Rabbi conclude about himself when he tries to convey his messages and doesn’t quite succeed?
Is the Honorable Rabbi a dubious pedagogue?
I don’t think so, but I would like to know what the rabbi thinks of himself, especially in light of the rabbi’s quotes that opened the question.
Best regards, Ehud
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.
Regarding the messages he is trying to teach, it is a completely reasonable assumption that most people are biased. Because of this bias, for example, it is difficult for Zionists to accept the relative truth that the Satmars have, and it is difficult for the Satmars to accept the relative truth that the Zionists have (when the absolute truth is probably something in between.
But I would be happy if the rabbi would explain why he thinks it is unlikely that people are biased, different from the messages he is trying to convey.
The rabbi agrees:
A. That we have free choice (and therefore it is reasonable to assume that we will be biased).
B. The Torah itself indicates that we will be biased ("And you shall not turn, etc.").
C. In practice, we see that there is indeed a bias in the world against the opinion of God.
With greetings, Ehud
I explained everything in the book. If there's anything concrete, ask him.
I would only be happy if the rabbi would show me where in the book he explains that we are not biased.
I read the sections starting on page 288 and ending with the end of that chapter (“No one has control over the spirit”).
Personally, I have no doubt that we are biased, and part of it is our fault and the fault of our parents.
A baby born in Satmar will probably grow up thinking that Zionism = sin.
A baby born to secularists will grow up thinking that Torah and observance of the commandments are for parasites who do not take responsibility for their lives.
The fault lies both with the parents/rabbis, and with that person who, once his soul reached a high enough maturity, and needed to investigate deeply and understand what the absolute abyss is (religious Zionism is probably the closest to this), did not investigate enough and remained stagnant.
I wrote that my assumption was that most rabbis are not biased. They have views, of course, and these affect the understanding of events and texts, but views are not biases. A person is the sum of all the influences on him. Bias is supposed to be intentional (laziness, unwillingness to learn, etc.). If a view by its very existence is bias, then no person is not biased, and we are back to the fact that God is a problematic pedagogue (He tries to teach creatures who cannot learn. He should have known this).
In order to understand the rabbi's assumption in depth, I would be happy to read more where the rabbi explains in his books the difference between an assumption and a bias (I did not see this in the chapter on “We Learn Nothing from History”).
In any case, I will take the risk in advance and argue against the rabbi's assumption. It is difficult for me to call a rabbi from Satmar who has been hearing in his ear since childhood that ”Zionism is a sin”, that he has developed a pure view and that there is no bias here that feeds that view.
I also do not understand why atheists who disagree with the rabbi are - they are actually biased (that is what I understood from what the rabbi wrote). I would be happy if the rabbi could say why, from his point of view, atheists are different from rabbis.
And what about a secular person who has been raised since childhood with statements that “religion is a dangerous and bad thing”.
Isn't this bias?
And if I assume that God does try to teach from history and in the case of this secularist (a clear bias in my opinion), can we claim that God is a bad pedagogue?
So for me, the whole assumption that we don't learn from history because we are “not biased” is incorrect. And hence, God is not a bad pedagogue
Hello Ehud. I really can't understand what's not clear here.
I explained the difference here and it seems obvious to me. The Satmar Rebbe really didn't hear it from his infancy. He is the father of this method. And even if he heard it from his infancy, it's not bias, as I told you.
In short, if you think about it, you'll see that I'm right. I see no point in this discussion.
Okay. Only if the Honorable Rabbi (or any of the readers) can provide a reference to where the difference between bias and a written view is in the Rabbi's books.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
