Openness to knowledge and clear belief
To Rabbi Michael Shalom;
I wanted the rabbi to respond to me on a passage I wrote (although I know you are very busy, and would certainly understand if you don’t have time to go through some of the musings of an unknown person).
This passage is an excerpt from the opening of a letter I wrote at the time to one of the rabbis in the Haredi community [1] , and therefore the style is that of a person who grew up within the Haredi community (less academic language, more yeshiva language. Based on the Hebrew Bible, etc., the way of life of a Haredi person, omissions of things that exude a distinctly religious spirit). I tried to rephrase this passage, without success – perhaps except for the beginning of the passage. It is important to me to emphasize this because I know that reading in such a style usually paints a picture in the eyes of the reader of a not particularly intelligent type, and causes some to be disdainful. It is important to me that you refer (- if, as mentioned, you see fit) to the content of the words only, and write your opinion on the arguments and their level.
And maybe if I may make another request (quite a cheeky one – but there’s something about cheeky requests that makes us agree to them…) that won’t be too cynical…
Openness to knowledge and clear belief
Phase 1
1. The way to find out what is true is through reason. Emotions cannot find out what is true. (This is obvious, but for some reason people sometimes forget this and claim to clearly know something when their source is that they clearly feel that it is true.)
2. To know that something is true and true – and in fact any clear knowledge – would be to know with certainty. Uncertain knowledge is not absolute knowledge but rather a hypothesis or probability (of course there are things that cannot be known with certainty – but this is no reason to consider the hypothesis as knowledge). As long as we do not know with certainty, then when asked whether it is true the answer will be that we do not know with certainty.
3. There are two ways to know that something is true and true: either by affirmative means – to see with the senses that it is true (like seeing that the sun is shining), or by negative means – to realize that it cannot be otherwise. When one comes to clarify ideas and claims (or the truth of a spiritual reality) then the only way is by negative means [2] .
Phase 2
4. Therefore, even when we want to know for sure that there is a Creator and a Leader and a Torah, etc., we want to know this with one hundred percent certainty (whether it is a secular person who wants proof of this, or a religious or ultra-Orthodox person who wants to examine himself whether his knowledge is true knowledge or whether he simply has never thought about it).
5. As mentioned – a certain feeling that there is a Creator and a Leader who watches over us and cares for us is not enough – after all, it is just a feeling and it is not the way to find out if this is the truth, the way is to clarify with the mind. (It should be added that for a person who has been religious/Haredi all his life, the feeling that there is a Creator is certainly not enough, since it is required that he feel that there is someone who watches over him, etc. Not that this feeling is not good – if there is knowledge that there is a Creator then certainly this feeling is required, but it is worth it after the knowledge).
6. In any case, a decision to believe due to the many chances of the reality of a Creator, or due to the fear of the risk of terrible punishment – together with the chances that there is a Creator. They are not certain knowledge that there is a Creator. They are only a probability or a way of life of risk versus chance, but not knowledge. (Regarding the word ‘faith’, it is indeed a long story what is the difference between it and knowledge. But in the end it is clear that someone who does not have clear knowledge that there is a Creator, etc., even if he supposes that there is – he does not know, and if you ask him whether he is sure that there is a Creator – if he is not a liar he should answer ‘no’…).
7. For us, the learned public – an argument is much more acceptable if it is written in the G.M. or Rishonim, so here is this argument written: Rashi, beginning of the chapter in Sanhedrin, explains why he who says that the resurrection is not written in the Torah has no part in the Hereafter, even if he actually believes in the resurrection, and the learned: ‘What is to us and his belief, and how does he know that it is true? Therefore he is a complete infidel.’
Stage 3
8. We must understand in advance that since we come to examine the truth of our knowledge of the reality of a Creator, etc., and as mentioned, our way of ascertaining truth is to rule out all other possibilities, we will then have to address these claims and rule them out – that is, address claims of heresy, which will be emotionally difficult for most of our public. (And the more difficult part is to make these claims – even though they are false – and know that in order to ascertain our belief, we must rule them out 100 percent, and not with trivial claims.) But, as mentioned, this is what is needed to ascertain the truth of our knowledge.
9. And a more difficult insight: Up until now we have spoken from the perspective of believers who only want to put a checkmark of certainty next to their faith-based knowledge (because what can we do – it turned out that uncertain knowledge is not knowledge but rather a hypothesis). But if we are real – if we are at this stage where our knowledge is uncertain, as long as we are at this stage where our knowledge is uncertain, then the feeling of a real person is that he is not 100 percent sure, and if they ask him “Tell me, are you sure there is a Creator…?” he will answer “Not 100 percent sure, apparently, but not sure.” It is difficult to express himself like that, but to console himself – perhaps it is scarier to think about the possibility of burying the truth in the sand and not ascertaining our faith, and then in fact our knowledge is uncertain – meaning that all of life, on the truth side, we will be in incomplete knowledge, in fact in heresy… It depends on what kind of person is certain of his own name without really knowing that this is the truth. Like a person who is certain that if he sits at the corner of the table, he will not get married for seven years – is he truly an infidel in this (because he does not really know that he is like that, and as the aforementioned Rashi said, ‘How does he know that he is like that, therefore he is an infidel’), or is such a person a believer – but he is a fool and gullible. In any case, we do not want to be fools and gullible either (although emotionally it is much easier for us than being an infidel…)
[1] That rabbi did not respond to me in the end. I tried sending the entire letter to another rabbi I thought would be appropriate (Rabbi Nebenzl from the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem) but it didn’t work out.
[2] Indeed, knowledge of the way of affirmation (which pertains to physical things seen with the senses) is also knowledge of the way of negation – that we rule out all possibilities of interpreting what we see with the senses in a different way (such as when we see the sun, we rule out the possibility that it is just an image – in that it is radiant and dazzling).
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hello.
Attached is your letter with my comments in bold and underlined.
All the best,
To Rabbi Michael Shalom;
I wanted the rabbi to respond to me on a passage I wrote (although I know you are very busy, and would certainly understand if you don’t have time to go through some of the musings of an unknown person).
This passage is an excerpt from the opening of a letter I wrote at the time to one of the rabbis in the Haredi community [1] , and therefore the style is that of a person who grew up within the Haredi community (less academic language, more yeshiva language. Based on the Hebrew Bible, etc., the way of life of a Haredi person, omissions of things that exude a distinctly religious spirit). I tried to rephrase this passage, without success – perhaps except for the beginning of the passage. It is important to me to emphasize this because I know that reading in such a style usually paints a picture in the eyes of the reader of a not particularly intelligent type, and causes some to be disdainful. It is important to me that you refer (- if, as mentioned, you see fit) to the content of the words only, and write your opinion on the arguments and their level.
And maybe if I may make another request (quite a cheeky one – but there’s something about cheeky requests that makes us agree to them…) that won’t be too cynical…
Openness to knowledge and clear belief
Phase 1
1. The way to find out what is true is through reason. Emotions cannot find out what is true. (This is obvious, but for some reason people sometimes forget this and claim to clearly know something when their source is that they clearly feel that it is true.) It is important to distinguish between emotion and intuition. Intuition is indeed a tool for ascertaining the truth, and perhaps even a primary tool, as I have discussed in my book. After all, proof is based on first-order knowledge (such as that what I see does exist, etc.), and how will you know that the first-order knowledge itself is correct? Will you base them on other knowledge? Then they are not first-order. Intuition is the root of everything.
2. To know that something is true and true – and in fact any clear knowledge – would be to know with certainty. Uncertain knowledge is not absolute knowledge but rather a hypothesis or probability (of course there are things that cannot be known with certainty – but this is no reason to consider the hypothesis as knowledge). As long as we do not know with certainty, then when asked whether it is true the answer will be that we do not know with certainty. I strongly disagree with you. There is no certain knowledge in the world about any subject (perhaps except for the fact that there is no certain knowledge. This itself may be certain, and even that is open to debate). All our knowledge is at different levels of probability, and we operate within different areas of uncertainty. The search for certainty is a baseless and baseless idea, and is even very harmful (precisely because of what you write here: that once you have come to the conclusion that your belief is uncertain, you think that you do not believe, and it is not). This is a serious mistake. Therefore, belief in God, like everything else, is only a matter of appearances and not something certain. Even what you see with your senses can be an illusion of various kinds (as is known, it is possible to create illusions in a person intentionally in various forms – hypnosis, electrodes for the brain, etc., and there is also pete morgana, etc.).
3. There are two ways to know that something is true and true: either by affirmative means – to see with the senses that it is true (like seeing that the sun is shining), or by negative means – to realize that it cannot be otherwise. When one comes to clarify ideas and claims (or the truth of a spiritual reality) then the only way is by negative means [2] . I don’t understand what “on the path of negation” means. How can you know anything about the path of negation?
Phase 2
4. Therefore, even when we want to know for sure that there is a Creator and a Leader and Torah, etc., we would know this with one hundred percent certainty (whether it is a secular person who wants proof of this, or whether it is a religious or ultra-Orthodox person at home who wants to examine himself whether his knowledge is true knowledge or whether he simply never thought about it). Not true, and so on.
5. As mentioned – a certain feeling that there is a Creator and a Leader who watches over us and cares for us is not enough – after all, it is just a feeling and it is not the way to find out if this is the truth, the way is to clarify with the mind. (It should be added that for a person who has been religious/Haredi all his life, the feeling that there is a Creator is certainly not enough, since it is required that he feel that there is someone who watches over him, etc. Not that this feeling is not good – if there is knowledge that there is a Creator then certainly this feeling is required, but it is worth it after the knowledge). This could be intuition rather than a feeling.
6. In any case, a decision to believe due to the many chances of the reality of a Creator, or due to the fear of the risk of terrible punishment – together with the chances that there is a Creator. They are not certain knowledge that there is a Creator. They are only a probability or a way of life of risk versus chance, but not knowledge. (Regarding the word ‘faith’, it is indeed a long story what is the difference between it and knowledge. But in the end it is clear that someone who does not have clear knowledge that there is a Creator, etc., even if he supposes that there is – he does not know, and if you ask him whether he is sure that there is a Creator – if he is not a liar he should answer ‘no’…). It is indeed true that in religious education this is worth further examination, but it is not true that feeling (=intuition) is an invalid tool. Every child is also educated about morality, even secular ones. Should he now throw away morality since it stems from an emotion or feeling?
7. For us, the learned public – an argument is much more acceptable if it is written in the G.M. or Rishonim, so here is this argument written: Rashi, beginning of the chapter in Sanhedrin, explains why he who says that the resurrection is not written in the Torah has no part in the Hereafter, even if he actually believes in the resurrection, and the late: ‘What is to us and his belief, and how does he know that it is true? Therefore he is a complete infidel.’ Where is this claim written in the Torah? It is not written. But what? You believe in the Sages and the first who interpreted the Torah in this way. So you’ve returned to faith again and not to the text itself. And simple.
Stage 3
8. We must understand in advance that since we come to examine the truth of our knowledge of the reality of a Creator, etc., and as mentioned, our way of ascertaining truth is to rule out all other possibilities, we will then have to address these claims and rule them out – that is, address claims of heresy, which will be emotionally difficult for most of our public. (And the more difficult part is to make these claims – even though they are false – and know that in order to ascertain our belief, we must rule them out 100 percent, and not with trivial claims.) But, as mentioned, this is what is needed to ascertain the truth of our knowledge. It is indeed true that alternative claims need to be examined, but it is not true that certainty is required.
9. And a more difficult insight: Up until now we have spoken from the perspective of believers who only want to put a checkmark of certainty next to their faith-based knowledge (because what can we do – it turned out that uncertain knowledge is not knowledge but rather a hypothesis). But if we are being truthful – if we are at this stage where our knowledge is uncertain, as long as we are at this stage where our knowledge is uncertain, then the feeling of a genuine person is that he is not 100 percent sure, and if they ask him, “Tell me, are you sure there is a Creator…?” he will answer, “Not 100 percent sure, apparently, but not sure.” It is true that this is what will answer, and it is faith. And it is also our knowledge in every other field. Faith and knowledge are the same.
It’s hard to express it like that, but to console ourselves – perhaps it’s scarier to think about the possibility of burying our heads in the sand and not being certain of our belief, and then in fact our knowledge is uncertain – meaning that all our lives, in truth, we will be in incomplete knowledge, in fact in heresy… It depends on what kind of person is certain of his name without really knowing that this is the truth. Like a person who is certain that if he sits at the corner of the table he will not get married for seven years – is he in truth an infidel in this (because he doesn’t really know that this is how he is, and as the aforementioned Rashi said, ‘How does he know that this is how he is, therefore he is an infidel’), or is such a person a believer – but he is a fool and gullible. In any case, we don’t want to be fools and gullible either (although emotionally it is much easier for us than being an infidel…)
[1] That rabbi did not respond to me in the end. I tried sending the entire letter to another rabbi I thought would be appropriate (Rabbi Nebenzl from the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem) but it didn’t work out.
[2] Indeed, knowledge of the way of affirmation (which pertains to physical things seen with the senses) is also knowledge of the way of negation – that we rule out all possibilities of interpreting what we see with the senses in a different way (such as when we see the sun, we rule out the possibility that it is just an image – in that it is radiant and dazzling).
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hello Rabbi;
I admire you. For your attitude towards every questioner. For your seriousness towards every claim. For your decision to be accessible to the public's questions, even though you have devoted a lot of time to it. For the speed with which you answer those who ask. For your lack of arrogance in your answers despite the vast knowledge you have. (I know it's a bit hard to read about yourself things that border on admiration… but that's how it is when there is something to appreciate… and also, in the end, it's nice to hear genuine compliments…)
The main idea
If I understand correctly – your main idea is that there is no such thing as absolute knowledge. The closest thing to knowledge that exists for us is probability. We call it knowledge, but we don't mean one hundred percent certain knowledge, but ninety-nine (comma nine). And indeed, if we were asked about anything in the world whether we know it for sure – our answer, if we are honest, would be “no”.
So all our information is nothing more than speculation - very well-founded and probable speculation, but not one hundred percent certainty. The speculation that if we see a wall in front of us, and if twenty-five years ago when we saw a wall and touched it we felt the opacity of matter, and twenty-five years ago when we felt the opacity of matter and were in a huge mass towards the matter - it hurt, then even now, apparently, if we run into the wall it will hurt. But there is no clear knowledge, and it may be that this wall is not (some indeed try to argue this way – that man does not really live in a material environment, but is full of imaginations, and his senses are synchronized with the imaginations and transmit to him sight, hearing and feeling in accordance with the imaginations (this is what I remember seeing in the book Thoughts on Reality, from the TV series broadcast by Galei Tzahal. In the first chapters). Like very sophisticated virtual reality glasses. )
Just pay attention – in light of this approach, in the religious field, it turns out that there will be considerations that can decide whether to commit offenses. After all, if all knowledge is only ninety-nine percent, then if, for example, the options that threaten you are either to die a slow death in the torments of hell, or to work for it (in practice) – then this percentage will enter into consideration, especially if you still have many years left to live…
Likewise, if there is a mitzvah to know something – then it is not viable (so you will interpret that even in the language of the Torah when it says knowledge, the intention is almost absolute probability).
Knowledge by way of negation
My intention was simple – that the way to know the certainty of the truth of something is by raising all possible options to claim that it is not true, and negating them. Example: A child wants to know for sure that he is the biological son of his parents (something that every child deals with at some stage) – He first brings up all the other options: 1. That he was adopted as a small child 2. That he was adopted as a baby 3. That he was mistakenly switched in the neonatal ward in a hospital. And in order to know that he is a biological son, he needs to rule them all out and only then will he know for sure that he is a biological son. [Of course, in each stage of denial there are substages, such as: in the stage of denial that he was adopted as a child – he relies on the fact that there are pictures of him as a baby with his parents. Then he needs to know for sure that these pictures are real photographs of him, and this again by raising all the options to claim otherwise (such as that they pasted pictures of him with the environment of his ’adopted’ parents, or they asked for pictures of another child, or he imagines that he sees pictures of himself and in reality what he is holding are pictures of a goldfish and a mango …), and then knowing what the truth is by denying all the options except the one true one that remains].
I added (in a comment) that there is really no such thing as knowledge by way of affirmation, and even seeing with the sense that there is a wall in front of me is not knowledge by way of affirmation but by way of negation – an inference that it cannot be that this transmission from the eye to the brain does not reflect the truth.
Resurrection
Regarding the comment on belief in resurrection – I did not go into this in the letter, since it was not brought up on the merits of the matter but rather as a call to attention to Rashi’s idea that belief without a basis in God is heresy. On the merits of the matter, indeed, if one believes in the sermons of the Sages when he is not certain that he can interpret the text in any other way – then there is indeed no knowledge here that there will be resurrection, but rather a hypothesis (that the Sages’ interpretation of the verse is the correct interpretation). Knowledge will come after he is certain that there was a resurrection and the presence of Mount Sinai and the sign from heaven (and this is done through a letter after it is clarified to him that no other possibility applies), and only if he concludes that these verses in the sign cannot be interpreted in any way other than the way that indicates resurrection.
Indeed, I am aware of the problem that these sermons of Chazal do not seem necessary to us, and I am aware of the words of the Rishonim that indeed these sermons are not absolute and are not the source of belief in resurrection, but rather the opposite – the rational conclusion that there will be resurrection is the source for teaching these verses in this way (the way of the Maimonides. And see 25:11; Rashba; 1:11; 13; (cited in the introduction to the R. Kook Institute according to the Rashba; 1:13; 13). It is possible to interpret these verses differently, but what brings us as teachers of resurrection to interpret them is the tradition that exists about resurrection.) The aforementioned Rishonim Apparently they interpreted that the one who says there is no resurrection from the source of the universe was a complete disbeliever in the concept, and not if he agrees with it (following an intellectual conclusion) but believes that it is not written in the Torah. This was according to Rashi's interpretation (who perhaps understood that there is no way to decide with reason whether there will be a resurrection or not, and therefore, in his opinion, the only possibility other than a source of the universe is blind faith).
Y’ Hello.
Indeed, I didn't receive it until now.
It's hard for me to discuss such gaps, because I no longer remember what the previous discussion was about (in the meantime there were already hundreds of others). I commented on your file {in curly brackets {} }.
All the best,
Peace to the rabbi;
I admire you. For the attention you give to every questioner. For the seriousness you give to every claim. From your decision to be accessible to the public's questions, even though you've devoted a lot of time to it. From the speed with which you answer those who ask. From your lack of arrogance in your answers despite the vast knowledge you have. (I know it's a bit hard to read about yourself things that border on admiration... but that's how it is when there's something to appreciate... and, in the end, it's nice to hear genuine compliments...)
The main idea
If I understand correctly - your main idea is that there is no such thing as absolute knowledge. The closest thing to knowledge that we have is probability {There is not always a probability. Sometimes there are questions for which there is no way to calculate probability, and therefore we talk about probability. For example, I don't know what the probability is that there are no fairies, but the likelihood of that in my opinion is high.}. We call it knowledge, but we don't mean one hundred percent certain knowledge, but ninety-nine (comma nine) {not necessarily. Knowledge is when I assume that this is the truth. The degree of probability can be any. There is more and less certain knowledge (but never completely).}. And indeed If we were asked about anything in the world whether we know it for sure – our answer, if we are honest, would be “no”.
So all our information is nothing but speculation – speculation that is very well-founded and probable, but not one hundred percent certain. The hypothesis that if we see a wall in front of us, and if twenty-five years ago when we saw a wall and touched it we felt the opacity of matter, and twenty-five years ago when we felt the opacity of matter and were in a huge mass towards matter – it is pain, then even now it seems that if we run into the wall it will hurt… But there is no clear knowledge, and it may be that this wall is not (some indeed try to argue this way – that man does not really live in a material environment, but is full of imaginations, and his senses are synchronized with the imaginations and transmit to him sight, hearing and feeling according to the imaginations (this is what I remember seeing in the book Thoughts on Reality, from the UN series broadcast by Galei Tzahal. In the first chapters). Like very sophisticated virtual reality glasses. {Indeed, this is what idealists or solipsists believe (that there is no world but only our acquaintances).} )
Just pay attention – in light of this approach, in the religious field, it turns out that there will be considerations that can decide to commit offenses. After all, if all knowledge is nothing but Ninety-nine percent, so if for example the options that threaten you are either to die a slow death in the torments of hell, or to work for the sake of God (in practice) – then this percentage will come into consideration, especially if you have many more years to live… {Very true. Even if there is a very high moral price (such as the prohibition of saving a Gentile on Shabbat), I am not sure I would obey. The likelihood that it is true (is there a God, blessed be He, and is this really what He commands – after all, this is the interpretation of the Sages) is outweighed by the high moral price. Fortunately, the dilemma is avoided for me because in my opinion, even halakhically, one must save him, and so on.}
Likewise, if there is a mitzvah to know something – then it is not viable (although you will interpret that even in the language of the Torah, when it says knowledge, the intention is for almost absolute probability {In any case, the mitzvah does not belong to knowing. At most, there is a mitzvah to inquire, and the knowledge will or will not come following the inquiry. It is impossible to dictate to me in advance the results of the inquiry, otherwise it is not inquiry.} ).
Knowledge by the way of negation
My intention was simple – that the way to know the certainty of the truth of something is by raising all the possible options to claim that the thing is not true, and negating them. Example: A child wants to know for sure that he is the biological child of his parents (something every child deals with at some stage…) – he first brings up all the other options: 1. That he was adopted as a small child 2. That he was adopted as a baby 3. That he was mistakenly switched in the neonatal ward of a hospital. And in order to know that he is a biological child, he needs to rule out all of them and only then will he know for sure that he is a biological child. [Of course, in each stage of denial there are substages, such as: In the stage of denial that he was adopted as a child – he relies on the fact that there are pictures of him as a baby with his parents. Then he needs to know for sure that these photos are real photos of him, and this again by raising all the options to claim otherwise (such as that they pasted photos of him with the surroundings of his ‘adoptive’ parents, or that they were photos of another child, or that he actually imagines that he is seeing photos of himself and in reality what he is holding actually contains photos of a goldfish and a mango…), and then knowing what the truth is by negating all the options except the one true one that remains].
I added to argue (in a comment) that there really is no such thing as knowledge by the way of affirmation, and also seeing with the sense that there is a wall in front of me is not knowledge by the way of affirmation but by the way of negation – an inference that it cannot be that this transmission from the eye to the brain does not reflect the truth {I disagree. There is no real difference between knowledge by the way of affirmation and negation. When you negate the assumption that you are adopted, you are using information by the way of affirmation (that adoptees behave this way and that, etc.). This is an artificial distinction. To say that all fairies have three wings is to say that they do not have two, and vice versa.}.
Resurrection
Regarding the comment on belief in resurrection – I did not go into this in the letter, since it was not brought up on the merits of the matter but rather as a call to attention to Rashi’s idea that belief without the basis of God is heresy. On the merits of the matter, indeed, if one believes in the sermons of the Sages when it is not certain that he can interpret the text in any other way – then indeed there is no knowledge here that there will be resurrection, but rather a hypothesis (that the Sages’ interpretation of the verse is the correct interpretation). Knowledge will come after he is certain that there was a resurrection and the presence of Mount Sinai and the Torah from heaven (and this – in my letter – after it is clarified to him that no other possibility applies), and only if he concludes that the Rabbis should interpret these verses in the Torah in any way other than the way that teaches about resurrection.
Indeed, I am aware of the problem that these sermons of Chazal do not seem necessary to us, and I am aware of the words of the Rishonim that indeed these sermons are not absolute and are not the source of belief in resurrection, but rather the opposite – the logical conclusion that there will be resurrection is the source for teaching these verses in this way (the way of the Maimonides. And see 525 Rashba 1:139 (cited in the introduction to the book by Rabbi Kook on the legends of the Shas, p. 13). It is possible to interpret these verses differently, but what brings us as teachers of resurrection is the tradition that exists about resurrection). The aforementioned Rishonim apparently interpreted that the one who says there is no resurrection The resurrection from the source of the Torah means that one completely disbelieves in the concept, and not if one agrees with it (following a rational conclusion) but believes that it is not written in the Torah. This was according to Rashi’s interpretation (who perhaps understood that there is no way to decide with reason whether there will be a resurrection or not, and therefore, in his opinion, the only option other than the source of the Torah is blind faith {I no longer remember the argument there. I assume I have already written my opinion.}).
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
