Question about the parable of the train to Scotland
Good evening, I am a student in class 6 at X. From time to time I get to read articles you have written and listen to your lessons. I enjoy them very much and usually manage (I think) to understand the poet’s intention.
I wanted to ask about the parable of the train from Scotland that appears in 2 Wagons of Light 21 and also in the article “In Praise of the Desired Place” that is lying around on the yeshiva’s computer network.
I understood that the central idea in these articles is that every proof has axioms and therefore every proof will be refuted given that I reject the axioms. However, the question is whether I am actually willing to reject the axioms in a truly innocent way and stay on the train to Scotland or whether I am just waving the possibility of doing so.
I tried to make this beautiful argument an analogy to a proof from design, but it didn’t quite work out for me.
According to this model, if I truly and innocently believe that there is no creator and that everything here happened by chance – I should be consistent with the results. But what exactly are they? Not planning things? Not saving money?
As I understand it, this is the obvious analogy, but I doubt whether this is a necessary conclusion from a belief in blind evolution.. Or maybe it is? It seems to me that some knowledge of evolution is needed here.
In short, this is where I’m stuck. I’d appreciate it if you could close this corner for me.
And again, thank you and may God bless you for the lessons in the Acharonim and the teachings of the monk. I am enjoying it and looking forward to it.
Sorry for the long delay, good evening and happy holidays!
There is no need for any knowledge of evolution. The details are detailed in the fourth notebook on my website, See here. Especially in the second part.
In short, if you think that your cognitive tools are accidental, then there is no reason to assume that they reflect the truth (i.e., that they are reliable). Therefore, you should not believe them. This is the “theological” version of the physico-theological view. For details, see the whole book, especially the second part. The usual physico-theological view is discussed in the third book.
When you try to make an analogy and you bring practical implications (not saving money or not planning things) it is not true. The implications concern mainly your perception of the facts and not the facts themselves. This is the essence of a “theological” argument, as I explain there.
To clarify things, in the third part of the notebook I am on morality, and there too a person can behave morally even without believing in God, but he cannot be a moral person. A moral person is not a person who behaves well, but a person who behaves well because of the moral rules to which he is obligated. This is not possible in a world without God.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
