Questions about faith

In honor of Rabbi Dr. Michael Avraham, to all Rabbis,

My name is X, I studied in Seder yeshivot. Now I am more Reform than Traditional and certainly not Orthodox. I am an active member of the “Hamatarah Emet” Institute for Science and Consciousness, which studies spirituality with rational tools.

A few years ago I corresponded with you regarding the question of the historical truths of the Torah. It is not clear to me how one can be rationally Orthodox without historical agreement regarding the prophecy and miracles of the Exodus. I would like to respond to your words and add my own.

You previously wrote to me as follows and I will respond within the text:

“Once we have agreed that this is a probability, we can now discuss (and not calculate) how probable it is.”
To the best of my judgment, our tradition is more reasonable for several reasons:
1. On revelation at the principle level: Since there are good arguments in favor of the existence of God, it is likely that He will be revealed. Although it is not absolutely necessary, if a tradition reaches me that He has indeed been revealed, there is no reason to accept it. In this we deviate from Russell’s heavenly teapot argument (I explained this in my book “God Plays Dice”).

The philosophical God is a non-anthropomorphic God and there is no more reason for him to reveal himself to you than the God of the universe would reveal himself to you assuming that there is a God of the universe. In other words, there is no connection between the philosophical God and revelation. For example, Hume suggests (in “Dialogues on Natural Religion”) to liken God from the teleological proof to a womb or a nucleus and not to reason. One can find an infinite number of images, but there is no connection to revelation. God from the ontological is the height of perfection. Is anthropomorphism part of this? And we have already argued many times against this proof. Kant also speaks of a God who is “reason” that is not revealed in the imagination. It only enables the morality of the categorical imperative. Is the Torah the categorical imperative? Is Spinoza’s God nature – since when does nature reveal itself? What evidence is the rabbi talking about?

“2. On other revelations: We are certainly the first to speak of the revelation of one God to the masses. It is likely that the others drew from us and even expanded. Therefore, if we have to choose, then I think we have a significant advantage. The entire argument of miracles of a day that you present is based on the later replications, which were made to compete with our tradition and its inspiration, and therefore, in my opinion, is problematic.”

Why did they try to compete? Many of the miracles are reported by pagans whose religion is ancient from biblical times.

“3. Furthermore, I do not accept the exclusive claim, that is, that we are right and therefore others are wrong. For us, revelation has developed in a certain way, and this is the religion that binds us. Others have other traditions (Rashid Kook writes that it is certainly possible that even the miracles of Jesus occurred).”

Why does our revelation obligate us and the revelations of others obligate them? Maybe the opposite? Or maybe theirs obligate us too? So God actually doesn’t know how to decide? Or does he expect us to choose whether to be Jews or Muslims based on non-rational considerations?
By the way, the same question about the Sadducees. How do you know what God’s will is when it is known that the Sadducees held to a different halacha? Why believe that God has instructed us in clear halacha and then reject the Sadducees because we do not know what their halacha was? Maybe God really wants us not to know what the halacha was and to try to approach Him according to the spirit of the Torah? And where do we get it that we follow the majority of people in our generation, as Rabbi Kook suggests in his dear Adar? And is Rabbi Kook a psychologist of God? Where does this confidence come from?

“4. Our tradition does not look like folk folklore, because it is transmitted by people who were intellectuals and were very critical, and even allowed themselves to say things against the current and raise difficult questions, etc. Add the democracy of the tradition (everyone is called to engage in it and study it and express positions, and anyone, regardless of their origin, can assume the status of a wise person)”

But only the priests could pronounce halakha during the time of the Bible.

“None of this exists in other traditions. The prophets fought against the people and against the king and even suffered quite a bit from it. Furthermore, our tradition conveys to us a range of opinions, not just one position. If there was a desire to establish a fictitious thesis here, they would not have done so in such a pluralistic manner. The transmitters of the tradition gained nothing visible from its acceptance.”

Are the contributions and various portions of sacrifices given to the priests (and Levites), who were essentially the authority to control religious practices among the people, not material gain that could explain a personal interest in establishing or perverting religion? And does it matter if they have no centralized land and are scattered among the tribes? Does it really bother them?

“They did not live in particular wealth (although they probably had status in most cases).
5. Add to this the unique history and broad influence that Judaism has had on world culture, which in my opinion indicate that there is something special here.
6. Bottom line, I also don’t think that things are described as they are, meaning that at Mount Sinai we were given every section in a clear mishna. That’s ridiculous. But I do tend to think that there was a revelation and we were given some kind of kernel. The development that was done around it is a later product, and I have no problem with that. Whoever gave us the kernel had to take into account that things would undergo interpretation and development, and apparently did so.”

This is the most difficult question for me. I am willing to admit that there is a God who revealed himself to the prophets and told them that the people of Israel would be exiled and return to their land. For me, this is a prophecy that came true. But how can we know that it was not simply the prophet’s spiritual powers and that he did not invent everything else? How do I know that Moses, our Lord, who, let’s assume for the sake of discussion, really went up to Mount Sinai and all the people heard the Ten/Twelve Commandments, did not write everything from the musings of his heart? And that I know God as a person who cares at all whether his words will be kept? And that I have proof of God’s psychology so that I know that he did not abandon Moses a moment after standing on Mount Sinai? Or maybe he simply mistreated Egypt with the Ten Plagues (if they even existed and are not just legends built on the basis of natural disasters in Egypt). God is such an empirically unknown thing that I cannot base a theory on his will. I have never been his psychologist. Nor was Moses’ psychologist who could invent and write whatever he wanted. The people did not hear the words “so that the people may hear the words of your people and may believe in you forever.” This is only what Moses told us. Or maybe God did not say this? The question intensifies if we assume that the Torah was not written by Moses, but rather by generations after him, prophets and sages. Can they reflect the will of God, who peeked out of the hole a few times? Is it possible to know the will of God?

With great gratitude and appreciation,