Rational arguments as an influence on changing a position – failure
Peace and blessings,
I eagerly read your wonderful books (the new trilogy). The books are written much more successfully than the previous ones, and the mere transfer of ideas through dialogue is enough to create this difference. It is a pity that this dialogue did not carry over into the third part of the book.
In our case, in the first book you presented arguments to justify belief in God. And here I would like to challenge this point. What underlies the motivation to formulate arguments for proofs of God is simple: if it is good evidence, it will cause a change in position. Although I regret to disappoint you and many like you, man is not a rational machine. Man does not act according to his mind, certainly not in the significant decisions in his life and values in general. I say this in a somewhat imprecise formulation: a man has an internal point where he feels a connection to something and thus has a position towards many things in the world. On this platform he justifies his positions. And in our case: a man who feels alienated in a strange way from the idea of God, of choosing a people, from the idea of the commandments of the Torah, etc. – will never be able to be convinced of the reality of God or evidence to prove the Jewish tradition. To reach such a situation, you need to do something else – make him connect to tradition or, alternatively, to the idea of God – by creating some kind of experience in him or a feeling that these things are serious enough to justify them rationally. Therefore, the things you wrote will definitely not make these changes, because your words are written from a wrong perception.
I’ll just give you an example to end the matter: Imagine that a close acquaintance of yours tells you that he is in a close relationship with the Queen of England and that they discuss burning topics together in letters and on the phone from time to time. Of course you will think that he is mentally ill or that something has happened to him. And if he brings you evidence of this? You will still refuse to believe it. You will interpret the evidence differently or try to explain why it is fake. What is the point of that? Because you have a prior position that claims that it is nonsense. And this is the prior position I am talking about…
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.
Hello,
Let me disagree with you.
I'm mainly talking about the third point – which is actually your response to the main point of my argument about the relevance of reason to determining and forming positions in our lives.
You said that if you are brought strong evidence, etc., you will accept the belief about your friend's connection with the Queen of England. Although it is understood that it is not true – you will always live with the feeling that there is something strange here. You will feel that perhaps there is evidence that you cannot reject, but on the other hand you will refuse to accept this perception and feel a real connection to this knowledge. There will always be some doubt in your heart.
Logical arguments are indeed built on assumptions and you talked about changes in assumptions. Although I am talking about these assumptions too – cannot be justified by a rational argument. For example:
Can you use rational reasoning to make someone eat? No. Or alternatively, make someone live? No. All you can do is prove to a person that if he eats, he can live. Although you cannot provide him with the very justification for living through a logical argument. On the contrary, the more you try to justify something with a logical argument, the more you encounter a problem: it only means that the thing itself is not the end. For example: If you try to prove to a person that it is worth reading your books because that way he will become wise, he will ask, and why become wise? You will tell him to succeed in life. (Here wisdom has lost its value and has become a means), and why to succeed in life? To live a good life (here success in life has lost its value and has become a means again). And why live a good life? Any rational reasoning will cause the thing to lose its value and become a means and not an end.
It seems to me that we are repeating ourselves. I explained what needed to be explained, and I think I answered all your questions. Apparently we disagree (and perhaps this itself proves your point. But according to this, I don't understand why you are making arguments against me if I won't be convinced anyway).
See a beautiful demo here:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2750536848303001&id=237561492933895
Hey, the demonstration was nice. You claim that we recycle the same things. So I'll try to ask you a question: Do you think that youth leaving religion is due to rational arguments? I think most people who deal with youth will tell you and even show you through things that I would say are close to proof in terms of data, that these are emotional claims, problems within the home and so on and so forth. On the other hand, it may be that those youth believe and are ready to accept the existence of a Creator of the world and that the Torah is from Sinai.
This contradiction, as far as I'm concerned, shows that people make important decisions based on irrational considerations. What do you think about that? I'd be happy if you could also address this example.
Thank you.
You're repeating yourself again. This recycled argument as if those who leave always do so for emotional reasons is not true. Every step a person takes is made for complex, emotional and logical reasons at the same time. Therefore, if you address the philosophical levels, it affects the decision, even if not completely. In your opinion, there is no point in engaging in logic at all because emotion is always the sole determinant. This is complete nonsense, of course. I have already explained to you that in your opinion there is no point in this discussion itself (with me). Why are you making arguments and expecting answers, if in any case each of us is motivated by emotional reasons? That's it. As far as I'm concerned, the discussion is over.
I recently came across a beautiful example of the need for intellectual grounding. For faith:
https://www.akshiva.co.il/%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94/%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%99-%D7%92%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%9C%D7%99-%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%A4%D7%A9-%D7%94%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%97%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%9B%D7%9C/
I think you are both right, on the one hand, the “mental position” (you call it “emotion”). On the other hand, the intellectual arguments – all lead to faith.
I think that the mental position is usually the determining factor, and is the basis for how a person's life will be conducted. If a person comes from a place of acceptance of faith (a mental position of humility), it will be much easier for him to accept the intellectual arguments. Conversely, a person who comes from a mental position of pride will find it very difficult to accept intellectual arguments in favor of faith, even if with his mind he understands them and even supports them. That is probably why it is said “I and he cannot live together”.
Although the mental attitude is the basis, I think it is very useful to have very sharp intellectual arguments, because in difficult times of mental attitude, it is very useful to have intellectual arguments in place, in order to continue believing.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
