The origin of values
Hello Rabbi,
I’ve seen in several places that you claim that a religious worldview is rational, as opposed to a secular worldview that is irrational.
You wrote that the values of secularists are not rational, because they come “from the gut” and not from an external source.
But – even if rationally there is a Creator of the world, there is no rational proof for the observance of Jewish law and the commandments specifically, and therefore when a person decides to observe a commandment, he makes a value decision, and not something completely rational. It is impossible to explain choices and decisions completely rationally, because in the end the decision also comes “from the gut”, and therefore according to your method, religious people are not rational either! They also decided to base themselves on a certain value (“from the gut”) and derive other decisions from it. It is impossible to claim that value decisions are “truth” in the scientific sense, or that they are completely rational.
That’s it, I’d be happy to explain why you think religious people are completely rational (compared to secular people..)
Hello Aviad.
Value judgments are not facts, of course, and they cannot be empirically tested. And yet there are right and wrong judgments. If you see them simply as whims, then it is not right to call them judgments but simply a casual and arbitrary form of behavior. When I adopt the value that murder is forbidden, I do not do so simply because I feel like it. I do so because I think it is the right thing to do, even though I have no way of proving or justifying it. The alternative is that there is no morality, but merely behavioral whims.
Now the question arises what could possibly constitute a basis for such a decision. A person can decide to stand on one leg every morning and see it as a moral obligation. This is an axiom and as such it cannot be reasoned with. It still seems to be an arbitrary action, and it is correct to call this an action from the gut, and therefore it does not make sense to do so as a value (of course, if you just feel like it – don’t be silly). On the other hand, a person who fulfills a mitzvot is a person who does the commands of his Creator. This, of course, cannot be reasoned with, and it is still not baseless and arbitrary. When there is a mitzvah, it makes sense to obey his commands. But values in a materialistic world are laws without a legislator. What is their validity? Why would someone who does not think so do so? What can be your argument against him? You are built this way and he is built differently.
Let’s take an example of the difference between arbitrariness and lack of reasoning. Someone who accepts the axiom that a straight line passes between two points cannot justify it, but it still makes sense to hold on to it. I wouldn’t call that arbitrariness, or a gut decision.
To keep commandments when there is no mitzvah is just arbitrary nonsense. There is no commandment without a mitzvah. Of course, the opposite is not necessary, since even if there is a mitzvah that commands, it is not necessary to say that there is an obligation to keep its commandments. But the commandment is at least a possible basis for seeing this as a reasonable and correct decision and not arbitrary. Especially if the one giving the commandment is G-d.
To keep God’s commandments is a decision that cannot be justified, but it is not arbitrary. Not every unreasoned step is equally legitimate. On the other hand, to see in moral laws values that obligate everyone in a materialistic worldview is simply meaningless nonsense. See the fourth notebook on the website in Proof from Morality.
By the way, even in the factual and scientific realm, when a reason is given for a claim, it is always based on basic assumptions, and they never have reasons. Therefore, it is incorrect to think that rationality means adopting only proven claims. Rationality is adopting reasonable assumptions and logically deriving conclusions from them.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
