Two questions
- Does the rabbi have lessons – or a recommendation for lessons – on the chapter on seeing a stain and the laws of stains (and seeing and feeling)?
- When the rabbi says that the concept of ‘God’ is binding by its very existence – although one must continue to ask ‘what is obligation anyway?’, how is this different from saying that morality is binding by its very essence (as in the method of Sam Harris and others)? In other words, if I am convinced that there can be no external – or objective – authority, but that the only source of obligation derives from my evolutionary and environmental sense, is there still an analytical difference between ‘God’ at the top of the hierarchy versus the mere intuition of avoiding pain?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
0 Answers
1. No.
2. Morality is also binding by its very nature, but this is only because its existence stems from a legislator who legislated it (God). Without this, one can of course say the words that morality requires, to the same extent that one says that the crowing of a rooster is binding. This has no logic or basis. It is clear that if you have a feeling that its source is evolution, there is no reason to believe it. You cannot believe in evolution itself (i.e., the scientific theory) either.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
