What is religion based on, logic or tradition?

A. I didn't understand what the last line said. Logic or tradition?
B. When you tell children about Pharaoh, are you or are you not convinced of the truth of the story?

A. I wrote that everyone has their own way. But there is no contradiction in principle. The attitude towards tradition itself is based on logic, and to the extent that logic requires it. And R”Sh. Shekap Barish Shaar H. has already insisted on this.
B. I am not at all convinced, and certainly not with certainty. So what? But it seems likely to me that he was. And beyond that, even if not – Is it forbidden to tell an educational story?

What does each one mean according to his own path?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we hear from you that in religious life there are two paths, the first is called theoretical examination and the second is innocent acceptance of tradition.

If so, then I don't understand,
a. And how is it divided? Do you freely choose which path you want to be religious, or according to your intelligence?

b. And was the commandment "And tell your son" only said to those who choose the second path? After all, the commandment is to tell sons what happened. Not what might have happened.

c. When you come to a three-year-old child and tell/"dub" him what you call "educative stories," you almost inevitably block his path to a clean examination. In other words, almost certainly damage the possibility that he will truly investigate things and be convinced of them from within.

d. And what about the fact that Jews are actually members of one family, all the researchers have disappeared and only the traditionalists remain?

In the last line, I will ask the disturbing question again,
The issue of educating children is an inseparable part of religion, this is true for all types of religious people, the more and less educated.
The Torah repeatedly demands that this education be carried out, that these stories be told, that it be injected into the blood of minors.
Judaism is clearly built on the transmission of this tradition. The Jewish people are fundamentally built on family and not on outsiders.

All of this fundamentally contradicts the logical examination of the truth and essence of things.
This seemingly inevitably "closes the minds" of minors, and at the very least will make it very difficult for them in the future to reach a certain level of internal conviction.

So what did the Torah want? In a herd of educated people or in individuals who think? It seems that this is not true and this is not true.

I really don't understand what the problem is.
There are many paths, because there are many types of tests. And perhaps there are many types of innocent faith. Why do you assume that there must be one path? And that decision-making in other areas is done only in one way? Some rely on intuition and others rely on more detailed calculations. It depends on inclinations and skills and other character traits and the like.
What does all this have to do with the commandment "And tell your son"? You are supposed to tell the Exodus from Egypt and its meanings and the laws of the holiday. Nothing to do with the previous topic.
In a parallel thread here, I briefly explained why I don't block it. There is no education that leaves the child for a clean examination. This is a naive illusion. And religious education is necessary because without it, a clean examination of the religious option is almost impossible.
And how does this relate to the family nature of the Jews? Are you trying to prove that there are no joiners because there is no substantive examination? Of course there are joiners. A great many of them.

Why is there no connection between "Vahagath" and this? This is one of our foundations. Every second thing in the Torah is a reminder of the Exodus.
If it is not certain that it was, it is not certain that anything is true.

And what is "supposed to be told in the Exodus"? A story is an experience, it's not a sequence of words that come out of your mouth.
Either you're there or you're not.

I'm pretty tired of this circular discussion. The answers are obvious and not always related to the course of the discussion. So I suggest that at this point we part as friends.

??

As for the question of religious education, see column 294, which will appear today.