Q&A: A Question About the Train-to-Scotland Parable
A Question About the Train-to-Scotland Parable
Question
Good evening. I’m a student in Shiur V at X. From time to time I get to read articles you’ve written and listen to your lectures. I enjoy them מאוד and usually also manage, I think, to understand what the poet meant.
I wanted to ask about the train-to-Scotland parable that appears in Two Wagons, note 21, and also in the article “In Praise of Begging the Question,” which is lying around on the yeshiva’s computer network.
I understood that the main idea in these articles is that every proof has axioms, and therefore any proof can be refuted if I deny the axioms. But the question is whether I can really, sincerely deny the axioms and stay on the train to Scotland, or whether I’m only waving around the possibility of doing so.
I tried to draw an analogy from this nice claim to the argument from design, but it didn’t work out so well for me.
According to this model, if I truly and sincerely believe that there is no Creator and that everything here happened by chance, I need to be consistent with the consequences. But what exactly are they? Not to plan things? Not to save money?
As I understand it, that’s the obvious analogy, but I’m doubtful whether that is really a necessary conclusion from belief in blind evolution… or maybe it is? It seems to me that one needs a bit of knowledge about evolution here.
In short, this is where I got stuck. I’d be happy if you could help me close this gap for me.
And again, thank you, and more power to you for the lectures on the later authorities (Acharonim) and on the teachings of the Nazir. I enjoy them and learn a lot.
Sorry for the length. Good evening and happy holiday!
Answer
There is no need at all for knowledge of evolution. These matters are explained in detail in the fourth booklet on my website, see here. Mainly in the second part.
Briefly, I’ll say that if you think your cognitive faculties are accidental, then there is no reason to assume that they reflect the truth—that is, that they are reliable. Therefore you should not believe them. This is the “theological” version of the physico-theological proof. For details, see the entire booklet there, especially the second part. The ordinary physico-theological proof is discussed in the third booklet.
When you try to make an analogy and bring practical consequences—not saving money or not planning things—that isn’t right. The consequences mainly concern your perception of the facts, not the facts themselves. That is the essence of a “theological” argument, as I explain there.
To sharpen the point, in the third part of the booklet I discuss morality, and there too a person can behave morally even without believing in the Holy One, blessed be He, but he cannot be a moral person. A moral person is not someone who behaves nicely, but someone who behaves nicely because of the moral rules to which he is committed. That is not possible in a world without God.