Answer

The intuitive perception that morality is binding is the point of departure. Now you arrive at the conclusion that, in your opinion, morality really is binding. But when you think about why, in your view, it is in fact binding (for without God there cannot be binding morality), the only answer is that you are implicitly assuming that God commanded it. This is what I called in the fourth notebook a “theological proof” (as distinct from a philosophical one). See there for a fuller explanation of this logic.

———————-
Questioner:
I already understood that as a result of the naturalistic fallacy, according to your view one cannot speak of morality without God. But I don’t understand why that is necessary. I propose that just as regarding causality we say it exists because we perceive it intuitively, so too regarding morality we perceive that there is such a thing as “the right,” and that this is something primitive and axiomatic. I don’t need to ask, “Why do I think it is binding?” It simply is so and needs no further explanation. It is strange to me that you don’t see it that way, because below you wrote, “A value is a value, that’s just what it is,” exactly like the axioms of geometry.
———————-
Rabbi:

I already explained exactly this, and I’ll repeat it once more.
There is a difference between recognizing that there is binding morality and wondering why it is in fact binding. Just as I see that a force of gravity is acting on some body, and that does not exempt me from asking who applies it. Or I see that there is a world, and I wonder who created it.

———————-
Questioner:
One more question, if I may.

Lately I’ve been opening up to existentialist philosophy, following the fact that many people I spoke to claimed that God’s existence is obvious to them. Some of them even had difficulty describing the totality of their experiences. I really understood them, especially since I too experienced this “mystical” thing during my two years in yeshiva. (By mystical I don’t mean some kind of eruptive ecstasy, though maybe that too is included in the overall experience.) Maybe the word experience is even too weak to describe the way they spoke; they described it as an authentic experience of most human beings (“they spoke less about the Jewish God”).
And whoever does not have those same experiences is like a child captured among non-Jews.
These descriptions reminded me very much of your parable of the blind person and the sighted one: the person who sees simply sees, and the blind person will not convince him otherwise because he does not understand.
I also started reading Martin Buber’s I and Thou and Heschel’s God in Search of Man, and I think they do describe a different experience there, but one very similar in the direction they arrive at.
I didn’t go into too much detail because I assume you know this approach better than I do.
I saw a few hints from you in the direction of existentialism, but I didn’t understand exactly what your attitude toward them is.
I’d be glad to hear your opinion about these arguments. (Maybe they wouldn’t like calling them arguments.)
———————-
Rabbi:
Someone who has such an experience can believe without arguments (indeed, that is the parable of the blind person). But there is no philosophical doctrine in this whatsoever. You feel it—good for you. When people turn this into a philosophical doctrine, it is usually psychology and not philosophy, or the existentialist wrapping covers over an ordinary philosophical doctrine. In my view, existentialism is not philosophy (precisely because there are no arguments there, only descriptions).

———————-
Questioner:
1. In the end, do we all believe that experience?

In your language, perhaps one could call it intuition.
You wrote a sentence in Truth and Stability that really struck me:

…and therefore, when all is said and done, belief in God is based on intuition—either an intuition that gives rise to the belief itself, or one that gives rise to premises that contain the belief, and therefore it can be derived from them by logical tools; this is also the meaning of proofs for belief in God…
So perhaps those descriptions they give are that same intuition, in the “perception” of God?

2. I also wonder whether maybe one does not need a philosophical doctrine, and it is enough to delve within our souls and arrive at these authentic experiences…

Maybe we are denying the authentic experience (which I believe most people experience) by engaging in philosophy.

I’m really confused. I’d be glad for help… and thank you for always answering my questions—it’s really important to me.
———————-
Rabbi:
In my books I explain this in detail (Truth and Stability, Two Wagons). Belief is intuition, and intuition is what also underlies our axioms in every field.

Delving inward into our souls requires caution. You need to think about whether what you find there is the desire to believe or the belief itself. It is important to distinguish between intuition and emotion.

As stated, there is no obligation to resort to philosophy. If you manage without it—good for you. The one who does need it is someone whose intuition does not directly yield belief, but rather premises from which belief can be derived.

In any case, to the best of my judgment, feelings do not stand on their own. It is preferable to subject them to rational-philosophical critique. But as I said, there are no rules here.

———————-
Questioner:
1. I’d be glad if you could give examples from the physico-theological proof and the cosmological proof of where they assume axioms based on an intuition of faith.

2. Can rational critique be a kind of safety tool for thought—whether what I find within myself is the desire to believe or belief?

3. If someone like me came to you asking questions about faith, would you try to awaken in him the intuition of belief in God?
———————-
Rabbi:
1. In every valid argument, the conclusion is hidden in its premises. I explain this whole matter in detail in the notebooks on the site. In the physico-theological proof, the premise that every complex thing has a creator already implicitly contains belief.
2. I already wrote that yes.
3. Yes. I would try using the various arguments from the notebooks.
We are repeating ourselves and grinding water. All these things were discussed at length in the notebooks; look there.