Q&A: Inquiry and Investigation Regarding Other Religions
Inquiry and Investigation Regarding Other Religions
Question
Hello Rabbi,
In an argument I had with a secular person, he claimed that there are religions even larger than Christianity, such as Buddhism and others in East Asia, and seemingly why shouldn’t we examine them too.
My question is whether it is correct to say that since we have examined Judaism as much as possible, there is no point in checking all the other possibilities, or whether that is not a valid claim.
Whenever someone claims again (as he claimed to me) that there is another large nation, however large it may be, that also claims revelation, and was also willing to give its life for that to the point of mass suicide for that religion—would intellectual honesty and fairness require us to examine again whether this does not contradict our religion, to investigate that nation, and to find differences between our tradition and theirs in order to prove the truth of our religion? Or is it possible to reach the conclusion that our religion is true in a way that rules out claims of other religions, without having to reexamine and compare every time?
Thank you very much.
Answer
It’s impossible to set rules for this, but in principle one should certainly take the various possibilities into account. However, when we need to make a decision, we do not always have the ability to examine all the possibilities. Therefore, decisions have to be made under conditions of uncertainty. It depends on how much time and opportunity we have to investigate, how serious the other options seem to us, and how convinced we are by our own option.
One can make an initial inquiry and ask, for example, what the logical basis of that view/religion is (for example, was there revelation or not), and then decide whether it is worth examining further. Again, there are no rules here. By the way, the size of the nation is not relevant. Why should size change anything?
—————————
Questioner:
The more people believe in a given religion, the more reason there is, in my opinion, to investigate it, because it has undergone more scrutiny by people who were exposed to it. Of course, that still does not mean it is true, only that there is more reason to examine it.
By the way, it seems to me that you yourself, in the fifth notebook, referred only to rejecting the two other religions—Christianity and Islam. Logically, it does not seem reasonable to relate to every small group of people that starts a sect.
Once the Torah has been proven true for us, and it claims that God will not replace the Torah in any way, and that He made an eternal covenant with Israel—doesn’t that automatically rule out any other religion?
Likewise, according to this, how are we to understand the logic of the Sages, who forbade reading external books? Were they simply afraid we would be corrupted? Weren’t they themselves striving for truth?
Thank you.
—————————
Rabbi:
Christianity and Islam were discussed because they are monotheistic, not because of their size.
As for the prohibition of the Sages, I do not know. It may be that they assumed that someone who obeys this prohibition either does not know how to think, in which case it is good that he not engage with such things, or that his faith has already been formed and he has no need for it. Either way, it is clear to me that as far as I am concerned, this prohibition—even if they meant it seriously—is unfounded and does not exist.
—————————
Questioner:
And what is your opinion regarding the first question?
—————————
Rabbi:
I already answered that the previous time. If you are one hundred percent convinced, then you are exempt from checking the alternatives. Personally, I do not see how one can reach conviction at that level. Each person makes his own common-sense calculation between the level of conviction in the current option and the other options.