Q&A: Questions in Faith: The Argument from Testimony
Questions in Faith: The Argument from Testimony
Question
Hello to the honorable Rabbi, may he live long and well,
I recently discovered that my roommate in yeshiva defines himself as an agnostic. It seems to me that he was burned out and dimmed by the questions of the atheists, especially the atheists on the internet. He told me that the rabbi in the yeshiva asked him not to think about these questions over the next two months. But in any case, I asked him about his reasons…
The attack he finds against the argument from testimony is roughly like this; I’d be interested to hear what the Rabbi thinks about it.
It is a well-known and famous thing that every nation once had its own mythology and myths.
Of course, it is important to remember that the Torah was only written in a later period. So in practice, the Torah scroll as we have it reflects an edited collection of the mythologies that circulated among the people.
As a result, this book of mythology (= the Torah) was accepted over time among the Jews. And along with that, what is written in the Torah also came to be regarded as history. That is to say, over the years a blurring developed between history and mythology.
Likewise, he argues that the Torah is very mythological, and in many mythologies there are stories of revelations and gods. He claims that the Hofesh website brings them at length.
It seems to me that there are a few assumptions here that are not clearly correct.
A. He distinguishes between mythologies and history by saying that in the past, nations did not think their mythology was true, but merely legend. (Because if they did think it was true, then the question does not even begin in the first place.)
B. That the Torah is built like the mythology books of their time.
—
I argued to him that I’m not sure about these assumptions, and as far as I know, for example, there are no revelation stories in most mythologies, but he claims that atheist websites bring lots of mythologies with revelations.
In any case, my basic claim is that such an interpretation sounds strange and overly complicated. I didn’t know how to answer why it’s wrong, aside from the fact that it simply sounds improbable and too complicated, there are no references to it at all, etc.—so if so, why take the testimony away from its plain meaning?
You only take testimony of a reliable type out of its plain sense if we assume that miracles and revelations cannot happen—but why assume that?!
What does the Rabbi think about the issue and about his argument?
Answer
These are common claims, and I do not agree with them. There is a big difference between the revelations described in the sources they bring (and there really are not that many. And even among those that are brought, many are distorted and very tendentious) and our revelation. Beyond that, in our case this joins many other considerations in favor of the reliability of the tradition. In the fifth booklet I tried to explain my position, but it will appear in a more complete and fuller form in the book (the first in the trilogy) when it comes out.
By the way, it seems to me there is a thread on the site that deals with other revelations, and the various claims came up there.
Discussion on Answer
When is the trilogy coming out? What does it include?
Hanoch,
A. Indeed. All the considerations that appear there.
B. As long as he has not made a clear decision and is only in doubt, there is room to discuss it. And perhaps this is a case of doubt. https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%AA%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%99%D7%94%D7%95%D7%93%D7%99%D7%AA/; someone cited a responsum of Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach saying that even a secular person can enable others to fulfill their obligation, on the side that he does believe. I completely do not accept that, because what determines it is what the person decides, not the different sides he has in his mind. But here it seems there is no decision, and in pressing circumstances there is room to rely on Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach. I would be cautious about it. The presence of the kippah makes no difference for this issue.
Methuselah,
Three books: 1. Philosophy (from proving God to halakhic commitment). 2. Jewish thought. 3. Jewish law and meta-halakhah.
A. The additional considerations you mean are that there is a God and it is reasonable that He wants something, there is free choice, and morality does not seem to be the goal, and so on?
B. I have a question not related to the topic itself but in Jewish law regarding him:
What does the Rabbi think—can a person like him fulfill someone else’s obligation in commandments, under the law of mutual responsibility?
When he defines himself as an agnostic. He hardly prays at all aside from the recitation of Shema and tefillin (Torah-level obligations).
And when he does pray he says (that’s what he claimed to me), “God, if You exist, then may it be Your will that…”
On the other hand, he studies in yeshiva, and there is almost no chance that he will take off his kippah (family pressure, social pressure, etc.).