Q&A: The Source of Values
The Source of Values
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I’ve seen in several places that you argue that a religious worldview is rational, whereas a secular worldview is not rational.
You wrote that the values of secular people are not rational, since they come “from the gut” and not from an external source.
But even if, rationally speaking, there is a Creator of the world, there is no rational proof for the existence of Jewish law and the commandments specifically, and therefore when a person decides to observe commandments, he is making a value-based decision, not something completely rational. It is impossible to explain choices and decisions in a completely rational way, because in the end the decision also comes “from the gut.” So according to your approach, religious people are not rational either! They too decided to base themselves on a certain value (“from the gut”) and derive other decisions from it. One cannot claim about value judgments that they are “true” in the scientific sense, or that they are completely rational.
That’s it — I’d be happy for an explanation of why, in your view, religious people are indeed completely rational (as opposed to secular people..)
Answer
Hello Aviad.
Value judgments are not facts, of course, and they cannot be tested empirically. And still, there are correct and incorrect judgments. If you see them as mere whims, then it is not right to call them judgments at all, but just some arbitrary and meaningless pattern of behavior. When I adopt the value that murder is forbidden, I do not do so just because I feel like it. I do so because, in my view, that is the proper way to act, even though I have no way to prove or justify it. The alternative is that there is no morality, only behavioral whims.
Now the question arises: what can nevertheless serve as a basis for such a judgment? A person can decide to stand on one leg every morning and see this as a value-based obligation. That is an axiom, and as such it cannot be justified. And yet it still seems like an arbitrary action, and that is what it makes sense to call something that comes from the gut; therefore it is not reasonable to make that into a value (of course, if you just feel like it — by all means).
By contrast, a person who observes commandments is a person who is carrying out the commands of his Creator. That too, of course, cannot be justified, but it is still not baseless and arbitrary. When there is a commander, it makes sense to obey his commands. But values in a materialist world are laws without a lawgiver. What validity do they have? Why should someone who does not think that way act accordingly? What claim could you make against him? You are built one way and he is built another way.
Let us take an example of the difference between arbitrariness and lack of justification. Someone who accepts the axiom that one straight line passes between two points cannot justify it, but it still makes sense to hold it. I would not call that arbitrariness, or a decision from the gut.
To carry out commands when there is no commander is simply arbitrary nonsense. There is no command without a commander. Of course, the reverse is not necessary, because even if there is a commander who gave a command, it does not necessarily follow that there is an obligation to fulfill his commands. But the command is at least a possible basis for seeing this as a reasonable and correct decision rather than an arbitrary one — especially if the commander is God.
To fulfill God’s commands is a judgment that cannot be justified, but it is not arbitrary. Not every unjustified step is equally legitimate. By contrast, to see moral laws as values that obligate everyone within a materialist worldview is simply senseless nonsense. See my fourth booklet on the site, in the proof from morality.
By the way, even in the factual and scientific realm, when a justification is given for a claim, it is always based on assumptions, and those assumptions themselves never have justifications. So it is mistaken to think that rationality means adopting only proven claims. Rationality means adopting reasonable assumptions and deriving conclusions from them logically.