Question

Shalom Rabbi Abraham.
I read the Rabbi’s article about those who “leave religion.” I feel a strong identification with what was said there. I am personally struggling with these issues, and I am now reading the Notebooks of Faith that the Rabbi wrote. In all the frameworks in which I studied (religious high school yeshiva, hesder, etc.), these topics were treated as self-evident axioms, and frameworks that deal with these issues are considered inferior.
I would like to ask precisely about this phenomenon, ostensibly about God’s “will” for the believing person in our time.
I apologize in advance that my writing will not be characterized by logical or philosophical precision, and it is likely that the way I present things may contain flaws that stem from undefined terms. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that the Rabbi will be able to direct me to the real points in the issues I am raising.
According to what is described in the tradition, one gets the impression that at least the generation of the wilderness had a revelation that was certain for them, at least at the sensory level a human being needs in order to ground his faith. (Even though there is no absolute certainty about anything, as the Rabbi wrote in his introduction to the Notebooks.) Although according to Maimonides one could say that even prophecy is not a revelation, but rather a sharpening of the prophet’s senses to “receive” the constant transmission.
Nachmanides’ words are well known regarding why revelation in a more tangible form was a one-time event. In any case, my feeling is that when I look at most other “realities” that are not tangible, the ability to become convinced of them seems more reasonable. For example, the theory of energy transfer. Even though energy transfer without a medium by means of an electromagnetic wave may be puzzling, and despite the whole history of the transformations of the “ether,” it seems that most people can accept the theory with fairly high confidence, at least for now in their lifetime. This acceptance exists even if they are not expert in the details of the theory (Maxwell’s equations), and even if they are not convinced by its logic, and even if there are gaps in the explanation, and even if they are aware that in the future there may be another, better explanation.
A less “scientific” and more paradoxical example is the Rabbi’s book The Science of Freedom, the mind-body problem and the psycho-physical problem. Even though most people cannot explain in a logical, “scientific” way why they are not robots, it is clear to the overwhelming majority of them that they possess free choice that does not arise only from the system’s initial conditions or from environmental conditioning. People live with this contradiction, and it is very significant in their lives, even if they do not believe in God.
The divine reality cannot be compared to arithmetic, and of course this is only a parable. But when I stand and seek to ground my faith, I encounter difficulty. I know the popular formulation of the main “avenues” to faith: 1. Reflection on nature and the ideal concepts behind it (“the separate intellects”). 2. Tradition and the revelation at the giving of the Torah (the Kuzari). 3. Reflection on the history of the Jewish people. 4. Reflection inward on the personal existential aspect—for example, the Rabbi’s book The Science of Freedom; and as mentioned, I am now reading the Notebooks of Faith that the Rabbi wrote. The Rabbi formulates this in a more philosophical way: “the ontological, cosmological, and physico-theological arguments, … the ‘theological’ formulation of the physico-theological argument, and the moral proof.”
Still, out of a sincere desire to be faithful to Torah and the commandments and to God’s “will” in the world, I encounter great difficulty because God “hides” from one who seeks Him. The statement that we are in a period of “hiding of the face” might have been an answer if it also seemed plausible to me rationally and did not create a feeling of apologetic pilpul that you cannot really say much against. (Of course, I do not think it can be disproved.)
Is it God’s “will” to cause believers in our day doubts and confusion, to the point of a high probability of abandoning the path of Torah? This is a probability that indeed materialized in the period of secularization and the Enlightenment. Today, after all the old factors of “Torah and science” have been “resolved,” it has returned and is rising again lately in other directions.
It may be that most of humanity believes in deism, which in my opinion is very plausible and dulls the need for an answer to this question, because it does not demand action either. But with regard to theism (the last notebook), and especially belief that the Torah is from Heaven, even if there are paths that lead to that—and that is indeed where I want to be and feel comfortable—I still feel that the sources I know require a kind of self-suggestion from me. Perhaps it really is not plausible? Do all the rest of humanity, the finest among mankind, those without ulterior motives, not see it?
I know three main answers: 1. It is indeed a sharp test for believers; if faith were necessary, it would take away free choice (and as for “the generation of the wilderness”? They had other tests). 2. This is reality, just as we do not ask why the physical formulas were not revealed to us. 3. a. God hides from the world in order to allow it to “mature” and “exist.” b. This is a necessary “Hegelian” stage, in the spirit of Rabbi Kook, for the “benefit” of faith and the world, despite the destruction involved in it (though it still poses an enormous challenge to believers).
These answers do not satisfy me. The main reason is that we base the whole wealth of Judaism (Torah, Talmudic text, etc.) on one principal point that we think is only “sufficiently plausible.” As stated, even in the scientific analogy, we rely on axioms that are not fully understood, not certain, and not closed systems (like “larger than,” or like the Dirac function, which engineers kept using for many years before mathematicians succeeded in formalizing it). But the inner feeling, at least, is that they are plausible enough to build airplanes from them and to “force” others to live with their effects.
Shouldn’t our demand—at least toward Jews who are not religious to follow the path of Torah (and likewise toward the world)—be based on something very plausible, something that at least the finest among them might also accept? And not only on something that may be plausible but by definition cannot be refuted? (That is, faith is not something “irrational” or something “rational,” but a-rational.) (For the moment I am setting aside the very acceptable assumption to me that Providence arranged things so that there would not now be an ability to “demand,” until the generation is fit for it.) In general, if in this era it is impossible to “convince” anyone, how can one demand?
There is a secondary reason that troubles me. We believe that prophecy will return in the future. The feeling is that the idea of a prophet in our time seems implausible according to analytical tools and in the way we perceive reality (and not only because the generation is not yet fit and the spiritual reality has not yet ripened).
It is clear to me that there is no “knockout” argument and no absolute certainty in such matters, and I am not looking for that either, as the Rabbi writes: “Even in a case where each consideration on its own is seen by someone as relatively weak, the totality of the considerations can still attain a force beyond the simple sum of the strengths of the individual arguments. … It is also important to note that my goal here is not to arrive at certainty, but to present plausible arguments of common sense. For me, the test is whether the arguments I have raised hold water—that is, whether they are reasonable—not whether they are certain or necessary. They are not.”
Do most reasonable people, the finest among mankind, accept this body of arguments for the reality of God and for Torah from Heaven, even if only on the basis of “combining the considerations into an overall picture”? My main feeling is that this is not self-evident, and so the question becomes even stronger: if this is the rock of our existence, the foundation on which the whole tower is built— is it really plausible? And if so, why is it this way (if one is even allowed to ask), given the implications?
 
This fundamental question has been troubling me for a long time and, unfortunately, prevents me from opening myself easily to additional options for strengthening my personal sense of the divine reality. I would be very glad to hear the Rabbi’s opinion.
Thank you very much,