Q&A: On the motivation for a philosophical explanation of religion in a culture where reason has died
On the motivation for a philosophical explanation of religion in a culture where reason has died
Question
Hello,
I see the Rabbi's profound books on questions of religion and science, such as God Plays Dice and The Science of Freedom, and I ask myself whether this would convince an atheist to come down from his devout faith in the religion of atheism.
I do not believe that heresy comes from philosophical evidence but from a desire to deny. I don't know a single person who became religious or left religion because of philosophical arguments; usually a change in religious outlook comes from a psychological desire and not from a "cold intellect."
The question is whether there is any need for philosophical discussions to prove religion, since in any case people do not want to listen. I speak with many atheists who are considered educated people, and philosophical arguments really do not speak to them. They may be looking for cheap existentialism or for "proof beyond doubt," so is there any point in trying to prove faith in a time when reason has died?
Maybe it would be better to market religious existentialism?
Answer
I disagree with you.
First, regarding the diagnosis. I know many people who, in my estimation, abandoned religion because of questions that were difficult for them. How do you know that everyone you know leaves because of desire? Just as an exercise, think whether this interpretation that you give to their leaving is not itself only because of your own desire (to see them as mistaken due to impulse, and to see religious judgment as necessarily correct). This is of course connected to my latest column (whether there are altruistic acts). You assume that their action is based on impulse or interest and not on belief and values. Why not assume this about yourself as well (you, who decided to remain religious)? And if indeed everything is based on wishes and desires, then truly there is no point in discussion and nothing to judge, evaluate, or condemn. That empties not only the search for proofs of content, but faith and heresy themselves as well. That is what I wrote there.
Second, even if you were right, the fact that people bother to ask questions and investigate means that although desire is the basic motivation driving them, they still also need intellectual assistance for the step they are about to take. A person is a rational and intellectual creature, and likes to feel that he acts on logical considerations and not merely out of whims. Therefore there is definitely reason to try to answer difficulties, because if there is no intellectual support, then even if the desire remains in place, the step may not be taken. In general, a person is a complex creature. You cannot say that he takes a step only because of desire or only because of intellect. Both because one cannot know, and because usually it is not true. Therefore, why do you involve yourself in the hidden matters of the Merciful One? You should answer what you can, and the decisions will be made however they are made.
By the way, in my experience, those who explain that all the questions are really answers (you know the type?) and that one should give warmth and love and not answer difficulties, are usually the ones who have no answers and cannot cope. The easiest thing for them is to explain that they are the most right without giving reasons, and to attribute the other person's thinking to desires, impulses, and biases.
Discussion on Answer
First, I really do think that I am religious for emotional reasons, and I "prove" to myself with philosophical arguments that I am right. I imagine that if I had been born Christian I would find "proofs" for the truth of Christianity. I do not think secularity comes from wickedness, from a desire to cut down the saplings. Seemingly, Jewish secularization did not begin from philosophical questions but from idealistic aspirations that did not find their fulfillment in religion. My claim is that in order to bring Israelis back to repentance, there is a need to delve deeply into Torah study, to clarify whether the Torah can provide an answer to the problems of the present time. Perhaps in that way it will be possible to bring them back to repentance.
By the way, this is also an opportunity for us, the religious, to ask ourselves whether our Torah is "developed enough" and whether it will provide an answer to the questions of modernity.
Moreover—and this is the main point, in my opinion—to market only "religious existentialism" means the person is not a believer. A person who has only feelings and emotions, but in his intellect does not believe, is not a believer. Therefore the foundation is the intellect, and only at the second stage can one invest in experiences and emotions.