Q&A: Judging Providence Favorably
Judging Providence Favorably
Question
Hello Rabbi,
First, I should say that I more or less accept your view of providence; it’s one of the things that helped me get my head straight when I had questions about religion.
As for the matter itself, it’s still not clear to me: suppose there is some unusual case, like the Six-Day War. True, it wasn’t an obvious miracle, but still it makes sense to say that the Holy One, blessed be He, intervened in it. Wouldn’t it be worthwhile to do here what we do with judging favorably—that if there is a reasonable basis, it is better to judge favorably rather than unfavorably, and not with crooked logic, as is well known—to prefer the option that the Holy One, blessed be He, intervened, say, in the war, because that fits better with faith (and it is more plausible that the Holy One, blessed be He, would perform a miracle for Israel when they are returning to their land, etc.)? I’d be happy to hear your opinion.
Answer
I have no idea what is preferable. There is no evidence in either direction. Preferences have nothing to do with truth, only with psychological appeasement.
Discussion on Answer
It depends on the context. If you have a consideration in favor of the claim, then this is not a matter of judging favorably but of a logical argument. But if you’re not offering arguments and are merely demanding that we judge favorably, then clearly that is only psychological appeasement.
The approach that if I feel “wow,” that is evidence that the Holy One, blessed be He, intervened, is problematic.
A wise Jew once said: either everything is a miracle, or nothing is a miracle.
And if you want to believe in miracles, then your sense of “wow” is probably very limited.
So judging favorably is psychological appeasement and not truth?