Q&A: Concern in Philosophical Inquiry
Concern in Philosophical Inquiry
Question
I heard your claim that there is not so much to fear from philosophical inquiry, since it merely reveals whether I already believe; so if it reveals that I am a heretic, that is really just a retroactive discovery, and if so, why be afraid.
Indeed, that is a convincing claim. But I am concerned that the opposition to rational inquiry is because perhaps a person will get confused in the course of the inquiry. That is, he really is a believer, but because of logical arguments he will identify faith incorrectly. But that is not a retroactive discovery; it is the product of confusion.
My question: how do you deal with the argument based on this concern? And do you have a way to reduce the concern?
Answer
Only by investigating carefully. A person can get confused in both directions; if we worry about confusion, then we have nothing to do in any direction. A person is required to do the best he can. What is the alternative? To believe because you tell him to believe? But the Pope tells him not to believe.
Discussion on Answer
Meaning, if you were born Hindu, stay Hindu. If you were born pagan, stay pagan. Well, that alternative doesn’t sound very reasonable to me.
You’re right. I take it back (and look, I was born X and ended up at Y…)
🙂
And look, the Rabbi still was born Jewish and remained Jewish. What are the statistics on people who examined their faith and, by that alone, were influenced on the matter of religion? (If that can even be checked at all.) Does the Rabbi know people who examine religious questions rationally without leaning to one side? The question-begging here is so enormous that even after volleys of arguments from the non-Jewish side, a person who is still religious and does not have the desire to “go secular” will invest all his strength in throwing them off. I still have not seen a person who is really troubled by difficulties on the non-Jewish side. It’s rigged from the start. It’s like when you argue with geniuses: they always have explanations for their own position. So how is it that they do not answer the questions that exist against the opposing position? Because they don’t feel like it. There is an interest at stake. Who wants to come out a loser? Who does?! The Rabbi can say, “What is your alternative? To be dumb, obedient people?” And I ask, what is the Rabbi’s alternative? To be obedient to his own intellect? The intellect is of no use when people come with prior inclinations and interests to justify the heritage and tradition of their family and nation. It is simply of no use.
If you were born Hindu, stay Hindu. You are Hindu because you are Hindu. Why let a biased judge decide for you?
The alternative is to remain in the initial conditioning of faith