It’s a sense, because God implanted the basic assumptions within us, not that it’s literally so in the simple sense 😉 .
And a hint is enough for the wise?

If a person saw x and other people at x saw y, would the Rabbi just dismiss them outright and ignore them?! There’s something here that contains a contradiction, something impossible to rely on. A person who follows his own cognitive tool while ignoring others’ is blind to the data coming to him. Does the Rabbi hold that truth is individual?

A response to Rabbi Michi:
“Intuition is my tool . . . he mistakenly identified intuition with majority agreement, but that is not so.”

I don’t know what Rabbi Moshe Rat meant.
But factually, many people have mistaken intuition (factually, from the standpoint of absolute truth), even though from their perspective it is correct. For example, someone can have the intuition that it is very cold outside right now (say, minus 10 degrees) because of all kinds of indications, while in practice it is much more pleasant outside. But maybe that’s not a good example, because temperatures are a purely empirical matter (you can measure them).
I think that what Rabbi Moshe Rat may have been trying to say is that when so many people have an intuition about something that is not scientifically-empirically measurable (and perhaps not even logically?) pure—for example, factually, God—then the fact that many people who are not dependent on one another at all experience more or less the same intuition means that there is probably something very real there.

I’ll illustrate: suppose ten friends go on a trip in an isolated jungle.
If one of them feels that “someone is watching us” (intuition) and the others do not, then there is a very high chance that he is mistaken.
If nine out of the ten think that “someone is watching us,” then apparently they are being watched.

Now, you could tell me that if “intuition according to the majority” is what determines things, then the Jewish religion / faith is probably mistaken, because the majority does not hold like it. And it would already be preferable to convert to Islam or Christianity . . .

I can answer this in two ways:
1. If we take the jungle example, suppose I am an “oracle,” and I can know with certainty that no one is watching the ten friends passing through the jungle (even though nine of them are intuitively sure that someone is), then I can know with certainty that they are all mistaken.
In the case of the Jewish religion / faith, no one has shown that it is mistaken.

2. The Holy One, blessed be He, built the world this way (and here perhaps I am begging the question), that intuitively each soul will be connected to its own place, and therefore, in the case of Jewish faith, at present it is normal that only such a tiny part of the world has the intuition that Jewish faith is the right thing.

3. Jewish faith is today responsible for most monotheistic belief in the world. But no serious person would deny that Christianity and Islam are derivatives of the Jewish religion. Therefore, in that sense, the Jewish religion / faith does to a certain extent lead the intuition of the whole world, certainly of most of the world that has been seriously exposed to the Jewish people for centuries (the Western and Muslim worlds).

I’d be glad to hear the Rabbi’s response, if he sees fit

Thank you very much for the quick (very quick) response.
I wanted to know, according to this, what the relationship is between feelings and my cognition. Do my feelings build intuition?
And also, according to what you say, the concept of “this is how I feel” is a bit slippery, because according to everything above, there is nothing that can be said of it, “it is true,” since someone will come and say, I feel differently. And the only thing left to say is: “If you accept my basic assumptions, then this is the correct thing to say.” And then according to that, a person who believes in murder, and feels that it is the right thing to do and fitting for every person (let’s say that according to his view the world is cruel and death is preferable), is one hundred percent right and should go out on a killing spree.
Thanks,

Hannah and Seven,
There is a difference between sensory cognition and ethical cognition and the like. Ethical truth is not subjective, but there are quite a few disagreements about it. The very existence of disagreements shows that everyone agrees there is truth (otherwise, what are they arguing about?!).

Ehud,
If Moshe Rat meant to say that, he should not have hung it on my words about intuition. He should have argued that many people are not mistaken, period (without any connection to the question of whether I believe in intuitions or not).
Your three excuses regarding Jewish faith do not answer the difficulty at all:
A. I didn’t understand the claim. No one has shown that the Jewish religion is mistaken, but many think so. That is exactly our discussion. If there are proofs, then you don’t need intuitions or agreements.
B. But most of the world thinks differently from you about this too.
C. Even if you take Christianity and Islam into account, most of the world is still outside of that.

Reuven,
Feelings are not related to the issue. Feelings are emotions, not cognitions. If I love or hate someone or fear someone, what does that say about reality? Nothing.
You are mixing up the question of whether there is truth with the question of whether one can persuade someone about it. And in general, how does one argue and persuade regarding basic assumptions according to your view? Why is this connected specifically to my words?

A. Well, if ethical truth is not subjective, then the Rabbi has to take strangers’ intuitions into account. And not only his own!!
B. As for what the Rabbi wrote, that the very argument testifies to agreement about truth, it should be noted that there are endless arguments about tastes and smells, even though the Rabbi admits that this is subjective. Which teaches us that the mere existence of an argument does not teach us about some truth hidden from us that we are trying to locate, but overall just that each person is shouting what he feels or experiences. Note: here other people’s opinion does count in the Rabbi’s eyes, and for some reason regarding what Moshe Rat said—that others count—the Rabbi said that was a mistake.
C. A question on which, it seems to me, much ink has been spilled: when do we know whether the subject before us is objective or subjective?

I’m mainly trying to understand what exactly is meant by intuitively sensing something. If I’m afraid, then obviously I feel; but when I sense, for example, that there is divinity in the world—what’s the difference? Why does that become cognitive?
I can’t manage to distinguish between them:)
Thanks,

Hello Rabbi Michi,

1. Faith has no empirical-scientific proof, nor logical proofs, in either direction. There is evidence, which is subject to a person’s judgment (judging the evidence is called “free choice”).
When a person is in doubt, even though intuition says that there is God and providence, then the fact that most of the world believes in God and providence (at least on a certain level) can be evidence that his intuition is correct.
By analogy to those in the jungle, if you add to my intuition (that we are being followed) the fact that most people feel that way, that is evidence that I am right and not hallucinating. Up to here regarding faith and God’s providence (in general).

2. As for Judaism, most of those who are supposed to be connected to this faith—Jews—do believe. Fact.
Not everyone is spiritually built for this faith. That is the explanation for why most people do not convert, even though there is enough evidence that this faith comes closest to the truth. Just as not everyone is built to be a pilot or in the General Staff Reconnaissance Unit.

3. Regarding the fact that most of the world does not believe as a derivative of Jewish monotheism, the answer is: until not long ago the world was divided in two: on the one hand, the Western world and the Middle East. On the other hand, the Far East (with all its beliefs / religions).
Because the interaction between the worlds was weak (until the last centuries / decades), one can say that Jewish faith did not influence there. But where Judaism did interface, you can see its amazing influence (Christianity and Islam), and there the majority does believe thanks to us. Another piece of evidence for the collection.

Hannah,
A. Absolutely not. At most, you take them into account when forming your position. But in the bottom line, what I think is what is correct for me.
B. If people argue about tastes and smells, they assume there is a correct answer and argue about what it is. If it is a subjective matter, then there is nothing to argue about: I like it and you don’t. That’s it. Other people’s opinions don’t count in my eyes in this case either, and certainly are not decisive. I am simply pointing out that even according to your own view, the fact that there are arguments proves nothing, perhaps even the opposite. That is what they assume.

C. I have no criteria. When do we know whether what is before us is a real mirror or an illusion? When you feel that it is real, then it is real until proven otherwise.

Reuven, there is no problem of distinction here at all. Emotion says nothing whatsoever about the world. It’s like asking what the difference is between seeing and imagining. When you experience imagination or sight, you know that that is what it is.

Ehud,
1. Judging evidence is not called free choice. It is judgment / discretion (I discussed the similarity between them in column 35 and 175), and as in every field (and not only in faith), a person is supposed to form a position using his own judgment.
The fact that the majority believes can be taken into account as in any other field. But in the bottom line, after I have taken that into account, I form my own position. I already wrote that for my part, when the majority thinks in a certain way, my assumption is that they are mistaken unless proven otherwise (of course, somewhat by way of exaggeration, but the point is clear).
2. Let’s not argue about those “facts.” I don’t agree with them. And it is also really not important, because I asked what you would say if the facts were different.
3. An endless number of after-the-fact excuses cannot cover over one simple fact. You do not accept the majority opinion. There are always excuses for why they miss the mark. That of course may very well be true, but bottom line, you do not accept the majority opinion—just like me. See on this in column 247-8.

Thank you to Rabbi Michi for the reply. I’ll summarize from my point of view:
It is easier for me to accept the majority opinion when it fits with my intuition. Then the fact that the majority is like me is evidence for the correctness of my intuition.
If there is a contradiction between my intuition and the majority opinion, it is a bit more complex.
An example of a case where I went with my intuition against the majority opinion (which included many diplomatic-security experts):
I opposed the disengagement even though the majority opinion (including “security experts”) was that it would improve the situation in the south.
True, I did weigh the fact that the majority opinion was against my intuition as evidence against my intuition, and still I decided against that evidence.
An opposite example:
I accept the majority opinion in science, in certain fields, even if it goes against my intuition.
In that situation, because of the limitations of my intellect and time, I do indeed have to weigh “the majority is right” as evidence against my intuition.

In the case of faith, specifically, my intuition fits amazingly well with what is happening:
1. Most of humanity believes in God and providence (even if they conceive of Him differently).
2. Most Jews believe in God and providence.
Thank God, I have no disagreements here, and therefore my intuition about God and providence gets additional evidence (the majority is with me), in addition to the fact that for every difficulty that comes up, like what you asked, there are serious answers and not forced excuses.

Here is evidence that most Jews believe (even if they are not religious):
https://www.haaretz.co.il/news/education/.premium-MAGAZINE-1.8055976
https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4180860,00.html

With God’s help, 26 Kislev 5780

The belief of most of the world in providence does not stem from intuition, but because that is what the sacred scriptures testify, as adopted by the monotheistic religions.

However, the question whether there is an intellectual proof for providence concerns only one who does not believe in Torah from Heaven. The Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings testify in many places that God watches over His creatures. Maimonides brought many sources in Guide for the Perplexed, Part III, chapter 17. He says there explicitly that there is no philosophical demonstration for providence, but the testimony of the sacred scriptures is decisive, and justice also requires that the Holy One, blessed be He, not leave His world ownerless—“there is no justice and no judge.”

Providence comes in most cases in a hidden way, both because the Holy One, blessed be He, does not directly collide with the “laws of heaven and earth” that He established, and generally will not make breasts grow on a man so that he can nurse, but will save him through natural scenarios—the finding of health for his wife or the finding of a livelihood so that he can hire a wet nurse—and also because He has much patience before Him in order to allow a person to arrive by his own powers at repentance and correction. That was the case in the biblical period and so it is in our own day—open miracles are not an everyday matter.

After all, the essence of the festival of Hanukkah and the Hallel recited for it is the victory over the Greeks and the restoration of the Temple, which was achieved by natural means. It began with successful war tactics by means of which the Maccabees won the first battles. In the decisive battle that brought about the liberation of the Temple, the Maccabees actually lost, but the Greeks were forced to retreat because of internal conflicts in the capital of the empire. Every detail has a natural explanation, but the overall course points to a guiding divine hand.

With blessings for an illuminating Hanukkah, Shatz