Q&A: Learning from History – First Question
Learning from History – First Question
Question
Hello Honorable Rabbi,
In No Man Has Power over the Wind, the Rabbi writes that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not want to teach us anything through history (p. 288):
"Think of a teacher who tries to teach us something and fails again and again; you would certainly say that he is a rather dubious educator, would you not?
If the Holy One, blessed be He, is trying to teach . . . through observing history, it is clear that He has failed all along the way . . . especially if the failure is not our fault . . . the conclusion is that He probably is not trying to teach anything."
A question for the Rabbi:
The Rabbi has been trying to convey his messages for many years. There is no doubt that the Rabbi is a man with decades(?) of educational experience, with a quite developed intellect, and with credentials as well (a PhD in physics, etc.).
And yet, the Rabbi’s rate of influence is truly negligible.
Examples:
When one checks what atheists think about the Rabbi’s words on the subject of belief in God, it seems that the Rabbi is far from convincing anyone (readers are invited to look up reactions to the Rabbi’s words on atheist blogs or comments by atheists on the Rabbi’s statements around the web). But let us assume that the atheist public is a bad example (because it is a public that closes off its mind and heart).
So perhaps among the believing public the Rabbi will find salvation, at least on the subjects of divine providence that he presents?
Not really. The Rabbi does say that he knows stories of people whom he truly saved, and whose worldview he changed.
I do not doubt the stories, and I believe there are such people, but in my opinion no more than a few dozen at best (if the Rabbi knows that he changed the worldview of more than a few dozen, I would be glad if he stated that here).
My assumption is that among the Religious Zionist and Haredi public there are far more than a few thousand people (and probably even tens of thousands) who have been exposed to the Rabbi’s arguments on one platform or another (books, internet, personal conversations with the Rabbi, etc.), and only a very small percentage understood, internalized, and accepted what the Rabbi said. The Rabbi’s views are very interesting and many people read them, but again, the rate of acceptance and agreement is truly very low.
So my question to the Rabbi is:
What does the Rabbi conclude about himself when he tries to convey his messages and does not really succeed –
is the Rabbi a dubious educator?
I do not think so, but I would be glad to know what the Rabbi thinks about himself, especially in light of the Rabbi’s quotations with which I opened the question.
Best regards, Ehud
Answer
My explanation is very simple: either I really am a dubious educator, or the audience is biased (and of course a combination of the two: when the audience is biased, it takes excellent pedagogical ability to change its views). Exactly as I wrote in the book. It is just that with regard to the Holy One, blessed be He, those two possibilities do not seem reasonable.
Discussion on Answer
I explained everything in the book. If there is something concrete, ask it.
I would just be glad if the Rabbi would show me where he explains in the book that we are not biased.
I read the sections starting from page 288 through the end of that chapter (No Man Has Power over the Wind).
Personally, I have no doubt that we are biased, and part of that is our fault and our parents’ fault.
A baby born in Satmar will probably grow up thinking that Zionism = sin.
A baby born to secular parents will grow up thinking that Torah and observance of the commandments are for parasites who do not take responsibility for their lives.
The blame lies both with the parents/rabbis and with that person himself, who, once his soul reached a high enough level of maturity and he should have investigated deeply and understood what the absolute truth is (apparently Religious Zionism is closest to that), did not investigate enough and remained stuck in place.
I wrote that my assumption is that most rabbis are not biased. They have outlooks, of course, and those influence their understanding of events and texts, but outlooks are not biases. A person is the sum total of all influences upon him. Bias is supposed to be intentional (laziness, unwillingness to study, etc.). If an outlook, by its very existence, is a bias, then there is no unbiased person, and once again we return to the conclusion that the Holy One, blessed be He, is a problematic educator (He is trying to teach creatures who cannot learn. He should have known that).
In order to understand the Rabbi’s assumption more deeply, I would be glad to read more about where the Rabbi explains in his books the difference between an assumption and a bias (in the chapter on "we learn nothing from history" I did not see that).
In any case, I’ll take the risk in advance and bet against the Rabbi’s assumption. It is hard for me to say of a rabbi from Satmar who from age 0 hears in his ear that "Zionism is a sin," that he developed a pure outlook and that there is no bias here feeding that outlook.
I also did not really understand why atheists who disagree with the Rabbi are, specifically, considered biased (that is how I understood what the Rabbi wrote). I would be glad if the Rabbi could say why, from his perspective, atheists are different from rabbis.
And what about a secular person who from childhood grew up with statements like "religion is a dangerous and bad thing."
Is that not a bias?
And if I assume that God really does try to teach through history, then in the case of this secular person (a clear bias in my opinion), can one claim that God is a bad educator?
So from my perspective, the Rabbi’s whole assumption that we do not learn from history because we are "not biased" is incorrect. And from that it follows that the Holy One, blessed be He, is not a bad educator.
Hello Ehud. I really do not understand what is unclear here.
I explained here the difference, and in my view it is self-evident. The Rebbe of Satmar certainly did not hear this from infancy. He is the father of that approach. And even if he did hear it from infancy, that is not a bias, as I told you.
In short, if you think about it, you will see that I am right. I do not see any point in this discussion.
Okay. Just if the Rabbi (or one of the readers) can give a reference to where the difference between bias and outlook is written in the Rabbi’s books
As for the messages that God is trying to teach, it is a completely reasonable assumption that most people are biased. Because of this bias, for example, it is hard for Zionists to accept the relative truth found among the Satmar Hasidim, and hard for the Satmar Hasidim to accept the relative truth found among the Zionists (while the absolute truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
But I would be glad if the Rabbi would explain why he thinks it is unreasonable that people are biased away from the messages that God is trying to convey.
After all, the Rabbi agrees:
a. That we have free choice (and therefore it is reasonable to assume that we will be biased).
b. That the Torah itself testifies that we will be biased ("and do not stray after your hearts and after your eyes," etc.).
c. In practice, we see that there really is bias in the world against God’s view.
Best regards, Ehud