Q&A: The Rabbi’s Worldview
The Rabbi’s Worldview
Question
In light of two of the recent threads…
I’d appreciate it if you could lay this out in an orderly way. If I understood correctly, the Rabbi holds: a. that there is no divine intervention nowadays; b. that there is no necessity that there be redemption; c. that there is no necessity for reward and punishment (and if I understand correctly, also no necessity for life after death); d. as a derivative of this, or perhaps independently, the Rabbi thinks that the reason for observing the commandments is that fulfilling the Creator’s will is a value, and we observe them as a value; e. there is a rational reason to uphold values.
- It seems puzzling to me that God, who was involved in the lives of the generation of the Exodus from Egypt down to the smallest level of resolution (even if the revelations were to individuals, He spoke to them about every detail)—where they would eat, where they would sleep, etc.—suddenly decided to stop intervening in His world. And although I agree that not every falling leaf and not every person who missed a bus is divine providence… but to say that even things connected to the entire Jewish people—the Holocaust, the establishment of the State, and now the coronavirus—all of this happens without Him even noticing?
- God gave the Torah and commandments because… the Messiah is not relevant… reward and punishment are not relevant… just for values? That also doesn’t seem reasonable, since He commands punishing those who disobey Him—from the four death penalties of the religious court to karet and death at the hands of Heaven. If it’s only a value, then why punishment? Besides, in my opinion there is a tendentiousness being presented here: if He has an interest in punishing (and I hope the Rabbi agrees that karet and the like still apply today), that shows divine intervention in human life.
- Regarding the question discussed here—if the commandments are values, why do we need to observe them—the Rabbi answered that this is altruism, and that the Rabbi understands this as something basic in human beings that some people feel. The question is whether this is just some vague feeling, in which case one could say that whoever feels it will observe Torah and commandments and whoever doesn’t, won’t; or is there some rational insight here that can be proven logically? Especially since the opposing side, which claims that altruism stems from an interest in avoiding unpleasant feelings (maybe I’m wrong in calling that altruism…), offers a reasonable explanation (and I personally also believe it).
- The Rabbi wrote regarding altruism (about column 120):
[3] I emphasize that the term altruism here does not describe a moral approach but a description of a mode of human action. This is not a norm but a factual description of the way human beings act. The altruist believes that sometimes human beings act from a value-based motive and without compensation or self-interest.
So that means there is behavior that occurs because of a value, and let’s assume that’s true—but how does that relate to religious obligations, where I am obligated to realize them even when it doesn’t come to me spontaneously, as with altruism, and even when I have no energy or desire, or when I don’t see any value in the commandment at all? Unless the Rabbi is saying that in fact there is no reason to observe commandments toward which I don’t feel any value, or that I simply don’t feel like doing now—since what the Rabbi presents here is only an explanation of why people sometimes observe because of value, but not as a reason that gives constant and global validity and obligates me to observe.
P.S. What is the Rabbi’s position regarding the reliability of texts from the Prophets?
Answer
A. I have no indication that there is involvement. I cannot rule it out categorically. Sporadic involvement is possible. I do not know.
B. I do not know regarding redemption (because I do not know whether there is a tradition about this from Sinai).
C. Same.
E. There is no reason (rational or otherwise) to uphold values. By virtue of their being values, there is an obligation to uphold them. The reason for this is not something outside them.
- I didn’t say He doesn’t notice. I said it doesn’t appear that He is involved. Passive providence does exist. These matters have been discussed here at great length many times. I do not draw from a priori reasoning but from what appears through observing the world.
- What does “only a value” mean? And in your view, what is there? Why, according to your view, are there death penalties administered by a religious court? The prohibition of murder too (in the legal-moral sense) is only a value. Do you think it is therefore wrong to punish for it? You are once again confusing active and passive providence. If you want to get a picture of my view, you are invited to read my book No Man Rules the Spirit. Everything was dealt with there (and also here in several places).
- Apply what you wrote to morality. Whatever you answer there, I will answer regarding religious values. By the way, self-interest does not explain anything. It is an explanation of behavior, not of morality. This is explained in my book The Primary Existing, fourth discussion, part 3.
- Nothing obligates because it comes spontaneously. Not morality and not religion. It obligates because I understand that it obligates. “I feel like it spontaneously” is impulse, not a sense of obligation (= categorical imperative). See my reference in the previous section.
I’m not sure I understood the postscript. Obviously they are reliable, since they were accepted through prophecy (perhaps aside from various later additions). The big question is what they are saying, not whether they are reliable. The interpretations are so flexible that it is hard to draw any conclusion from the words of the Prophets.
Discussion on Answer
No. Someone who doesn’t understand that does not understand what a value is. It’s like explaining why I think a triangle has three sides.
And can you explain why you understand that a value is binding just because it is a value??