Q&A: A Question That Bothers Me
A Question That Bothers Me
Question
Suppose that after I conduct comprehensive research with precise statistical data, it turns out that rabbis who teach faith through philosophical proofs end up producing more students/readers who, in the final analysis, lose their basic faith (for our purposes: God + revelation at Sinai), or at the very least stop observing Torah and commandments.
At the same time, those rabbis who appear on the Hidabroot channel (for example), or rabbis who tell Hasidic tales that never happened, or say various Kabbalah-for-the-masses kinds of things, cause their believing audience (judging by the bottom line) to observe Torah and commandments. (And it doesn’t matter what you call it—opium for the masses, simple faith, whatever you want.)
That is, in terms of “pragmatic truth,” the latter have outdone the former: they have more people who keep Torah and commandments. On the other hand, that truth may stem from naivete / ignorance, and it is not the desired truth.
I have Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz in mind. Take, for example, his approach to belief in the messiah—that in practice he will not come, because the whole idea is that he must always “be about to come.” Something like that can weaken the masses. Is it suitable for the masses at all? I keep thinking about the fact that Yeshayahu Leibowitz’s children ended up far from Torah and commandments, because maybe this method is not right for the public (even if it is correct), and perhaps it should be kept locked away in the proper safe.
Rabbi Micah Goodman, in his book on The Guide for the Perplexed, writes several times that Maimonides wrote The Guide for the Perplexed in an esoteric way so that only the few for whom it is suitable would understand it. This reminds me a bit of Spinoza’s view—he did not want to abolish the simple faith of the masses and believed that it was right for them to believe in their own way.
On the other hand, such an approach feels to me:
A. patronizing (only the educated can understand the divine truth)
B. in my view, it leaves a bad taste regarding the truth when it cannot be “marketed.”
Of course, I am asking the question on the conceptual level of “pragmatic truth” versus absolute truth, and also because I feel that you are idealistic in everything connected to spreading your approach, by publishing books, responsa, etc.—and from your perspective, the entire public should analyze and think using philosophical tools.
I hope the dilemma is clear…
Answer
The dilemma is clear, and I have answered several times what my position is. It is also clear from my actions.
Discussion on Answer
Especially since the Rabbi’s position is that with simple faith one observes the commandments of faith, and only someone who is afraid to investigate perhaps does not observe them and is considered an unwitting atheist—if so, maybe when educating the public it is preferable to foster simplicity…
I think Michi’s position is clear, and he has written it in the responsa several times, and there are also mentions of it in various posts.
At the same time, I think it would be right to devote a special post to this. The issue comes up several times, and it is definitely fundamental and should be clarified systematically.
You are asking about something that the entire Torah is built on.
See, for example, the post about holy lies (Column 21). There is no value to believing things that are not true. And in the long run, lies are not helpful, because in the end they are exposed. The response against the Enlightenment, too, was bans, condemnation, and emphasizing the “true” outlook, and the result was that the vast majority of the Jewish people became secular.
Can the Rabbi explain why, or link to something…