No.
Actually, a distinction has to be made.
As for Leibowitz, you used an argument that he developed in his book, so it seems to me that my question is directed more at Leibowitz himself (why didn’t he draw the conclusion that this argument seems to require?).
As for Atlan, that was an indirect question: what does the Rabbi think of him? (Despite his good reputation, in a lecture he spoke about the question that occupied the Rabbi in his book without giving arguments; as is well known, he is a determinist and an admirer of Spinoza, etc.).

Ask something more concrete. I don’t see this as the place to write general opinions.

Hello Rabbi,
I forgot to come back and reply to you.
Regarding Leibowitz, my question was about the psychophysical problem. In your book you explain that we have no idea how mental processes occur (and no horizon for solving such a question), and therefore there is a tendency to conclude that there is something we may call a “soul,” “spirit,” and the like. You rely on an essay Leibowitz wrote, Body and Soul — The Psychophysical Problem. But in another book (Judaism, the Jewish People, and the State of Israel) he explains that he sees no reason to draw that conclusion. So basically, in your view, should one distinguish between Leibowitz the spiritual overseer of the Left and Leibowitz the scholar (similar to his own distinction between Maimonides the commentator and Maimonides the scholar)?

As for Atlan, you went into an analysis of levels of integration and different levels of explanation. So I’m puzzled that the Rabbi relies on him, because in my humble opinion Atlan’s remarks are confused. For example, in his view, if Maimonides were alive today he would write as one of the thirteen principles that there is no God (because in his view that is true, just as in Maimonides’ time the first three principles were true because of the near-total agreement with the words of Aristotle of blessed memory; if I’m not mistaken, your book was written against precisely this confusion. I disagree with him about Maimonides’ intent, but that would take us too far). In addition, in his view Judaism is not a religion in the modern sense (the Christian one from the time of Saint Augustine), but rather a religion in a sense similar to civil religion (like that of Rome), and our stories parallel the myths of Greece. He regards the entire Torah as myth and erases the “historical truth” embedded within it—not explicitly, but that follows from his words—and he compares completely different things: “the splitting of the Red Sea” and “Mary’s conception by the Holy Spirit,” between prophecy and shamanistic mystical experiences, and so on. This is only a sample, but I think the point is clear. I haven’t read the specific book from which the Rabbi drew this material (I relied on lectures and on the last book he published in French). Respectfully

Gershom, I’m not going into this matter again here, because I don’t remember. One thing I will say is that I do not rely on anyone, neither Leibowitz nor Atlan. At most I refer readers to them. Therefore I don’t see any point in getting into contradictions in Leibowitz’s thought, especially since you haven’t shown any contradiction here.
And even aside from that, I think all your remarks about Atlan are irrelevant.

All right.
But then what is relevant? In the lecture (I don’t have time to find the appropriate audio segment because it lasted almost two hours), he argues that today the claim “there is no God” has a status similar to the claims of the first three principles in the Aristotelian-Arabic schools (that is, that it is a “scientific” conclusion). Maybe the Rabbi is right that one cannot rely on something he said once, since his view regarding God is not clear. He follows Spinoza as far as possible and finds support in Kabbalistic sources; perhaps everything is explained more clearly in Sparks of Chance—I haven’t read it.

I didn’t mean to talk about his views at all. They are not relevant to the discussion. If you have something to say about an argument of mine or his—please say it. What do his general views have to do with the discussion of scientific reductionism?