Q&A: The Commandment of Faith
The Commandment of Faith
Question
Hello,
The arguments (as brought, for example, by Rabbi Hasdai Crescas and as you wrote in the trilogy) that reject a commandment of faith are: A. A commandment presupposes that there is someone commanding, but that has not yet been proven; that is, a person is not obligated to believe, because first he has to reach the conclusion that there is someone commanding at all. (Of course the formulation can be sharpened; I wrote briefly.) B. It is impossible to command with respect to facts, because we are compelled by our thoughts.
Regarding the prohibition against engaging in the foundations of faith, you added in the trilogy two arguments: A. The same mouth that forbade is the mouth that permitted, with regard to reason. B. It is unreasonable to command someone not to clarify and delve into matters of faith.
So far, so good. But I have 2 questions:
A. You also brought Rabbi Hasdai Crescas’s two reasons against a commandment of faith as arguments for rejecting the prohibition against engaging in the foundations of faith. I did not understand why they are arguments against that:
- Regarding the logical point that a commandment presupposes someone who commands—after a person has reached the conclusion that he believes and accepts the laws of the Torah, what is wrong with saying that the Torah can command him not to investigate further? (Of course, assuming he has not already completely denied the Torah; then the difficulty returns, because we are back to the issue that there is no commandment without someone commanding.)
- Why is there here a problem of commanding with respect to facts? This is a completely normative commandment—for example: do not open books that you have heard contain heretical ideas.
B. I understand what practical difference comes out of the discussion whether there is a prohibition concerning the foundations of faith, but is there any practical difference at all to the discussion whether there is a commandment to believe?
Thank you very much!
Answer
- Investigation means examining my positions. You cannot command that. Someone who simply wants to read about the subject can of course be forbidden to do so.
- The command to believe is a command about facts. The command not to open books about faith is not reasonable for the other reasons.
Discussion on Answer
Of course I am talking about a situation where a person has already come to recognition of God.
(And one more clarification—my question is on the assumption that the 2 additional arguments do not exist [the same mouth that forbade is the mouth that permitted, and reasonableness], which I do accept.)
The problem is not logical in the formal sense. It is simply not reasonable to accept such a command upon yourself. Why should someone be able to forbid me from examining him himself? Why would I accept his words if I cannot check whether they are acceptable to me? That seems self-evident to me.
It’s like asking whether it is possible to command a terminally ill patient (who became ill because of unhealthy food) to eat healthy food.
The answer is that of course it is possible. Because it makes no difference for that terminal patient, but maybe there is a chance it will save someone who is not yet terminally ill.
Regarding 1—I understand why you cannot command a fact, but why can’t you command someone not to examine his views? Of course psychologically it is not simple (because if you tell someone not to think about something he will probably think about it more), but logically what is the problem?