Q&A: Is Christianity a Rational Religion?
Is Christianity a Rational Religion?
Question
Hello and blessings to dear Rabbi Michi.
I have a question I wanted to ask—what does the Rabbi say about this?
What is the Rabbi’s opinion about Christianity from the standpoint of logical consistency?
It seems to little me that Christianity is not rational, but perhaps that is because this outlook has been instilled in me for such a long time.
There is an impression that great thinkers were devout Christians—like Descartes, like Kant, like Pascal, Newton… and many more along those lines.
What does the Rabbi think—is Christianity, by definition, logically acceptable?
Answer
It’s all a matter of empathy. Judaism too is not consistent if you look at it from the outside. And someone who believes in it reconciles the issues (in ways that sound forced to someone looking from the outside). So these critiques of Christianity always seemed foolish to me. I think I once mentioned here an article published in Tzohar (1 or 2), containing a chapter from a book with several critiques by Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook of Christianity. An astonishingly foolish and childish text.
Discussion on Answer
Certainly. It is no different from a divine point within every Jew, or “the Holy One, Israel, and the Torah are one.” Words, words—one can give them as many different meanings as one likes. There is no point in saying them, and even less in engaging with them.
What follows from Michi’s words is as though all religions (and cultures? and ideologies?) are rational in exactly the same degree or manner. Because everything is a matter of “empathy.”
In my view this is a very weak position. On the contrary, when Michi addresses Daniel’s concrete question, he actually demonstrates, in my opinion, the methodological flaw underlying it:
The attempt to place the principle of incarnation in Christianity, expressed in “the Son of God,” alongside parallel examples in Judaism makes for an incorrect comparison. In Christianity this “incarnation” occupies a more central place and is anchored in its foundational text. By contrast, the examples of “incarnation” that Michi brings are relatively marginal and indirect—that is, they do not serve as the central pillar of Judaism. One can of course dispute that last claim as well, but it is hard for me to see how it can be undermined.
These remarks are not meant to determine which religion is “more rational” (although I do have my own view on the matter), but only to point to what seems to me the more logically sound form of discussion.
I completely understand.
So as a working assumption I’ll set aside the conversion of our religion into another religion, and all the philosophical difficulties that arise from that.
In the Rabbi’s view, theoretically, can the incarnation of God in a human being be reconciled a priori? (I mean in terms of consistency, regardless for now of whether it’s true or not.)
Doesn’t that belong to the category of impossibilities?