Q&A: The Enlightened vs. the Simple — The Test of Results
The Enlightened vs. the Simple — The Test of Results
Question
I’m not sure this question hasn’t already been asked, but since I couldn’t find it, I’ll ask it here.
Rabbi Michael Abraham says that every person should try to arrive at the truth in Judaism through rational, independent thinking, and not by relying on prior beliefs and preconceived opinions.
But it is known that during the Inquisition, those who gave their lives at the auto-da-fé and refused to convert were the simple people—the Jews who had simple, innocent faith in the Creator of the world—whereas the “rationalists” and enlightened people gave in immediately.
But why go back so many years? I look around me, at the people I know, at my friends. Heaven forbid, I’m not generalizing, but for the most part, the people who live with the Holy One, blessed be He, who live spiritually elevated lives, who are full of holy fire in every spiritual matter, and perform commandments with enthusiasm—those are דווקא the people with simple, innocent faith. And no, they are not the smartest people…
On the other hand, the smart and rationalistic people are, how shall I put it? Fairly “cold” in Judaism, fairly materialistic, not really into it…
And I wonder how it can be that, “by the test of results,” we apparently see that the people with simple faith—the second-class people in Judaism—are the ones who are more connected to God, much more than the “enlightened” and rationalistic people.
Something here seems wrong, apparently…
I’d be glad for an answer.
Answer
There are two levels of discussion here: the consequential one (if innocent faith leads to a more religious life, then it is preferable) and the principled one (how can it be that innocence goes together with deeper religiosity).
About that I would say that I have nothing against innocent faith. My objections are against someone who does not really believe and merely continues out of inertia. Someone who is seriously religious is probably a genuine believer and not just acting out of inertia. At the base of every logical argument stand assumptions, and those are grounded in intuition. So there is no obstacle to saying that faith itself is my primary intuition. There is no commandment to be a philosopher.
See column 395 and the discussion of the question here: https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%d7%94%d7%a8-%d7%a1%d7%99%d7%a0%d7%99%d7%90%d7%9e%d7%aa-%d7%90%d7%97%d7%aa
Beyond that, I do not accept the test of results. See column 62. It is easy to be very religious when religion, for you, is a kind of cult. A critical perspective is always more skeptical and more aware of flaws, deficiencies, and uncertainty.
Discussion on Answer
You are conflating two different questions. One question is whether a person seriously believes something. The second question is whether he is right, or whether it is the result of brainwashing. I was dealing only with the first.
The Rabbi writes here: “Someone who is seriously religious is probably a genuine believer and not just acting out of inertia. At the base of every logical argument stand assumptions, and those are grounded in intuition. So there is no obstacle to saying that faith itself is my primary intuition.”
But there are many people who are seriously religious, and their faith comes from the same place as, for example, their faith in Hasidic rebbes; and they have the same seriousness about that too. They believe that the rebbe has predictive powers, etc. So there too, would you say that this is not inertia but rather primary intuition?
Or perhaps there you can see that it comes from brainwashing and education and so on—so then their faith in the Creator of the world is the same thing: also not based on anything, but on an education not to ask questions, on faith above reason, and all sorts of other slogans.
In other words, when is it intuition and not absurd, and when is it just education and so on?