Q&A: Are We Expected to Be So Smart in Order to Believe??
Are We Expected to Be So Smart in Order to Believe??
Question
Hello and blessings, honorable Rabbi,
From the little I’ve heard of the Rabbi’s words, it came across to me that faith is a rational matter that can be reached intellectually, even if it is not a scientific proof. I hope I understood correctly. In any case, the idea that faith is rational seems to me not to fit the Torah’s view. After all, according to tradition, the Torah was given to all of Israel—to wise people, fools, and every type in between. And it seems puzzling that only one in a thousand, or one in a million, would arrive at the intellectual conclusion that there is a God—what about everyone else? Not only fools, but even any ordinary person who doesn’t have a high level of intelligence, or whom the topic does not occupy enough, or who doesn’t have enough free time to engage in it, will not arrive at this conclusion. Rather, it would seem that the Torah presents belief in God as something simple, and one should rely on the tradition in this matter, as is written many times in Deuteronomy: “Ask now of the former days…” and much more besides—that faith is handed down from father to son.
This question also applies to Maimonides, who based faith on logical, intellectual proofs, yet he too explicitly wrote that the masses believe without proof and should accept things as they are. But seemingly this itself proves that the Torah was not given only to great sages who would arrive at conclusions, but through tradition—as Nachmanides wrote, that faith is built on the tradition of the miracles that took place at the Exodus from Egypt.
I hope I have explained the question properly.
This is also an opportunity to thank you for the enriching and enlightening content that opens the eyes of the blind.
Thank you very much, and have a good day.
Answer
The fact that this is a rational matter does not mean that everyone has to be a philosopher. Some people are satisfied with religious intuition, and that is perfectly fine. Others require more detailed arguments. Each person according to his level. The Torah also requires observance of Jewish law, which is not fully possible for every person.
Tradition is an entirely rational argument. There are challenges to tradition, and there are also answers. But if tradition satisfies someone, there is no problem with that at all. He is a rational person.
In various fields of science as well, we accept things from experts even when we do not have the ability to verify them ourselves. The layman makes an external judgment whether to believe this expert or that one. So in matters of faith too, this path is possible.
Discussion on Answer
What about Maimonides, who argues that only a wise person can be righteous, and that the ultimate purpose is knowledge of the truth, which is the World to Come, attained through acquiring wisdom?
The claim that one must be wise in order to be “religious” or a “believer” is not a new claim. Maimonides even takes it to an extreme.
What he does claim, though, is that the commandments prepare a person for wisdom. And all the commandments against idolatry, necromancy, and sorcery are meant to keep a person from being foolish, believing nonsense, and sinking into stupidity.
And the commandments meant to restrict a person, such as kashrut, are meant to keep him from sinking into the pleasures of life and abandoning the pursuit of wisdom.
Tomer,
Is it news to you that there are differences of opinion among people? To the best of my judgment, discretion is not forced upon a person. See column 175.
And still, if a person chose wrongly according to the best of his understanding, he does not deserve punishment. There is no contradiction here to the Torah’s punishments. Those are for someone who transgresses out of temptation.
Anything can mislead, and we have no better tool than intuition. So all one can do is try to avoid being misled, and the Torah was not given to ministering angels.
A,
First, I owe Maimonides nothing. I am stating my own opinion, not his. Second, I agree with Maimonides on this, and there is no contradiction here to what I said. It is written in the Mishnah, “An ignoramus cannot be pious.” But faith can also exist in an ignoramus.
Hello Rabbi, thank you for the answer,
In light of what you wrote, that “the layman makes an external judgment whether to believe this expert or that one,” it would seem that a person’s decision is based on the more persuasive argument. It may be that for one person the first argument is more convincing, and for another the second argument is more convincing. For example, in matters of faith, the question is: if I study this issue as far as my mind can reach and become convinced of a certain side, is that decision forced upon me? If, for example, I become more convinced that there is a God, do I even have the power to choose another option? And if not, then the entire foundation of the Torah regarding the choice given into a person’s hand is not true. Put simply, God cannot punish the heretic or give reward to the believer, and the whole Torah collapses.
I assume you have certainly dealt with this issue, and perhaps there is a book about it, but I haven’t found one yet, and I would be glad to settle this troubling matter.
As for what you wrote, that some people are satisfied with religious intuition and that this is perfectly fine—after all, intuition can mislead or lie. If so, it could be that intellectually I understand that the Torah is not from Heaven, for example, but I have a strong desire for a sense of belonging and an anchor in this world, and therefore I am drawn to believe that the Torah is from Heaven, information from the Creator teaching me what I am supposed to do in the world. However, it may be that this stems from some psychological problem I have, and I ought to treat it rather than project this problem onto the Torah and, because of it, decide in favor of the Torah—for there is no basis for this. And if that person goes to therapy and is healed, or finds belonging and an anchor elsewhere in the world and no longer needs the Torah, he will abandon it. It follows that the basis of Torah was false and never really existed to begin with. Therefore it seems that the Torah must have a rational and sound basis, without emotional tendencies that may stem from psychological problems whose proper treatment is on the psychologist’s couch or by taking medication. Therefore, to base faith on weighing arguments for and against, and finding myself more convinced by the side in favor—even though it is impossible to prove that it is really true, and it may also be that my rational decision has some emotional [and unhealthy] bias—still, I have no way to know that, and I rely on it because at least there is some basis here. Or I rely on the argument of tradition, passed down from generation to generation, and I became convinced that this tradition began at Mount Sinai with the Creator’s revelation to the Jewish people. That has a basis. But emotion alone—that is, a voluntary decision to believe [and it seems to me this is the reason for most believers and Torah-and-commandment observers]—has no basis, and therefore the entire observance of Torah and faith has no importance at all.
These questions trouble me very much, and I would be glad if you would kindly put my mind at ease about them in your free time.
And again, thank you very much.