Q&A: Debate – Rationalism in the Possibility of God’s Existence
Debate – Rationalism in the Possibility of God’s Existence
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Although Mr. Aviv did not present his position [if he even has one] in a coherent way, as I understand it the core of his question is this: since the principle of causality is a product of human reason, which itself may also be a product of, or specifically bound by, the universe in which we live, perhaps even conclusions that to this reason seem necessary, even without being subject to the laws that apply in this reality, are not necessarily valid outside this universe. [This is roughly the question of whether God is subject to logic.] That is, is it possible that the principle of causality is valid only in this universe and only so long as the world exists? Even though it is not the product of observation, still it draws its validity from reason, and if so, perhaps in order to discuss causality with respect to the very system that produced the principle of causality, one would need tools that are necessarily not subject to the environment that produced that system. And if we apply the question to the debate discussion, perhaps the drive to locate causality is not valid when dealing with the question of the coming-into-being of the system that gave rise to this principle. I hope I was clear.
Answer
You can’t go grocery shopping with “perhaps.” The goal I set was to show that faith is rational. When I look for a cause for things, I am being rational—certainly more rational than someone who assumes there are no causes. Indeed, it is possible that the principle of causality does not exist with respect to things outside reality, and therefore at most you can argue that what I am saying is not necessary. But it is sensible and rational. Beyond that, I too agree that the principle of causality does not apply to the Holy One, blessed be He, but it does apply to created things, on the basis of the things in our experience.
In short, the fact that it is possible to say something does not make it an objection, and it does not make someone who does not say it irrational.
Discussion on Answer
It recognizes its limits, but the fact that there is no certainty, or that it could be otherwise, does not prevent drawing conclusions. You are confusing certainty with truth. The principle of causality is sensible, and rational thinking assumes it in every context until proven otherwise.
I did not see any refutation in your words, so I do not know what answer you are looking for.
The refutation is that although the above is rational, in my view it is not necessary.
So where is the refutation? That it isn’t necessary? Obviously. Nothing in the world is necessary.
I understood that the modest goal was only for the sake of the debate, and yet one can prove the existence of the first cause by means of the above proof.
Not prove, but argue in favor of. There is no necessity and no certainty about anything. Arguments are based on premises, and those can always be disputed. I wrote to you that you are confusing truth with certainty.
If so, I would be glad to understand what the emphasis was at the opening of the debate that the modest goal was to demonstrate that this is rational, when that is all that can be done.
Second, what is the difference between truth and certainty?
The modest goal was to show that the path to faith is rational. To argue in favor of faith is an additional step whose purpose is to persuade (to show that the other position is not sensible). There is no certainty at all about anything.
As for the difference between truth and certainty—what is the connection between them? A true claim is a claim whose content corresponds to the state of affairs in the world. Certainty is a description of the strength of my knowledge regarding that claim. A level of 100% is certainty. I can know truths with different degrees of certainty.
Thank you for the answer.
First, I’m not sure I understood. If part of the qualities of reason/rationalism is to recognize its limits, and since reason is always based on assumptions, then drawing a conclusion from the assumption of the principle of causality, which was born from reason that is part of the universe, is not rational. Because a rational person is supposed to avoid questions that are discussed by means of assumptions produced by reason in areas of discussion outside its domain. (I used “perhaps” as a matter of politeness.)
Second, even if we assume that this is indeed rational, what is actually the answer to the above refutation of the physico-theological proof?
Thanks.