Q&A: A Few Insights
A Few Insights.
Question
Hello Rabbi,
As someone who has read some of your books and articles, I wanted to say something.
Something very important.
I just finished watching your debate on the topic: Is belief in God rational? It was fascinating. Simply fascinating and amazing.
Why???
At first I was a bit disappointed; the feeling was that someone who doesn't know you could think the atheist was right, since he sounded more confident and spoke in a more explosive, showy way.
But:
A little after almost half the debate, you shifted into a higher gear and strongly insisted on your argument and didn't give in, and the nice atheist got confused and scattered to the point that he fled to the topic of the transition from the philosophical God to the God who reveals Himself at Mount Sinai.
I always had a very difficult question, going back a long time:
How can a person (like me), without your knowledge and without your talent, make decisions on complex issues like whether God exists?
After all, in the debate itself all kinds of big words and scientific and philosophical knowledge came up, and someone who didn't find the time or strength or talent to study won't be able to decide.
So how can I decide???
I think I got an answer today:
Someone who watched the debate could decide whether there is a God based only on your body language!!!
That is:
Someone who watched until the halfway point could say to himself: I'm not sure there is a God!
But someone who kept going like I did until the end saw how this sweet atheist started twisting himself up and moving from one challenge to another, until at a certain point his distress grew so much that he threw the pen on the floor (angrily) in order to demonstrate the principle of causality, and fled to the topic of the transition from a philosophical God to a commanding God, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion.
His reddening face and his graceless, uneasy movements showed that he was under pressure, and that his subconscious had picked up that there was someone here more talented and maybe right, who was shaking up his old beliefs.
And regarding the arguments themselves:
At the end of the day, I'm still learning this topic and will probably keep learning it for a long time, but even in terms of the arguments themselves: you definitely won. (I know there is no certainty; I meant that it's very likely you won.)
The conclusions from the discussion:
1. There is the principle of causality. So far everyone is on board.
2. I do not learn this from reality, even though it appears in reality, but from reason. (See the analogy of the triangle.)
3. Since I did not learn this from reality, it would be rational to say that it also applies outside reality.
4. There is an objective distinction for complex reality, even though I have not observed non-complex universes.
5. Infinite regress is not a sufficient or sensible explanation. An eternal world is rejected by the Big Bang theory.
One last point:
6. From complexity it follows necessarily that there is someone who composes the familiar matter, but on the other hand it is also necessary that the principle of causality does not apply to Him (otherwise regress), and therefore He is probably some kind of matter (call it "Bamba" for all I care) to which the principle of causality does not apply, and if so He is the first cause. And precisely because He is without a cause, we are left with an explanation, which is certainly preferable to saying: I have no explanation.
Thank you very, very much.
Now then, would I kill a nice Amalekite because of this, one who donates a kidney to a person he doesn't know?
No.
There's still more of a way to go. But it's very likely that God exists.
I'd be happy for a response even though there isn't really a question.
Answer
I don't know what kind of response you're expecting. I'll just say that I very much do not recommend building conclusions and worldviews on the body language of this person or that one. First, because body language can be misleading. Second, because maybe the speaker really did fail in presenting his arguments, but that's only because he's not a successful speaker. Forming a worldview should be done through examining the arguments themselves, not the arguers and not their body language.
I'll only add that the summary you presented here is indeed on target, so it seems that you did understand the points themselves as well. Don't slander yourself (even though there is no prohibition in that, contrary to the urban legend about the Chafetz Chaim).
Discussion on Answer
Excellent summary of the points, Elchanan. Thank you very much.
And to Michi—
I wanted to ask you about point 3 above, which says that since I did not derive the principle of causality from observing reality, but rather I bring it with me to reality, it is reasonable to assume that this is a principle that also applies to things outside reality.
During the debate your conversation partner tried to challenge this assumption, but in my opinion his explanation was unsuccessful. The claim is that although a person did not derive the principle from reality, but rather it is in his consciousness, in the end the person himself is part of reality. And if he is part of reality, and within him there is a consciousness that teaches the principle of causality, then again why assume that this principle is also true outside the reality in which the person exists?
I'd be happy for your response.
Another point—because of the way you responded to his attempt to challenge this, it seems that you accept the basic claim that there is indeed some assumption here about what is outside reality. (A claim he disputes.)
But is all this talk about a problem in assuming something about what is outside reality even relevant to the discussion at all?
You didn't assume anything at all about what is outside reality. The assumption is about what I see inside reality, namely that it requires a cause for its complexity, and apparently there is something outside reality that is responsible for this. There was no assumption at all about the principle of causality applying outside reality, as he accused you of. But from your response it seemed that you too accepted his accusation—and I don't understand why.
And also, that according to your view the principle of causality does indeed apply to what is outside reality—and that is what I was actually asking above.
Thanks
So what if man is part of reality? There is still no reason he can't think about something outside it. Man is also part of planet Earth, and still he thinks about what happens in space. It's just a skeptical question.
You are completely right, and as far as I remember I also told him that. I assume the existence of a cause outside reality that created reality. His claim was that reality itself does not require a cause, only the things within it do.
Today, after two years, I watched the debate with Aviv Franco again, because I'm in the middle of reviewing The First Existent.
It was wonderful.
That said, I'm having trouble understanding something.
If I learn the principle of causality not from experience, then why assume that it is true only in a domain in which we have experience? On the contrary: if it were learned from experience, then it would belong only where there is experience. But if it is not learned from experience, then there is a difficulty in explaining why to project it only onto the area where there is experience. I know that otherwise there is regress, but the division and the statement that it applies only where there is experience is difficult, because we didn't learn it from experience.
Another question from The First Existent:
Why does Nachmanides need to arrive at prime matter? If it's hard for you to understand how something new can come from nothing, then the question will come back and be asked about prime matter for someone who assumes that God created that too. So if in any case the law of conservation of the concept or of the thing itself is broken here, then just say that directly about matter itself—let go of the hylic matter.
Forgot to mention.
I was asked about this in the past. The intuition itself says that the principle of causality applies to things of the kind found in our world. Even though this does not arise from observation. Especially according to my view, where intuition is also a kind of observation—not through the senses, but through the eyes of the intellect. See my columns on intuition.
That Nachmanides probably isn't really Nachmanides (it's a Nachmanides commentary on Song of Songs, which contradicts what he says in Genesis). But the thesis is that prime matter is primordial and was not created.
In my opinion, this falls under what is called "defamation," and in my opinion there is an "prohibition" here, at the very least an intellectual one, even when a person is "bringing it out" about himself.