Q&A: Regarding the debate – an argument that wasn’t presented
Regarding the debate – an argument that wasn’t presented
Question
Hello Rabbi,
During the discussion I wondered why the Rabbi didn’t present an argument along these lines as well, also with the aim of illustrating that faith can be ascribed a rational line of thought:
God expresses (among other things) the supreme ideal. That is, not only infinity in the realm of space and time, but also the optimal form of every possible ideal: infinite beauty, infinite justice, infinite kindness, infinite harmony, etc.
From here one can also climb to a topic you did not discuss this time:
The Torah serves the believer as a map given through a kind of eureka-like inspiration (prophecy), charting a path for a person to follow as he aspires and advances toward that unattainable ideal point.
From there, it may already be hard to argue. Unless one claims that there is no such tendency at all, no aspiration to perfection—but that is already a very irrational argument, since among other things it negates morality, art, the meaning of doing justice, and in fact even evolution and the entire direction of life as a whole (when that direction alone is a sufficient claim that there is a movement contrary to the nature of matter, as the Rabbi has explained more than once).
Best regards
Answer
There are many other arguments, far better than this one, that were not presented. You shouldn’t be surprised; that is a result of the constraints of the format.
As for your argument, I hope you understand what it is saying and what is sensible about it. I don’t.
Discussion on Answer
Indeed, it’s clearer, but in my view it’s a very weak argument. There could be a million explanations for the aspiration to perfection, even assuming there is such a thing. As I said above, even if it were strong, there is no question why I didn’t bring it up.
Thank you to the Rabbi for the answer. Indeed, I wrote it clumsily.
I’ll try to distill it—hopefully with at least some success.
I mean something like the idea of: “They have forsaken Me but kept My Torah.”
Instead of turning to the “designer” argument (an argument that works in my logic, but not in the atheist’s logic, and in any case operates in a field where the contradiction in his words has no essential implication),
could one not argue that a certain tendency is evident in the world, one directed toward refinement? There is evidence for it in the material world (the development of the earth and civilization, evolution, etc.), and similar tendencies are also evident in the human soul, seeking the whole.
Does it matter whether or not there is a planner, assuming there is recognition of the orderliness of some higher intelligence?
To paraphrase the watch argument, I claim that the presence of that watch, more than it testifies that there is a watchmaker, testifies that time has meaning.
I hope that even if it’s not logical, or too semantic, at least it’s clearer this time (?)
Thank you