Question

Rabbi, apparently I understood the naturalistic fallacy to mean that in the end there is no good and evil that can be derived from rational thinking. But religion is not only seeing the service of God as good; it also brings in metaphysical beliefs that are implied by recognizing the service of God as a value—for example, believing that this is what God wants and that this is what should be done (whether one wants to or not). By contrast, the secular humanist does not bring irrational and metaphysical assumptions into his recognition of his obligations toward other people and his view of that as good. It seems to me that this is really the whole problem with religion, because in its essence it requires irrational thinking and beliefs in defining the good. And in my opinion this is also what distances many intellectuals from it and turns them toward humanism. This problem also troubles me personally, because as a religious person who is deeply attached to the service of God, I am constantly dealing with doubts, since religion is based, whether one wants it to be or not, on thinking about abstract matters. (I hope I was clear.)
I would really appreciate it if you could help me with this issue, because compared to the secular liberal humanist, I feel like a stupid, irrational extremist.
Thank you 🙂