Q&A: Rational Faith
Rational Faith
Question
The Rabbi argued in a discussion with Aviv and in various articles that, in his view, belief in God is rational, and more than that, denying God is a denial of rationality. But I’ve seen that you arrive at God through more philosophical routes—the physicotheological argument that proves a first cause, and so on. I wanted to ask where the “boundary” lies between belief that you consider rational (or that could somehow be rational) and belief that is not. That is, let’s start with this: not believing in a first cause is not rational—but is not believing in an all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal God, etc., also necessarily irrational? Where is the line between what can be rational and what is unequivocally not rational? This question has been confusing me lately, since you’re seen as the number one rational rabbi and influence many people. On the other hand, after reading many philosophical, scientific, and historical arguments, I tend toward atheism, though with an inclination to think there is a first cause. I’m stuck in the middle. Is that extremely problematic, or is it an approach one can live with?
Answer
When I speak about faith in this context, I mean belief in an entity beyond the world that created it and demands moral conduct from us. That’s all. Anything beyond that is an additional part of the move, which does not emerge from philosophical arguments but from other considerations (I explained this in my book The First Existent). The condition for rationality is the philosophical step in the process.
One can live with any approach; the question is how to live correctly, not merely how to live. Belief in a philosophical God without theism is rational—that is, there is no problem with it in itself. But in my view it makes sense to adopt a theistic conception, even if that is not a condition for rationality. In any case, it is certainly compatible with it.
In that book, I explained that there is a connection between the first part, the philosophical one, and the second part, the theistic one.
Discussion on Answer
It’s explained in detail in my book The First Existent, Fourth Conversation, Part C. See also Column 456.
I don’t have The First Existent right now, and the column doesn’t exactly address my question. I wanted to ask, briefly, how the connection is formed between God and the idea that He has demands of us, on a purely philosophical basis.
Meaning, is what creates the connection religion, or His very existence? Is the claim that God cannot exist without moral demands coming from Him?
The column deals with exactly that.
Okay, I understand. Just how did you get to moral conduct? The physicotheological argument doesn’t talk about moral conduct. Or did you mean religion in general? I’m not clear on what you mean by moral conduct.