Q&A: A Question About the Assumption of Revelation
A Question About the Assumption of Revelation
Question
From your words it seems that you assume it is very likely that if there is a God, He would also reveal Himself to human beings and give them moral laws and so on.
A. Isn’t this a fallacy of looking at things from an anthropocentric point of view? Who decided that the human being is the crown of creation and not just an insignificant byproduct of an evolutionary chain of development, or alternatively only a step toward the perfect creature? (Maybe God did not intend anything at all, and by mistake the universe was created casually, and it is simply convenient for us to believe that we are the embodiment of some divine will?)
B. Given an objective universal morality, what is the logic in the Creator of the world guiding a very limited group? (To me, the midrash about offering the Torah to the nations is a bit forced.)
Answer
A. In my opinion, no. This is logic that is not specifically tied to human nature. If some agent created something, he presumably wants something from it; otherwise he would not have made it. That is true of human beings, monkeys, fish, and any other entity. Perhaps God is different, but the starting point is that there is no reason to say so, and whoever claims that bears the burden of proof. The same is true regarding the principle of causality. I assume it is valid in every world and for every entity and event. That is because this is general reasoning and not an empirical result. In other words, this is philosophy and not science.
I did not say that man is the crown of creation. But he is the creature with free choice, and presumably that was implanted in him so that he would make use of it. And for that he needs to know what is required of him. And again, anything is possible, but this is common sense, and whoever claims otherwise bears the burden of proof.
The assumption that something so designed and complex was created just like that by mistake is completely unreasonable. Possible, but the burden of proof is on whoever claims it.
B. Midrashim do not come to describe reality but to express an idea. Morality indeed obligates all human beings, and it also does not necessarily require revelation. But I wrote in my book that morality cannot be the ultimate purpose of creation, since morality is meant to create a healthy society. But if you do not create a society, there will be no need for it to be healthy. Therefore that cannot be the explanation for our creation as individuals and as a society.
The second level, Jewish law, obligates only one group out of all humanity. That is not something I would have said a priori, but once this was clarified to us through revelation, I do not see a difficulty in it. Just as there is one head for the whole body, and each limb has its own role. The whole organism together fulfills the general role. By the way, this itself is written from the Jewish point of view. Christians and Muslims think that they are the head, and perhaps they are right. But apparently this collection of limbs can function better when each one assumes that it is the head.
I remind you that all these are a priori considerations. They do not stand alone. I add to them the revelation that occurred and came down to us through tradition, which together with the a priori considerations creates the full picture. That is, I am not claiming that there was a revelation because of the a priori consideration that it is reasonable that a creator would reveal himself. That is only one component in the argument. In addition, there is the tradition that transmitted to us the fact of the revelation and its content. These two together strengthen one another.
My book The First Existent deals with all of this.
Discussion on Answer
By the way, this is G.D. For some reason now it’s connected through WordPress.
Regarding B: the Torah does not contain standard laws at all, and it definitely includes a deep philosophy of good and evil, all from one source. (To this day, all the “deep” thinking still has not reached a conclusion about what reality is and what good or evil are.) All the laws of slavery in the Torah are the opposite of the mindset of the ancient world—for example, the conception of slavery then and now. Slavery was then part of a necessary economy—in the Torah it comes as an educational act, and if we are talking about a Canaanite slave, then he has a religious status, namely obligation in commandments, exactly the opposite of both the ancient and modern conception. You may be surprised, but “You shall not murder” is indeed a startling revelation even in our own day, when in the name of “a woman’s right over her body,” for example, people refuse to recognize that abortion is the killing of a living being. (I have no problem with abortions; I have a problem with liars who claim that biologically it is not a living being and therefore it is not murder—the question is what overrides what: the woman’s will, or not murdering a helpless being.)
There is nothing at all “standard” for their time, and that is a claim Sam Harris raised, but reality is different—an invisible God, one God, who demands moral behavior from man, is a philosophical wonder to this very day. Atheism claims there is no need for God, polytheism continues the separation between the powers, and secularism claims that God is not interested in us at all.
There is no startling discovery in philosophical literature for which you will not find some treatment in the Torah, so I do not understand the contempt for it.
Where in the Torah is there a religious status for a Canaanite slave?
A. A satisfying answer (of course, as long as one does not start discussing the likelihood of God’s existence and proceeds from the assumption that the deterministic elements in a person—genes and environment—do not nullify or limit free will).
“The assumption that something so designed and complex was created just like that by mistake is completely unreasonable. Possible, but the burden of proof is on whoever claims it.” — Of course something designed and complex would not just be created for no reason; the question is whether the world is designed and complex and created. (That is just an aside. I do not expect a response on this; there is enough material on the subject.)
B. In the end, the Torah does not include a deep philosophy of good and evil; the laws are fairly standard for their time and do not constitute any kind of startling moral revelation. What makes you think this is a prophetic text and not just an ordinary code of a local society? To me this definitely raises questions about the story of revelation. And the tradition argument is not convincing, especially since already within the Hebrew Bible itself there is evidence of how easily the people adopt and abandon new and old traditions.
“Apparently this collection of limbs can function better when each one assumes that it is the head” — with the emphasis on “apparently”… It takes courage to claim that the Crusades and the Islamic conquest are a picnic compared to what would have happened if they had not assumed they were the head..