Q&A: Help Formulating an Objection
Help Formulating an Objection
Question
Hello Rabbi Michi,
When I speak with my rabbi in the yeshiva about philosophical questions of faith that preoccupy me, I keep running into, over and over, in the course of his attempts to answer me, a feeling of disagreement and resistance—but I can’t manage to formulate it into a precise, well-defined explanation. Mainly, I feel that I’m unable to make him understand what exactly is difficult for me in what he says.
Over the past few years I’ve read a great deal of your thought, and without a doubt the ability to conceptualize thoughts and feelings is one of your strengths, so I’d be grateful if you could please help me. (I should note that my rabbi has a bachelor’s degree in physics and computer science from the Technion and a master’s degree in philosophy from Haifa, so we’re not talking about the usual model of a rabbi with no academic education.)
This comes up when we talk about issues like divine foreknowledge and free choice, the effect of prayer, providence and divine intervention, and so on, when I present the familiar and standard arguments (inspired by you).
When I tell him that, to my feeling, his words are vague talk that, after careful clarification of the concepts, turns out to amount to nothing—or just nonsense—he answers me that “sticking to this rational analysis blinds you and prevents you from grasping the truth. You see reason as the whole picture. But what I’m talking about receives its proper meaning through another special channel. (One that reason does not necessarily understand / does not grasp.) Your very attempt to define everything also causes you to miss it. You’re trying to fit the infinite into the finite within you, and that simply isn’t logical, so the result will necessarily be lacking.”
On another occasion, when I said that I couldn’t extract any meaningful content at all, only that same style of discourse that pretends to make metaphysical claims about the world but, under professional analysis, turns out to be empty of content, he replied: “In saying this, you sound to me like a mathematician trying to understand the beauty and quality of music by means of propositions that emerge from serious study of the mathematical equations on which the music is built and which it contains.”
“Your spiritual orientation is more secular-philosophical and less deeply Torah-oriented. And in the language of the above parable: you need to learn to be more musical and not only mathematical.”
How do I deal with this? My soul simply feels that these are things floating in the air, and there is nothing that could be true and at the same time turn out false under rigorous conceptual analysis. On the other hand, I do feel that maybe there is something to what he’s saying, and I want to pursue the clarification with him, but I’m having trouble expressing myself and conceptualizing what the inner objections are that arise in me in response to his words.
I’m convinced that arguments come to your mind that you would answer him with if you were in a serious conversation with him.
I’d be glad to hear.
Many thanks and with great appreciation.
Answer
A few comments.
There is a difference between saying that logic and science are not the be-all and end-all—which I agree with—and saying that we should accept theses that are illogical and even contradictory because of something that is “above reason,” which is utter nonsense. Non-contradiction is a necessary condition for truth, even if not a sufficient one. When, in some topic, we encounter a contradiction, nobody suggests saying: fine, the Torah is above reason, so everything is okay. We try to resolve it, or we remain with the difficulty unresolved. Reason and logic are not some limitation of ours, nor are they unique to one field or another. They are the only tools we have, and they are indispensable. From a system that includes contradictions, any conclusion can be derived (and its opposite). So if someone holds a contradiction, one can in effect say that he believes in God and also does not believe in Him. He accepts that one should keep the Sabbath and also disputes that. People move their lips and are sure they are speaking. Not every movement of the lips is speech. Does that rabbi not accept proofs by negation? If I proved that X is not true, doesn’t that mean that “not X” is true?
The question is: what is the purpose of study and analysis according to his approach? To create lofty experiences, or to understand? To acquire information and conclusions, or to create feelings? If he means the second, let him move into the field of poetry. There, one does not make claims but creates feelings, and therefore it is not subject to logic. But in the realm of claims, logic is a necessary condition, even if not a sufficient one.
The examples of music and mathematics are nonsense, because we are talking about contradictions, not poetic insights. Poetics is not subject to anything. But belief in God is not an experience and not poetics. It is a factual claim. Someone who does not believe this as a factual claim and thinks it is poetics is a commandment-observing atheist (for he does not believe in God. He only has religious experiences. Plenty of atheists have that too).
In most cases, statements of this sort are the product of one of two things: intellectual laziness or intellectual fixation. People get used to two contradictory slogans and are unwilling to examine them seriously (because that would be “heresy”). So what do they do? They pull out the winning card: it is above reason. Alternatively, they feel there is no contradiction here, but they are too lazy, or unable, to formulate and conceptualize it. So they pull out the same card. But laziness and inability are not an ideal; they are an escape route.
It is impossible to believe in contradictions, even if one very much wants to. If I believe in X, then I do not believe in “not X.” Anyone who wants to believe in X and in Y must show that there is no contradiction between them; otherwise he is merely reciting formulas.
See columns 549–550. And also my article on contradictions and quantum theory: https://mikyab.net/%d7%9b%d7%aa%d7%91%d7%99%d7%9d/%d7%9e%d7%90%d7%9e%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%9d/%d7%a2%d7%9c-%d7%aa%d7%95%d7%a8%d7%aa-%d7%94%d7%a7%d7%95%d7%95%d7%a0%d7%98%d7%99%d7%9d-%d7%95%d7%98%d7%a2%d7%a0%d7%95%d7%aa-%d7%90%d7%9e%d7%95%d7%a0%d7%95%d7%aa-%d7%a1%d7%aa%d7%99%d7%a8%d7%aa%d7%99