Q&A: The Podcast with Rogel Alper
The Podcast with Rogel Alper
Question
After the collection of nonsense you were asked, Rogel asked you one question that in my view you don’t have a satisfactory answer to, and that is about Christianity. Because in the end there is one factual question here: do you think Jesus’ revelation was real or not? That’s a question that really needs to be considered seriously for once. If the answer is no, then that collapses many of the religious claims, such as the one that says that if there is a God, then there ought to be revelation and purpose for every person in the world — and yet for 99 percent of humanity He did not reveal Himself. And if the answer is yes, then one has to build a theory that explains how it makes sense that the truth is found among everyone at once despite the religions’ frontal contradictions. As you said in the context of the argument with atheists — “I don’t know” is not an answer. Once both the yes option is unresolved and the no option is unresolved, this question has to be settled.
And that leads me to a second, different question — why are you much nicer to atheists than to religious people? Even though they can say really outrageous nonsense, cut you off in every sentence, and not let you speak. I think the questioners here on the site are much more polite and much better reasoned, and even so they usually get a dismissive and sometimes aggressive response
Answer
Their revelation could be real, although I tend to think it is not. It doesn’t matter for anything, because the exclusive discourse is only for internal purposes, as I explained. And it really has nothing to do with the question of revelation; I explained that there too. Revelation does not have to be to every person. It was not even to every Jew.
I do not think I am nicer to atheists. Here on the site too I usually answer politely and patiently, except in cases of trolling and people who are a pest. Beyond that, in a filmed conversation that is published in the media, there are rules of politeness that it’s better not to cross.
Discussion on Answer
Why only for internal purposes? I really don’t understand. This is a fundamental question: is there truth in Christianity or not? It makes a huge difference. The revelation was not to every Jew, but it was intended for the entire people throughout its generations, which is not the case for the rest of the world.
A few questions about the interview:
1) You said in the interview that you have no problem with the Holy One, blessed be He, having given us the Torah and obligations, and similarly having given Christians and Muslims (with all due distinction) their doctrine and faith, and that there is not necessarily a contradiction in that (and you also noted that you are not a pluralist).
Can the position you described fit with the accepted assumption in Judaism that Christianity is invalid and defined as idolatry, and that the nations of the world are obligated to keep the seven Noahide commandments according to the Torah of Israel? Does it fit with that?
2) Regarding the arguments of many secular people about how implausible it is that God gave the Torah דווקא to Israel (the smallest of the nations) and obligated us in all sorts of very hard-to-understand commandments, and also regarding the claims of biblical criticism, and reward and punishment (even though you specifically do not believe in that). There is a very large collection of difficulties, on various levels, concerning “Judaism,” and you can answer them with some difficulty, but still, the combination of all the difficulties together is apparently reasonable evidence (common sense) against Judaism.
How do you answer this for yourself? (As you clarified regarding the blind watchmaker, that this indeed does not harm the proof of the truth of the matter at all, but still, how do you answer it for yourself, given that there is a very reasonable side to arguing the opposite?)
1. That is not an accepted assumption. Simply speaking, it is also not correct. In any case, I said that the exclusive discourse is for internal purposes.
2. The question is too general. You are asking what answers I give to various difficulties. I’ll ask you: what do you think about various difficulties in science?
1) What does “for internal purposes” mean?
2) But why do you choose the proof for the truth of God, and with the difficulties you choose to deal by means of all kinds of answers, and not the other way around? (That is, to deal with the reasonable proof for God’s existence by means of all kinds of strained atheist answers, and to choose the “difficulties” against God’s existence?)
1. In order to give Jews motivation in their path.
2. You are again repeating the same thing.
By the way, Rabbi,
are you glad you were interviewed by Rogel Alper? In my opinion the interviewer was very condescending, blunt, and stupid.