Q&A: The Plausibility of Revelation versus Other Possibilities
The Plausibility of Revelation versus Other Possibilities
Question
In moving from the claim that God exists to the claim that God gave the Torah:
Rabbi Michael Abraham argued that it does not make sense to say that God created the world for the sake of morality, assuming that the purpose of morality is to create a proper society. The Rabbi explains that if that were the goal, it would have been simpler to create a proper society from the outset, or not to create it at all.
However, isn’t there an overly limited assumption here? Is it possible that God created the world for the sake of morality, but not necessarily for the purpose of creating a proper society? Could there be other reasons, beyond our understanding, why God would want morality to exist in the world (something like the reasons why God gave commandments in the Torah)?
Moreover, doesn’t the possibility that the world was created for the sake of morality seem more reasonable than other possibilities, such as revelation, considering that this view certainly has fewer problems and contradictions?
And if the Rabbi tells me that if there is a God, then He probably wants something from us.
A tradition has reached us that He gave the Torah, and that is what He wants.
And if so, this is a perfect closing of the circle showing that revelation is indeed true.
With respect, that is not really a closing of the circle, because whether God revealed Himself or not, a tradition would have reached us saying that He gave the Torah (just as we find that besides Judaism there are other traditions claiming that God gave them a Torah, and certainly not all of them are true).
So this is as though it were a “closing of the circle,” but the truth is that in any case we would have found a revelation narrative, and that is a normal and expected thing to happen.
Therefore, because of all the problems in the Torah, it seems preferable to go with the option that has fewer problems: that God wants us to follow morality (which, at least from what I have seen until now, has no contradictions or major problems against it).
Can the Rabbi address this possibility and explain why, in his opinion, it is less plausible than the possibility of revelation, or conversely why the possibility of revelation is more plausible than this one?
Answer
Morality is a means to create a proper society, and since that is so, it makes no sense to view it as an end in itself. Don’t create the society, and there will be no need to command morality. Therefore it is more plausible that society and humanity were intended for other purposes.
You are suggesting (this already came up here once) that morality itself is the goal, but not for the sake of a proper society, rather in order to “rectify the eternity within Hod.” That is of course possible in principle, but it is not plausible for several reasons. 1. Because we understand what morality is, why assume that it itself has some other independent meaning? 2. We received a tradition that the Torah was given. And it is not true that this is an unclosed circle (nothing is perfect). You assume, without any basis, that a tradition would have reached us in any case. That is simply not true. There is no other tradition of the giving of a Torah on such a broad front and with such credibility. All the traditions that do exist ultimately rely on the giving of the Torah. Without it, those traditions would not even exist. And even if there were other traditions, the assumption that the tradition is reliable is still preferable to the assumption that it is completely fabricated. And in general, who says the other traditions are mistaken? Maybe they are also correct?
Discussion on Answer
It would be worthwhile to look at what Michi wrote here: https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%A8-%D7%9E%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%90%D7%94/
Much appreciated. Every time מחדש I’m impressed by your familiarity with the material (or your search skills).
First of all,
the assumption that morality is a means of creating a proper society is baseless, and in fact wrong from the outset. If it were true, it would be hard to understand why there is an evil inclination pushing a person against a proper society. So if we really start from those two assumptions, we will probably reach the conclusion that God wants there to be struggle, and that people should choose the good. Why? Here one can already suggest several possibilities—for example, to give good justly to the one who deserves it.
But that is not really what matters. The main thing is that in any case one must reach the conclusion that this is why God created us, and we do not need any external revelation in order to know what God wants. (And we would also know that God wants us to do this as a religious command if we go through this line of reasoning.)
Second,
of course a tradition would have reached us in any case. This is not a baseless assumption at all. The number of traditions claiming that God gave a Torah to someone runs into many dozens. Some of them do not rely on the Torah at all and even contradict it in their basic principles. Certainly several of them are not true, since they contain substantive contradictions, at least relative to those that claim to be universal.
Now after all this, you will reject what I am saying and reply: all this may be true, but in any case we have in our hands a true tradition with strength of its own, and the assumption that the tradition is reliable is preferable to the assumption that it is completely fabricated.
To that I would answer: if there is a book or a tradition that came from God,
then just as one has to examine the manner in which the tradition was received and its reliability—whether it is plausible that it was given by God or not—
so too one has to examine the content of the tradition and its reliability: is it plausible that it was given by God or not?
And since the content of the tradition is full of contradictions and endless problems, and questions and difficulties about it have already multiplied greatly;
and since there may be holes in the manner of its transmission, such that just as many details in the Torah were changed (as is likely to happen, as we find in other texts), so too the fact that Moses gave the Torah to Israel at Mount Sinai was changed into: God gave the Torah to Israel at Mount Sinai, in order to strengthen the Torah tradition (and you can find plenty of such lies even nowadays);
therefore, since it is plausible that the tradition is not true even though it is the most reliable of all the other traditions, and in addition it is difficult on the basis of its own content, which does not look divine at all, and in addition there are so many difficulties with it;
and since there is another possibility—morality and goodness—with almost no difficulties at all (relatively speaking),
therefore one should assume that the tradition is not the correct one, but rather the logical conclusion that God created us in order that we uphold morality and goodness, something that is embedded in us from the day we are born.
It’s roughly like saying that the tradition about Julius Caesar is implausible because there are traditions about mythological legends that never existed, and therefore even if Julius Caesar had never existed, a tradition about him would still have reached us.