Q&A: An Argument from Reasoning to Tradition
An Argument from Reasoning to Tradition
Question
The argument came up in the debate with Yaron Yadan that the assumption is: if the world was created, then the Creator had some interest in creating it, and that interest is not morality. The point I don’t understand is why, if the commandments are the answer, it is clear what the interest is. It doesn’t seem that “the ultimate good is to do good” is the answer.
And more generally, what exactly is the proof from Mount Sinai? Personally, this is very difficult for me—if so, what is the great difference between that and the other religions that arose throughout history, including miracles surrounding the founding event? In my opinion, that wasn’t addressed in the debate.
Answer
Hardly any time was devoted to this in the debate. I didn’t understand your first question. Regarding acceptance of the tradition and Mount Sinai, and the relation to other religions, see the detailed discussion in the fifth conversation in my book The First Being.
Discussion on Answer
Every explanatory chain ultimately reaches axioms. What does that have to do with circularity? It’s exactly the opposite of circularity.
Sorry, I of course meant regress, and it seems to me that this has nothing to do with an axiom unless not understanding the Creator is preferable.
I don’t see any connection to regress. There is some point that you don’t understand. So what? The proof is that there is a Creator, not that I understand Him.
Yes, but what is the reasoning for assuming that the purpose is probably something within our grasp, and that it is not morality?
I explained this. Morality is a tool for the proper functioning of society, and therefore it cannot serve as an explanation for why society was created.
Not necessarily morality; I mean something that is beyond our grasp. Say, somehow the world will certainly reach its destination because the Creator is tremendously capable and set up the statistics in advance in a way that benefits Him. Why is that, or anything else, less reasonable?
I didn’t understand the question. The world reaches its destination through us, because we were created with free choice. The question of what we are supposed to choose requires revelation, because morality is not a sufficient answer.
Maybe choice itself is the goal, so that only in that way will we do or not do certain things—and I have no clue what those things are. But I don’t presume to know what they are, because in any case I don’t have all the information, since I understand nothing about the Creator.
In short, if there is a very significant part that I don’t understand, and I have only partial information from which to draw a conclusion, it seems completely ridiculous to me. All the “maybes” that have been written to explain why the world was created without religion—even if they are far-fetched—are in the end no less logical.
I’ve given up. I don’t understand you.
This is a good place to say thank you for the books.
The first question, briefly, is that one should not make assumptions based on reasoning about the Creator, because it will always lead into an infinite loop, to a point that cannot be understood anyway. Thanks.