Q&A: Would You Be Convinced by Your Own Arguments Under Different Conditions?
Would You Be Convinced by Your Own Arguments Under Different Conditions?
Question
Rabbi Michi,
I’ve read a number of your articles and interviews and the like.
Let me begin by saying that I very much enjoy your line of thought and the clarity of your presentation.
You don’t need my agreement (or anyone else’s), but this is an opportunity to express appreciation where it’s due.
The things I have not been convinced of are the existence of the Creator and the revelation at Mount Sinai.
You say that there is some kind of God (17 or 119) who created everything; we have no grasp of Him whatsoever, yet you assume that He has a purpose.
As for me, I prefer to remain with the question of the beginning of creation rather than assume that there is some higher power (spiritual?) that I also cannot understand. (In other words, you added a stage that is even harder to understand, without giving us any additional understanding that we lacked before assuming that He exists.)
And regarding the revelation at Mount Sinai, you pointed to a combination of tradition and reason.
The tradition is flawed, and there would have been no problem for a king / priest / prophet or ruler to force belief on the masses, especially in the case of “finding a Torah scroll that had been forgotten and not observed.” It is indeed plausible that there was some sort of tradition, but it is no different from various other traditions that have existed and still exist, in which you see no reason to believe.
And the reasoning, if I understood correctly, is that His will is not merely that we be moral, but something more, and from that comes the inference that He would reveal Himself and communicate His word.
So I would like to ask:
A. Since we have no concept of Him at all, what does our reasoning know of the will of such a God, based only on our acquaintance as human beings with human logic?
B. You assume that 0.25% of creation are the purpose of creation for all humanity and all the various galaxies, but what about the rest? It seems to me that just as I do not understand the purpose of creation in the overwhelming majority of it, I will remain with the same difficulty regarding our tiny fraction, we Jews (assuming there is a Creator, of course).
And now to the title: since you have no hesitation in burning every sacred cow, could it be that you feel a need to preserve the two good and beautiful cows because you were born into the Jewish people? In other words, how likely is it that you would be inclined to believe this if you knew all the arguments familiar to you today, but had been born an ordinary Japanese person?
I was born and raised as a believing Jew, and because of these and other understandings, I do not believe in God nor in the Torah as divinely given. As I see it, we progressed from idolatry to belief in a hidden God, and from that too we will one day emerge into the light.
With blessings and much appreciation,
Gil Volba
Answer
Hello,
1. The complexity of the world poses a certain difficulty. When there is a difficulty, one should look for an answer (either one finds it or one does not). The answer I propose is that there exists some entity that created the world. This is the called-for solution to that difficulty (in fact, the difficulty is a proof of the existence of that entity). True, I can’t say much about it beyond that—so what? Such a situation is not a difficulty but a lack of knowledge (like the difference between a problem and a question). I don’t understand why you prefer to remain with a difficulty rather than a lack of knowledge. Note: the conclusion that God exists does not come to add understanding but to solve a difficulty. From another angle: suppose I see footprints in the sand, so I assume that some creature passed through here and left them. I can’t say anything about it except that these are its footprints. Do you think it is better to assume that no one passed through here?
2. I disagree with your assumption that there is no problem in implanting such a tradition over time. There definitely is. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but the burden of proof is on you. In addition, if you combine the philosophical conclusion that there is a God with the tradition that He revealed Himself and gave the Torah, the far more plausible possibility is that He indeed revealed Himself.
3.
A. Our reason is the best tool we have. It is always possible that we are mistaken, and that is also possible in our scientific generalizations. But the default is to trust our reason and place the burden of proof on whoever claims that here it fails. Notice that this could be said about any claim—that perhaps our reason is mistaken.
B. You see humanity as a collection of individuals, but in my view it is a whole that has a mission as a whole. The whole is made up of different organs, each of which is supposed to perform its role—just like an organic body that has a heart, a head, and other organs. Therefore the nations of the world, as well as animals and inanimate things, fulfill that mission together as one whole.
4. It is always possible that I am biased. But note that one could raise the same claim about someone who studied geometry. Just because he studied, he thinks the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180. As a matter of fact, others who didn’t study think otherwise. I claim that being born here enabled me to learn something that others did not learn. Of course, one can always argue that the others think the same thing. On that, see my column on PEER DISAGREEMENT.
At the margins of this point I’ll add that I’ve said several times in the past that if I had been born in a Polish village, I might have been a believing Christian following his priest. But a judge has only what his eyes can see. One thing I do adopt from that argument, though, is that in the heavenly court the Polish peasant will not be found in a worse place than mine. The exclusive discourse, according to which we are right and everyone else is going to hell, is intended only for internal purposes. From the perspective of the Holy One, blessed be He, I assume that each person has his own role, and not everyone is supposed to do the same job. That takes us back to the first section above.
In the end, I don’t burn cows because it’s my hobby (at least I hope not). I burn those that seem mistaken to me. And as Mark Twain already said, sacred cows make the best steaks.
Discussion on Answer
You wrote, “if I had been born in a Polish village, I might have been a believing Christian following his priest,” and “in the heavenly court the Polish peasant will not be found in a worse place than mine.”
A nice idea, although it contradicts the explicit words of Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto in The Way of God (Part II, Chapter 4): “What is prepared for the nations of the world in the World to Come: However, in the World to Come there will be no nations other than Israel, and for the souls of the righteous among the nations of the world there will be given an existence in an additional aspect, attached to Israel themselves, and they are secondary to them like a garment secondary to a person, and in this aspect they will receive whatever they receive of the good, and it is not in their portion to attain more than this at all.” You certainly have the right to disagree with Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, but you would need to bring a source for your understanding, which differs from the accepted Jewish tradition as reflected in his words.
And the harder question—is this something you would also agree to regarding a Sunni Muslim believer sitting in Gaza who believes with all his heart, on the authority of his teachers, that killing Jews and removing them from the land of the “Muslim nation” is among the most important commandments he can perform in life, even if he dies for it in sanctification of the name of Allah? And he would certainly draw direct inspiration from “the binding of Isaac” (which he may very well believe was actually the binding of Ishmael), that a person should do the will of Heaven even when it contradicts his inner morality. Would he too receive a place in the World to Come no less than yours?? After all, he too believes with all his heart in the tradition he received as absolute truth.
1. Strange question. First, did Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto bring a source for his words? Second, if, as I said, the exclusive discourse is for internal purposes, then Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto’s discourse can also be interpreted that way.
2. I hold this to be true regarding every believer of every type and in every kind of behavior, within the limitations written in column 372.
I didn’t understand—how do you know that the words of Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto (and other traditional sources that mention a similar idea) were intended for internal purposes, and how do you know they are not to be understood literally? Do you think Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto is basically lying when he claims that gentiles do not receive reward like the Jewish people?
And what about a billion Chinese and another billion Indians who never knew the Torah at all and have no idea who gave it? According to the plain meaning of Maimonides’ words, they too will not merit the World to Come, as he writes (Laws of Kings, chapter 8, law 11): “Anyone who accepts the seven commandments and is careful to observe them is among the righteous of the nations of the world and has a share in the World to Come, provided that he accepts them and performs them because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded them in the Torah and informed us through Moses our teacher that the children of Noah had previously been commanded regarding them. But if he did them because of an intellectual conclusion, he is not a resident alien, and he is not among the righteous of the nations of the world, nor among their wise men.”
Moreover, it seems that this is how the difference between the Jewish people and the “gentiles” was simply understood throughout Jewish tradition—isn’t that so? What is the source for innovating an idea that contradicts what every Jew understands from the tradition?
Unfortunately, I can’t find column 372. How do you search for a specific column?
Apparently you didn’t understand me. I claimed nothing at all about Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, because I am not especially interested in his doctrine. I only remarked that if you bring his words as proof against me (which is no proof whatsoever), that too is not proof.
I would give you the same answer for every source you bring. Why is Maimonides preferable to Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto? He knows about this roughly as much as I do and as much as Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto—that is, nothing.
Beyond that, don’t bring proof from gentiles who do not keep the seven commandments. That is the sin of their fathers, as explained in the Talmud, Bava Kamma 37, and in Maimonides in his commentary on the Mishnah, and in Meiri there.
Well then, to dismiss both Maimonides and Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto with a wave of the hand… fine…
But you still didn’t answer the main question—doesn’t your position contradict what has been accepted and understood in the tradition of Israel from generation to generation (and not coincidentally, is also reflected in the words of the sages mentioned above)??
Column 372:
According to Maimonides, it is enough that they attain the intelligibles. Even a Jew who kept all the commandments but did not attain them will not reach the World to Come, and there is no difference between a Jew and a non-Jew.
Thank you for the detailed answer.
I assume we may not agree, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
There is a well-known saying that without a believer there is no pain in the fact that the believer is what he is (which is not the case in the other direction, at least in some of the matters under discussion).
I’ll just try to clarify a bit more, because in any case I keep the commandments—so what do I gain by clinging to my heresy? And if I become convinced by your arguments, then it is pure gain.
I’ll respond in the order of your writing:
1. If belief were not widespread, would you be inclined to posit some entity that created?
In my view, the difficulty is ten times stronger than the solution, because inventing an unexplained and unlimited spiritual force and so on is on the level of creation ex nihilo.
Even such a difficult question does not generate far-reaching conclusions for which there is no evidence in everyday existence, and never has been (unless we rely on the testimony argument for divine revelation).
The variety of possibilities / inventions is infinite, and in my opinion it is preferable to remain with the unknown.
The example of footprints in the sand seems to me far from analogous, because in the case of footprints you are judging on the basis of our acquaintance with reality, whereas in the case of a Creator, the reality whose existence you posit is not connected to the rules we know.
2. We know that stories of many peoples were woven into the Torah, and there is no proof of its truth from what is written in it—how is the Torah different from other traditions that have been preserved?
Especially given that there is an admission to the fact that for part of the time the Torah scroll was not before them and they did not keep its commandments (and to one who proves from this precisely that it was not invented, because if it had been invented the writer would have hidden the fact of its disappearance, I would reply that this is the only way to slip in a book that did not previously exist—namely, by means of a story that it existed and disappeared).
The fact that the tradition exists to this day proves that we are a stubborn people who feel obligated to preserve it, but says nothing about the first narrator.
And if the tradition is not evidence in and of itself, then even if you infer that there is some sort of higher power, since it is subject to nothing that it itself created, how do we know that it has a will / purpose / instruction?
You are trying to introduce into the unknown and the incomprehensible to the human mind rules that are familiar to us.
And I’ll go one step further: even if one were to imagine that there really was a revelation at Mount Sinai (which I cannot understand how a rational person—and that is an understatement considering your knowledge and reasoning, visible to all—can accept, a story about a one-time event with voices and thunder and in the background the voice of God resounding, etc.), perhaps the first Creator handed over various galaxies to secondary creators, and the specific god of our galaxy decided to command the Jewish people, etc.? And in this fertile imagination, the great God sits there biting His nails because in this galaxy the local creator misled his creatures, unlike another galaxy where they carry out His true will? Is such a fantasy less logical than revelation by the supreme God at Mount Sinai?
3. A. The assumption to which you appeal by force of the question—in my opinion is not logical.
A higher power, a god that always existed, perhaps reward and punishment after death, and many other beliefs—I don’t know which of these are correct in your view and which are not—but in general, this is what you call the default of reason? We have no ability to understand such a concept were it not handed down to us by our ancestors (the same ones who previously worshipped idols, as I pointed out in the original question).
B. It sounds environmentally friendly, but haven’t you painted a picture in which everyone is standing in a film where they matter, but the lead actors are that tiny percentage to whom God spoke and whom He took out of Egypt, etc.?
4. I agree in principle.
Since according to your reasoning one out of all beliefs is correct, you have only what stands before you, and that is what you investigated and examined until you were convinced of it.
My question was: would you arrive at the same conclusion if you had grown up in the absence of belief?
As for your side note:
In the mind of a supreme being whose slightest edge we cannot grasp, it may be that the Jewish people are the chosen among the nations and all the rest are nothing but the issue of horses.
By this I return to the claim that whatever is by definition beyond our grasp—why should we insert into it the rules by which we think?
And why twist the Torah’s command regarding killing Amalek, and the avoidance of saving a gentile on the Sabbath according to Meiri, and so on, in order to force the Torah with great difficulty into alignment with our mode of thought?
I do not know your view on the time of the world’s creation, but I assume you do not claim the year 5785, and why not? After all, these are the words of God, so what business does one born of woman have with the hidden ways of God?
It’s a kind of whichever-way-you-take-it:
If according to the reason familiar to us there is no way to digest the idea of God, then it is preferable to remain with the question.
And if there is such a thing, then it is beyond our grasp, and we should accept all that is written as it is, without change and without looking for minority views or burning sacred cows.
To my mind, you burn the cows that seem wrong to you, but accept the mother of all cows, which is beyond human intellect.
Again, thank you for taking the trouble to answer earlier, and all the more so if you answer now.
With gratitude,
Gil
Hello Gil.
It’s a bit hard for me with such gaps (I no longer remember exactly what was written above). I’ll try to address your latest remarks on their own terms, although I mainly saw in them stubborn repetitions of the same thing that was already answered.
1. You’re just being stubborn. The example of footprints in the sand is excellent. Even if you had never seen footprints or creatures of any kind, and still you saw sand with footprints on it, you would conclude that someone had been here and made them. That is not a result of experience at all, but of reason.
2. This is again just stubbornness. Indeed, in the Torah itself there would be room for doubt. And certainly regarding details that were woven into it. So what? There is tradition here on the one hand and arguments for God on the other, and the combination of the two is what creates the credibility. Regarding the gaps in the historical timeline, this is a common mistake. There were no such gaps. The finding of the Torah in Josiah’s time is evidence in the opposite direction, and I have already elaborated on this here and in my book The First Available Being.
I’ll return again to the two sides of the tunnel. The credibility of the tradition is not detached from the arguments in favor of the existence of God. You write the following sentence:
“And if the tradition is not evidence in and of itself, then even if you infer that there is some sort of higher power, since it is subject to nothing that it itself created, how do we know that it has a will / purpose / instruction?”
as if I had written nothing up to now. I see no point in repeating it.
Regarding the revelation at Mount Sinai and the testimony argument, see my columns on the testimony argument, 671-2. There you can see how a rational person is supposed to accept this very rational argument, and why someone who does not accept it is just being stubborn.
3. I didn’t understand what you meant in A. (As mentioned, I don’t remember the details of the discussion, and I have no idea what you’re referring to.) B is again mere stubbornness. I explained everything well.
4. I don’t remember what you mean.
The rest are baseless declarations. Allow me not to address them, because there is nothing for me to address. I can respond to arguments, but not to declarations.
Rabbi Michi also mentioned in his book,
regarding tradition, that if it were easy to forge a tradition of the kind the Jewish people have—many from many—
then there should have been additional examples
of a tradition of many from many,
which shows that it certainly is not easy to forge.