Q&A: The Divine Source of the Torah
The Divine Source of the Torah
Question
I accept your series of proofs for the existence of God (including the argument from morality). After that, you argue that if we accept such a God, it is likely that He wants to reveal Himself to us and give us instructions beyond morality. And therefore, in your view, it makes the most sense to follow the Jewish tradition among all the other revelations (it is hard to implant a mass falsehood, etc.).
I find this leap very hard to accept:
1. The claim that if God created a universe that has already existed for 14 billion years, then apparently He wants something from us and therefore must reveal Himself, sounds very weak to me. There is some anthropomorphizing here—that He presumably wants something. He did not get what He wanted for billions of years because there were no creatures here that could do what He wanted. And the way He revealed Himself is very unconvincing thousands of years after that revelation. It is not that hard to invent traditions and myths out of thin air, certainly in the period in question.
2. There is nothing special that indicates divinely inspired writing in the Torah. It is a text similar in syntax and structure to other texts from that period. Laws with a similar outlook toward the future. Historical inaccuracies that require contortions such as saying the Torah is not a history book at every turn, etc. etc.
3. On the issue of miracles, you are forced to “pay” by adopting a strange view—that God once performed miracles and then at some point in the past few thousand years suddenly stopped. Very odd. Not a simple price to pay from an explanatory standpoint.
4. That same Torah that claims to have a divine source is open to such plastic interpretation that it has no practical meaning at all. As you often explain, and rightly so, it is not clear what value there is in the Torah in particular, and in the Hebrew Bible in general. So God chose to reveal Himself through a text that no one can really understand unambiguously, and relied on human beings over thousands of years to extract the Creator’s will from it? That does not seem likely.
Bottom line: it is very unclear to me why you devote so much of your life to living according to the formulation of Orthodox Jewish law as it exists today.
Answer
The “and therefore” in the opening paragraph is not correct. I reached the conclusion that there ought to be a revelation, and that its content is probably something beyond morality. From that point on, each person should make his own judgment and choose his path. I personally think our tradition is the most reliable, and it is also the first one; and the others that came after it also accept it, so the burden of proof is on them. But at the same time I have also written that I am aware that I am biased, because I am a product of Judaism and of Jewish society, and therefore in my view there is no real exclusivity of right and wrong among the faiths. Someone who sincerely comes to the conclusion that Christianity or Islam is correct and acts accordingly, in my opinion will not receive different treatment from the treatment I receive. The Holy One, blessed be He, does not come with complaints against His creatures. In my opinion, exclusive discourse is meant for internal purposes (to strengthen believers in their path and give them the feeling that the world stands upon them). Let me clarify that I also feel our faith and tradition are more reliable and more correct, but I am aware of the possibility of bias, and therefore I added the argument about exclusivity, which allows me not to be overly troubled by these concerns.
Discussion on Answer
Regarding “there ought to be a revelation whose content goes beyond morality,” your whole argument is based on the idea that God could have chosen not to create a world, and then there would have been no need to be moral. Again I see a bit of anthropomorphizing here, but your explanation is not fully satisfying either. He could have created the effect of keeping the Jewish laws even without human beings who actually keep Jewish laws. You will of course explain that apparently this is impossible; in any case it seems weak to me. Once you cited Rabbi Kook saying that God cannot perfect Himself because He is perfect. Maybe He wants from us only morality so that He can perfect Himself through us—what do you say?
3. The facts are that today there are no miracles. It is more likely that there never were miracles either. You are forced into saying that this changed. Miracle stories and myths have existed forever in all cultures, and gradually miracles “disappear” as science advances and trends think more critically.
In your choice to follow Orthodox Judaism as it has taken shape today, you sound a bit “apologetic”: you know you are biased because of how you were raised. It is not at all certain that all the truth is with us. I also feel that you sense the evidentiary weakness of Judaism’s divine source. I do not remember you expressing yourself this way in any other discussion. After all, there are always biases and psychological considerations that can influence a philosophical discussion or any other discussion about a truth claim. Am I mistaken?
As stated, the question of anthropomorphizing is not correct (in my opinion). It is a simple inference that applies to any entity. Of course there is no necessity, and it is possible that a non-human agent acts differently. But a priori this is logical not specifically for a human being, unless proven otherwise. Therefore, the burden of proof is on whoever claims otherwise.
It is impossible to reach the results without human beings producing them, because they are supposed to come about through choice. It is no accident that we were given free will. That indicates that the goals were not merely the bottom lines, because otherwise we would have been programmed to reach them, and that would be that. The Holy One, blessed be He, apparently wants us to choose to do the right thing, not merely to do it.
The possibility that morality is the goal from our standpoint, and that all this is meant to perfect the Holy One, blessed be He, does indeed exist. And still, the conclusion that morality in itself cannot be the goal is correct. But now, according to your suggestion, several possibilities stand before us: 1. Perhaps the goal is the perfection of the Holy One, blessed be He, accomplished through morality. 2. Or perhaps there is another goal. We received a tradition that the goal is something else, and therefore there is no reason to adopt דווקא the first option.
3. As for the likelihood that there never were miracles, I disagree. See my series of columns 671–3 on David Hume’s witness argument against miracles. If you accept the premise that God exists, it seems to me that claims about miracles are no longer implausible on their face. That is why I always make sure to build the whole chain, from philosophy regarding the existence of God to religious commitment. [By the way, the formation of the world is itself a miracle—that is, at one time something certainly happened that does not happen today. My claim is that creation is an ongoing process, and not restricted only to the first point in time. Today we are in a state where the world already exists in full, and there is no need for miracles. Again, see my columns mentioned above.]
The fact that there were myths and miracles in many cultures—is that a counterargument? Does that not strengthen the claim that there really were miracles? It is like the claim that many cultures testify to the flood, so clearly it is a myth. In my view, if many cultures say this, that strengthens the fact that there really was a flood. Though in principle of course it could be a myth, the very existence of testimonies certainly does not weaken the authenticity of the claim but strengthens it.
Beyond that, the question is how reliable the testimonies and traditions about this are (in terms of the number of those present, the rigor of the transmission, the details, the survival of the content of the tradition, and so on).
As for your last remark, I think the “apology” you saw in my words is only a matter of intonation.
I have explicitly written several times that the arguments in favor of the existence of God are philosophical and objective, whereas the arguments in favor of a specific tradition such as ours are by definition weaker. But that is because of the very nature and type of the arguments, and therefore it does not indicate an essential weakness. The issue is not philosophical but historical—and ancient history at that. Do you expect me to bring objective philosophical proofs in a field that is not philosophical? As is well known, it is hard to reach clear conclusions in such matters, and as is well known they are also more easily biased by the various influences on the person forming the conclusions (me). Just as psychology does not enjoy the same validity as physics or chemistry. That is not necessarily because psychologists are foolish, but because of the nature of the field. Therefore this weakness is no reason to reject the use of psychology out of hand. We have nothing better in these areas.
So there is no apology in my words here, but rather a sober and honest description of the situation. That is indeed the situation. What is there to apologize for? Because of the nature of the field, we have to make decisions under conditions of uncertainty. If I reached the conclusion that there ought to be a revelation, then I have to choose the most plausible one among the various revelatory options before me. That is what I did.
Beyond that, I added that I assume others in other cultures and religions also did their best according to their understanding, and I am aware of the possible biases in myself as well. Therefore I argued that although in my eyes this really is the most plausible, exclusivity still seems to me like discourse for internal purposes, and the Holy One, blessed be He, does not come with complaints against His creatures. Whoever finds Christianity more plausible should be a Christian. If you choose to see that as an apology, fine. It is only intonation, as I said. See my column on PEER DISAGREEMENT.
Regarding the question whether there is a normative purpose, namely morality, and no need for revelation: in the fifth notebook, the answer is that without revelation we would not understand that morality is not teleological (and therefore revelation is needed), whereas here the answer is that, yes indeed, there is no a priori expectation of revelation, except that in practice there was one. It seems that the practical difference between the answers is the question whether we should accept the most plausible revelation, even if it is not all that plausible, or whether we should accept only a plausible revelation.
A. Do you still think the answer from the notebook is correct?
B. Why, without revelation, would we see morality that way, while the revelation that in fact took place at Sinai helps us see it differently? Do you think that an atheist who is committed to morality is not only a covert believer in God but also a covert believer in revelation?
Quotation from the notebook:
This is possible, but it still seems that the matter requires revelation. Without it, we would see morality as something teleological, that is, as a system of principles intended only to improve society and nothing more. If so, even if there is no “religious” system beyond morality, the need for revelation still stands.
Quotation of the relevant part of the answer above:
The possibility that morality is the goal from our standpoint, and that all this is meant to perfect the Holy One, blessed be He, does indeed exist. And still, the conclusion that morality in itself cannot be the goal is correct. But now, according to your suggestion, several possibilities stand before us: 1. Perhaps the goal is the perfection of the Holy One, blessed be He, accomplished through morality. 2. Or perhaps there is another goal. We received a tradition that the goal is something else, and therefore there is no reason to adopt דווקא the first option.
That answer assumes that it is important for a person to know the purpose of morality, and that it is not enough for him simply to act morally. I am not sure about that. Therefore the answer given here should be added.
As for the question of revelation: my claim is that because of this there is an expectation that there will be a revelation. It does not have to match what actually happened in the revelation in practice. After all, in practice we also received additional purposes beyond morality, so all this is not relevant. This argument is an a priori argument that is meant to support the idea that revelation is to be expected, and therefore if a tradition reaches us, it should be believed.
Beyond that, the revelation at Sinai tells us that there is a Torah command to do what is right and good. A Torah command is something beyond social improvement (according to my view).
But according to the answer here, revelation is not expected—rather, there is only a basis for revelation (so that it is not like Russell’s teapot).
According to the answer here, revelation is definitely to be expected, except that there is also the possibility that its content would be only the theological dimension of morality (and perhaps not even that, if theology does not require intention). In any case, even if it is not necessary that there be a revelation, there is still a probable expectation of revelation here that strengthens the credibility of the tradition reporting that it occurred. As you wrote, this is no longer a teapot, and that wording understates the point.
So much for the opening paragraph. As for the points that followed it, I will now address them briefly.
1. This is not anthropomorphizing. Anyone who creates something presumably does so for some purpose. Maybe I am wrong, but the burden of proof is on whoever claims otherwise. That is the logical starting point. This is also reinforced by the tradition that has come down to us, which says that this is indeed the case. The question of a delay of billions of years does not bother me. What He wants is realized through the entire process in which people come into being and do various things. There is no necessity that all this exist at every moment. This whole process is the realization of His will. Remember that from His perspective a billion years is no different from a second.
2. I agree. The content of the Torah does not convince me of its divinity.
3. It is not strange. I also suggested a rationale for this policy, and first and foremost, these are the facts. Over the generations, prophecy and miracles disappeared.
4. Indeed, I too am still in need of further thought regarding the value in the Torah. Though in its time it had value, since humanity’s morality and values were influenced by it to a great extent. But today, indeed, it still requires further thought what value there is in studying the Torah itself. But the Oral Torah—that I do value. As for the ability to derive things from the Torah, I assume that in the past there were tools that have been lost to us (such as the hermeneutical principles).