God, Torah and Morality

Over the past few days, I have taken part in a discussion about morality and the existence of God. I will recap the major points, and then present the question that my beloved (really) opponents do not seem able to answer.

1) I said that I (and some others) accept the Torah as the binding word of God. Therefore, telling me that a Muslim can make the same argument does not really resonate for me. X said, "When a Muslim says that something is the word of God you don't just accept that uncritically, right? I know it's a little over the top in this particular discussion but it's been famously said that religion can make good men do evil."

2) I responded: "The nature of faith is such that it cannot really be proven or disproven. It can be based on reason, and does not have to be (and should not be) irrational, but it is outside the realm of facts, science, and empirical evidence. I have discussed this in many places, including my blog. And so, if the totality of my experience on earth has lead me to believe that the Torah is the word of a God who exists and is involved in the life of mankind on earth, I will accept the words in it a proiri.

You are right, this can be done by any member of any religion. And the fact is, there is no way to definitively prove that they are wrong or that I am right. However, that does not stop me or them from taking the position in which we have faith -- ie, holding of our respective tenets.

That being said, you are right, the fact that a Muslim says something is the word of God does not make me accept it. However, that is not because I reject the dimension of faith, but because I reject his faith in preference to my own.

For someone who finds the concept of faith fundamentally inferior to sciences, this is hard to swallow. I personally see science and empiricism as wonderful tools in their sphere, and yet recognize that they are limited, and are not useful within matters of faith and spirit.

I hope this explains why the fact that Muslims and other religionists do things I do not support in the name of God, does not make me unable to follow my Torah, in the name of God.

I know it's a little over the top in this particular discussion but it's been famously said that religion can make good men do evil.

By what standard? I personally agree with you that the crusades were evil, but the religious leaders of the time held that it is good to rid the world of non-believers, if they choose not to convert.

The judgment call of "good" men doing "evil" implies a moral code that the actions are being measured against. Which moral code are we using? Is it modern secular humanism? Buddhism? Judaism? The fact is that every code of morals or ethics accepts that certain acts may be unsavory but are necessary for the greater good of the community, nation or world, even secular humanism.

So, I do not think that the aphorism you quoted really says much. "Evil" implies a moral code. If within that moral code, an action is required, it would cease to be evil in that code."

3) X took this to mean that I had no basis in rational thought, and that therefore I was no different than Hamas members who kill innocent civilians. After a lot of misunderstanding, Holy Hyrax asked X: "Don't you have faith in a God? Don't you have reasonable arguments behind that faith of yours, that other skeptics can start attempting to tear apart at? Don't you think that people also have reasonable arguments behind their faith in a religion?"

4) X responded: "No, I believe in God based on reasoned arguments which I have discussed at length elsewhere. I don't have faith in that regard. I do have faith in free will though. I do not believe people have reasonable arguments that successfully make a case for the claims of Orthodox Judaism." I then realized that X had misunderstood me, and assured him that my faith is certainly bolstered by plenty of circumstantial evidence, and pointed him to my writings where I discuss some of this, for example here and here. Obviously, my belief is that matters of faith can never be demonstrated empirically, but there are plenty of reasonable arguments to accept God and also the Torah. X conceded that I was now not morally bankrupt, because my faith (I call it so because I have no empirical evidence for it) rests on reason. However, based on his reasoning, X believes that I am wrong. This is fine, I respond, because it shows how reason is also relative -- as long as it is not drawing from empirical evidence.

5) X then moved on: "My question to you then is - are you so certain in your belief system that you would kill a man for lighting a match on the Sabbath (supposing you lived in a time and place where this could be a realistic scenario)?" To that, I responded, "In my belief system, a person who lights a match on sabbath does not get the death penalty. This is because the death penalty is only meted out when the perpetrator follows a formulaic response to warnings from witnesses. In essence, a person will only be killed for this if he wants to be. Look here" for some of the reasoning.

6) X pushed on, "Ok, even so. You would perform the execution of a man who "wants" to die?" Here is my response: "I don't understand your problem with the death penalty for sabbath observance. At the very least, it can be seen as a social contract, and the Jewish society accepts these strictures. If you want to be part of the society, you have to play by its rules, just like in the US. You can't sleep with your daughter in the US and say, hey, its my life. If a Jew decides he does not want to keep sabbath and actually feels the need to say verbally , "I know it is a sin that receives death, and even so I commit it," when warned by two witnesses before he does the action, then he should live in some other country among other people. The fact is that Jewish Law is extremely limited in how the formulaic death penalty is meted out, much more so than the US today, where "ignorance of the law is no excuse"."

7) Meanwhile, Y was trying to show that his secular humanistic view of morality is better than a God based one. I pointed out that if morality is just what reason dictates to be good and right, Hitler could conceivably claim that his actions were based on reason and therefore moral. Y wrote: " umm... could you make a listing of reasons from Hitler so I can prove them as unreasonable." Y claimed to be able to prove, even to Hitler, that his actions are not rational, and therefore, immoral.

8) I responded with this:
"Hitler's Reasons to Euthanize or Sterilize the Mentally Handicapped:

a) they take up valuable resources (food, water) without contributing to society.
b) caring for them takes away doctors and therapists from non-mentally handicapped people who need these resources to recover from illnesses and become productive members of society.
c) mentally handicapped people are awkward to have around.
d) they also suffer physically and emotionally more than normal people, and this can be alleviated by euthanasia.
e) They keep bad genes in the national or worldwide gene pool.

This is reasonable to Hitler, and to many others, even today. How is it irrational to you? And whatever you say, please show how this proves that it is irrational even to Hitler. Without that, all you will have shown is that reason is relative."

9) Y wrote: "If someone thinks something is within reason and in fact it is not this is called a delusion." I lost my patience a bit and wrote, "What the heck gives you the right to feel that you have the patent on reason! Your opinion demonstrates sublime faith in your own power of reason to the exclusion of other humans' abilities."

10) So, Y wrote: "I can't even prove to you that Hitler was not within reason. How could I possibly prove to Hitler, who is dead, and even in his life was a sick ****, that he was irrational and illogical? I lose HH and Mev, You are right." Is Y being facetious, or is he really conceding this important point?

11) HH wrote to Y: "You simply don't like what Hitler did. That in no way shows he was not a reasonable man." I wrote: "Calling someone as sick **** does not prove anything. I am interested in your logical response to the euthanasia and sterilization issue, Y."

12) Y: "I said "you are right" and you still hound me? I give up!" A bit later, he said: "I do believe in objective reason and morality. I can't prove it to you though so that means nothing to you unless you feel the same way." HH responded:
"If you think of reason as subjective then reason is not provable.
Now you're getting the hang of it.
I do believe in objective reason and morality. I can't prove it to you though so that means nothing to you unless you feel the same way.
An Orthodox Judaism can say that exact same line."

13) So far, the conversation stands with my last comment, directed to both X and Y:

"Ok, even so. You would perform the execution of a man who "wants" to die?

First of all, you seem to get the idea that reason as a basis for moral argument is subjective. Y kept saying over and over again that he can prove that it is immoral what Hitler did. When I challenged him with 5-6 rational reasons to sterilize or euthanize the mentally ill/handicapped, he gave up! He admitted that he can't prove that. It's all based on his reasoning (which I have yet to hear. Pray tell, Y, why is it immoral to euthanize a person who is a burden to society and himself and please, no more links. If you can't formulate a reason yourself, then concede. I don't send you off on chases to read some stuff from some internet site without explanation of what I hold.), and Hitler had darn good reasoning to euthanize.

The only way there can be true morality regarding this is if some higher Power says that it is wrong to euthanize them.

You ultimately admit that my faith in God and Torah can be (and is, I say) based on reason. Therefore, although you may like to say "but your reasons are wrong", you see how this is a subjective argument. I think your rejection of my reasons ignores mountains of good circumstantial evidence, and is dangerous. So two can play that game.

I think secular humanism sets up the position that humanity is the highest end of moral concern.

This is very nice, X. Do you think you can explain to me the problem with Hitler's reasoning then? Y could not. I repost it for your convenience:

Hitler's Reasons to Euthanize or Sterilize the Mentally Handicapped:

a) they take up valuable resources (food, water) without contributing to society.
b) caring for them takes away doctors and therapists from non-mentally handicapped people who need these resources to recover from illnesses and become productive members of society.
c) mentally handicapped people are awkward to have around.
d) they also suffer physically and emotionally more than normal people, and this can be alleviated by euthanasia.
e) They keep bad genes in the national or worldwide gene pool.
What is your reasonable response to this?"

And so, we await X's and Y's responses.