B'chasdei Hashem, over the past almost 20 years, Beis Mevakesh Lev has produced over 13,300 audio shiurim and over 31,000 written posts, unmatched by any one-person website - all completely free of charge. There are no paywalls or anything else. Now we are turning to you for help so we can continue - any amount will help. Even 99 cents! Thank you to my sweetest and most beloved friends!!!:-)!!
alchehrm@gmail.com
----
"What I haven't seen - doesn't exist;
I'm a rationalist!"
Said the frog who cannot see inanimate objects,
And never left the mud puddle where she grew up.
The previous article, in which I dealt with belief in demons, sparked many reactions and long discussions. One of the claims that was repeated in it, was the claim that belief in things like demons, witchcraft, mysticism, etc., is contrary to rationalism. This is not a new claim; the distinction between "rationalistic" approaches, such as that of Maimonides and other philosophers, and approaches called "mystical" (or by less flattering names), is well known. But when I started thinking about the subject, it became clear to me that this distinction is not clear at all. What is rationalism anyway, and why is it contrary to mysticism, and to beliefs like demons?
First of all, a distinction must be made between rationality and rationalism. Rationality generally means acting optimally according to the relevant considerations. A rational person is one who takes into account all the data, and the goals he wants to achieve, and acts in a way that promotes them. Rational thinking does not stand in any essential contradiction with mysticism; people like Ramban, Ramchal and Rav Kook were prominent mystics, and no one disputes their genius, common sense and orderly thinking.
Rationalism, on the other hand, is another matter. This is a philosophical approach, which began with Descartes, and from him spread throughout Europe (hence it is also called Continental Rationalism). According to this approach, knowledge about reality can and should be reached through logical inferences, based on a priori knowledge inherent in the human mind. A rival of this approach is empiricism, which claims that all our knowledge is acquired by experience alone.
The rationalism referred to today in such discussions is not identical to Continental Rationalism. A definition of the term can be found in RationalWiki, an online encyclopedia dedicated entirely to promoting rationalism of the type in question, and to combating non-rationalistic approaches. There, under the entry Rationalism, the following definition appears:
"Rationalism is a philosophy that attaches great importance to logic (especially logic) and empirical observation [...] The term more commonly refers to a synthesis between Continental Rationalism and its previous philosophical rival, Empiricism. This looser rationalism believes that empirical observation is more useful than intuitions to arrive at the basic axioms, but deductive logic can be used on the basis of those axioms as well. The best embodiment of this way of achieving knowledge is the scientific method; therefore, rationalists tend to attach great importance to science, and see it as the main or only source of truth."
Rationalism, therefore, is not a system of claims about reality, but a method that is supposed to lead to such claims. The "new" rationalism accepts the claim of empiricism, and seeks to base its basic assumptions on sensory experience, but it is willing to use logic to reach further conclusions on their basis.
Regarding the use of logic, there is nothing here that distinguishes rationalism; as mentioned above, many mystics also use logic in a systematic way. The more significant claim is that our basic assumptions should be based on empirical experience. In fact, it means "what we know exists is what we have seen." This in itself is perfectly logical; the problem is that rationalism has consequently adopted the opposite claim, according to which "what I have not seen - does not exist." "I saw" in the broad sense, of critical and cumulative empirical experience, and "exists" at least in the sense of relevant to us. In other words, what exists is only what can be proven through direct empirical experience, or logically inferred from empirical observations. And assuming that we have never seen mystical entities and phenomena such as demons, angels and gods, and that their existence cannot be logically proven on the basis of the information we have - then they do not exist, and belief in them is non-rationalistic. This is where rationalism clashes with mysticism and the supernatural. All that we know experimentally is nature, and all that deviates from it and cannot be proven, does not exist.
Now stop and think for a moment. How logical, or rational, does the claim "what I have not seen - does not exist" sound to you? Does it itself stand up to a rationalistic test? There is no doubt that it is not based on sensory experience. On the contrary, experience teaches us that we know only a small part of what exists. How much has each of us seen with his own eyes? And even if we add up all the empirical and scientific experience of all human beings, what part of reality does it cover? Even on our small planet, our senses perceive only a limited spectrum of reality, and our experience covers a ridiculously short period in history. And we have not yet talked about the almost infinite spaces of the universe, other galaxies, and perhaps even other universes with different laws of nature, whose existence science currently estimates. In light of this, the claim "what I have not seen - does not exist" sounds pretentious and ridiculous from the mouths of the greatest researchers, in the same way that it sounds from the mouth of the frog with which we opened the article. Is this called rationalism? Is this pure logic at its best? On the contrary, since there are significant considerations showing that this claim is not true, it would be irrational to stick to it. Rationalism, therefore, seems irrational.
Moreover, what is the meaning of "we saw" in the sentence "we did not see"? Who exactly is supposed to see? If we accept eyewitness accounts, then we have many of them related to miracles, demons, spirits and other supernatural phenomena, from the time of the Bible and the Sages to the present day. Quite a few of them were reported by many people, wise and completely sane. Why are they not considered evidence? Because they cannot be repeated in an empirical experiment that every person can perform? If so, there is an assumption here that only phenomena with consistency and a method that can be predicted exist in reality, and any phenomenon that cannot be predicted or predicted as we wish, does not exist - even if many testify that they saw it with their own eyes. And does that sound logical to you? If God performs miracles, does he have to do them according to a fixed and predictable pattern? (In fact, he does it all the time - that's called "nature".) If there are demons or spirits, do they have to appear according to the demands and conditions of the skeptical researcher? (If I were a demon, the last thing I would do is hand myself over to the scientists...) By the way, quite a few mystics claim that the training path they offer will eventually give those who follow it the opportunity to have experiences similar to theirs, and to see for themselves the truth of their words. But the rationalist, of course, will never try it seriously, and will not dedicate many years of his life to demanding spiritual exercises; he "knows" in advance that it is all nonsense. If you don't show it to him now and immediately under the microscope in the lab, it doesn't exist. Everything else is mumbo-jumbo and brainwashing.
Rationalism assumes here assumptions that are not particularly reasonable. In fact, it seems that it is nothing but a thin mask for materialism - a belief that all that exists is inanimate, dead and blind matter, which is only capable of moving in legal and unchanging circles. It reflects the desire of its supporters to stick to a comfortable, familiar and predictable worldview, and to resist any intrusion and influence of divine, spiritual and supernatural forces, which the Western man does not like. The people of the ancient world saw the divine in every tree and stone; the modern man prefers to distance it from him as much as possible, to the heights of the incomprehensible transcendence, and not to give it a significant foothold in his life. An understandable aspiration perhaps, but what does it have to do with flaunting the feathers of "pure logic"? Is an a priori bias against any unfamiliar and unusual phenomenon the characteristic that distinguishes logic and reason?
Just a moment, the rationalists will say, we have a claim in our mouths that does not properly reflect our position. We did not say for sure that what we have not seen - does not exist. This is only a methodological assumption. We do not rule out the possibility that somewhere in the expanses of space and time demons and spirits of all kinds, pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters are floating around. But until empirical proof of their existence is found - as far as we are concerned they are irrelevant, and we assume that they do not exist. What is your alternative? Should we assume that everything we have not seen - does exist? If we start running wild like that, it will be the end of scientific research, which has advanced us so nicely to this point. We will all be devoured by ravenous spaghetti monsters, and return to the darkness of the Middle Ages.
Here, in my opinion, lies the central mistake of rationalism. It assumes a kind of binary, black-and-white choice, between only two possibilities: either something is scientifically proven, and then we know that it exists - or it is not scientifically proven, and then we assume that it does not exist. But the truth is that between these two possibilities there is a very wide gray area. Between certain knowledge and absolute negation, lies the realm of faith.
Suppose that rationalism and science have succeeded in exposing the facts about a certain part of reality, and illuminating it with the light of clear understanding. What happens beyond the circle of light, in all the dark area? What exists there? We will get there in time, says the rationalist. Eventually science will illuminate everything. Maybe; but in the meantime, what exists out there (if it exists), is not waiting for us to confirm its existence. The bacteria did not wait for Van Leeuwenhoek to discover them, to cause diseases to humans. Electricity did not wait for Franklin to cause lightning. We want to formulate for ourselves as broad a world view as possible, and to relate also to what is beyond the circle of light of science. But we cannot clearly see what is there. What do we do in this case?
This is exactly where faith comes into the picture. Not blind faith, which rushes to jump to conclusions, in the style of "if I don't know what it is, it's probably demons\aliens\miracles"; but faith that tries to collect sources of information, evidence and intuitions, and formulate according to them logical assumptions about that unfamiliar area. True, its assumptions and hypotheses do not have the validity of scientific proof, and it would be a mistake to attribute such validity to them; but as long as they have something to base on, and they do not contradict the existing knowledge - the beliefs that are formed in this way can be completely rational.
"Everything is science," claim some arrogant scientist-rationalists. No, not everything is science. You don't have to be a mystic to know that the moral realm, for example, is completely exempt from the realm of science. No scientific study can decide for us on moral questions, no matter how many stories it tells about the evolutionary process in which the parts of the brain responsible for our moral sense developed. You also don't have to be a mystic to know that in the study of the past, for example, whether it is history or the legal-criminal field, we will not always find evidence that meets scientific criteria. Archaeological research, or the investigation of a crime, usually relies on circumstantial evidence, oral or written testimonies, and assumptions of probability, which from a strict scientific point of view are invalid. What gives the conclusions of these investigations any validity? Faith. Faith in the credibility of the witnesses, in the dating of the findings, in the big picture built according to several pieces of information. It is not a simple matter; people can be sent to jail for life because of such beliefs. So criticism is important and necessary, especially if new findings are discovered, but in the end faith is what determines.
Needless to say, of course, that scientific research itself relies on beliefs all along the way. Every scientist relies on the research and writings of his predecessors, and sees their testimonies as a reliable source; no one can reinvent the wheel from the beginning. Not to mention other assumptions implicit in the scientific method. Logical positivism, a philosophical approach that flourished and faded in Europe between the two world wars, tried to present a position according to which any claim that cannot be proven scientifically or logically is nothing but meaningless nonsense; it collapsed, among other things, due to the simple fact that its own basic assumption cannot be proven by any scientific or logical proof. It is nothing but a sophisticated attempt to enforce a certain belief on other people, under the guise of "pure logic."
In light of the above, it becomes clear why there is nothing irrational in belief in demons, in mysticism or in God. Rationalism pretends that the only alternative to it is an unbridled ontological anarchy, which will flood our world with pink unicorns and rampaging spaghetti monsters. This is not the case; the realm of faith does not contain clear and sharp boundaries like the scientific realm, but it is not completely abandoned. Common sense, sound logic, intuitions and natural senses operate in it. The fact is that the vast majority of people are not gullible believers in everything, and you will not find anyone today who believes in baseless things like the Loch Ness Monster. What people tend to believe in are those things for which there are cumulative reasons to believe; demons, for example, are a phenomenon for which many testimonies exist from the beginning of history to the present day, and contrary to the scientist myth, not all of them have been refuted, and not even most of them. There is no reason, therefore, not to believe in them, especially if you are a religious Jew who attaches value to the testimonies of the Sages and the great men of Israel. Again - these testimonies are not in the nature of scientific proof, and they can be doubted, but they are certainly in the nature of a reason to believe.
And this is the point, which, as I learned in the discussions on the subject, is so difficult for rationalists to grasp. "There is no proof!" they keep declaring, "The words of the Sages, eyewitness accounts, photographs, strange phenomena - do not prove that there are demons! Maybe they were wrong, hallucinated, faked, lied, maybe there is another explanation!". They do not understand that if there were proofs - there would be no need to believe. We would simply know. Faith belongs precisely when there are no proofs, but only different considerations of trust, probability and intuition. The absence of proof is not proof of absence; darkness is not non-existence, but only non-knowledge, and this is where faith comes in. Why shouldn't I believe the words of the Sages, first and last, who testify to things they saw clearly with their own eyes? Only because I didn't see it? How pretentious do you have to be to determine that if I have never seen demons from the height of my sitting in the armchair in my living room, then everyone who has seen them is nothing but a visionary, mistaken or a liar?
An atheist once told me in an argument that a pile of straw as high as Everest is still not gold. A huge pile of testimonies, reports and photographs of all kinds does not constitute scientific proof. I agree; but a pile of straw as high as Everest, even if it is not gold, is still worth a lot... And the greater the number of testimonies, evidence and unexplained phenomena, the more pathetic the attempts to justify them all with general statements such as "hallucinations", "forgeries", etc. become. Okay, I didn't ask you to accept it as absolute truth - but why not believe? Why not admit that we don't know, but that there is a good chance that things are indeed true?
Particularly pathetic are the attempts of certain religious people to dance at two weddings between rationalism and faith. They will do anything to explain that the Sages did not mean, that they were talking about something else, that they were influenced by Babylonian culture, and so on. Not only do these interpretations not stand up to any test of reasonableness, not in relation to the Sages and certainly not in relation to much later generations - but all the motivation behind them is completely dubious. Why, for all the demons and spirits, not accept things as they are? Only because we didn't see them? Trying to combine religion and rationalism is like trying to combine prayer and atheism. Religion is faith; rationalism is the negation of faith. Not necessarily religious - any faith that is. Only what is proven, exists. And what will those "religious-rationalists" do with beliefs like miracles, the Exodus, the giving of the Torah, prophecy, angels, the afterlife, and God himself? Will they prove them empirically or logically? Or here suddenly the testimonies of the ancients are considered reliable? Whatever you want - if you believe in things we have not seen, there is no reason not to believe in demons. And if you don't believe in anything - there is no place for religion. And what is sad here is their mistaken identification between rationalism and rationality, as if the claim "what I have not seen - does not exist" expresses the intellect, logic and reason; as if reason and science are raping them to deny everything that is not scientifically proven. And all this is far from the truth.
And I emphasize again. Mystical beliefs of all kinds must not come at the expense of scientific, empirical and critical research. This is the justified fear of a return to primitive times, when every unfamiliar phenomenon was immediately attributed to demons, witchcraft or miracles. Whoever shouts "demons!" at every strange noise in the dark, does not advance us anywhere. On the other hand, whoever shouts "hallucination!" at every eyewitness account, does not really advance us anywhere either. In cases where scientific research has not found satisfactory explanations (and "satisfactory" is in itself a matter of personal belief), there is definitely room to raise hypotheses from the unfamiliar realm, which is called by the misleading names "mystical" or "supernatural". And these are indeed only hypotheses and beliefs, which may be refuted one day; but in the meantime there is nothing illogical in them, and who knows, maybe they will actually advance us to new places.
Arthur C. Clarke said that any sufficiently advanced technology will look like magic to someone who is not familiar with it. In this vein, it can be said that any sufficiently advanced science will look like mysticism to someone who is not familiar with it (try telling scientists from 300 years ago about current theories, and you will see). "Mysticism" and "supernatural" are just names for those parts of reality that we do not yet know. Only a particularly pretentious frog will claim definitively that they do not exist. A day will come, and perhaps they will be an integral part of our world view.
In conclusion, it turns out that being a rationalist is not really rational. More than rationalism expresses pure logic, it expresses mental fixation and lack of imagination, which are expressed in the assumption "what I have not seen - does not exist." Since we have good reasons to assume that there are many things we have not seen, and since rationality means taking into account all the reasons - the rational conclusion is to reject this rationalistic assumption. Rationalism, like science, has an important role in its own field; it fails when it becomes blind to what is outside its field, to what belongs to the realm of faith. It would be more correct to formulate his assumption in the opposite way: "What I have seen - exists." This is a perfectly rational statement. And what about what I haven't seen? Who knows? No one. But you can believe.
We opened with a frog, and we will end with Shakespeare, who formulated this so logical and simple insight well: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." What sounds more logical to you, this or "what I have not seen - does not exist"? Decide for yourself.
