[Avodah] R'YBS / Kant

[Micha Berger]

CC-ing RYGB to make sure he sees the PS at the bottom. (Twice, because
I could never remember which mailbox he checks regularly.)

On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 06:24:22AM +0200, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> Me: Wasn't sure from what you were saying whether you believe post-Kant one
> can "prove" religion in a traditional sense. (VS. R'YBS)
> 
> R'JZ:"I do not agree with the Rav following Kant in general on this issue,
> but partially because I do not agree with his sense of "proof...

You say "'prove' religion in a tradition sense", but R J Ziring answers
that he disagrees because he is using tradition in another sense, which
would mean a non-traditional one?

Everyone in the conversation seems to agree that the kind of proofs we
find in the Moreh Nevuchim don't work. The kind that the Rambam says is
necessary for true Emunah (as Ibn Tibbon translated it, the word choice
is controversial), without which one does not really embrace the 13 Middos
in a way to qualify for "Kol Yisrael yeish lahem cheileq le'olam haba".

Personally I think that a proof of that sort could very well exist.
Contra Kant. However, its existence is useless. Our choice of postulates
/ first principles is based on what fits the worldview that is working
in our lives (or rejecting those that fit what isn't working). And it
is we who decide what questions upshlug an entire proof, and which are
just puzzles that must have a solution somewhere.

So we could be staring an effective Kalam / Scholastic style proof and
not realize it. Or, embract a false one, and not notice its flaws.

>                                                                 I agree
> with Stephen Meyers in The Return of the God Hypothesis, that we should
> think of proof the way we do in science -- bringing evidence that strengthens
> a hypothesis, using abductive reasoning." (Definition -- "abductive
> reasoning represents an inference to the best explanation.")

Carl Popper argues that science never proves theories. There could always
be a "black swan"* out there that disproves it. All science can do is
narrow the range of possible theories by disproving wrong ones when they
contradict an experiment.

* The expression "black swan" comes from an illustrative example. Someone
in Europe could construct the theory "All swans are white." Juvenal
(2nd cent Roman poet) used a line meaning "a bird as rare as a black
swan" to mean something that never happens. But then Europeans got to
Australia... where there are black swans.

Then there is the weirdness known as the Raven Paradox:

1- All ravens are black.

Therefore, we know the contrapositive:
2- Anything that isn't black isn't a raven.

And then we have an observation:
3- This green apple isn't black, and it is not a raven.

Does observing the green apple then become an experiment adding weight
in the Meyers sense to the thesis that all ravens are black?

The logic says yes. But the notion is ridiculous. Which is why it's
called a paradox.

So abductive reasoning has its flaws.

Aside from having the same problems that no matter how valid a proof is,
our personal assessments of that validity are still subjective.

I therefore personally justify my beliefs by embracing that
first-handedness. I believe because

People cannot be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN they love their children. Ask a
psychologist about things lurking in unconscious parts of our minds
because we won't admit ugly truths to ourselves. We certainly can't prove
that love to others. And yet, we do not demand any kind of proof before
making major sacrifices on their behalf.

If the sun has come up every day of your life, and was always in shades
of yellow or orange (when on the horizon) when you saw it, you would
make firm plans on the sun seeming yellow or orange next time you were
able to see it. Would you demand a proof first? Or try to figure out a
way to show other people the sun is really that color before acting? Do
you believe that the sun is yellow because you can get other people to
say the same thing, or because you have seen it uncountably many times
and it's yellow (or sometimes orange).

What's fun about that example is, the sun is acutally white. Check in
photos. (As they say at eclipses: Do NOT look at the sun directly.)
And of course it is, it's the spectrum our eyes were designed for!
But still, people believe it's yellow, and that's why -- not some argument
about fusion, light frequencies, the biology of the eye and the psychology
of perception.

My argument isn't that people like keeping Shabbos, and therefore
believe. Nor the other extreme -- that people rationally prove the Divine
origin of hilkhos Shabbos and therefore keep it. Rather, that the thing
a person likes points to something real about Shabbos. As ineffable as
the aesthetics of a "beautiful" math proof. There is something about the
proof that gives it beauty; but people shouldn't accept proofs simply
because of the beauty.

Or when you learn a sugya in Choshein Mishpat and it casts light on
Pesach and "bal yeira'eh bal yeimatzei", to bring an example from one of
RYGB's "Vos iz Der Chiluk" questions back in volumes 6 and 7, in 2001.*
(VIDC #7: https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol07/v07n015.shtml#12>)

To ask for anything more solid is simply not how people make decisions. It
would be holding up religion to an unrealistic standard of certainty.

And this is why most people who leave Orthodoxy have reasons other than a
calculated assessment of what the Torah teaches. Although it could include
that as well, but then, assessing the validity of proofs is subjective.

* Off topic: the VIDC series is worth a chazarah:
Ground rules: https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=G#GUIDELINES%20FOR%20DERECH%20ANALYSIS%20VOSS%20IZ%20DER%20CHILLUK
And browse the index ("Vos..." headers) starting at https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=V#VOS%20IS%20DER%20CHILLUK%205
And ("VIDC..." headers) at https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=V#VIDC

If someone has more time than I do, they're worth collecting into a single
page.

An enlightening and enjoyable Chanukah!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 There's only one corner of the universe
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   you can be certain of improving,
Author: Widen Your Tent      and that's your own self.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF    	    - Aldous Huxley