Robert Aumann on Judaism

Thanks to everybody who responded. I read all the comments and did some more thinking. I also found this PDF (Hebrew) of a speech he gave on the subject. Here's my summary of what I think he means, more or less:

Scientific statements are models of physical reality, but they're the map and not the territory. Religious statements are also models, but they're primarily maps of one's personal version of an aesthetic / emotional / moral system of "reality" rather than physical reality. If to experience the beauty of Judaism that means using a model that views the world as having been created in 6 days, that's perfectly fine because it's only a model in our mind anyway and it doesn't have to conform to physical reality.

Stated in other words: I think he's appealing to the idea of separate magisteria, but he's extending it way beyond saying that religion deals with values while science deals with reality. He's saying that even the statements of fact, like young earth creationism, are a separate magisteria from scientific statements of reality. That's sort of compartmentalization, although it's more similar to suspension of disbelief. But ultimately I think it's more of a combination of all of those concepts.

But the upshot seems to be that he doesn't think religious "facts" correspond to external physical reality. As he says, many religious people wouldn't agree with him on this. Having grown up as an Orthodox Jew myself, I'd say this is an extreme understatement. Most Ultra-Orthodox Jews (I'm not so sure about Modern Orthodox, since I didn't grow up in that community), and most of the rabbis he looks up to, would probably consider such a statement to be complete heresy.

I'm also curious if Aumann puts the entire concept of God into this alternative personal "map of reality" that doesn't really correspond to "physical" reality. Does he think there is a God that really (in quasi-physical terms) created the world and/or guides the world and/or answers prayers and/or rewards and punishes people in heaven / hell?

Anybody have a clue what he means by all this?

I think that he is essentially saying the he believes in the idea of non overlapping magisteria. It should be fairly obvious that this is a case of compartmentalization. Here is a related post religions claim to be nondisprovable

Here are some other quotes from the interview not in the OP:

Religion is very different from science. The main part of religion is not about the way that we model the real world. I am purposely using the word “model”. Religion is an experience mainly an emotional and aesthetic one. It is not about whether the earth is 5,765 years old. When you play the piano, when you climb a mountain, does this contradict your scientific endeavours? Obviously not. The two things are almost though not quite orthogonal. Hiking, skiing, dancing, bringing up your children you do all kinds of things that are almost orthogonal to your scientific endeavour. That is the case with religion also. It doesn’t contradict; it is orthogonal. Belief is an important part of religion, certainly; but in science we have certain ways of thinking about the world, and in religion we have different ways of thinking about the world. Those two things coexist side by side without conflict.

This is an example of what is behind the figure of God call it a model, a way of thinking, a way of living. It is similar, broadly speaking, to the earth being round. God is a way of thinking of our lives; translated into practical terms, it tells us how to live as human beings.

Truth is in our minds. If we are sufficiently broad-minded, then we can simultaneously entertain different ideas of truth, different models, different views of the world.

Do you think this is a valid way of looking at the world and/or religion? If not, how confident are you in your assertion? If you are very confident, on what basis do you think you have greatly out-thought Robert Aumann?

No. I won’t go into details, but see crisis of faith which also talks about Aumann. I also don’t think it’s a matter of out-thinking, per say, I think that it is more of a matter of clearer thinking. I am not a religious authority or been brought up with a religion, so I can see it from the outside. I think that a big reason for Aumann’s belief is the costs involved if he were to start to disbelieve. See the below quotes:

The observance of the Sabbath is extremely beautiful, and is impossible without being religious. It is not even a question of improving society it is about improving one’s own quality of life. For example, let’s say I’m taking a trip a couple of hours after the Sabbath. Any other person would spend the day packing, going to the office, making final arrangements, final phone calls, this and that. For me it’s out of the question. I do it on Friday. The Sabbath is there. The world stops.

The religious community, by the way, is very close. This matter of khessed, of helping your fellow man, is very strong in religious communities; it is a commandment, like eating kosher and keeping the Sabbath.

There might also be an element of learned blankness. That is, going to Rabbis to sort out moral dilemmas for you instead of thinking about it yourself. Without religion it often becomes harder to know what is right or wrong and perhaps Aumann does not like that.

There was a period fifteen, twenty years ago when stealing software was considered okay by many people, including many academics. There was an item of software that I needed, and I was wondering whether to steal it or make a copy of which the developers of the software disapprove. Then I said to myself, why do you have to wonder about this? You are a religious person. Go to your rabbi and ask him. I don’t have to worry about these questions because I have a religion that tells me what to do. So I went to my rabbi a holocaust survivor, a very renowned, pious person. I figured he won’t even know what software is will have to explain it to him. Maybe there is a Talmudic rule about this kind of intellectual property not really being property. Whatever he’ll say, I’ll do. I went to him. He said, ask my son-in-law. So I said, no, I am asking you. He said, okay, come back in a few days. I’ll make a long story short. I went back again and again. He didn’t want to give me an answer. Finally I insisted and he said, Okay, if you really want to know, it’s absolutely forbidden to do this, absolutely forbidden. So I ordered the software. In short, you can be a moral person, but morals are often equivocal. In the eighties, copying software was considered moral by many people. The point I am making is that religion at least my religion is a sort of force, a way of making a commitment to conduct yourself in a certain way, which is good for the individual and good for society.

a confirmed Bayesian

I would be careful here. I find it useful to think that to be a 'rationalist' you actually have to be a rationalist. That is, you need to actually practice what you have learnt otherwise you only know about rationality. Aumann knows a lot about Bayesianism, but this doesn't necessarily make him a confirmed Bayesian. It just means that he knows a lot about what a Bayesian agent would be.

Honestly the easiest explanation is just that Aumann is a very muddled thinker when it comes to religion. That's hardly a surprising explanation - muddled thinking is extremely common when it comes to religion. And it doesn't mean that such a person can't otherwise be very rational. I know I'm being blunt here, but I see no reason to look beyond superficial appearances here. Just because a statement is religious doesn't mean it's deep.

All this stuff about non overlapping magisteria is honestly just confused nonsense. There's only one truth. Sure you can approach that truth from different directions, but not if those directions directly contradict each other. Spending a great many pages talking about this just obscures that obvious fact.

And it's all good and beautiful to say that "Religion is very different from science. The main part of religion is not about the way that we model the real world". But I've never met a religious person who said that and then didn't immediately turn around and started applying their religion to the real world. Aumann also does that. In fact in this very interview he literally says that copying software is wrong because his religion says so. So he clearly is modelling the real world based on his religion.

If you believe http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/opinion/sunday/oliver-sacks-sabbath.html it was an emotional/aesthetic decision:

“The observance of the Sabbath is extremely beautiful,” he said, “and is impossible without being religious. It is not even a question of improving society — it is about improving one’s own quality of life.”

Seems quite rational to not deprive oneself of beauty.

I don't see why so many people are assuming that Aumann is accepting a literal creation in six days. I read the article and it seems obvious to me that he believes that the world came to be in the ordinary way accepted by science, and he considers the six days to be something like an allegory. There is no need for explanations like a double truth or compartmentalization.

I have a post at my blog about the meaning of saying that a religion is true or false where I discuss this interview. Basically I think he thinks that the practice of Judaism is good for him, and, at least for him, does not involve saying much about the world. That is clear from things like this:

"Religion is very different from science. The main part of religion is not about the way that we model the real world. I am purposely using the word "model." Religion is an experience, mainly an emotional and aesthetic one. It is not about whether the earth is 5,765 years old. When you play the piano, when you climb a mountain, does this contradict your scientific endeavors? Obviously not. The two things are almost - though not quite - orthogonal. Hiking, skiing, dancing, bringing up your children - you do all kinds of things that are almost orthogonal to your scientific endeavor. That's the case with religion also. It doesn't contradict; it is orthogonal."

Basically he is saying that his religion is a practice, not a belief. To the extent that it involves saying things about reality, those are mostly metaphorical or something similar.

Perhaps a satisfactory answer can be found in "Jewish Philosophy as a Guide to Life: Rosenzweig, Buber, Levinas, Wittgenstein" by Hilary Putnam (who seemed to me to be a reasonable philosopher, but converted to Judaism). I've just started listening to its audiobook version, prompted by this post.

I guess you can view religion as a metaphor of morality, like poetic advice that uses a ton of strange concepts, but somehow makes your life better. Though I'm not sure that Aumann would put it in those terms, because in the interview he also talks about the nature of truth and factual claims and such.

We know that religion is false but it does something extremely difficult to do which makes it difficult for the atheists(such as myself) to continue, that it is the solution to the extended family. It increases trust among heterogeneous population bases and increases trust among unrelated peoples. Trust is a very scarce resource. Many people forgot to consider this and this is something that I have had to do a complete 180 on. I can no longer continue anti-religiousness as it is anti-civilization and anti-cohesiveness for a society.

I hope this makes you happy.

Do you think this is a valid way of looking at the world and/or religion?

Yes.

a confirmed Bayesian

Give it a rest already.

The antidote to cultishness is reading things by a diverse selection of smart people.

Maybe he thinks religion and scence are both metaphors?

I would say; (as said below) I agree with the boxing of beliefs; and the holding onto the ones that make you more effective in life; even if they are sometimes not true.

an example: "pain is weakness leaving the body" is an example of a lie that can encourage you to do more pushups, and therefore be more effective at doing what you want to do; even if its not true.