Justina's Writing Corner

The dialogue between the philosopher, the Jewish sage, and the Khazar king raises deep questions about the nature of religion, human perfection, and the role of morality in our lives. The philosopher insists that true worship of God consists not in obedience to divine law but in understanding God through reason and the study of nature. By assimilating our minds to God’s mind, we come to share in His perfection. This means that religion, insofar as it consists of laws and commandments, is not necessary for achieving human perfection—only intellectual understanding matters.

The Khazar king, however, cannot accept this. He insists that God must care about human actions and that there must be actions that are intrinsically pleasing to God. His reasoning is based on personal experience—his dream, which he takes as a divine message. The philosopher, on the other hand, rejects this notion entirely. If God is perfect and self-sufficient, He has no desires and is unaffected by human actions. The king, being a practical person and a ruler, cannot accept a worldview in which actions are ultimately meaningless. Does this mean that the philosopher’s position is wrong, or merely that it is impractical for someone concerned with governance and law?

This question ties into Halevi’s broader critique of philosophy. The philosopher claims that the choice of religion is indifferent—one could follow any religion or even create a new one, as long as it leads to moral virtue. Religion, in this sense, is merely a tool for producing good character, which in turn allows a person to achieve true understanding of God. But this suggests that no religion is objectively better than another, which contradicts the Jewish sage’s position. The sage argues that Judaism is uniquely justified, but not through philosophical reasoning. Instead, its justification comes from faith—from the belief that God is a personal God, that He gives laws, that He rewards and punishes, and that He performs miracles.

This raises an even deeper question: should we live by reason or by faith? If we trust reason alone, then we must accept that there are no absolute moral truths—reason considers circumstances, and what is right in one situation may not be right in another. Unlike mathematical truths (2 + 2 = 4), moral truths cannot be proven with certainty. Is helping someone in need always the right thing to do? Reason cannot provide an answer that holds in all cases. Faith, on the other hand, provides certainty. It tells us what is absolutely morally correct, which reason cannot do.

For someone who believes that moral action is essential to human well-being, faith is necessary. This is why, according to the Jewish sage, a truly moral person must act out of faith—not because it is logical or beneficial, but because it is commanded by God and is pleasing to Him. The philosopher’s view, which prioritizes understanding over morality, cannot satisfy a person who wants to be absolutely sure that they are doing the right thing. This is why philosophy is insufficient for a moral life.

But if morality requires faith, does this mean that philosophy is useless? The dialogue suggests otherwise. The sage does not completely reject philosophy—he agrees with some of its arguments and even offers a rational defense of Judaism. However, he insists that reason alone is not enough to justify religion. The justification of religion is not rational but moral—we need faith because we need to be moral people.