I understand that according to halacha in many circumstances it is prohibited to read certain views. However, I find this difficult to justify on the level of ?? ?? ????? ????????. In other words, if an intellectually honest, truth-seeking individual were to ask, “why can’t I read this book?” I don’t think there is a satisfactory answer.
Here’s how the discussion would go, from that person’s perspective:
Me: You are not allowed to read ___ ___ ________. It is pure kefira, and it is against halacha to read kefira.
Intellectually honest non-religious person: But why should I accept halacha?
Me: Because [continue for six hours arguing that] it is logical and reasonable to do so. (Obviously I cannot argue that he should accept it even if it isn’t logical and reasonable for him to do so; if I would, he’d slam the door in my face. And rightly so, if I may add.)
IINRP: How can you possibly claim anything is logical and reasonable if you are intentionally ignoring certain arguments to the contrary?
See, here I am in a bit of a pickle. I can’t really answer that once I am convinced my way is true, I can logically ignore any further arguments to the contrary. That’s a nice emotional argument, and maybe even pragmatic, but it won’t satisfy someone searching for truth.
If you are convinced that something is true, that might be enough to justify teaching it to your kids and not teaching them otherwise. But for a mature, intellectually honest adult, banning any avenue of intellectual exploration is not something which I think can easily be justified. Except by saying azoy shteit, but that will not help regarding ?? ?? ????? ????????.