Q&A: Response to the Critique of Your Book
Response to the Critique of Your Book
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I saw a critique of your book God Plays Dice on the “Ethologica” website (the critique is called “Abraham Plays with Mistakes”). Did the Rabbi respond to this critique?
P.S. Is anything more already known about the publication of the trilogy? A date and so on? I’m already eager to buy it.
Answer
I already responded to this in the past, but I don’t remember whether it was uploaded here (some of my responses were uploaded here, and some I didn’t find on my end. There was a site where I responded to various critiques, but it’s no longer online).
Discussion on Answer
There are several similar references here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%94%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%90%D7%94/
And here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%AA%D7%92%D7%95%D7%91%D7%94-%D7%9C%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%AA-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%94%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%97%D7%A7-%D7%91%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AAqu/
And here:
https://mikyab.net/%d7%9e%d7%90%d7%9e%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%9d/%d7%aa%d7%a9%d7%95%d7%91%d7%95%d7%aa-%d7%9c%d7%aa%d7%92%d7%95%d7%91%d7%aa-%d7%a6%d7%91%d7%99-%d7%99%d7%a0%d7%90%d7%99-%d7%9c%d7%a1%d7%93%d7%a8%d7%aa-%d7%90%d7%9e%d7%95%d7%a0%d7%94-%d7%95%d7%9e%d7%93/
And here:
https://mikyab.net/%d7%9e%d7%90%d7%9e%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%9d/%d7%aa%d7%a9%d7%95%d7%91%d7%95%d7%aa-%d7%9c%d7%aa%d7%92%d7%95%d7%91%d7%aa-%d7%a8%d7%95%d7%a2%d7%99-%d7%a6%d7%96%d7%a0%d7%94-%d7%9c%d7%a1%d7%93%d7%a8%d7%aa-%d7%90%d7%9e%d7%95%d7%a0%d7%94-%d7%95%d7%9e/
And what about the trilogy?
And thanks so much, Oren!
I don’t know. In terms of writing, I’m near the end of the third book, but I still haven’t decided on the form and method of publication. It’s still a process.
Thank you, Rabbi!
Most of the articles there deal with issues that, even if they were completely correct (and at the time the Rabbi did respond to them), wouldn’t really matter in the context of the arguments for the existence of God.
There’s one article there where, if he’s right, then his argument is significant. I asked the Rabbi about it, and his response is here:
https://mikyab.net/Responsa/A Critique of the Argument from Design/
Rabbi,
If you have the address of the old site, I’d be happy to try—maybe I can restore it.
I went over all the response articles on Ethologica again quickly.
With the exception of one article, none of the critiques raised there has any significance.
Generally speaking, even if the critique is completely correct, at most it means the Rabbi didn’t understand a certain line in Dawkins, or didn’t choose a very successful analogy. For all the substantive points, a response was indeed written.
Specific comments:
Article A – pointless hairsplitting over terminology in philosophy of science. It seems the critic isn’t a philosopher, so it’s not clear why one should rely on what he says. In any case, there is a response by the Rabbi in the comments on the site where the critique was published.
Article B – pointless hairsplitting over whether evolution is falsifiable or not. Even if it isn’t—so it isn’t. So what? Beyond that, there is also a response by the Rabbi himself in the comments on the critic’s site.
Article C – there is a response by the Rabbi to the argument in Notebook 3, chapter 9.
Article D – a response appears in the question at the link I attached below. That said, this is the only smart argument in all the articles, but even that he copied from an article by someone else on the physico-theological argument. That argument too suffers from some serious flaws.
Article E – claims that the Rabbi’s factory analogy is incorrect and that one should not be impressed by the uniqueness of the universe. Chapter 9 in Notebook 3 also answers this, and likewise the response article to Eliyah Leibowitz.
Article F – hairsplitting over Dawkins’s view in his book—the critic claims that Dawkins thinks evolution is not random but proceeds according to laws, while Rabbi Michi thinks that according to Dawkins evolution is random. To be clear, I didn’t look into whether this claim is true, but even if it is true… it’s not clear why this has any significance beyond whether the Rabbi understood or didn’t understand what Dawkins meant. In any case, he showed that both theses lead to belief in God.
Article G – the dumbest response article in the series…. It’s not clear what the point of the article is. The Rabbi gives an analogy that everyone is impressed by an improbable event and gives a real-life example for it (a die). The critic shows that in his opinion it’s obvious there is a chance that the events brought in the analogy would indeed happen, and therefore the analogy is irrelevant. Even if he’s right… (here too I didn’t see any need to go deeply into it) it seems to me he simply didn’t understand the point of the analogy…
And regarding the trilogy?