Q&A: Hello Rabbi Michael
Hello Rabbi Michael
Question
The following question came up while reading the book God Plays Dice:
After the sequence of statistical considerations against the possibility of spontaneous formation
(which is based on the age of the universe as inferred from the Big Bang hypothesis—which does not convince me as something absolute merely because of cosmic radiation from all directions and the rate at which the galaxies are moving apart [one should pay attention to when scientists speak confidently because they do not have anything better to say, and when it is because they are convinced it must be so, especially regarding things that have no practical implications, like, for example, the rate at which galaxies are moving apart]).
You then arrive at Dawkins’s claim that there may be infinitely many universes (and assuming I do not accept the Big Bang theory, or at least not its version in which everything was inside a tiny ball of energy, or something singular that does not tell me much because of my lack of training in physics, then perhaps for our universe too we have infinite time), which you compare, quite justifiably, to the “absurd” assumption that there is God.
I agree with you that this reveals something of the religious fanaticism of atheism. However, personally, the more white hairs I have in my beard, the less interested I am in changing others and the more in trying to do that with myself—certainly not in changing fanatical atheists.
I therefore want to move the discussion to the level of my own inner thinking. I must admit that the God of Israel is truly something fantastic, no less than infinitely many universes and even more so. If so, what causes me not to regard the question—whether the universe is a statistical anomaly that came after infinitely many universes, or infinite time within our own universe, or whether it is the result of divine design—as a 50-50 question, or even as more than 50 in favor of the statistical-chance claim? As a believing person, it is not enough for me to make the other side look ridiculous and merely explain why I am not more ridiculous than it is (which you did successfully in the book); I also have to say why I am not ridiculous at all.
If you tell me that in that case I lose all meaning for any statistical consideration, I will tell you that all the decisions I make on the basis of statistical considerations—for instance, taking seriously a sign at a train station (I remember this from some article of yours years ago)—I would say that indeed, if there were a sign that existed before human beings existed, I would tend to say it really was the product of an exceptional coincidence. The difference is that here I have a very simple option for explaining it without a statistical anomaly, since I know there are human beings who write signs, and that there is supposed to be a sign here. But if it were on the moon (before spacecraft had been there), I would gladly accept the anomaly option, without needing to change anything about my rational everyday conduct, because that conduct proceeds on the basis of the certainly existing human alternative.
Thank you in advance!
Maybe it would be worth putting in easier exercises to make sure I’m not a robot—not everyone is a mathematician!!!
Answer
I do not know which exercises you are talking about. In any case, I am not the one who puts them in (but it still seems you managed them successfully despite your lack of training in physics 🙂 ).
First, allow me to ignore your learned opinion about the Big Bang and physics in general. Michio Kaku already wrote that quantum theory is the strangest theory he has encountered. It has one clear advantage: it is correct and it works. The fact that something does not convince you is not of the slightest importance, at least not so long as you have not studied the subject.
Second, the God of Israel is not playing on this field. The one playing here is God in the philosophical sense (the creator and composer of the world).
Third, God is not an alternative to science, and therefore I do not see why I am supposed to compare them as though these were two alternatives facing one another.
Fourth, once one reaches the conclusion that there is a God, one can think about the question whether He is the God of Israel or not. On that matter, see my notebooks here on the site.
For some reason a new thread was opened. I’m moving it here:
Arieh:
1. So I will ask politely: does Your Honor, as someone who actually does have training in physics, classify the Big Bang theory among those things that are a necessary conclusion from experiments, or among those that are a reasonable filling-in of a gap in knowledge, stated confidently only because there is nothing better?
2. The God of Israel in my question—not necessarily. Let it be the God of Aristotle, or Einstein, or Rabbi Michael Abraham. Is that something more reasonable than multiple universes or infinite time?
3. I would be very grateful if the Rabbi would nevertheless trouble himself to answer my question about the distinction between everyday probabilistic considerations, where there is a familiar alternative to statistical anomalies—human beings, for example—and the world as it is prior to human action. I also did not understand what the Rabbi wrote that God is not an alternative to science. Obviously not; I did not think that. He is a design alternative to accidental formation.
My response:
1. It is impossible to do a present-day experiment to test the Big Bang theory, since the bang already happened. But there are quite a few predictions of the theory that have been confirmed experimentally. There is no complete certainty in any scientific theory, even one that arises from experiments. There is always interpretation of the experiments and a choice among interpretive possibilities. Therefore the fulfillment of predictions is the best scientific criterion, and the Big Bang definitely meets it.
2. Definitely. If there is a complex world, then there is someone/something that created it. That is an astonishingly simple conclusion, at least so long as I am not claiming anything whatsoever about that someone or something. That is why I insisted that this is not about the God of Israel, but about some abstract God defined as the creator of the world. That is all I say about Him, and in that sense it seems to me to be a necessary conclusion.
3. I did not see a question there, only a statement. You claim that if you saw a poem by Shakespeare written in the sand on the seashore, but you were not familiar with poets, you would claim it was created by chance. So we have a disagreement about that. By the way, this was ground to dust in the talkbacks around column 144-5.