Q&A: A New Formulation of the Proof of God from Order
A New Formulation of the Proof of God from Order
Question
Does the Rabbi think that the scientific pursuit of the one theory that does not rely on arbitrary assumptions actually carries within it the understanding that there is a supreme principle, which thereby presupposes a Creator
(along the lines of what the Rabbi said, that someone who assumes binding morality is compelled to posit a commanding source)?
What I mean is that the fact that the Big Bang created various kinds of regularity is not a problem for atheists, because regularity is simply a description of reality.
But the scientific pursuit that tries to argue that there is not merely arbitrary regularity here, but rather a structure with one supreme principle (even if we still cannot answer the question why that principle exists), presupposes a rational principle that caused everything, and therefore it necessarily has a Creator.
That is, the moment science takes the leap from looking for regularities to looking for one supreme principle without arbitrariness, it loses the right to answer the religious question of how there is regularity in nature by saying, “That’s just how it is, like there are mathematical laws,” because at the level of scientific inquiry that seeks a supreme principle, mathematics is only a description of the regularity; it is definitely not the basis of the supreme principle.
Answer
The search can be explained as something methodological. People try to find the highest-level generalization possible, but they do not assume with certainty that they will succeed.
Discussion on Answer
In fact, the very pursuit of theories at all, without accepting arbitrariness, is belief in an idea at the basis of creation.
It is not essentially different from consistent behavior that obeys several different laws. Even there, in my view, there is already an assumption of a guiding hand. If you are talking about the proof from laws, then you are pushing on an open door. I have written a great deal about it. If you are speaking specifically about one general law, then I do not see an essential difference.
Could the Rabbi point me to columns on the subject
of the proof from laws, or alternatively, which book is relevant and where it can be ordered?
The First Existent (third and fourth talks). Through my wife (details here under “Books”). There is also God Plays Dice, but there it is swallowed up among many details and lines of argument. There is also my series of articles on Ynet-Science.
Okay,
but does the Rabbi agree that someone who believes in a supreme principle necessarily assumes there is rationality in nature, and therefore the existence of God?
Because when people argue for a supreme principle, they are arguing for rationality in nature, since they are unwilling to accept arbitrariness in theory.
By contrast, when one argues only for a number of laws in nature, one is only arguing for regularity (because any theory will necessarily contain arbitrary data), without rationality in nature.
And to argue for rationality in nature is necessarily to assume the existence of God,
because the Big Bang may perhaps create regularity in the world, but not rationality.
And if we believe in rationality, then we necessarily believe in a source that formulated it.
Along the lines of: if we believe in binding morality, we are assuming a commanding source.