Rabbi Michael Abraham on ‘God Plays Dice’ – squeezedVacuum
This transcript was produced automatically using artificial intelligence. There may be inaccuracies in the transcribed content and in speaker identification.
🔗 Link to the original lecture
🔗 Link to the transcript on Sofer.AI
Table of Contents
- [0:01] Introduction and presentation of the guests
- [1:01] The common public position
- [2:11] The shift from a minimalist point of view
- [3:14] The creationists’ claims about improbability
- [5:00] The believers’ argument about an external cause
Summary
General overview
The host introduces Dr.-Rabbi Abraham, a graduate of the Beit Midrash for Advanced Torah Studies at Bar-Ilan University, a physicist and researcher at the Weizmann Institute, as the author of the book “God Plays Dice,” which deals mainly with the book by Dawkins, a British biologist who tried to prove that there is no God. He also introduces Sheikh Qasem Badr, director of the holy Druze site in Hurfeish, Nabi Sabalan, in connection with a festival that will be held in the Druze and Circassian villages on Shavuot, at a time when they are marking roughly a thousand years since the founding of the Druze religion. Dr. Abraham explains that he began from a minimalist tendency to separate science from theology and to say that both extreme sides are mistaken, but came to the conclusion that when one looks philosophically at the conclusions of science, there are actually good reasons in favor of belief in God, and that this position can be given theoretical support.
Presentation of the guests and background
Dr.-Rabbi Abraham comes from the Beit Midrash for Advanced Torah Studies at Bar-Ilan University and wrote this book, “God Plays Dice,” and he is also a physicist and researcher at the Weizmann Institute. The book is presented as dealing mainly with the book by Dawkins, a well-known British biologist who about two or three years earlier published a book in which he tries to prove the claim that there is no God, not merely that the question cannot be decided. Sheikh Qasem Badr is presented as the director of the holy Druze site in Hurfeish called Nabi Sabalan, and he is invited because the Kfar Bikartem festival will take place in the Druze and Circassian villages on Shavuot, and among other reasons because at this time they are marking roughly a thousand years since the founding of the Druze religion.
Dr. Abraham’s position vis-à-vis Dawkins and the separation of science and theology
Dr. Abraham says that when he entered this topic, it had not really interested him until the previous year, and that his entry into it came because of the Dawkins story and questions that reached him through various people, which made him feel that there was a need to put some order into things. He describes how his initial tendency was to detach the issue and explain that the theological question is unrelated to the scientific question, and to argue that on this both the fundamentalist creationists, who think one must reject science in order to believe in God, and Dawkins and the neo-Darwinist atheists, who think the opposite, are mistaken, and in that sense their error is shared. He adds that after dealing with the subject, he felt he could not separate the questions, but in the opposite direction: specifically, a more philosophical look at the scientific conclusions leads to the result that, in the philosophical sense, there are actually fairly good reasons in favor of belief in God, even though the question remains scientifically open.
Evolution, probability, and the physico-theological proof
Dr. Abraham explains that, in a nutshell, the creationists claim that the evolutionary process is not plausible and that its probability is very low, and that while it is difficult to speak here in terms of probabilities, one can speak of plausibility. He argues that neo-Darwinists, for the most part, seem to agree with that assessment, but they say that the fact is that it happened, and one cannot deny scientific facts even if they are not plausible, and therefore the improbable happened, while their doubts concern gaps and parts of the explanation. He says that he hardly deals in the book with the subject of gaps because he does not think it is important, and he sees that as an indication that the debate is not being conducted on the right plane, because the debate around gaps is a scientific debate over whether the theory is correct and explains the facts or not, and that is not a simple question and it may have answers, but he has no clear position on that matter.
Dr. Abraham argues that for the theological discussion this is not important, because in his opinion both sides are correct in their assumptions: it is improbable that it happened, but it did happen. He adds that modern biology, and even modern zoology, has proved that one can track Darwinian change during a person’s lifetime, and that it is clear that changes occur, even when the possibility of “new sexual creatures” is raised. He presents the claim that the fact that an improbable process happened is the proper basis for asking the physico-theological question anew, because if something improbable happens, apparently someone caused it. Therefore, in his view, both sides are “shooting themselves in the foot”: if the creationists say it did not happen, they pull the ground out from under their own proof, and if the neo-Darwinists say it did happen, they reestablish the physico-theological proof. He notes that the question arises, “Who says it is improbable?” but says there is no time to get into that.
God and evolution, and a recommended reading order
The host sums up Dr. Abraham’s position as saying that those who advocate evolution are right, but they need to understand one thing: the one responsible for evolution is God, and Dr. Abraham confirms this. Dr. Abraham says that surveys show that significant percentages of the public hold this double position, but according to him it does not have much support on the professional theoretical plane, and this is one of his aims in the book: to try to provide that position with such support, while noting that the majority determines nothing in these matters. He suggests reading his book first and only afterward reading Dawkins’s book, because usually whoever speaks last is more convincing.
Full Transcript
[Speaker A] From the Beit Midrash for Advanced Torah Studies at Bar-Ilan University, and he wrote this book, “God Plays Dice.” And it should be said that the Rabbi is also a physicist and a researcher at the Weizmann Institute. This book is a response mainly to the book by Dawkins, a well-known British biologist who about two or three years ago published a book in which he tries to prove the claim that there is no God. That is, he did not argue that we cannot decide whether there is a God, which is a much more accepted claim, but rather: I can prove that there is no God. And it is with this claim that Dr. Abraham, Dr.-Rabbi Abraham, is grappling. And our second guest is Sheikh Qasem Badr, director of the holy Druze site in Hurfeish, called Nabi Sabalan. And we asked to host him because the Kfar Bikartem festival will take place in the Druze and Circassian villages on Shavuot, among other things because at this time they are marking a thousand years, roughly a thousand years, since the founding of the Druze religion. So first to you, Dr. Abraham. Today most people, even people who do not believe in the Holy One, blessed be He, give up the most aggressive claim and hold the middle position. Maybe there is, meaning, it is not the sort of thing that can be proved or ruled out. And you say it can be proved: there is a God.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] So the truth is that when I entered this topic, this topic had not really interested me until the past year. When I entered it, it really was because of the Dawkins story, and somehow various questions came up and reached me through various people, and I felt that once and for all there was a need to make some order. And my initial tendency really was the minimalist tendency you described earlier, simply to separate the issue, to explain that the theological question is not connected to the scientific question, and on this both the fundamentalist creationists, who think that in order to believe in God one has to reject science, and Dawkins and the neo-Darwinist atheists, who think the opposite, are mistaken. In that sense, their mistake is shared. But after I spent some time on this topic, my feeling was that in fact I cannot separate the questions, but somewhat in the opposite direction. That is, my feeling was that specifically if I look in a more philosophical way at the scientific conclusions, the result is not that the question is open—scientifically it is of course open, that is certainly true—but rather that in the philosophical sense there are fairly good reasons specifically in favor of belief in God. That was the conclusion I reached from dealing with the topic.
[Speaker C] When you determine—that is, also for the sake of creating credibility for your thesis—that both sides are wrong in their certainty, both the Darwinists and the fundamentalists, where are the Darwinists wrong? So—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Really, if I need to put it in a nutshell, it seems to me a bit simplistic, but within the time constraints—
[Speaker C] Television is a simplistic medium. Fine.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The creationists argue that the evolutionary process is implausible, that its probability is very low. It’s hard to talk here about probabilities, but we can talk about plausibility. The neo-Darwinists, for the most part, seem to me to agree with that determination; they just claim that the fact is that it happened. That is, you cannot deny scientific facts even though it is implausible. So it happened—the improbable happened.
[Speaker C] No, the doubts Darwinists have are about gaps, about parts of the—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Right, so that is already getting into the details. On the subject of gaps I hardly deal with it in the book, because I do not think it is important. That is precisely the indication that the debate is being conducted on the wrong plane. The debate around the gaps is the scientific debate. In other words, the question is whether this theory is correct, whether it explains the facts or not, and the gaps are a complicated question, and it is entirely possible that there are answers, and I do not think I have a clear position on that matter. I just think it is not important for the theological discussion, because both sides are right in their assumptions, in my opinion. That is, it is implausible that it happened, but it did happen.
[Speaker A] And it’s very plausible, only I— not only is it plausible, but modern biology, even modern zoology, has proved that it is possible to track Darwinian change during a person’s lifetime.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Of course changes happen; that’s not what’s at issue. Therefore many—
[Speaker A] No, sexually created changes.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Okay, even sexually created ones. That doesn’t bother me either.
[Speaker A] Why does that make it harder for you?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Just allow me first to finish the answer to the previous question, and I’ll come back to that. The fact that an implausible process happened seems to me to be the proper basis for asking the physico-theological question anew.
[Speaker A] But there is no such basis.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] One second. Before I go back to the question: assuming that it really is implausible—and in another moment I’ll talk about that—if it is both implausible and it happened, that is exactly the believer’s claim. The claim that says that if something implausible happens, apparently someone causes it. Therefore it seems to me that both sides are somewhat shooting themselves in the foot in this debate, because if the creationists say it did not happen, they pull the ground out from under their own proof. If the neo-Darwinists say it did happen, they go back and reestablish the physico-theological proof. Now of course the question comes up that Yaron asked earlier—that is, who says it is implausible?
[Speaker C] Yes. I don’t believe we have time for that, because we have less than a minute. But you solve the issue in a relatively easy way, because basically what you’re saying is: those who support evolution are right, but they need to understand one thing—the one responsible for evolution is God.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Correct, and in fact surveys show that significant percentages of the public—the lay public; what does that matter? It doesn’t matter, I’m just saying—hold this double position. It doesn’t really have much support on the professional theoretical plane, and that is one of my aims in the book. That is, to try to give this position support, and I certainly agree that the majority determines nothing in these matters.
[Speaker A] I suggest first reading this book, for anyone who hasn’t read it, and then reading Dawkins’s book, because usually whoever speaks last is more convincing.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Okay, fine, goodbye.