Halachic justification for the use of the epithet in the book "God Plays Dice"

With God’s help

2016

introduction
The purpose of the book is to fill an intolerable lacuna in the discourse about evolution. The dominant voice in public discourse is the atheistic one. The theistic voice is almost never heard (certainly not in Hebrew), and even when it is heard, it is done in a distorted and harmful way. The book is intended to present a theistic position (believing, on a philosophical level, not necessarily a Judeo-religious one), which is based on recognition of the findings of evolution (in contrast to the prevalent creationist literature). The book is intended to be accessible and attractive to any educated reader, and especially to those who do not believe.
There is another problem in public discourse, related to the previous one. The current discourse on the subject of evolution is a priori distorted. The situation in public consciousness today is such that writers on the neo-Darwinian thesis that favors atheism are portrayed as scientific and philosophical writers, while writers (to the extent that there are any at all) in favor of faith are portrayed as religious preaching literature, superficial and biased. Naturally, such literature will not be read by the general public (except by those who are already convinced).
For these reasons, if the reference in the book had included the pronoun in forms such as 'God' or 'God', the book would have been immediately labeled as religious preaching literature, and would not have achieved its purpose. Most readers who should read it would not have bothered to pick it up at all.
The problem could perhaps be avoided if the name of God did not appear in the book at all. But that would prevent the possibility of dealing with the subject. The problem of pronouncing the name can only be solved by writing 'Elohim' and not 'Elohim', which was used in the same way.
The problematic nature could have been reduced by avoiding the use of this term in the book's title. The appearance of this term not only within the book but also in the title, on the one hand, intensifies the halakhic problematic nature (since it is found on the outside of the book and not inside the covers, and the book's title is also a combination that will come to mind for the users of the book and its publishers). But on the other hand, it more effectively achieves the goal: to have a name for Heaven that is familiar to readers, and for God to cease to be a subject for preaching and begin to be a legitimate interpretation (and even much more reasonable than the atheistic alternative) of the theory of evolution.
For all these reasons, I decided to use the pronoun 'God' in the title as well, and not settle for substitutes that are supposedly more 'kosher'.

To the core of the problem
Using such a term in a book (especially in the title) can lead to two types of problems: 1. Despising the name of God (putting the book in the filthy prefaces, throwing it away as trash). 2. Pronouncing the name in vain (when describing the book, especially the title). Of course, these are prohibitions that readers of the book may violate, and therefore the prohibition "before the blind" is at the heart of the matter. If readers are indeed likely to violate these prohibitions, the author who misled them thereby violated "before the blind," or at least an accomplice (in the words of Ebra Danhara).
The discussion here will be very brief, and I will only summarize the main points concerning our matter.

Names and nicknames for deletion and false statement
Halacha distinguishes between names and pronouns. There are disputes over what is a name and what is a pronoun, and what is not included in these two categories at all. The name 'God' is written in the Bible in all places (!) without the letter און, and therefore when it is written with the addition of און, it is certainly not a name here, but at most a pronoun. This is similar to references such as 'א-להים' or 'אוליק'. There is no fundamental difference in terms of writing (except for pronunciation. See below).
The only place where a similar writing can be found is in relation to the name 'Elok' as opposed to 'Elek' (see, for example, Shulchan Yod Si' Reu 59, and in B"Z there Sk"Z, in the second way and at the end of his remarks there), regarding this the poskim wrote that they cannot be divided and both are names, because in the Bible itself this name is written in both forms. However, from this itself we can learn that the opposite is true regarding the name 'Elohim'. It is never written in the Bible without a "va", and therefore it certainly should not be discussed as a name.
This reminds us of the place where it was customary to write in siddurs with two yudin, about which the Rema yudin Si' Reu HaYahweh wrote that it is permissible to erase it. And it seems that in the case of Didan Nami, he did not hate it.
And in the G.A. there is a S.K.A.D. he wrote:
"And the name that is written is not the letters of the name, and it is not the same as the letters of the name, and it is an allusion to the name, and it is the same as the first letter of the name, and it is not for the purpose of not being erased, as it is said, but to know its meaning, and so in the answer, rule 3, 66, and so in the Rambam and Shaphat, he does not consider but seven of the above-mentioned names, and even though there is a name for God and the like, there are many of them that are empty, and even though he considered them to be He and not to be He."
That is, only these seven names are forbidden (as is also explained in the Shulchan Shulchan Shem Ha-Thu, that the prohibition of erasure is only in one of the seven names). Although later in his speech, he cited Matthew, who was satisfied with the matter of the prohibition of erasure.
And in our case it is only a letter of erasure, since it is not a question of erasing with hands, and therefore one must certainly be lenient (as in the issue of Tuvel Begami, Shabbat 122b, from which it emerges that there is no prohibition in a letter of erasure, even if it is not necessary. And see Shach Yod Si' Reu Skib'b who permitted it for a purpose (and in our case it is for a purpose). Although he saw a disagreement on this in Har Zvi Yod Si' Rela and Si' Relag. And see also Ahiezer Chab Yod Si' 4th who permitted it from the outset).
And in the Gehamiyy Repo 6, the author of the Torah Foundations, he wrote in the name of the Ram that if one did not intend to sanctify the Name, it is not holy and there is no prohibition to erase it. And see this in the Havviyy 616, who explained that where the writing on the hands of the vessels is concerned, there is a concern that the writer intended to sanctify it. And see also in Ahiezer, 63:3.
And in the HaVai there he also discusses the permission to write on a ring, and whether it is permissible to put it on a woman's hand. And apparently the ring also enters places of disgrace, and Tzela is in this.
And the HaVy there also discussed the question of whether writing is like speech, and then when a writer considers the name as a thinker in vain. But he rejected this. And in particular, since in our case it is said that a machine wrote it, and not a person, and therefore it is a deduction, and certainly there is no writing like speech in this, and even in the matter of sanctity it is a deduction (like the mitzvah of a machine. And there even when a person stands next to them and intends to recite the name, the poskim discuss whether it is from me. And in our case there is no such intention at all, how can the name be sanctified?).
It should also be added here that the reference to the name 'God' in the book is to a philosophical God and not to the religious God (the Giver of the Torah). This is the name of a general philosophical idea that is not directed towards God in the full religious sense (but rather to a broader idea).
In any case, at most, even in full, it is a rabbinical prohibition, as demonstrated by Tzitz Eliezer, 17th century, 19th century, not 19th century. Therefore, all of the above branches are certainly sufficient to permit this in my opinion, especially when it is for an important need (see my comments above).
Likewise, regarding the entrance to the filthy entrances, Rabbi Si' Rafav saw that what they forbade was the Holy Scriptures and amulets with names, especially in books such as this one with nicknames (and we did not find that they were careful not to enter the throne room with a newspaper that had words like "peace" and "merciful," etc. written on it).

Pronouncing the name in vain
The prohibition of pronouncing the name in vain is not clear. As is well known, the Rishonim disagreed on whether the blessing of vain recitation is from the Torah (reciting the name in vain) or from the Rabbis. And even those who see this as a prohibition against saying "not to utter a false shema" may do so only because there is an action here with the name of God, but with the mention of the name, it is not necessary (at least from the Torah). When singing Shabbat hymns, many people sing in the name, even though there are no verses and it is not necessary. The hymns also contain the name of God, and there is no fear of obstacles that may arise from this.
It should be remembered that this certainly does not prohibit the person from thinking of the Name in its letters, which is a Torah prohibition, since this is stated only about the explicit Name, which is pronounced as it is written (Y-H-V-H) and not as it is used (A-D-N-Y). See Anzit 'Thinking of the Name'. This is evidence in itself of our statement above, that there is no prohibition (Mahat) to mention another Name in vain.
And even though there is a prohibition in this, we still have to discuss what is called "in vain"? From the explanation, it seems that when speaking about God, mentioning His name is certainly not in vain. And it does not detract from the reader's desire to learn that it is certainly permissible.
And see the Har Zvi Responsa by Rabbi C. Reld, who discusses a teacher who writes on the blackboard in the name of God and erases it. In his words, he writes that mentioning the Name for the sake of education is not considered to be a nullification of his utterance. And here, with us, it is also for the sake of education. He further argued that even if there is a prohibition in this, it is rejected because of the obligation of education, and this mitzvah rejects even a Torah prohibition. It is true that since he discusses the writing of the Name by the teacher on the blackboard in order to teach the students, he therefore concludes that he supports rejecting the permission because the prohibition was made by the teacher and the erasure was made by the students. But in the matter discussed, the prohibition, if there is one, is also made by the readers. And furthermore, with us, we are talking about mentioning it, not writing it and erasing it.

Before the blind for the benefit of the failed
The bottom line is to remember that all of these prohibitions are concerns that a reader who is not observant or unaware of the prohibition may transgress. In other words, the practical translation of everything said so far is only from the perspective of "before the blind." If this were not the case, there would certainly be no prohibition here, since the reader can be careful not to say the Name, just as he is careful when reading from a siddur or a Chumash, etc.
But here another consideration comes into play, and that is that a prohibition will not necessarily be violated. And even if it were, it is not the Torah of the Hebrews of Danhara. And finally, this is an offense committed in front of a blind person that is done for the benefit of the blind person (in order to bring the reader who is not obligated to the law closer to the faith). And several poskim have already written about this, which is permissible. Such as serving food to someone who does not recite the blessing, so that he does not come to hate the Torah-observers (Gershavor), or even inviting someone who does not observe the Torah to a meal on Shabbat, even though it involves traveling, so that he may get closer to the Torah-observers.

Summary
Ultimately, it is highly doubtful whether we are reaching a prohibition here at all, and even if we do, it is a rabbinical prohibition. Above all, from the writer's perspective, this is a failure that is in favor of the one who failed, and in the 23rd century there is certainly room to believe that there is no prohibition 'before a blind man'.