Following the series God and the World
In the series, the Rabbi claimed that it is difficult to accept God’s intervention because there are no gaps in nature, and they also do not want to harm free choice (in a great sense of urgency…). Two questions:
1. In a time when miracles did occur, how did this happen? After all, even then there were no gaps in nature, it’s just that there was no science that saw it. Also regarding human decisions, was it once legitimate?
2. There are two concepts that you also believe in that are happening today, free choice and the existence of a soul (it doesn’t matter how we define it right now) and these two concepts are not consistent with a scientific concept. Choice is a miracle, because if we knew all the data on the effects of the environment, the state of neurons, etc., a deterministic choice should emerge. The existence of choice is a miracle that somehow rests on this story. As with the soul, in the psychophysical question of connecting the soul to the body and influencing it, there is again an influential factor other than nature. So why not assume that there is also providence that, in a way that we do not understand, does operate despite nature, just like choice and the influence of the soul
thanks
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
- The argument is that there were. Prophets have detected several divine interventions. Theoretically, a scientist who would have conducted scientific experiments back then might have discovered an occasional exception to the rules. Of course, in such a situation, it is impossible to establish rules because you never know when it is the rule and when it is an exception. It depends on the amount of exceptions, of course. I assume that even then it was very low, so the question is more hypothetical. Except for obvious miracles that certainly occurred then and do not occur today.
- This question has been asked here dozens of times in several shades (some have suggested that divine intervention is made through human choices and hides behind them. You ask why deny involvement in nature itself, since the person who chooses also intervenes in the laws of nature). The answer (to both questions) is that I experience choice directly, and therefore there is no reason to deny its existence just because of an axiom of physicalism (which is also based on experience). But we have no way of seeing divine involvement. Therefore, de facto, human choice is part of nature, and when I say that divine intervention does not occur in the world, I mean neither in the laws of nature nor in human choice.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The so-called choice is part of nature even though it is difficult to explain how it fits in with the laws of nature?
Approximately. There is no need to present this as a contradiction (“despite”, in your language). One of the laws of nature is that humans have a choice.
R’ Dear Mikhi, despite your belief in choice, you disagree with Dr. Ledwin who believes that choice comes from a natural place, he explains this through quantum determinism, and you emphatically claim that it does not. That is, – choice does not come from a natural place [not physical, it can be defined as “transcendent” or in less impressive terminology “spiritual”, and only eventually integrates into nature]. That is, you are a clear dualist. So choice is not part of nature [“nature” and ”spirit” are contradictory concepts].
And the reason for this, according to you, is that you are convinced of the fact that you are a chooser [even though most neuroscientists disagree with you, you are not moved].
According to this, a person who believes in the Holy Scriptures and is also a dualist like you, when he reads the verses of the Bible and is convinced that the Bible testifies to God's ongoing involvement in the world [not just great miracles once in a while, but also small miracles, and especially], and also who does not accept the strange argument of "God left the earth," his dualistic and unequivocal conclusion is that there is constant intervention by God in the world, despite the physics of the field [just like you on the issue of election].
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
