Prayer as power
Your Honor, Rabbi Shalom,
Regarding prayer, the rabbi claims that every future natural reality is fixed from the six days of Genesis or the Big Bang. Whereas every reality that depends on human choice, the choice is the active factor in it, and in practice, God does not change people’s choices. In light of this factual picture, the Rabbi claims that every prayer about the future is also judged as a prayer about something that has already been decided, such as the sex of the fetus and the fire in the city. It seems that the Rabbi assumes that the mechanism for answering prayer exceeds the laws of nature themselves, and hence the conclusions that make the parts of the request in the prayer redundant are derived. However, if we assume that, similar to the concept of reward and punishment, that there are laws internal to creation according to which the sinner’s punishment is determined (similar to a cigarette smoker who condemns himself to lung cancer), so too is prayer itself a force that operates in reality and has the power to influence it in relation to the future (and what the Gemara said is that although prayer is a force, it is not capable of influencing the timeline). I accept that this statement is also a factual claim and requires examination, but at least on a theoretical level with regard to a number of systems, it is possible that this model could also justify requests. As a first example of prayer as a force that operates in reality We will present the prayers of various communities in the Middle Ages to return to Zion. Would it be unreasonable to say that these prayers were a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for the return to Zion in recent generations? Other examples could be, for example, in the realm of moral norms such as the abolition of slavery and the like. It is not unreasonable that the prayers of slaves had a certain effect, although I do not know the exact mechanism, on their enslavers as well? And perhaps even in the realm of the weather, if an entire people prays and consequently changes their actions, that is, at least theoretically, they act differently on the physical plane, and these actions may have the power to constitute a kind of butterfly effect that could act on the weather. I admit that the latter possibility seems distant, but at least logically it can exist. I certainly thank the rabbi regarding the prayer of an individual and even a public person regarding short-term requests, but regarding long-term actions on normative and even physical planes (it seems that establishing a political entity causes both normative and physical changes). The power of prayer Remained as it was.
Indeed, it can be argued that the Rambam says that answering prayer or miracles are inherent in creation itself. But that doesn’t really help, because my argument is not a priori. I’m not claiming that it is not possible to deviate from the laws of nature, since the One who created them certainly could deviate from them (the mouth that forbade it). What I’m claiming is that it seems that in practice this doesn’t happen. Even though He could do it, He decided not to do it. If so, the basis for my claim is empirical, that it seems that nature operates according to the laws of physics and the laws of nature in general. In any case, it wouldn’t help to claim that answering prayer is part of the laws, because that would also contradict our empirical conclusion. And if you think that it doesn’t contradict, then you don’t need to reach this thesis in the first place, since in your opinion the world does not operate according to the laws of nature. Therefore, in any case, there is no reason to resort to this dubious argument.
Natural effects of our choices (like prayers that are self-fulfilling) can of course happen. There is nothing unusual about this. These are everyday actions.
Peace and blessings, Honorable Rabbi.
Where does the Rabbi lay out his complete teaching regarding prayer?
Is there a thread or column on the subject?
There are several places here on the site. A more systematic picture in the trilogy that is currently being edited.
Honorable Rabbi Shalom,
I am listening to the series of lessons “Authority and Change in Halacha” and there the Rabbi claimed that the reason why prayer cannot work is the physical perception that is accepted today, which the Sages were not aware of and therefore they perceived that the future is open to change and not binding. It seems to me that this was the main argument, which is an a priori argument. As for the empirical argument, I certainly agree with the Rabbi, but I still have a hard time with it, because in the empirical field it seems that the Holy One’s form of leadership has not changed dramatically at least since the destruction of the Second Temple (maybe even before that). Therefore, what the Rabbi is essentially saying is that all Jews from that time until modern times were blind, and this of course includes all those sages who corrected prayer from the destruction of the Temple onwards. Furthermore, I remember that in one of the books the Rabbi criticized empirical experiments that were conducted on prayer and claimed that the researchers were biased. Does the rabbi know of new studies that he accepts that show that prayer has no effect (I have a reasonable suspicion that even if there were a study that would claim that prayer has an effect, I think the claim would be that there was a failure in this experiment because the deterministic view has become an a priori truth for us)? In light of these questions, I tried to suggest that the mechanism of prayer is somehow integrated into physical causality in a physical way (as I think I heard the rabbi say regarding the water level in the parting of the Red Sea, that the consideration of forces there was 0). In other words, the proposal is in the a priori channel in order to allow for the feasibility of prayer in a deterministic reality. Although, with respect to the empirical dimension, I have nothing new to say other than that there is general providence and not private providence (as I heard from the rabbi that God Almighty will probably prevent the President of the United States from destroying the world).
Hello Asael (good to hear from you),
Indeed, what comes out of this is that the sages of the generations since Chazal until today were wrong. This was their scientific perception and therefore there is no reason for this.
Regarding the experiments, I am indeed suspicious. But if there are unequivocal results, I hope I will be honest enough to accept them. Of course, we still need to rule out various possible interpretations (such as the findings that the life expectancy of religious people is higher because they are calm and know their purpose and there is community cohesion, etc.). But in my opinion, this is normal scientific inertia. When there is a strong scientific theory that explains many phenomena and therefore dominates scientific thought as a paradigm, scientists will be suspicious of any finding that contradicts it (according to Thomas Kuhn).
I do not think that the effect of prayer can be incorporated into the laws of physics. If in the Red Sea the balance of forces was 0, then the fact that the water stood still is not an exception to the laws of physics, but the creation of the force that balanced gravity is an exception. After all, there is no natural source that creates such a force. The laws of nature also determine how forces are created, not just how bodies (like water) move.
I think what you heard from me is a question about what happened in the miracle of the sea parting: did the water stand still despite a force acting on it (against Newton's second law), or did a balancing force form? The question arises from the question of whether the second law is a definition of the concept of force (i.e. when a body stands still, then the balance of forces on it is 0) or is it a synthetic claim about reality. But there is no fundamental difference between the two possibilities in terms of the exception to the laws of nature. It was there in any case.
Regarding the destruction of the world, I did claim that in colossal cases it is likely that God will intervene and not allow the world to be destroyed. When there is a significant deviation from the general plan, He may intervene. But this is reserved for very, very rare and significant events.
What I don't understand is why you say that the sages were wrong.
More precisely, all the stories of the patriarchs in Parashat Bereishit and in general the entire story of the Torah is one big bluff.
How is it possible that God answered Isaac's prayer in the face of his wife being barren?
Hello Yoni.
I have already explained things several times on this site. My argument is that there is probably a change in G-d's policy. After all, there is no dispute that in the past there were visible miracles and now there are none. In the past there was prophecy and now there is none. So I will only add that today there are also no hidden miracles. That is all.
See here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A9-%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8-%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%94%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%9D/
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
