Response to 2 books from the trilogy

Response to Rabbi Michael on the trilogy
Shalem Rabbi Michael,
First of all, a big, huge thank you for all your work, which has been illuminating my path for years. I have read 3 out of 4 of the Quartet, The Science of Freedom, Truth and the Unstable, God Plays Dice. Your work does indeed make faith possible, and lean theology is something I have been searching for a long time and also trying to create for myself.
A few points that came to mind as a result of reading. I’m mixing all the questions into one text because there is some connection between them.
The ontological proof
Here’s what I don’t understand about proof. Let’s say there is a world in which there is no God. Yes, there are concepts in it. According to the ontological proof, even in such a world, the ontological proof will prove that there is God. If the proof shows the reality of God whether he exists or not – it is meaningless as a proof.
God’s intervention in the world
In the book you wrote that since physical nature is deterministic, and everything seems to have a physical explanation, then (in our day) God apparently does not intervene, except in a few cases. (You may have meant that God does not intervene at all, and you wrote that He does intervene in a few cases in order not to close the door completely, and still allow for some providence.)
 
You don’t take into account how much reality is affected by very small interventions. A classic example is the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian heir, who in a split-second decision triggered the historical turning point that resulted: World War I and then World War II, a leap in hundreds of technologies, the establishment of states, a philosophical shift from modern to postmodern, the rise of the US as a leading economic and cultural power.
 
If God does intervene in a few cases, He can know what very small intervention will create a tremendous impact, and thus oversee and control reality. It is not necessary to know the future for this. A very deep understanding of the present is sufficient.
Intervention in a few cases allows for very thorough intervention in what is happening. And that allows for prayers and miracles.
The intervention is probably (as you wrote) not in the physical world – which seems completely deterministic. But in the only reality that is not deterministic – human choice (as you wrote in the Science of Freedom). Our experience as choosers is undeniable. Just as it is described that God, blessed be He, hardened Pharaoh’s heart, so He can dramatically affect reality, both on all of humanity and on individuals.
 
As you wrote in the book The Science of Freedom, the reason for freedom of choice is outside of physics. There is an interface through which non-physical will moves particles. That very interface allows God to intervene dramatically in what is happening. The bias of human desires can well direct social and personal sensitivities.
A parable about the relationship between a homeopathic “medicine” and a real medicine. Recently, there is a permil of active ingredient, and that is all that is needed.
 
Even the forces of nature can be influenced by tilting a person’s will (or even just changing their internal “topography”). Many of the forces of nature operate according to chaotic equations, according to which the flapping of a butterfly’s wings can create a chain of reactions that will cause a storm. If God wants to “activate” nature, he only needs to cause a human action that will be the required action of the butterfly’s wings. You don’t need to know the future, just know complete information about the present.
 
How deep can knowledge of the present be? For all chaotic equations, there is information that knows how a change in the input affects the result of the equation. This information is not accessible to us, but it is accessible to an omniscient being. You don’t need to know the future for this. (We may yet see computers with computing power approaching this, and be able to provide us with close-to-reality estimates of the future of chaotic systems.)
 
What you proposed in “The Science of Freedom” is a narrow crevice where there is an interface between the spiritual (not physical, choice) and the physical, between desire and the movement of particles or force fields. That is all God needs to intervene in what is happening. There is certainly merit in hoping that prayer will change reality.
Why don’t we see this in a statistically significant way? I don’t know, one can come up with interpretations without any problem (for example: God preserves the “law of conservation of suffering” from the moment X suffering is decreed upon a population, so one whose prayer is answered is at the expense of the other, or: God does “evade” such tests for reasons reserved for Him). In any case, from the moment there is a theoretical possibility of an answer to prayer, there is a point in praying.
Besides, prayer is not just an attempt to influence reality but a human need. When they say “there are no atheists in the trenches,” it doesn’t necessarily mean that in the trenches they repent. But in the trenches, even atheists experience the need to pray. It’s a human need that works almost like an automatic reflex.
Knowledge and choice
It is true that there is a logical fallacy here. But it is possible to know the future with a high degree of probability without any logical fallacy. A driving instructor can tell a student, “If you come this week, you will fail.” And be precise without knowing the future. He just knows the data well enough.
You tell your daughter: “Don’t start making a cake on Friday afternoon. You won’t have time, you’ll turn the whole kitchen upside down, and in the end you’ll cry and Mom will have to finish the cake and put everything in order, and then have time for prayer.” The girl vigorously denies it, promises and says that none of this will happen, but you as a father know the future to a level close to certainty. That’s how God knows the future. It is this knowledge of the future that is expressed in the final message of the written Torah – the song of the Azinu.
Knowing the future based on a deep understanding of the present – this is also the intention of the Rabbi in the knowledge of the Acitgenins (139) and not as you wrote.
God of the gaps
In the book you refute the position that divine providence is found in the holes in the current theory of evolution. I look at things the other way around.
Obviously, when faced with a complete and confirmed Big Bang-Evolution theory, I will admit that all faith should be subordinate to the theory. But right now, there is no need to answer a non-existent theory. The question of evolution is ahead of its time.
 
Once upon a time, the physico-theological proof was screaming, and there was nothing that could stand in its way. Anyone who looked at reality 300 years ago had to wonder where it all came from. (And this was when reality was simple! Without particles, quanta, galaxies, cells, bacteria…)
Then came the theories of the Big Bang and evolution, which supposedly offer an alternative explanation. But not yet! When they are complete, when they answer the big questions that remain open (in my understanding the big questions are: how did the first cell come into being, how does the leap from one species to another occur, and how can we explain complex systems that force several compatible mutations to coexist) – then we will be faced with a theory, and then we will be told that there is no room for a god of the gaps. But in the meantime, the holes in the theory leave us with the default that existed before the theory – the wonder at the existence of a complex world, which indicates a component.
I have a feeling that even before there is a complete theory that explains everything from the big bang to man – there will be a few more interesting twists and discoveries that will shake up the cards. So for now, we will stick with the physico-theological, along with a convincing but imperfect scientific theory. And when a complete alternative appears, we will accept it with an open heart and a willing mind.
By the way, the common mistake among the secular world is that they think we are already there. Those who do not belong to the world of science think that the theory of evolution has long ago provided a satisfactory explanation that answers all the questions of creation. I am surprised by this every time in conversations with secular people.
 
At the same time, what you wrote about taste, about fine tuning, and all the other claims that show that the physico-theological proof holds even when there is evolution, are valid.
 
The main thing is missing from the book.
The book contains detailed explanations of why “lean theology” does not include providence, prayer, miracles, etc.
Then there is a leap over an abyss, and you begin to discuss the details of Torah study as a central religious practice. But you haven’t explained why Torah study is given this status? Why is study a central principle in theology? I suppose if there was a convincing philosophical argument you would write it. You would explain how, given that there is a morally caring and overseeing (passive) creator God, then there is meaning in the theoretical study of the details of the content of revelation, and then one should continue to elaborate and refine the message of revelation ad infinitum.
As you wrote, the faith of the wise is not enough.
The statements about Torah study that appear in the text of the Torah are far from explaining why study became the central religious pursuit in Judaism.
 
In my opinion, it is clear that a selection process has taken place here. The people who teach Torah are people who are naturally drawn to learning. These are people with a certain character, intellectual enthusiasts. They have an incentive to think that learning is important, because learning is the occupation to which their soul is drawn. And so it turns out that scholars claim that the most important practice is learning.
The testimony of the revelation
The claims are not strong. Could it be that the texts of Revelation emerged and people simply believed them? Unlikely, as you wrote and explained.
But I studied in the midrash. And I saw how stories swell as they pass from one to the next, even within a few months. A 20-second melee, which included maybe 30 medium-sized punches between the first few lines, after a few months of oral Torah turns into an all-out war that lasted half the night with maximum violence.
Even the people who witnessed the event are convinced by the exaggerated stories.
It is certainly possible that there was (or was not) some formative event, and the story simply swelled in tradition that passed down through several generations, and then the exaggerated version was accepted and written down for generations.
Legend interpretation versus Halacha interpretation
You let the interpretation of halakhah get away with it. Everything you wrote about the interpretation of legends and the Tanakh is true, it is truly evident that most of the concern is to attach to the text what we believed in it from the beginning.
But this is also true to a large extent in yeshivah study. The fact is that there are “strict” rabbis and there are “lenient” rabbis. In many cases, one can guess in advance the rabbi’s attitude to a particular issue based on his character.
 
On the other hand, the experience of studying the Bible/Agga is that there is something enriching about the text, giving me detail and development of the values ​​and beliefs I came with from home.
The difference between studying Aggadah/Tanah and Halacha in this context is more quantitative than qualitative. In both there is a degree of commitment to the text, and in both there is a projection of personal values ​​onto the text. But it is not black and white, but light gray and dark gray.
Text generator
This is not great wisdom. It is clear that one can load interpretation onto a text. Whether authentic or gibberish. Especially since things cannot be empirically tested like a scientific text or a gemara (where the test is the consistency of the content). This does not mean that there is no meaning in the authentic text. In my opinion, this exercise is more of a game at the expense of the discipline (a fairly successful game) but does not constitute evidence of a lack of meaning.
I have no doubt that if we programmed a “Rambam contradiction generator” that takes the language of the Rambam in Halacha and creates fictitious and contradictory texts – you would find a lot of “general lessons” with instructive explanations for these contradictions. Torah scholars would not distinguish between the real and the fictitious contradictions. It’s funny, but it’s not really a serious claim.
Stars and sun
A thought I had that testifies to a non-human origin of the Torah. There is a commandment not to worship the heavenly bodies, the sun, the moon, and the stars. How is it possible in the ancient world that someone would deny the heavenly bodies as objects of worship? Even if you say that the Torah was written during the Second Temple period – it is still amazing. You have no mysterious phenomenon as amazing and awe-inspiring as the heavenly bodies. There is no culture that has not worshipped the heavenly bodies for thousands of years. And this was the observed and absolute truth for thousands of years of history (and probably prehistory) until the science of the Renaissance. It is impossible for any human being on their own to deny that the heavenly bodies have power, and even more so it is impossible for such a statement to be accepted by the general public. This is a convincing argument that the source of this text is non-human.
Reduction is not as simple as that.
You make the claim ridiculous by referring to it literally. As if before and after the tzimtzum, the presence of God is the same. There is no need for that. Both schools of thought hold that there is a tzimtzum. Even if it is not literally, a certain tzimtzum still exists. It is true that these are words that do not mean much. But they cannot be denied with the arguments you have made.
Glosses
Found 327 paragraph 2 line 5 – the arrow is out of place
There was one or two places where the word “no” was missing, but I don’t remember where (that’s how it is when you read on Shabbat)
 
Thank you again for the great work, may God give you strength and wisdom to continue researching and writing, and may I continue reading and responding.