Some questions about the first and second books in the trilogy
Hello dear Rabbi, a few questions and thoughts (I’m in the middle of the second book of the trilogy)
- In your book, you repeat the mantra “Any divine intervention in nature is a miracle,” and that nature is deterministic and therefore God cannot enter the picture. But there is another type of intervention, and it is in human decisions. God can manage our interactions with nature according to His considerations (reward and punishment and other considerations). If, for example, a plane is about to crash, and God (who we have already agreed is involved in our consciousness, otherwise the concept of repentance would not exist, because how can a person decide to change his values) decides from His considerations that the person should continue to live, He can make the person take the next plane.
- You write that you have no reason to assume that there is a private providence over humans in the first place, so you see no need to try to apply the words of the Sages regarding private providence. But if God left the fate of humans to nature and the decisions of creatures, then this is cruelty on His part. And we would expect God to meet the moral standard reflected in the ideal of morality that He created in His world. If a person lost his son in a car accident not because of a justified decision by God, but simply because of natural causes, then that person now has moral claims against God (even if there is an intention to compensate him in the next world) and this is not coherent with the morality He created in the world. Why is such a consideration not sufficient in your opinion (at least like the consideration that says that if God created the world, we would expect there to be a revelation to His creatures)?
- I categorically oppose the term “worship of God.” I think that the only justified reason for giving the burden of Torah and mitzvot should be the good of the creatures, otherwise God is not moral. Even if I discover in the hereafter that one must keep the mitzvot, I will not be able to call these mitzvot the work of God, because their purpose is not the good of God (at least, this is not the sole purpose). Just as a person who brings a child into the world in order to enslave it is not moral at all, so too will the situation be with God and the creatures, and this is not possible in our world because God created morality. I want to believe that the framing of the Torah and the mitzvot as the work of God in the Torah and the prophets came as a reaction to the idolatry that dominated the world at that time, in the sense of “some in chariots and some on horses, and we in the name of the Lord our God will remember,” similar to the purpose of sacrifices according to Maimonides. What do you think?
Greetings to Mr. the owner of the mantras, Shlita.
- This question has been asked here more than once. God can also intervene in nature itself if He wants. But we see that He does not intervene, and hence He probably does not want to. We see by the same token that He does not intervene in human decisions. Humans act freely (at least those who are not determinists assume that humans act freely, and neither nature nor heaven interfere with them). Therefore, I see no benefit in the intervention mechanism you proposed (through human choices instead of through nature).
- This is not cruelty. The determination of the laws of nature has its own reasons, and as part of this, unpleasant consequences also occur. These reasons justify the unpleasant consequences, just as in analysis the consequence justifies the pain. It is true that one can wonder why not make nature that will bring about the same results without the unpleasant accompanying consequences, and to that I replied that in my opinion there is no such logical possibility. The laws of nature that govern our world also require the accompanying consequences. This is a logical constraint. It is true that God can intervene whenever there is a bad outcome, but then de facto there are no laws of nature here, and this is not a situation He wants. But beyond all of that, it has nothing to do with my argument. How do you, as someone who believes that He does intervene, explain the evil in the world? Doesn’t that indicate His cruelty? I didn’t add anything to what is known from the facts. I just called for them not to be ignored. That’s all. It has nothing to do with the consideration of revelation. First, because there I have no indications that there was no revelation. And second, because even a priori there is no reason not to have revelation, but there is a reason not to intervene in nature.
- The author’s speech. I was happy to read about your position, but of course I don’t agree with it.
Thanks for the clear and quick answers, as usual
2. “These reasons justify the unpleasant results, just as in surgery the result justifies the pain” surgery justifies the pain only if surgery is the only option. If there is a more pleasant option, surgery is immoral. Indeed, I agree that it is not possible to create another, more comfortable nature, because it is not logically possible, as you wrote. But one can ask, why not leave nature as it is, and yet manage our interactions with it through our consciousness? This is a completely logical option, and you have already renewed yourself that God is involved in the consciousness of creatures to enable the concept of repentance. In choosing between the two options, leaving our fate to nature or managing our interactions with nature, the more moral option is the second. Regarding your question, how do I explain evil in the world — I don't know, I'm just trying to clear God of moral blame as much as possible, by explaining that every bad thing happens because God decided it from His specific considerations, as is expected of a just judge who sits and discusses and goes into the details of every case that comes before Him before passing judgment. Indeed, you haven't added anything to the known facts, but it seems that the interpretation you chose to give them (that God left the earth) is not coherent with God's morality. It is more reasonable to think that God chooses to do evil because He has reasons for it and not because He chooses not to intervene (and as mentioned, nature does not prevent Him from intervening, because He can leave nature to run its course and make man guard against it)
3. Can you elaborate on where in your opinion I fell short?
I explained. The choice we were given was also his decision.
Mikhi
I fail to understand the logic in your claim that ”the laws of nature that govern our world also require the accompanying consequences. This is a logical constraint.”
Don't you distinguish between logical and a priori (necessary) laws of nature derived from empirical reality?
Can you demonstrate to me how this works, for example, in relation to time? The arrow of time, for example, is not a logical necessity, as Kant convincingly showed, but an a priori epistemic necessity. Therefore, we can think (and probably also imagine) that time flows backwards even though we will never encounter it in nature. Doesn't such a change in the direction of flow require a dramatic change in the physical laws known to us? And if it is logically possible, then it is not “forced” on God, as you say.
I didn't write that the laws of nature are a logical necessity. I wrote that if these are the laws of nature, then the accompanying products are a logical necessity.
That is, in your opinion, God can create whatever natural laws he wants as long as they do not contradict the laws of logic?
indeed
“It is true that one might wonder why not make nature so that it would produce the same results without the unpleasant side effects, and I replied that in my opinion there is no such logical possibility. The laws of nature that govern our world also require the side effects. This is a logical constraint.”
Is it likely that out of an infinite number of possibilities, our world is the most pleasant result?
Absolutely. Then you'll wonder. But to be honest, no one said these are the most pleasant laws of nature. So before you wonder, you should read again.
In light of your explanation, I think even more than before that Oren's criticism of your position is fundamentally correct. Your God is too cruel compared to what we would expect from his definition (and yours too).
Even if it is true that given laws of nature logically follow from certain results (and the question of what resolution you are descending to here is still debatable), it would still be necessary for God to create other, more convenient laws of nature.
As you yourself answered me, as long as there is no real logical impediment, there is justification from our limited point of view for doing so.
Since in practice this probably does not become necessary, an explanation is required. It is possible to assume that God has some hidden reasons that we may not even be able to fathom. This is, in my understanding, the reasonable explanation. On the other hand, your explanation is that there are no such reasons, meaning that God acts arbitrarily.
??
This is a question that stems from a lack of understanding.
“Doron” could not have lived in another place at another time, let alone in another universe. “Doron” is the same one who was born at that time in that place and grew up in a certain environment.
If one of the things had changed in the very early stages, then it would already be someone else. Proof? The rest of the people are not Doron.
So asking about other universes and why we don't live in it stems from a lack of understanding.
In other words, a certain person is his collection of traits, he could not have had a different collection of traits. Because then it would already be unknown when the question is about a certain person.
Doron, I didn't answer because everything was answered. You put things in my mouth that I didn't say, and bring up things that I said as if I didn't say them. I wrote that he probably has reasons why the laws of nature are the way they are. You yourself write that this is, in your opinion, a sufficient explanation, so what requires an explanation here?
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
