The Physico-Theological View and a Question of Morality

שו”ת › Category: faith › The Physico-Theological View and a Question of Morality

asked 4 years ago

Hi Rabbi,
Two questions for me:
A. In your lessons on faith on YouTube, you keep coming back to the fact that the physico-theological evidence does not come from biology but from the laws themselves. If I remember correctly, in your book God Plays Dice, you claimed that evolution does not prove that there is no design at all because the chance of a surviving mutation giving rise to another mutation is zero, and therefore there must be a design in biology as well. Have you backed away from this argument? Or perhaps you prefer to avoid it because it is God of Gaps style?

on. One of the strongest evidences in my opinion is the evidence from morality. Although – I don’t understand something – if everyone has different morality – each culture sanctifies a different morality – one could argue that there is no such thing as morality at all and it’s all a social construct. I don’t accept that because the evidence that we all still feel obligated to morality, but, something does bother me – if morality is something divine – why is it okay for some cultures to kill? Doesn’t this show that morality has no absolute values? And if there is no objective morality – it does go back to the fact that everything is basically nonsense and a social construct / that’s how our brain works….

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 4 years ago

A. I argued there in two stages: A. The chance of a surviving mutation is zero because the number of these mutations out of all mutations is zero. But the laws of nature ensure that such mutations will be created, and therefore the evidence is from the laws. on. The fact that everyone holds different morals is not true. The arguments are on the margins. But even if there were substantive arguments, it does not concern the evidence. The very fact that you hold binding morality from your perspective vindicates belief in God. Each person, from their perspective, thinks that the other is wrong and immoral, that is, they believe in binding standards. The relativity of morality does not harm the evidence, as long as each person believes in the validity of their own morality.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

אריאל replied 4 years ago

Rabbi, thank you very much for the answers. If I may ask more:
A. Regarding evolution - what does "the laws of nature ensure that such mutations are created" mean? I am under the impression that you said that no reasonable reason has been found to explain survival without a deliberate hand... Have you backed away from this claim?
B. Regarding morality - why do you prefer the claim that the validity of morality comes from God and do not think that it stems from a social/evolutionary construction? Are you saying that we are creatures who need morality to survive so that society can function, and that it is one of our most deeply rooted "values" anyway?

מיכי Staff replied 4 years ago

A. I answered that this is a two-step argument. There is no accidental cause unless there is a deliberate hand that took care of it through the laws of nature.
B. My argument does not deal with this. If you prefer that this is a social construction, then from your point of view there is no valid morality and therefore there is no need to believe in God. What I am arguing is that if you advocate valid morality then you necessarily believe in God.
Here I am telling you that personally I really hold the first approach because in my opinion there is a valid morality and it is not the social construction. Why? This is my intuition.