Q&A: Questions about “God Plays Dice”
Questions about “God Plays Dice”
Question
Hello Rabbi Abraham,
First of all, I read your monumental book. It is unfortunate (though understandable) that it does not receive the exposure it deserves, unlike, for example, “A Brief History of Humankind” (in my view, simplistic, pretentious utopianist nonsense). A few questions:
1. Regarding the creation of life: aren’t some life forms created out of nothing—for example, worms?
2. At the beginning of the book you said there would be no distinction between theism and deism, and later between atheism and pantheism. Yet afterward you brought Einstein as an example of belief. But Einstein himself, as far as I know, claimed that he believed in the manner of Spinoza—that is, he was a pantheist, which fits with the way you presented how he believed, or at least a deist (in any case, not a theist who believed in individual divine providence).
3. You wrote that prayer studies are such that their hypothesis cannot be refuted. On the other hand, one could also say it cannot be confirmed: perhaps the connection between prayer and improvement was coincidental. And why can’t it be refuted? If I myself prayed—surely I listened to the commandments of the Lord, labored, chose life—but I did not find, and no rain fell on my land and no grain or wine grew—isn’t that a kind of refutation? After all, in monotheism there is a linear connection between actions and results; if that connection is not found in reality? If the righteous suffer and the wicked prosper—is that not a refutation?
Thank you,
Answer
Thank you.
1. As far as is currently known, there is no spontaneous generation of life. True, in the evolutionary account there once was such a thing—when life first emerged (abiogenesis).
2. Einstein’s belief was apparently pantheistic. I didn’t understand the question. By the way, in my opinion pantheism is nonsense—either trivial (reality is reality and you call it God), or inconsistent (there is God and there is nothing besides material reality), or meaningless (God is the soul of the world and not the world itself, and yet God is the world). I think I deal with this somewhat in the second notebook on the site.
3. The fact that you prayed is not enough. Did you pray enough? With proper intention? And maybe you will still be answered? And maybe other people also need to pray? Besides, you do not know what would have happened without the prayer (maybe it would have been worse, and in fact you were answered without knowing it).
All the best,
Michi
———————————————————————————————————————-
Questioner:
Regarding Einstein: so according to your view (that pantheism is nonsense), he was a heretic, since he was a pantheist. And more broadly: if so, it turns out there is a dichotomous division—theism/atheism (with all its derivatives: deism, pantheism).
I hope to be answered, but I prayed three times a day with intention, I said blessings, and others also prayed. But regarding others: take a case like the murder of Gilad Shaar, Naftali Frenkel, and Eyal Yifrah. An entire people prayed for them.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
Indeed, he was probably a heretic. Another possibility is that he was a hidden believer who did not understand his own belief. That is always a problem with self-contradictory or empty conceptions: whether to accept them and say that the person is foolish (we are talking about Einstein), or to assume, according to the principle of charity, that he did not understand himself or formulate himself properly.
I think theism and atheism are by definition a dichotomy: theism versus non-theism. Pantheism is a failed attempt to add another category in the middle.
I didn’t understand your last sentence:
I hope to be answered, but I prayed three times a day with intention, I said blessings, and others also prayed. But regarding others: take a case like the murder of Gilad Shaar, Naftali Frenkel, and Eyal Yifrah. An entire people prayed for them.
You asked whether the thesis that prayers are answered is falsifiable, and I said it is not. So what is written here? Is the case of the three boys a refutation? As you can see, the entire religious community was not really impressed by that. I agree (for me, the penny dropped in the case of Nachshon Wachsman, very similar) that it quite clearly seems there is no answering of prayers. But that is not a sharp logical refutation. Not at all.
The three boys were murdered even before the Jewish people knew they had been kidnapped.
Were the prayers supposed to bring them back to life??
As for Nachshon Wachsman, were the prayers supposed to prevent the terrorist from murdering him during the rescue operation?
And also prevent a car accident on the way home?
Does anyone expect that after people prayed for him there would be divine protection around him against every possible thing that could happen?
That is, it could be that the prayers really did help, but the rescue operation and the natural way it unfolded caused this.
I’d appreciate some clarification.