Q&A: Following the series “The Holy One, Blessed be He, and the World”
Following the series “The Holy One, Blessed be He, and the World”
Question
In the series, the Rabbi argued that it is hard to accept divine intervention because there are no gaps in nature, and also because we do not want to undermine free choice (very roughly summarized…). Two questions:
1. In the period when miracles did occur, how did that work? After all, even then there were no gaps in nature; it was just that there was no science to detect it. And regarding human decisions too—was that once considered legitimate?
2. There are two concepts that you also believe are real today: free choice and the existence of a soul (never mind for the moment how exactly we define it). And both of these concepts do not fit with a scientific worldview. Choice is a wonder, because if we knew all the data about environmental influences, the state of the neurons, etc., the result should be a deterministic choice. The existence of choice is a wonder that somehow sits on top of that whole story. Likewise the soul: in the psychophysical question of how the soul is connected to the body and affects it, again there is an influencing factor that is not nature. So why not assume that there is also providence which, in a way we do not understand, does in fact operate despite nature—just like choice and the soul’s influence?
Thank you
Answer
- The claim is that there were. Prophets identified quite a few divine interventions. Theoretically, a scientist conducting scientific experiments back then might occasionally have discovered deviations from the laws. Of course, in such a situation it is impossible to formulate laws, because you never know when this is the law and when it is an exception. It depends on the frequency of the exceptions, of course. I assume that even then it was very low, so the question is more hypothetical. Aside from overt miracles, which certainly did occur then and do not occur today.
- This question has already been asked here dozens of times in several variations (some suggested that divine involvement takes place through human choices and hides behind them. You are asking why deny involvement in nature itself as well, since the choosing human being also intervenes in the laws of nature). The answer (to both questions) is that I experience choice directly, and therefore there is no reason at all to deny its existence merely because of an axiom of physicalism (which is itself also based on experience). But we have no way whatsoever to see divine intervention. Therefore, de facto, human choice is part of nature, and when I say that divine involvement does not take place in the world, I mean neither in the laws of nature nor in human choice.
Discussion on Answer
More or less. There is no need to present it as a contradiction (“even though,” in your wording). One of the laws of nature is that human beings have choice.
Dear R. Michi, although you believe in choice, you nevertheless disagree with Dr. Ledwin, who holds that choice comes from a natural source; he explains it through quantum indeterminacy, and you insist emphatically that it does not. Meaning: choice does not come from a natural source [not a physical one; one could call it “transcendent,” or in less impressive terminology, “spiritual,” and only afterward does it integrate into nature]. In other words, you are a clear dualist. So choice is not part of nature [“nature” and “spirit” are contradictory concepts].
And the reason for that, according to your words, is that you are convinced by the very fact that you are a chooser [despite the fact that the vast majority of neuroscientists disagree with you, you are not bothered by that].
Accordingly, a person who believes in the sacred scriptures and is also a dualist like you—when he reads the verses of the Bible and becomes convinced that the Hebrew Bible testifies to ongoing involvement by the Holy One, Blessed be He, in the world [not only major miracles once in a long while, but also small miracles, and mainly those], and who also does not accept the strange argument that “the Lord has forsaken the land”—his dualist and unequivocal conclusion is that there is constant intervention by the Holy One, Blessed be He, in the world, despite the domain of physics [exactly like your position on the issue of choice].
Do you mean that choice is part of nature even though it is hard to explain how it fits with the laws of nature?