Q&A: A question I struggle with a lot: How can one prove the existence of prophecy nowadays—by scientific means, not faith-based ones?
A question I struggle with a lot: How can one prove the existence of prophecy nowadays—by scientific means, not faith-based ones?
Question
Who says prophecy exists? How can one prove the existence of prophecy, on which we base our way of life? How can its physiology be explained? Research today identifies prophecy with an excess of neural connections in the brain that cause hallucinations.
Is this a marginal question? Isn't this a fundamental question in religion? After all, the whole religion stands on this, doesn't it? In the eyes of a scientist friend, my whole life is built on nothing at all.
Moses—Mosaic prophecy—the other prophets—who says? How does it work? Why am I supposed to just accept it without knowing anything about it? And have my whole world rest on a scientific void?
This is a question I struggle with a lot. Thank you for addressing it.
Answer
Hello Neriya. You taught me something new: that current research knows of the existence of prophecy and even explains it. I have never heard of such research.
I think it is impossible to prove the existence of prophecy. One who accepts the Torah and the tradition—they tell us that prophecy exists.
This question is really not fundamental from my perspective. Why is it important? The only prophecy that matters is the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai.
The claim that your world rests on a scientific void is nonsense. Your friend's world also rests on a scientific void, since the basic assumptions of science themselves are not scientific.
And to conclude, ask him how he accepts the existence of an electromagnetic field or gravitational force. Does he really know it and know how it was created? He knows it exists and can describe it. The same is true of desires and emotions, which also exist, and nobody in the world knows how to explain how they are formed. When you come to decide whether something exists or not, the question of whether you understand it is irrelevant. The important question is whether there are good indications that it exists. I'll illustrate this with a story involving a fellow who studied two years above me in yeshiva, in Gush Etzion. He got hepatitis and didn't recover for about half a year. They brought him some sorcerer who placed pigeons on his navel, and they died one after another. He stopped when the pigeons stopped dying, and the fellow recovered within two or three days and returned to yeshiva. When I told my parents about it, they laughed at me and at the nonsense they were feeding me in that irrational yeshiva (Gush Etzion?…). I told them that rational thinking doesn't require me to accept only things I understand. On the contrary, that is mental rigidity. Rationality instructs us to accept what there is good indication exists, and only afterward to look for an explanation, whether we find one or not. The same applies in our case regarding prophecy.
Discussion on Answer
I didn't understand what you meant about testimony concerning something contrary to nature.
I understand that you are talking about the prophecy at Sinai and not the other prophets, who in my view are not essentially important. As for that: the tradition says there was a revelation. If you believe it—then that is the proof. If you don't believe it—then it isn't. What does this have to do with the laws of nature and understanding the prophetic mechanism? The argument that the Creator has some purpose is only a side support.
And even if at the revelation only the first two commandments were spoken (this is Talmud, not medieval authorities (Rishonim): the end of Makkot: "'I am' and 'You shall have no other gods' we heard from the Mighty One, and the other 611, corresponding to the numerical value of 'Torah,' we heard from Moses"), those are an introduction and validation of what was later transmitted to us through Moses in addition. Otherwise, what would it mean that we are forbidden to have other gods before Him? After all, He would not be demanding anything from us.
The five notebooks explain the basic foundation of faith; the vast majority of them (up to Notebook 5 chapter 3) deal with faith in God the Creator, okay.
Who says God commands us? You answered with the argument of "reasonable to infer" at the end of chapter 2 there, and also the tradition of revelation in chapters 3-6.
________________________
The proof of "reasonable to infer" is something that can be discussed; unfortunately I was unable to understand your words, much to my regret (really!).
The proof from tradition needs clarification:
A. Otherwise, what is the meaning of "You shall have no other gods"? Maybe the intention is that we should believe that God created the world, as you proved in the four notebooks?
B. Even if there was a command to Moses, what exactly is the content of the command? How did so many disputes arise within it? "Anything about which you find a dispute is known not to be a law given to Moses at Sinai" (the view of Maimonides, who based faith on the Sinai event, unlike Nachmanides)?
B.2. If we do not have the entire Torah in complete and exact form, and as you wrote in "Notebooks on Faith" in response to a comment there, "there is some not-bad evidence for the documentary division," perhaps the full details leave broad room for changes and updates?
These questions are pointless. It is also possible that the word "In the beginning" means "at the end." A tradition comes down to us together with a Torah, and the tradition says that this is what is written in the Torah and that it was given at Sinai. If you accept that as reasonable, then what is there to discuss? And if not, then don't accept anything at all—not even the first two commandments. The logic of accepting only the first two is unclear to me.
I have already written in several places that obligation is not conditional on authenticity. That is, the obligation to observe Jewish law does not stem from the fact that every detail of Jewish law was said to Moses at Sinai. They were not. The obligation stems from accepting this whole body—what was given and what was added and interpreted—as a whole that is the will of God. On that understanding the Torah was given.
As for room for changes and updates—certainly there is room, and such changes have indeed been made (not enough, in my view). I will discuss all this in my trilogy.
I sent an email to mikyab@gmail.com
Hello Rabbi.
Thank you very much for the answer and the attention.
I hope my comment is not barred by the statute of limitations.
With your permission, I'd like to ask three questions that came to me while reading your answer.
Just to be precise: no scientific "research" has actually been done on prophecy, because there was no such phenomenon available to study. Therefore, there are those who, more than they argue, merely speculate that prophecy is an excess of neural connections in the brain that cause hallucinations. (The first place this speculation is mentioned is Wikipedia.) In any case, that isn't the discussion.
First question
There is a kind of paradox here. It is impossible to prove the phenomenon of prophecy, as you say. Yet a person who accepts the Torah, whose validity is prophecy, must believe in prophecy.
Why do we accept the phenomenon of prophecy? Because it is written in the Torah.
Why do we accept the Torah? Because it is prophecy.
The phenomenon of prophecy is the basis of the Torah, and the Torah is the basis of prophecy.
This reminds me of Leibowitz's paradox about observing commandments: faith as the basis of the Torah that emerges from within it.
Prophecy as the basis of the Torah that emerges from within it.
Leibowitz calls this a logical paradox but not a religious paradox.
If I understood correctly, the question is—
Why should a person accept the Torah in the first place?
Second question.
The Rabbi argues that…
Just as we know the forces of nature, and emotions and desires, not through a scientific explanation of how they were created—but through a scientific explanation (emotions and desires are not scientific; they belong to the subject's sphere of awareness) of their current state and description—so too prophecy: with prophecy we would not investigate how the phenomenon came into being.
I understand not investigating how the phenomenon came into being.
But why not investigate what the phenomenon is, like the forces of nature that we do understand? The question of a thing's existence may not be connected to understanding the moments of its formation, but why is it not connected to understanding the thing itself? After all, without understanding the thing, it seems impossible to claim anything about it and all its implications and consequences.
Third question:
What extra-Torah indication is there for prophecy, according to the Rabbi?
Hello. First of all, yes, the statute of limitations has indeed expired. It's hard for me to get into a topic after so much time. I deal here for a very long time with many parallel questions, so I would appreciate it if, when you want to continue a discussion, you would do so at shorter intervals.
As for your points:
The trust in the Torah of those who accepted it—those who stood at Sinai—is because they experienced it personally. They themselves experienced prophecy. When they pass that on to me, if I believe them then I am accepting their testimony about their experience of prophecy. That is how my trust in the Torah is formed. Now the Torah tells me that there will be prophets in the future; that helps me believe in the phenomenon of prophecy in general, meaning later prophets who come and claim they are prophets, after the examinations required by Jewish law. I do not see any circularity in this.
You can investigate whatever you want. The question is whether you will succeed. I don't see any possibility for such research, but good luck.
There is no such indication.
Sorry for waking up so late.
Why believe them about the experience of prophecy?
It is very, very hard for me to believe in the simplistic way that God spoke Hebrew, or speaks to human beings by cutting words and syllables as if He had vocal cords, or that He wrote a book or wrote on a stone tablet, etc. And it is even harder for me to believe that those people who stood at Mount Sinai experienced prophecy. The Bible itself says, "Moses would speak, and God would answer him with a voice." (There is an interpretation that the voice is the sound of the shofar and not God.) The reason it is hard for me to believe this is the total polarization between reality and the Bible's stories.
In other words, I don't know what prophecy is, but I have difficulty with the simplistic and common interpretation that says prophecy means that God talks like we do with a person.
Last question: How does the Rabbi define prophecy?
If it's hard for you, then don't believe. What am I supposed to do with that difficulty?
I have no definition other than conscious interaction with God. Does that help?
I have to ask again…
Are you saying this is a completely subjective matter? Not even something that can be judged in terms of probability? After all, it isn't arbitrary.
I wrote the difficulty not merely to share it. You're one of the only people I know who doesn't spare preconceived notions and actually addresses this difficulty, and argues for a change in God's mode of governance of the world. But God is eternal—not eternal in the sense of ongoing time, but eternal in the sense of being without time and space and such human categories. A reality that human beings cannot understand. If so, how can one say that He changed course at some point in time?
That pointed definition helped me a lot.
I really don't understand what you want. How did change enter here now?
As for your question itself, which I don't understand what it is doing here, there is no problem at all with change in an eternal being. Isn't the creation of the world a change? The change can be built in from the outset—that is, the eternal being is from the start structured in such a way that at such-and-such a moment it will do such-and-such. Beyond that, even real change can exist in it. Why not?
Forgive me, perhaps I did not explain myself properly.
I'm deliberately being long-winded. Your answer will help me.
The Bible testifies to prophecy—reality testifies to the absence of prophecy.
A change in divine governance is your explanation for the polarization between reality and the Bible's stories of revelation.
This is very, very connected to our discussion, because these are exactly the premises for the specific conclusions on the subject of prophecy. And I feel obligated to ask you this question—perhaps also to be persuaded; I'm not asking because I'm bored—because this is what causes me not to think like you on the subject of prophecy.
Why are these exactly the premises on the subject of prophecy?
Because if I argue that God does not change, that He did not change His mode of governance, and if I do not see prophecy in the classical sense today, then there was none then either. Therefore I am compelled to interpret the Bible's revelation stories in general, and prophecy in particular, in a way immune to present-day reality.
So far I have explained why this is tied by a Gordian knot.
**********
What stands behind the idea of change in the eternal?
Change must always come as a phenomenon at a certain time. That is, until a certain time it was one way; from a certain time it was another way. The thing that changes enters into the framework of time. Time belongs only to bodily concepts. And God is not a body and not within material categories.
Eternity is opposed to the concept of time, and outside all definitions of time and place. In eternity there cannot be a phenomenon at a certain time, because it is outside that concept.
If we agree to these definitions, then it follows that…
(if there is no agreement on these definitions, I'd be happy to know where I went wrong)
1. A God who speaks to man, changes nature, and watches over him from harm is a changing God—a God whose change can be categorized at a certain time. A God who "gets tired" and stops speaking to man, watching over him, and performing miracles is also a changing God at a certain time, only in the negative sense.
2. The trick of a change fixed in advance is not understandable at all. One could call it a "theological paradox," because if there is change, and change is connected to a certain time, that contradicts the concept of eternity. The fact that the change was fixed in advance neither adds nor subtracts from the anthropomorphism inherent in the concept of change.
***************
(Isn't the creation of the world a change?
I know there is intelligent design. Or in other and more precise words, that "the world did not come into being by itself randomly." I know nothing about the moment of the universe's creation. I don't know what God is in the verse "In the beginning God created…" And I do not presume to speak about the moment itself of the world's formation, or to classify God into a certain event, or to understand God. I can certainly classify the world according to its birthday, but not the Creator of the world according to His creation. I can only argue that the world did not come into being by itself randomly—a claim about the world, not about God. Any claim about God is invalid.)
I would be glad to hear your explanation of why one can attribute change to the eternal, because this is something very foundational for me, and if I am wrong I want to know where.
As stated, a change fixed in advance is not a change. Beyond that, even if it were a change, an eternal being can change like a sine wave over time and still be eternal. What's the problem with that?
If in your opinion God does not belong to the concepts of time (I don't really understand this strange talk, though I know many people use it), then relate to the change as part of our perception of Him and not a change in Him Himself. When I speak of a change in His governance, this is a change in my picture of the world regarding Him, not necessarily in Him Himself. If you enjoy saying it that way—fine.
I didn't understand why the creation of the world is not a change in your eyes. You may refrain from presuming to speak about anything, but when one says that God created the world, that is a change in exactly the same sense as a change in His governance, both regarding prophecy and regarding miracles. And if you do not presume to speak about Him—then don't speak about Him in the context of prophecy and miracles either. As I said above, speak only about how you perceive these things, and not about Him Himself.
I emphasize that because the argument about God's eternity, and the negation of attributes and anthropomorphism with regard to Him, is something very, very foundational for me, it is important for me to place it under criticism and check whether there is a mistake, and where. Therefore your opinion matters to me very much.
A sine wave is not eternal. That is exactly like saying that a person who is immortal is eternal and changing. Even an immortal person is not eternal; at most he is defined as being in a state of "ongoing uninterrupted time." The fact that something in particular does not stop does not mean it is eternal. Because, as we said above, eternal does not mean infinite time, but the absence of time. Past, present, and future do not exist within the framework of eternity—those concepts do not exist there at all! True, these are "strange talks" and incomprehensible, because they are things a person cannot understand. And in the language of Maimonides in the Laws of the Foundations of the Torah / Repentance, "the human mind cannot fully comprehend this matter." When I say God is eternal, I deny that He exists within a framework of time or place, as Malachi said: "For I, the Lord, have not changed." But I have no idea what the subject or object is, what eternity is, or what God is.
Knowledge of God and speaking about Him are destined to fail. When you say that all speech is only about my perception of Him and not about Him Himself, similar to Kant—if I pray to God and in my consciousness I attribute to Him bodily traits or definitions, I am not attributing them to the being itself, only to Him through my consciousness. Would that not count as idolatry in your view?
The creation of the world differs from the other events. Regarding that, I claim that I have no idea what happened at the moment of creation, nor the relation and connection of God to creation and how it was. There was no concept of time; this is a state that no person in the history of humanity ever could or will be able to solve, investigate, or even speculate about. "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts"—Second Isaiah, chapter 55.
I do not say that God created the world in the classical sense. In the verse "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"—"in the beginning" is understood. "Created" is understood. "Heavens" is understood. "Earth" is understood. But "God" is not understood.
If I say the verse, I mean that God is not part of nature like the magical pagan beliefs of that time, not in nature as with Spinoza, and that nature was not created randomly or by chance as atheism claims. It is a positive verse that comes to negate. Any positive statement about the moment of creation is invalid.
I am not speaking about prophecy and miracles as a momentary intervention of God at a certain time.
I've lost you. In my opinion I've explained what I can on this matter, and now you should decide what you think.
Okay, thanks anyway. You helped me a lot.
Rabbi Michi,
Your whole answer only explains that prophecy is possible (since you were almost a witness to an action contrary to known nature; from there, other things contrary to known nature may also be possible, and one should not get stuck in irrational mental rigidity).
But,
how do we know there was prophecy?
Your answer in Notebook 5: A. It is reasonable to assume that the Creator has some purpose. B. The witness argument.
"As far as the revelation itself is concerned, whatever its contents may have been, it does not seem from the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) that there were gaps or breaks in the tradition about it."
Maybe at the revelation only "I am the Lord" and "You shall have no other gods" were said, as many medieval authorities (Rishonim) explained, and if so there is no source at all for the obligation of the Torah's commandments (aside from the first reasoning you mentioned)?