Q&A: From Deism to Theism
From Deism to Theism
Question
Hello Rabbi,
At this point I understand the Rabbi’s words in the Four Notebooks. Right now I accept only the cosmological proof and the physico-theological proof, and also a bit of the theological proof from morality.
In other words, God is a being who is not within our experience; He planned the world and also laid down morality for human beings (if not from the proof from morality, then from deterministic evolution).
But I don’t understand at all how the Rabbi wants to say that God wants something.
After all, one could say that the world emanates from God, meaning that creation happened without intention. And in general, we have no explanation at all of what “God” is, so how can we know whether He has desires and intentions at all and explain them…?
Maybe God was actually “compelled” to create the world because He has no free will. (Just as a dove creates and plans a nest for her chicks, and of course has no choice in doing so.)
Answer
A being that has no judgment and no will does not constitute a primary explanation, but rather a blind mechanism. Therefore, such a thing requires something else that explains its rationale. A complex world indicates that there is a component that planned it for its purposes (that there should be life, and that life should have such-and-such characteristics).
As for the dove, it creates its nest because it is programmed to do so.
Discussion on Answer
C. The Rabbi’s answer is based on the assumption that actual/concrete infinities cannot exist. But it’s not clear that this is really so…
B. Nobody said that. The purpose of creation is whatever emerged, including human beings. That is the claim in the physico-theological proof.
C. Indeed. If that isn’t clear to you, then you probably don’t agree with the argument.
Rabbi, I really don’t understand why a blind mechanism cannot serve as an explanation for the world.
1) After all, according to determinists, a human being is nothing more than a blind mechanism, so does that mean he cannot be a primary explanation for the question of who made the clock?
2) Suppose the Creator of the world has no free will, and is like a human being who feels that he chooses but this is an illusion. Can he no longer serve as a primary explanation? Why do we need real free will, and why isn’t the feeling of illusion enough?
I’d be happy to get an answer.
1. A blind mechanism is arbitrary and therefore cannot create something complex, unless there is something intelligent that created it itself (the blind mechanism), and then we are back again at the first link in the chain, which must be intelligent.
2. Your questions here too assume your ability to weigh things in your mind; otherwise what would be the point of deliberating? The first link is supposed to have judgment—intelligence—in order to decide what to do and how to realize its will. Otherwise, go one step back and ask who/what created it itself, and there too you will need intelligence.
The question whether it has an illusion of choice or not is really not clear to me. It didn’t report to us that it has choice, so if it has it—it has it, and if not—then not. What role does illusion play here?
Thank you.
1. I didn’t understand the following sentence: “Your questions here too assume your ability to weigh things in your mind; otherwise what would be the point of deliberating.”
Which questions? What am I assuming? What would have been different? And what deliberation?
2. So is the Rabbi basically saying that God doesn’t need to have free will, but only intelligence? Right?
1. I was commenting that your questions, raised in order to clarify the topic, implicitly assume that you have judgment and freedom to think and choose, for otherwise there would be no point in raising considerations this way or that way.
2. If He had no choice, He would be a kind of computer (a deterministic machine), and a computer has no intelligence. See column 35:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%99-%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%98%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%92%D7%A0%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%A9-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%9C-%D7%93/
2) Okay. So according to materialism / determinism, a human being has no intelligence?
Indeed. See the article I referred you to.
Interesting.
In other words, must we say that there is a primary being with free choice that leads to judgment? (Meaning, otherwise we would get caught in a regress of beings.)
B. Who said that the purpose of creation is human beings?