Q&A: Cause and Effect: Logic vs. Empiricism
Cause and Effect: Logic vs. Empiricism
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Is it your view that the cosmological proof, or more generally the claim that every cause necessarily has an effect, could be undermined by empirical evidence such as quantum mechanics and the like (at least theoretically), which seem to demonstrate randomness that does not depend on a prior cause? And can empirical evidence overturn the logical axiom that every cause has an effect?
And what about the physical claim that matter cannot be destroyed (but only the molecules, which do not change)? Could that serve as a proof that the world is eternal?
I hope I expressed myself clearly; I’m not fully familiar with the physics terminology. Thank you very much.
Answer
In principle, that is possible, if you become convinced that some particular thing truly has no cause. There is no obstacle to an a priori philosophical assumption being negated by empirical evidence. For example, Aristotle’s assumption that objects fall at a speed proportional to their weight was an a priori one, and it was empirically disproved.
The fact that matter cannot be destroyed does not mean that matter was not created by the Holy One, blessed be He. What is the connection? At most, it might perhaps refute the proof for His existence (and even that I do not think it does), but it certainly would not constitute proof of His nonexistence.
Discussion on Answer
I don’t know. I assume not.
The fact that I said they can be empirically refuted does not mean I am in doubt unless and until that happens. This is what I think, but in principle it could turn out that I was mistaken. That is true of science as well, not only of a priori assumptions.
Why would the fact that matter cannot be destroyed prove anything?
In thought, everything is supposed to be open to doubt. In feeling, almost nothing is.
When you look at the sunrise, the feeling that the sun is the one rising and moving remains intact, even though it has been proven that the earth rotates on its axis.
It seems that the Rabbi determines the truth of things based on feeling, and uses reason to persuade (or fool?) others. This is most obvious on the issue of free choice, where feeling says that there really is no cause for a choice, whereas reason says that this feeling arises because we are unaware of the cause. And likewise regarding morality, and so on and on.
An a priori axiom without which all thought collapses is that reason determines what is true. Which is not accepted by most thinkers (or dreamers?).
Thank you for the answer.
Are there a priori axioms that cannot fall without bringing down all human thought?
And how much can one really rely on a priori proofs, if so? Is everything really presumed doubtful until empirical evidence for it is discovered?