Q&A: Prayer as a Force
Prayer as a Force
Question
Dear Rabbi, hello,
Regarding prayer, the Rabbi argues that every future natural reality has been fixed since the six days of Creation or since the Big Bang. And as for every reality that depends on human choice, that choice is the active cause in it, and in practice the Holy One, blessed be He, does not alter people’s choices. In light of this factual picture, the Rabbi argues that every prayer about the future has the status of praying about something that has already been decided, like the sex of the fetus or a fire in the city. It seems that the Rabbi assumes that the mechanism by which prayer is answered departs from the laws of nature themselves, and from that follow the conclusions that make the petitionary parts of prayer unnecessary. But if we assume that, similar to the concept of reward and punishment, there are internal laws within creation according to which the sinner’s punishment is decreed (similar to a cigarette smoker who effectively sentences himself to lung cancer), so too prayer itself is a force that operates in reality and has the power to influence it with respect to the future (and what the Talmud said is that although prayer is a force, it is not capable of affecting the timeline). I accept that this statement too is a factual claim and requires examination, but at least on the theoretical level, with respect to several systems, it may be that this model could also justify requests. As a first example of prayer as a force that acts in reality, we may present the prayers of various communities in the Middle Ages to return to Zion. Would it be far-fetched to say that these prayers were a necessary condition, though not a sufficient one, for the return to Zion in recent generations? Additional examples might be in the realm of moral norms, such as the abolition of slavery and the like; it is not implausible that the prayers of slaves influenced things in some way, even though I do not know the precise mechanism, perhaps even affecting their enslavers as well. And perhaps even on the level of weather: if an entire people prays, and as a result changes its actions—meaning that at least theoretically it acts differently on the physical plane—then perhaps these actions could have the power to create a kind of butterfly effect that could influence the weather. I admit that this last possibility seems remote, but at least logically it could exist. I certainly agree with the Rabbi regarding the prayer of an individual, and even of a community, with respect to short-term requests; but regarding long-term actions on normative and even physical planes (it seems that establishing a political entity brings about both normative and physical changes), the power of prayer remains what it was.
Answer
Indeed, one can argue, like Maimonides, that answers to prayer or miracles are built into creation itself. But that does not really help, because my argument is not a priori. I am not arguing that it is impossible to depart from the laws of nature, for of course the One who created them can also depart from them. What I am arguing is that it seems that in practice this does not happen. Although He can do so, He has decided not to. If so, the basis of my claim is empirical: it appears that nature operates according to the laws of physics and the laws of nature generally. Therefore it will not help to argue that answers to prayer are part of those laws, because that too would contradict our empirical conclusion. And if you think it does not contradict it, then from the outset you do not need this thesis, since in your view the world is not run according to the laws of nature. So in any event there is no reason to resort to this questionable argument.
Natural effects of our choices (such as self-fulfilling prayers) can of course happen. In that there is no departure from nature at all. Those are everyday occurrences.
Discussion on Answer
There are several places here on the site. A more systematic picture appears in the trilogy that is currently being edited.
Dear Rabbi, hello,
I am listening to the lecture series “Authority and Change in Jewish Law,” and there the Rabbi argued that the reason prayer cannot work is the physical conception accepted today, of which the Sages were unaware, and therefore they understood the future as open to change and not determined. It seems to me that this was the main argument, which is an a priori argument. As for the empirical argument, I certainly agree with the Rabbi, but I still find it difficult, because in the empirical realm it seems that the mode of divine governance has not changed dramatically, at least since the destruction of the Second Temple (perhaps even before then). So basically what the Rabbi is saying is that all the Jews from then until the modern era were blind, and that of course includes all those sages who instituted prayer from the destruction of the Temple onward. Beyond that, I recall that in one of the books the Rabbi criticized empirical experiments done on prayer and argued that the researchers were biased. Does the Rabbi know of any newer studies that he accepts and that show prayer has no effect at all? (I strongly suspect that even if there were a study claiming prayer has an effect, the response would be that there is a flaw in the experiment, since determinism has become for us an a priori truth.) In light of these questions, I tried to suggest that the mechanism of prayer is integrated in some way into physical causality in a physical way (as I think I heard the Rabbi say regarding the standing of the waters at the splitting of the Red Sea—that the net force there was zero). In other words, the suggestion is on the a priori track, in order to allow for the possibility of prayer in a deterministic reality. However, with regard to the empirical dimension, I have nothing new to add except to say that there is general providence and not individual providence (as I heard the Rabbi say that God would presumably prevent the President of the United States from destroying the world).
Hello Asael (good to hear from you),
Indeed, what follows from this is that the sages of the generations from the Talmudic Sages until our own time were mistaken. That was their scientific worldview, so there is nothing surprising about it.
As for the experiments, I am indeed suspicious. But if there are unequivocal results, I hope I will be honest enough to accept them. Of course one would still have to rule out various possible interpretations (as with the findings that religious people have a longer life expectancy because they are calmer and know their purpose and have community cohesion, etc.). But in my opinion this is ordinary scientific inertia. When there is a strong scientific theory that explains many phenomena and therefore dominates scientific thought as a paradigm, scientists will be suspicious of any finding that contradicts it (see Thomas Kuhn).
I do not think one can integrate the effect of prayer into the laws of physics. If at the Red Sea the net force was zero, then the fact that the water stood is not a departure from the laws of physics—but the creation of the force that balanced gravity is a departure. After all, there is no natural source that creates such a force. The laws of nature determine not only how bodies move (like the water), but also how forces are generated.
It seems to me that what you heard from me was a question about what happened in the miracle of the splitting of the sea: did the waters stand despite a force acting on them (contrary to Newton’s second law), or was a balancing force created? The question stems from whether the second law is a definition of the concept of force (that is, when some body is standing still, then by definition the net force on it is zero), or whether it is a synthetic claim about reality. But there is no principled difference between the two possibilities regarding departure from the laws of nature. In either case, there was such a departure there.
As for the destruction of the world, I indeed argued that in colossal cases it is likely that the Holy One, blessed be He, would intervene and not allow the world to be destroyed. When there is a significant deviation from the general plan, it is possible that He intervenes. But that is reserved for very, very rare and significant events.
What I don’t understand is why you say that the Talmudic Sages were mistaken.
More precisely, all the stories of the Patriarchs in the Book of Genesis, and in general the whole story of the Torah, are one big bluff.
How is it possible that God answered Isaac’s prayer on behalf of his wife, because she was barren?
Hello Yoni.
I have already explained these things several times on this site. My claim is that there has apparently been a change in God’s policy. After all, no one disputes that in the past there were open miracles and now there are not. In the past there was prophecy and now there is not. So I am only adding that today there are no hidden miracles either. That’s all.
See here:
Greetings and blessings, Rabbi.
Where does the Rabbi lay out his full doctrine regarding prayer?
Is there a thread or a column on the subject?