Q&A: Personal Providence
Personal Providence
Question
Hello Rabbi, in the past I read your arguments about personal providence, and the questions bothered me. After debates with my friends, I think a good proposal came up for why to believe in providence, and I’d be glad to hear your opinion.
The obvious assumptions are: 1. In the past there was providence (that is part of faith in the Torah). 2. Today we do not see providence (and it is impossible to prove providence from stories).
One can say that providence ceased, and one can say—as rabbis usually suggest—that providence remains but there is a hiding of the divine face. I agree that mathematically it is more correct to choose the option that providence has ended, but in my opinion there is an a priori reason in favor of the explanation of divine hiddenness.
When I study a passage in the Talmud I usually build it on the words of the medieval authorities, like Maimonides and Nachmanides, and I have seen that you do this as well. I rely on them because they had vast knowledge of Torah, and mainly because they were closer to the transmission of the Torah. Maimonides, in the way he understands the Torah, takes providence to be a principle of faith, and Nachmanides holds that the entire Exodus from Egypt was meant so that people would believe that there is a God and that He watches over us. I know there is no obligation to listen to the medieval authorities or to anyone else in matters of faith, but it is still wise to rely on them, and therefore to choose the option that there is divine hiddenness.
Answer
The claim that there is no providence is not based only on the fact that we do not see it. It is about my trust in the laws of physics and science in general, and the recognition that they always work (acetaminophen always reduces fever, regardless of your righteousness or your level of prayer). The laws of science are a sufficient condition for the effect to occur, and that means they are what determines it. In my opinion, it is not plausible that the Holy One, blessed be He, is hiding from us every time and playing hide-and-seek with us.
But if I did in fact assign great weight to the words of the medieval authorities and the sages of the generations on this matter, perhaps I would consider squeezing myself into that view. But in my opinion their words carry no weight at all on these topics. The medieval authorities and the sages of the Talmud were not people with knowledge of metaphysics, and their closeness to the source changes nothing in this regard. On the contrary, they understood less than we do about science. There is no reason in the world to assign great weight to what they say on such matters.
Discussion on Answer
Some argue that, in general, providence operates within the framework of the properties of things in the world without violating their nature. For example, it influences unlikely though possible events within the laws of nature in order to bring about a certain result—say, the saving of innocents—as happened with the recent assassination attempt on Trump (I’ll post a conversation with Musk about it).
Scholastics argued that “grace perfects nature, it does not destroy it.” Providence does not operate by turning a person into something contrary to what he is (according to Maimonides in the Guide, that was the reason for “And God did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines”). And likewise regarding the other beings in the world.
It is also possible that there is such a thing as miracles in the usual sense, but that they are rare and exceptional, and that is precisely the reason—preserving the regularity of the laws of nature. If they occurred often, they would disrupt the natural order. The fact that they are rare allows them to be exceptional cases of divine action that do not undermine the everyday reliability we expect from objects in the world. The fact that we find the laws of nature highly regular, and that it is rational on our part to expect that, is consistent with this hypothesis.
It can be argued that our understanding of the laws of nature is limited, and what we perceive as a violation of those laws may simply be a deeper law or principle that we do not yet understand. What appears to be a miracle or an extremely improbable event may be the result of divine action operating according to principles beyond our current scientific understanding.
Copenhagen, welcome back.
As for your remarks, I disagree. There is no possibility of divine involvement within nature, because nature is deterministic. Divine involvement in healing a sick person means that without the involvement he would have died (that is what would have happened according to the laws of nature), and because of the involvement he was saved. After all, if in any case he would have been saved, then there is no divine involvement here. So you see that any involvement is a deviation from the laws of nature.
Even in quantum theory (according to the interpretation that bears your name, where there is randomness), there is a given distribution, and therefore there too there is no possibility of involvement, because it would contradict the distribution. That too would be a deviation from the laws of quantum mechanics.
There is of course a possibility of involvement that deviates from nature and plays hide-and-seek with us (every time we check, it doesn’t happen). That is what I commented on above.
I assume you meant to post this link here: https://youtu.be/W7z5pikL5SI
_That’s the video in which Trump lays out his theological doctrine.)
The scientific laws you are talking about are verifiable under “laboratory conditions.” Most situations in nature are complex, and in them it is not possible to verify the laws of science. It follows that according to the scientific method, your belief in sweeping scientific laws is not based on science but on your desire to believe that there are no events that cannot be explained scientifically.
Scientifically speaking, even a basic chaotic state leads to results that cannot be predicted, and therefore according to the scientific method the chaotic state falls outside the bounds of pure science.
Welcome indeed!
In order to stick to your argument, one has to accept several assumptions that are not necessarily agreed upon. First, that human beings are the only free, intelligent creatures capable of acting in the world. After all, given libertarian free choice, human beings can “exercise providence” over certain domains so that they yield a result they want, one that does not follow from the laws of nature (since this is free, indeterministic intervention). Who says there are no other such beings?
Scholastics argued (for example Maimonides and Gersonides in Judaism, though not only they) for a principle known as the Principle of Plenitude, according to which the Creator, being all-powerful and supremely perfect, creates as wide a variety of beings as possible, so long as this is consistent with a cosmic order that expresses His justice and goodness. The idea is that a universe that is as rich and complete as possible is preferable to a “thin” universe.
In addition, providence does not necessarily mean direct divine action on the laws of nature. There could be a possibility like the one described in I Kings 22: “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left,” etc.—that is, a policy is decided upon, and there are those appointed to carry it out. Even the action described there is not on the laws of nature but on the psychology of the false prophets, which will cause them to behave in a certain way, which will cause Ahab to believe that he will win, and thus he will come to his punishment.
Another possibility, connected to what “Point” wrote: if there is such a thing as emergentism, as some philosophers believe, then providence may affect higher-level emergent phenomena (such as consciousness or complex systems) without violating laws at lower levels. The influence may be subtle, in a way that directs aspects of the system as a whole without violating basic physical laws.
If, by the way, the Molinists are right, then the question does not arise to begin with. Molinists believe that the Holy One, blessed be He, has what is called Middle Knowledge, which makes it possible to know what the choice of free creatures would be in any circumstances if they were created. This knowledge enables God to arrange the world in advance so that His will is achieved through free actions and natural processes, without “intervening” at all, simply because from the outset He created exactly those who would choose to do actions consistent with the purpose He set.
It is not clear to me what the claim is based on that providential action on quantum systems (or on human consciousness, which would in turn affect such systems) is contrary to the laws of nature. I admittedly have not looked deeply into it, but there are theistic thinkers who have dealt with it, such as Robert John Russell and Nancey Murphy. Their claim is that God can influence which particular outcome occurs within the probabilistic framework of quantum mechanics, that is, “choose” among the possible outcomes in a way that does not violate the lawfulness of the system.
Indeed, scientific confirmation is built on testing particular cases and generalizing. If you want to slip the Holy One, blessed be He, in there between the folds, be my guest. That is the hide-and-seek game I was talking about.
I do not assume that human beings are the only creatures, although that does seem entirely reasonable to me (apart from the Holy One, blessed be He, of course).
What you described is involvement in the laws of nature (when our choice is part of them) in every respect. I have already addressed here several times the proposal of involvement through people’s choices.
Emergentism is empty wordplay. I explained this, for example, in columns 587 and 593.
His foreknowledge of what I will choose does not exist, in my opinion (see the columns on knowledge and choice). But even if it did, knowledge has nothing to do with involvement and adds nothing to the discussion of involvement. Prearrangement is of course possible under that assumption (which I do not accept), but that still is not involvement.
Quotations from people and approaches are not an argument. Even if there are people who say something incorrect, it remains incorrect.
If you are not taking the absence of intelligent immaterial beings as an assumption for the argument, the question is how exactly the criticism works. After all, it may be that some of them are occupied with implementing the policy. As stated, theologians in the tradition of classical theism held that there are many kinds of intelligent non-human beings. Maimonides thought that the anthropocentric conception—egocentric, in his view—according to which man is the most exalted creature is ridiculous. That led him to argue, against many others (such as Saadia Gaon), that man is not the purpose of creation.
In the Bible’s view, before man was created there were already the sons of God or the “host of heaven” — created immaterial beings (this is how Bible scholars understand the statement “Let us make man” — as said to them). Isaiah therefore prophesies, “And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord will punish the host of the high ones on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth,” and Daniel is told, “And at that time Michael shall stand up, the great prince who stands for the children of your people,” etc.
The claim was that just as intervention in nature stemming from free human choice is not considered a violation of the laws of nature, so too intervention stemming from free non-human choice. Because the laws of nature describe the state of affairs in the absence of intervention. Alternatively, one can say that the free choice of intelligent creatures is consistent with their nature and therefore is not contrary to the laws of nature. Either way, providence is possible, if only because there may be created beings sometimes authorized to carry out policy on its behalf, as in the story of the prophet Micaiah.
What about the Active Intellect?
Aristotelians argued that intellectual cognition cannot be explained without an influx coming from outside (since intellectual forms never arise from sense data). Some hold that this ultimately derives from a chain that originates in the Creator. If they are right, providence could decide to save Trump by timing the idea to show that chart at the exact fraction of a second required (it knows he will think it’s an excellent idea—so there is no contradiction to free choice). According to this, the very timing of the arrival of the idea to Trump is not contrary to human nature, because that is the normal state of affairs—that there is such an influence. That is also how Maimonides understood prophecy: in his view it is not a deviation from human nature but its completion, even though it is not deterministic and God can decide not to grant it even when a person is fit for it.
According to the Molinists, the Holy One, blessed be He, knew in advance what kind of refuser He needed to create (Pharaoh) in order to publicize His name in the world. And He created the initial conditions of the universe so that the splitting of the sea would occur in accordance with the laws of nature at the appropriate time, as would the sea’s return to its strength. Admittedly, this is not intervention in the temporal sense of the word (in the sense of the A-theory of time), but from the believer’s perspective on providence there is no principled difference. The Holy One, blessed be He, likewise knew in advance that he would pray, and therefore created the laws of nature and the initial conditions so that his prayer would be answered. From his point of view, what matters is that the prayer may be accepted.
As for quantum physics, on the face of it there seems to be room for intervention in the sense that a certain collapse of the wave function does not necessitate a specific result, under the common interpretive assumption that there is no hidden physical mechanism. Providential action is carried out in a way that does not violate the laws of the distribution. An effect on just one collapse may determine what the result will be in the Newtonian world, as reflected in the story of Schrödinger’s cat.
I’ll say it again. I am not especially interested in what so-and-so wrote or thought, however important and wise he may be—Maimonides, the scholastics, or anyone else. I deal with arguments on their merits, not with the person making them.
I do not understand these pilpulim. I have no interest in such creatures or others that none of us has heard of or knows exist. Maybe the world contains Harry Potters and Dumbledores and demons and spirits, active intellects and all sorts of other nasty things. What I am claiming is that the laws of nature work, and by the best indications that is what always happens. If you want to assume various hide-and-seek games—go ahead.
So it also does not matter to me what is called intervention in the laws of nature and what counts as part of them. I see that the natural laws of physics work, and that is all. I also see that people have choice and that it really can change the outcome. Everything beyond that—I have no indication that it exists.
I have already written my view on foreknowledge and involvement in planning responses to choices. And also regarding quantum physics.
If you don’t believe in personal providence, then how do you pray—what’s the point? And does that mean you don’t believe in reward and punishment (not a natural consequence)? That contradicts the Shema passage, where the Holy One, blessed be He, changes the weather, and the sections about Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim.
I’ve answered all this in detail several times. You can search the site.
The Rabbi argues in column 280 that the burden of proof is on whoever claims that there is intervention by the Holy One, blessed be He, in nature (hidden miracles), and because there is no clear evidence there is no reason to assume that there is intervention by the Holy One, blessed be He.
I want to argue that the burden of proof is on you, because there is evidence that there are hidden miracles from prophecy in the period of the Hebrew Bible. The Rabbi argued that just as open miracles disappeared, so too hidden ones. The Rabbi needs to bring proof for that; reasoning alone is not enough. One can assume that because there are no open miracles, there is no possibility of proving hidden miracles.
I explained there why in my opinion there aren’t, and why others don’t really believe in it either. The assumption is that the laws of nature operate. Sporadic involvement I do not rule out.
I want to argue that not only should sporadic interventions not be ruled out, but that there is evidence for them (the Book of Esther and other parts of the Hebrew Bible). Until proven otherwise, there are sporadic interventions.
Just noting that Maimonides probably understood providence differently.