Q&A: Providence
Providence
Question
The Rabbi argues that nowadays there is no providence, on the grounds that providence means miracles, and if those do not exist, then providence does not exist either.
The Rabbi says he is not innovating anything, but this is a crazy innovation.
The entire Torah is based on there being providence—that God forgives sins, and on the Jewish people and the redemption.
The fact that it is hard to understand how providence works does not mean one should claim that it is null and void.
The Jewish people returned to their land after 2,000 years of exile—the most unexpected thing ever. A Jewish ethnic group also remained in existence—also unexpected. True, this happened within the bounds of the laws of nature and not through miracles, but that is providence.
The concept of providence does not require miracles. Have we solved all the wisdom of the universe to reach the conclusion that the universe is a closed causal circle in which no further unexpected action is possible unless it violates the laws of nature—that is, something that could appear accidental and unexpected within the laws of nature?
Reality shows that there is providence. All of evolution, which is based purely on the laws of nature, is beautiful evidence of providence.
I really do not understand this fixation on claiming that providence = miracles. Maybe it comes from your difficulty with the fact that rain also falls for the wicked, or that prayers are not answered in a way that lets one point to a demonstrable process of prayers being accepted. Indeed, that is a different discussion, but to claim that there is no providence, in my view, is a crazy innovation, and it is unnecessary—and it already undermines religious faith, because if there is no providence = no relationship, then there is nothing to believe in.
I would be glad to hear the Rabbi’s thoughts on this, and who knows—maybe your worldview is not yet settled and is open to change..
Thank you very much.
Answer
I too hope my outlook is open to change. But for that to happen, new arguments have to be raised that I have not considered. That did not happen here. You can search here for columns about divine involvement in the world, and everything is explained there. And if in your view without this there is no faith, then apparently even now you do not believe. And certainly you are not serving for its own sake, but so that they will help you.
Discussion on Answer
Apparently you did not read, if you are repeating these oxymorons. I’m done.
I do not understand why you are not addressing my question in any way. I read, and I am writing on the basis of having read.
You say that nature is responsible for everything—that people get sick because of bacteria and not because God decided—and you claim that you have the right to depart from the words of our sages because they did not understand physics, etc. And still, everything I wrote stands. The sages knew there is such a thing as gravity—even if not in the form of a formula, they knew that if you drop an apple it falls and does not go upward—and even so, if you walk under a rickety house, you are sinning because the house might fall and it is your fault for being there, and this has nothing to do with God deciding that the house should fall. And despite that knowledge, they still said that a person is not injured below unless it was proclaimed about him above. God gave nature the power for Acamol to heal, and God gave nature the power for bacteria to make people sick. And yet that still does not mean we should not speak of providence, and my words still stand, and I would appreciate a proper response, please.
The fact that I believe in providence does not mean it is because I want help. There is so much important learning in the commentators and so on, all showing that one must serve for its own sake despite their assumption that there is providence. My view is that without providence there is no faith, because the plain meaning of the Torah is based on it, and it is the foundation of everything—that God sees, cares, and wants the right act in every situation. I have now read a few of your columns, and I really understand that your main claim is that providence is miracles, and if there are no miracles then there is no providence. And that is a claim that surprises me so much coming from someone like you—a philosopher, among them, who looks at things as they are at root and does not box them in. Indeed there are no miracles, but providence is something else. God performed miracles not because only through them could He intervene in reality, but rather to cause non-believers to believe—it was just a mode of expression. Now you will ask: how does He supervise if technically He cannot change anything, since we know that the world follows its natural course? So the answer is that this is the Creator of the world, and the way He knows is not the way we know, and the way He sees is not the way we see; for Him there is no past and no future, He is not limited, and nothing defines Him. That is, why does He punish a person if in the end He knew from the outset that the person would act that way? Why did He create the world if in any case He knows how it ends? And even if these are not good enough questions, it does not matter—the point is that I do not know His ways of operating.