http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/112078/jewish/Existence-of-G-d.htm
The following is my response to those letters. I got a little tired of writing near the end so the last few responses aren't my best but the first ones pretty much say all I want to say and cover most of the points the Rebbe makes in his later letters.
Proof
First of all as I said above I believe the question asked to the Rebbe was a pretty silly one and is definitely not one I would have asked. I don’t need “convincing proof” to convince me “beyond a shadow of a doubt”. As discussed above such proof doesn’t exist and in my opinion no one should try to convince themselves it does. All that I would request is convincing evidence that makes the existence of God or the historicity of the Tanach probable or likely.
The Rebbe first describes what he considers different forms of “proof”. First off “proof” by sight is one method. Second he mentions that this form of “proof” includes reports, i.e. you can trust peoples reported perceptions as you trust your own. As I have mentioned above this to me is not at all convincing. Evidence gained from one’s own personal perceptions should certainly carry more weight than the reported perceptions of others in general. They should not be of equal weight is my point.
The Rebbe then explains another kind of “proof” that is reasoning from cause to effect. This to me seems like an altogether different form than that of sense data and reports as above, but both are labeled as “proof”. I am therefore confused as to which of these the Rebbe considers to carry more weight or if he considers a belief gained from reasoning from cause to effect to be of equal weight as beliefs gained from sense data or reports. From my perspective a “reasoned belief” is nothing more than a model which needs to be tested with evidence (either direct or indirect) before the model can be believed. Anyone can come up with models that explain why one thing caused another, but any model that wishes to be believed must make predictions about our reality and then subject themselves to tests which result in either supporting evidence for the model or evidence against the model.
This is where things begin to get more murky in the Rebbe’s letter. He mentions that the existence of electricity from cause to effect is different than other kinds of “direct proofs” like seeing a certain color, to know that the color exists. I disagree with the Rebbe in that I believe that essentially every belief is a model of existence. Even “direct” things like a certain color is nothing but a predictive model of existence in some sense. You believe that a cup exists in front of you, your model of the cups existence implies many things about the universe which are testable either through your senses (direct evidence) or through reports (indirect evidence). In this light I can’t see any true distinction between a belief in electricity or gravity than any other belief except that they may come about through different forms of evidence (direct vs. indirect).
The Rebbe then mentions that such beliefs contradict rationality (such as gravity). The problem I am having with this statement is that the Rebbe doesn’t explain what “rationality” is. To me if the model of gravity when applied to our universe, tested numerous times, making numerous predictions which have to date as far as I am aware result in evidence that support this theory, through both direct and indirect evidence, that to me is very good reason to believe it exists and is thus very rational, maybe the epitome of rationality. Is rationality no different than “seeing is believing” for the Rebbe, for him to conclude that since gravity has no visible “particles or waves” it can’t be a rational belief? What exactly do having particles or waves add to the rationality of any belief? Also being that gravity is force not a wave or particle it makes me wonder as to what extent the Rebbe understood the theory of gravity in general. All in all without a clear definition of what the Rebbe considers rational it is very hard for me to understand what he doesn’t consider rational about gravity. Is it direct evidence? If so we do have direct evidence for gravity, just try dropping something. Is it a lack of “cause and effect” relationship? If so the theory of gravity is an excellent model for reality with immense predictable power. Is it because we don’t know what causes gravity in the first place? Well then if that is the case not one of our beliefs are understood to that extent. How is seeing a radio wave any more rational than gravity? Sure we may not know what causes gravity yet, but we also don’t know what causes the cause that causes the cause that causes the cause that causes the particle. Not knowing this doesn’t make it any less likely that gravity or radio waves or cups exist. What determines the existence of these things are the substantial supporting evidence gained over the insufficient refuting evidence from testing the models of belief in which these things exist.
Similarly the Rebbe says that relativity is not rational by using the simple test of looking at some matter like a shoe and then looking at some energy like light from a light bulb and noting that they are different. To me this underlies not the irrationality of relativity, but of the ignorance of the person performing the test. Perhaps if such a person were to gain a fuller understanding of relativity, the connection between the shoe and the light would be clear. I believe the Rebbe (either mistakenly or was not clear on this point) says that it is because of what the theory of relativity explains that it is accepted by scientists. While it is true that one support for relativity are the things it explains (namely backward looking) the main strength of this theory as well as any other theory accepted by the majority of scientist, such as gravity and evolution, are their predictive ability. It isn’t difficult for an economist to explain why a certain stock rose, fell or stayed the same after the fact, there are plenty of reasonable explanations for why each scenario would seem most likely (after you already know the results), but for an economic model to be considered a belief with any real use it must be able to accurately predict the direction of markets before they happen, not merely explain the events after they occur.
After speaking about proof and rationality the Rebbe then goes on to talk about what, under his standards, meet the reasonable criteria for a correct belief. He says that (based on his erroneous conclusions above) a belief need not be rational (which he never defines) nor fully grasped to be believed. The only criteria the Rebbe seems to require to hold a belief is that it best explains events that have already happened or things that already exist. This to me is only the bare minimum a belief must have in order to be held. How does one determine which belief “best” explains the data we currently have? To this the Rebbe gives no proposal. It would seem to me that what decides this according to the Rebbe is our own personal preferences or our simple perceptions of the world around us (does the shoe look like light sort of perceptions). These are very weak ways of determining what is true from what isn’t. As I have written above, the most important way to determining if a belief is accurate is to test its implications and gather supporting or refuting evidence for that belief.
There is another important aspect is in direct opposition to what the Rebbe stated here. A belief must be rational and must be fully grasped to be believed. If this is not the case then a person claiming to believe in this thing does not believe the proposition in actuality, since they don’t even truly know what they purport to believe. They are merely parroting words which they do not understand. They believe in the belief, but they don’t believe it themselves. In other words they trust the authority, but have no individual opinion unto themselves. As if they were saying “I don’t know how this works, but if person X says it is correct then it must be true.” This may work well for those who have no interest in the subject at hand and/or holding the belief or not doesn’t affect their lives in any significant way. However, a professional or an educated person in the field in which the belief is related to, should not defer to the opinions of others in this regard. They must be able to understand the belief fully in order to actually believe in it. This isn’t to say they must know fully the reason for why this belief came to be (for example why does the force of gravity exist rather than not) but they must be able to fully grasp the belief itself (they must understand gravity and how it works). As you may see this difference in approach can make the Rebbe’s “proof” of God’s existence not very convincing for a person with my approach to beliefs and evidence.
Now the Rebbe goes into his first argument for the existence of G-d and the validity of the mount Sinai account in the Torah. He mentions that as a general rule people rely on the authority of others (for instance a weather man who tells us the weather) even if we don’t have any evidence or reasons to validate their claims. While this is acceptable for much of life, it is only because the decisions based off these authorities are usually relatively minor changes to our life with very little long term impact. Deciding to take a vitamin or to bring an umbrella with you out of the house are minor enough life alterations that there is no valid reason for you to doubt the weatherman or the doctor advising you to do such thing, unless of course you are fairly knowledgeable in either of those fields or you have reason to believe the authority is either being deceptive or who’s credentials should be questioned. Moving from that the Rebbe says that numerous reports should lessen our suspicion of deception and should strengthen our belief in the claim. While this is true for experts (ie if numerous experts recommend taking vitamins your belief that vitamins will help you) it isn’t necessarily the case with lay people. There is no reason to assume that the lay person has any real understanding of medicine to make a reliable recommendation and thus there is no reason to trust it.
On this basis the Rebbe then claims that at least 600,000 claimed to have witnessed a revelation on Sinai, have passed it continuously from parent to child in an unbroken chain, and no less than 600,000 people have ever not believed this. While this seems impressive on the outset, when you look at the actual evidence presented it is clear that it is fairly weak. Ultimately it is only one source, the Tanach, that makes this claim. This is a far cry from “well documented evidence” as the Rebbe puts it. It is but a single document. If there were multiple reporters there should be multiple reports, but we only have one report, a report exceedingly vague at times, with all the hallmarks of storytelling and none of the signs of history reporting. It is a well crafted story but that doesn’t make its claims true. If there is a reason the other reporters couldn’t report the event (ie they were illiterate, no source to writing materials, too busy, etc) then that is not really 600,000 reports is it? It is one report, with an excuse why the other reports that should have existed don’t. There is no evidence that such an event occurred the way it is portrayed outside of the Torah. There is no evidence that there was an unbroken chain of tradition outside of the Torah. The Rebbe claims that “all the versions of the above historical event are similar in every detail”. What other versions of the above supposed historical event are there outside of the Torah? Of course they are all identical, if there is only one account it would naturally be identical to itself.
The second argument the Rebbe brings is the teleological argument (the argument from design). He states that the very fact that the many individual pieces of our universe work in harmony with one another in a system that doesn’t seem to fail is proof of design. He gives an example of walking into a factory and realizing that it must be designed since it is both complex and works as a functioning system. Thus these systems could not have been created by random chance. Taking the components of a functioning tree, scrambling them together, will not likely produce another functioning tree or even the same tree. The fallacy of this argument is its presentation of a false dichotomy. Either it was all randomly produced or it was designed by a superior being. For example Darwinian evolution explains precisely how complex forms of life are produced from less complicated forms of life through the process of natural selection and random mutation. While the word random may throw you off, you should know that the model of evolution as a whole is by no means random, just as a person who decides to choose between two randomly selected amounts of money is not therefore choosing randomly. The animals that survive and reproduce through natural selection become more and more adaptable to their environment, through the process of natural selection and random mutation, and as a result become more complex. However, even before Darwin helped us understand the process of how simple organisms evolved into more complex organisms, the argument from design seems to have little standing regardless. If it must be that complex functioning systems must come from some great cosmic designer that is by the Rebbe’s own admition even “stronger” than the system He creates, then this designer must therefore be an even more complex functioning system that needs an equally greater designer as well. Thus the argument from design essentially implies things which you and the Rebbe would likely reject, so why is this argument appealing in the first place?
I agree with the Rebbe’s next statement that arguing that life and even our universe is not explained by the claim “the laws of nature did it”. This is indeed a non-started, it explains little to nothing about how the universe came into being and has no predictive ability. However, I consider the answer that “God did it” to be equally a non-started, it explains little to nothing about how the universe came into being and has no predictive ability. Both arguments are essentially statements that ask the questioner to “accept the mystery” and thus accept your own ignorance. It asks you to stop asking questions without providing any real answers.
I fully agree with the Rebbe’s next point that “one may not adopt certain truth criteria when it is convenient, and then drop them when it is not.” This is precisely my goal. If I am convinced by the arguments for God it will indeed have major implications on my actions, but so is the situation in which no God is found to exist.
The Rebbe then states that one expects tomorrow to come (ie the earth to rotate properly, the other systems and forces to work as they have previously, etc) even though no one has proof it should. He then claims that there is no logical reason to expect that they should. While I agree there is no absolute proof, there are plenty of logical reason to believe tomorrow will come and that is on the basis of evidence gained from testing the proposition that tomorrow will come. So far every piece of evidence supports this notion and on the basis of this it is logical to conclude with relative certainty that tomorrow will indeed come. There is no need to claim an existence of a deity to expect the systems to continue to operate as they should, since there is no reason or evidence to believe the contrary is even probable. And as before what makes us certain that this deity will operate as before or that this deity will no longer cease to exist over time. The same question arises and nothing is answered as to whether we expect the world to continue to run as it is.
The Rebbe claims that since doubt exists in the scientific community that it is a problem for their approach. The problem isn’t in the doubt, for which all of science is based on doubt, but rather the problem lies in believing you have proof in anything beyond a doubt. This is shown to be fallacious by the Rebbe in the next statement. What if this is all a hallucination? How do we know beyond any doubt that what we perceive is reality? The answer is that we don’t. We must first and foremost accept that nothing in the universe can be known with certainty, that we take our perceptions to be an accurate reflection of reality is only an assumption, but we should strive to make as few assumptions as possible to be as least prone to error as possible.
Reproof
The Rebbe claims here that people’s emotions count for more than intellectual considerations when discussing things like God’s existence. While this is true for many people what reason is there to believe this is true for everyone? If it is true for everyone doesn’t it stand to reason that theists themselves aren’t thinking intellectually about Gods existence, but accept it for emotional reasons (and thus as a matter of preference) rather than considering the intellectual implications.
The Rebbe tries to support this from evidence stemming from the Shulchan Aruch, which ultimately his predicated on many things including Gods existence, which is what is under dispute in the first place.
Going further the Rebbe speaks about other topics that are not of the nature of logical proofs or evidence. He discusses that each Jew knows the truth of righteousness and justice. I am not certain what the Rebbe means by this, but for me my morality stems from my empathy with other creatures. I wish to act in ways that increases the overall well being, happiness and health of people. This is an urge which I suspect stems from the evolution of our species, but just as it gives me pleasure to act upon other urges this urge in me is quite strong.
I am also relatively young, and with youth comes the courage to question the previous generations beliefs and assumptions. This is simply what I wish to achieve. To question and to come to true beliefs as best I am able. I am not sure which responsibilities the Rebbe believes this generation to have, so I can neither agree nor disagree with them. He mentions that our times are a frightening place, I personally don’t agree with this sentiment. The Rebbe increasingly speaks in poetic language, none of which I can outright dispute due to the vagueness of his points, but I will say that I don’t agree with his sentiments here either. Academic discussions are vital to moving us forward as a society as well as a species.
I believe that the nature and intent of the Mitzvos don’t seem to be the same today as they were in ancient times. I would then regard the observance of the Mitzvos as not unchanging, but rather in a constant process of change, like much else of human and Jewish history.
Faith and Justice
The Rebbe here is responding to the approach, that I myself hold by, of not believing in the existence of God because of the lack of evidence supporting the belief that God exists. The Rebbe responds that there has been ample evidence for the existence of God publicized and printed and that the only reason people don’t accept them is because they are simple and not complex. I for one do not dismiss any explanation simply because it is simple, in most cases the simplest explanation is usually the most accurate one. So let’s consider the simple arguments for God’s existence.
Again the Rebbe uses the argument from design, this time using the example of finding a book rather than a factory. The Rebbe here doesn’t add anything new to this argument so I will defer to the response I gave to this argument in his “Proof” letter. This argument as discussed above is a logical fallacy and as such it can be easily dismissed.
Continuing off of this argument the Rebbe argues that your inability to understand why God would create the universe in such a way is dismissed as being a result of our inferior intellect. More likely, it isn’t the inferiority of our intellect that is the culprit, but rather the fact that model which is produced based off of the belief that God exists is rejected by theists when it gives us evidence that refutes the belief in this deity. Every time this model is tested and comes up with evidence that supports this belief (ie that God exists) it is used by theists as evidence that God does indeed exist. For example, if a person prays and recovers from an illness theists jump to point out that this is evidence that their God exists, and this is indeed the case. However, whenever the tests not only fail to produce supporting evidence for Gods existence but rather provide evidence that helps refute this claim (such as after praying for recovery the person dies) the theists ignore this refuting evidence by claiming it is our inability to understand God that this seems like evidence to the contrary, when in fact it is supporting evidence. It now becomes clear that this type of belief in God is no real belief at all. Either God is something we can understand, in which case the belief implies things about the universe and are subject to testing which either support or refute this claim, or God is incomprehensible in which case neither supporting evidence nor refuting evidence can be gathered and the belief is superfluous. The theists wish to have it both ways, pointing to tests that give evidence only when they support their belief in God and pointing to the incomprehensibility of God when the tests provide refuting evidence.
The Rebbe then goes on to make another point. He asks what can guarantee that people will act morally if they don’t believe in God. My answer is that no such guarantee exists, even if a person believes in God they may not act morally. This is clear since there are numerous people who believe in God that act immorally all the time, so how does belief in God ensure that people will act morally? Look at the personalities in the Tanach and ask yourself whether you believe that because these people believed in God that guaranteed their moral actions. It should be clear that this is certainly not the case. In addition to this many times people act immorally because they believe in God. Certain people perform immoral actions they wouldn’t have done if it weren’t for their belief in God. Case in point the attacks on 9/11. The Rebbe uses the example of the Holocaust to propose that this is the result of a nation without a belief in God, yet he forgets that belief in God was one of the guiding principles of the Third Reich. Why else would Nazi soldiers wear belts that state “God With Us”. There are also other nations that are mostly atheistic (unlike Germany at that time which was mostly theistic) such as Sweden that currently enjoys peace and prosperity that the Nation of Israel (a country dominated by theists on all sides) which has seen nothing but ceaseless violence.
The Rebbe then contends that the person he is writing to does not truly disbelieve in God. He states that if there were no God then why would you be surprised at the violence and immorality in the world. The person doesn’t seem to state that they were surprised about this, but rather that they were disturbed by this, which I consider very different things. I am also upset with the violence and immorality that exists in the world, but why should I expect no violence to exist at all? I do expect immorality, but I also expect other things I am upset about. Such as that my body will grow weaker with time. That someday I will lose my parents. These feelings are borne out of my empathy for others and my concern for myself as well, but just because I am upset that these events will occur, that doesn’t make me any less certain that they will. The root of our feeling that there should be justice in the world stems from our empathy which has been produced through the evolution of our species and need not be attributed to any diety.
The Rebbe ends with the call that regardless of the persons questions or doubts, they must still nonetheless act as if the Rebbe’s position is already proved correct. A person should not feel compelled to act contrary to his beliefs. If the Rebbe has failed to convince the person that God does indeed exist then it is not fair for him to expect that person to act as if he has been convinced.
Preconceptions and Open-Mindedness
The Rebbe states at the beginning of this letter that a person should not approach a subject looking for its faults, and with this I agree. He then goes on to try to answer the questions he received.
Again the Rebbe is asked to prove the authenticity of the Torah. He responds that one doesn’t require 100% certainty to live life day-to-day. He again states that reports should be believed, especially when multiple people give a similar report. Here he makes a few mistakes which I have noted previously in the “Proof” letter. As stated earlier a report should only be believed as long doing so doesn’t impact your life to a great extent and the report is supported by numerous experts. A report that is being given by lay people (non-experts) that would result in a great impact on your life should not be taken at face value. It should be investigated to determine if such a claim has any truth to it.
He then brings up the example of allowing a surgeon to operate on you. Yes, you still need to rely on the testimony of experts, namely the educating board that certifies this doctor as well as others who have been treated by this specific doctor and even other doctors. However, the best thing for people to do in this situation is to be informed about the operation you are about to undergo, the purpose of the operation, any alternatives and possible risks. It would be quite foolish to undergo an operation without fully informing yourself as to these things. The Rebbe is correct, the surgeon could make a mistake, so why not make an informed decision with the guidance of other professionals in the field.
Then the Rebbe, interestingly enough, points to historians to inform us of the events that occurred in the past, even if there are small differences between them. With this I agree, since usually such minute details of history have little effect on most people’s day to day lives as well as these people being experts in their field. Since historians generally regard the scenario at Mount Sinai to be myth it seems odd that the Rebbe would point to them as reliable sources to base ones belief on.
Again the Rebbe uses the account of a revelation at Sinai to prove its veracity, but while disguising this as a multitude of reports fails to mention that essentially what is being passed down by numerous people aren’t numerous individual accounts of one event, but rather a mere reference to one ancient text that only has one account, just one report of this supposed event. Even looking at the Torah itself we see no report of people hearing God’s voice proclaim “I am the Lord your God” and the account itself is very vague about what exactly the people saw and heard with regards to God.
The Rebbe then presents another false dichotomy. Either the story as reported is true or it was a rumor started suddenly. I have heard of no scholar stating the latter situation ever occurred. It is far more likely that this story grew over time from an simply origin (some Israelites encountering a volcano eruption) interpreted as a divine message, expanded and elaborated slowly until the final story was canonized in the Torah long after the events were purported to occur. This likely scenario is much more likely based on the evidence than the described events actually occurring.
The Rebbe states that this is different than the Christian of Muslim revelation claims, except that the most important claim in Christianity to Christians is the resurrection which according to Christian scripture was viewed by hundreds of Jews who later became converts to Christianity. There are also many Christians to date that claim ancestry from these Jews namely many Eastern Orthodox Christians. It seems that these claims are very similar in nature, and if one were to be dismissed out of hand so should the other.
The next few questions and answers c) to e) concern spiritual questions for which don’t have much relevance to the questions I am asking so I will not comment on them.
The Rebbe in response to question f) addresses the issue of the discrepancy between the Jewish date of 5719 years from creation (no 5771 years) with the scientific account and the discovery that the Universe is at least 13.7 billion years old. The Rebbe goes on to contradict his earlier approach of accepting the report of numerous experts (since nearly all scientists from all different fields accept that the universe is at least 13.7 billion years old) and states that instead of accepting what the experts say we must evaluate their claims to determine if they are accurate or not. How does the Rebbe explain this inconsistency?
The Rebbe states that the scientists have made numerous false assumptions. He lists a number of assumptions that scientists may claim to have been constant, but fails to discuss the implications of altering these assumptions. Perhaps the scientists have good reason to make these assumptions. As stated before, you can make all sorts of claims but simply making claims doesn’t make them just as likely to be true as the accepted beliefs of scientists. Since the Rebbe never discusses the implications of changing this assumptions I assume he doesn’t know the implications of them. Also hardly any of them would alter the evidence found enough to coincide with the account in the Torah.
The Rebbe then brings up a second objection that scientists assume the universe wasn’t created dated. Now this is where it becomes clear that the Rebbe doesn’t have any real objections to the scientific approach, he is only fishing for solutions for why his current belief is not false. He comes up with rationalization after rationalization. He doesn’t seem to be concerned with what is actually the case, only which argument is most convincing to support his already preconceived belief that the Torah’s account of creation is true. If the Rebbe really wishes to propose an alternative model he should propose it and test it.
Also if God created a 6000 year old universe virtually indistinguishable from a universe that is billions of years old what if any implications are there for such a model? If there are no distinguishing model and accept a more complex hypothesis that everything looks old for no understandable reason over the simple explanation that the evidence that points to an old universe shows that the universe is indeed as it seems.
The Rebbe asks why couldn’t God have made the universe appear suddenly which appears older than it actually is. What the Rebbe fails to reason is that the scientists aren’t proposing their solutions as an opposition to the Torah’s account but rather simply based on the observations they have made. If the Rebbe wishes to claim that God made the world in such a way he must first explain what exactly was created old, how that is distinguishable from what the scientists are observing and how that can be shown to be true through tests. What sort of predictions can this model of the universe make? If they aren’t any different from what scientists currently predict, what compelling reason is there to accept this superfluous belief.
In the Rebbe’s PS he mentions that the scientists’ calculations of the age of the earth contradict each other. I for one have never seen any evidence of this. As far as I can tell the calculations are all consistent with one another.
The Meaning of Life
The Rebbe in this letter begins again with the argument from design, which as I have stated before is fallacious and need not go over it again. Again the Rebbe mentions that God is incomprehensible to humans, in which case I see no reason to give an incomprehensible idea any further thought, since something incomprehensible cannot be understood so what is the purpose of trying? More than likely this incomprehensible idea will not be able to add any value to our lives unless we assume that it is indeed not incomprehensible and can therefore be used to predict certain things in our universe and then may be of some use, but that to me is not what an incomprehensible thing would mean to me.
Again he mentions the Sinai account which also is not convincing for various reasons I discussed above.
From the Rebbe’s belief that the Torah is a God given document (using arguments I don’t find very convincing) he explains that Man’s purpose in life is to follow the commandments therein. However without convincing evidence for the authenticity of the Torah such claims to ultimate meaning are just as likely to come from any ancient religious text as the Torah itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment