Thursday, March 15, 2007

Does Evil Exist?

Did God create everything that exists? Does evil exist? Did God create evil?

A University professor at a well-known institution of higher learning challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?"

A student bravely replied, "Yes he did!"

"God created everything?" The professor asked.

"Yes sir, he certainly did," the student replied.

The professor answered, "If God created everything; then God created evil. And, since evil exists, & according to the principle that our works define who we are, then we can assume God is evil."

The student became quiet & did not respond to the professor's hypothetical definition.The professor, quite pleased with himself, boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the religious faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand & said, "May I ask you a question, professor?"

"Of course," replied the professor.

The student stood up and asked, "Professor does cold exist?"

"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?"

The other students snickered at the young man's question. The young man replied,

"In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat.Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmitsenergy, & heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy.Absolute zero (-460F) is the total absence of heat; & all matter becomes inert & incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist.We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."

The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"

The professor responded, "Of course it does."

The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact, we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors & study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness & illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"

Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course, as I have already said. We see it everyday. It is in the daily examples of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime & violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God.It is just like darkness & cold, a word
that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart.It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat, or the darkness that comes when there is no light."The professor sat down.

The young man's name--Albert Einstein. A true story.

I received this in an email. It sounds like an apocryphal Einstein story. I believe it is a good explanation of evil. It also explains well Rambam in MN3:10:

Just as we say of him who puts out the light at night that he has produced darkness, so we say of him who destroyed the sight of any being that he produced blindness, although darkness and blindness are negative properties, and require no agent. In accordance with this view we explain the following passage of Isaiah: "I form the light and create (bore) darkness: I make peace, and create (bore) evil" (Isa. xlv. 7), for darkness and evil are non-existing things. Consider that the prophet does not say, I make (‘osseh) darkness, I make (‘osseh) evil, because darkness and evil are not things in positive existence to which the verb "to make" would apply; the verb Bara "he created" is used, because in Hebrew this verb is applied to non-existing things e.g., "In the beginning God created" (Bara), etc.; here the creation took place from nothing. Only in this sense can non-existence be said to be produced by a certain action of an agent.”

23 comments:

  1. Another story invented by a keruv clown,dragging in Einstein & making him out to be a frum Jew.

    The facts are:
    1.On his first trip to the USA he was asked by a rabbi whether he believed in God.His reply(by telegram from the ship):
    "I believe in the God of Spinoza"

    2.on many occasions,especially in reply to someone who specificly asked him about that & that religious people spread stories that he believes in God-he replied that they are all lies.that HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN A PERSONAL GOD.
    that he considers himself religious in so far as he is in awe of the Laws of Nature,but only in that respect.
    When Einstein uses the name of God("God doesn't play dice")He doesn't use it in the way that a believer does.
    The God not being PERSONAL makes all the difference.

    3. Einstein didn't believe in free will.
    "A man surely can do what he wills,but he can not choose his will".

    All the above are documented facts.

    Rabbis or whoever,who try to drag Einstein's name into making him a believer,ARE DISHONEST.
    I thought,David, that it would be beneath you to post this long ,obviously made up story.

    As for evil being the absence of good ,IIRC,Saadya Gaon in his Emunot V'deot,writes about a certain school of philosophy who say that evil is an illusion & doesn't exist(no so far from what you posted),the only way to prove to them that it exists,is to chastise them with rods..& then let them say it does'nt exist.
    I have the sefer with me ,but I am too lazy to find the mareh makom.
    But if you insist,I'll try to do so.
    BTW,the idea that evil is an illusion we find in Eastern philosopies & also in Chabbad Chasidut.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I thought I was clear when I wrote that I don't believe Einstein said it . "It sounds like an apocryphal Einstein story".

    It however fits with the rambam's argument. I know RSG on this and I do not believe Rambam is saying it is an illusion. What he is saying is that Evil is a function of lack of exitsnce rather than something that has substance on its own. It is just like darkness is the lack of light. He notes that both Choshech and Ra the word Bore is used instead of Yotzer. Yotzer is a positive act while Boreh is related to yesh meayin and here it is Ayin Miyesh.

    The point Rambam is making is that Ra is relative to Chomer. If not for Chomer there can be no Ra.It is because we have bodies that we become sick ande suffer. Ra is therefore not an absolute term but relative.

    Re the relationship of Boreh to Yesh Me'ayin I read something not long ago that helped me understand. I was planning to post it and i forgot. now i forgot the whole idea. Well it might come back.

    I have a question though for you, does someone who believes in an impersonal God mekayem the Mitzvah of Yichud Hashem? When such a Jew says Shma which is the knowledge of that fact according to rambam, Kabalat ol Malchut shamayim, is he Yotze?

    It is a rhetorical question and i am sure you get my point.

    ReplyDelete
  3. >does someone who believes in an impersonal God mekayem the Mitzvah of Yichud Hashem?

    what do you mean by impersonal? The Rambam holds that God has no personality and can therefore be described as impersonal

    ReplyDelete
  4. I meant what you would call the God of the philosophers, not Spinoza's God who is too anthropomorphic.

    Religious people feel that they need a god they can turn to and look to for help in specific areas. The God of the philosophers is just the First Cause.

    ReplyDelete
  5. BS I was referring to this comment made by ytzchak.


    >that HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN A PERSONAL GOD.
    that he considers himself religious in so far as he is in awe of the Laws of Nature,but only in that respect.
    When Einstein uses the name of God("God doesn't play dice")He doesn't use it in the way that a believer does.
    The God not being PERSONAL makes all the difference

    ReplyDelete
  6. Kol Hakavod! I saw your reply 1-2 min.after I posted mine.How do you do it so quickly?..

    I think were Einstein to have recited the shma, he would have been yotse mitsvat yichud hashem.
    After all, Einstein sought to find one Law which would explain the cause & origin of the Universe.
    One can call this ultimate Law-God.
    I don't think that whether God is personal,or has a will,is part of the specific idea of an underlying cause for existence,call it by whatever name you want.
    So,yes he would be yotse the mitsvah of yichud hashem.

    Having just said this,doubts creep into my mind & I have my reservations.
    When the words 'yichud hashem'are used,the Tetragrammaton is meant.Then of course he woudn't be yotse.
    You may as well ask:would a Muslim saying the shma be yotse,since he means Allah & not the shem ham'forash?

    As for 'bara' being yesh me-ayin,not everyone would agree.
    As it's been pointed out by mefarshim,you have " vayivra Elohim et hataninim etc."& not everyone thinks it was yesh me-ayin.

    ReplyDelete
  7. >You may as well ask:would a Muslim saying the shma be yotse,since he means Allah & not the shem ham'forash?

    He probably would be Yotze mitzvat Yichud. Rambam says they are not menassech yayin as opposed to christians.


    >you have " vayivra Elohim et hataninim etc."& not everyone thinks it was yesh me-ayin.

    I have to check the lashon. I think it is min hahe'eder not mea'yin. that is quite different.

    הוא אמר עליהם בורא, כי מלה זאת יש לה תלות בהֶעְדֵּר בלשון העברית11, כמו שנאמר בראשית ברא אלהים [את השמים ואת הארץ] (בראשית א', 1)12. וזאת מהֶעְדֵּר

    Friedlander translation leaves a lot to be desired. I also used wrong terminology. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  8. >He probably would be Yotze mitzvat Yichud. Rambam says they are not menassech yayin as opposed to christians

    Yes,but 'yichud hashem'is the same as "yichud SHEL hashem" & not the yichud of any other god by any other name.
    It's the yichud of a God י-ה-ו-ה
    & He & His name are one & the same.
    According to this neither Einstein nor the Muslim would be yotse.

    ReplyDelete
  9. >& He & His name are one & the same.

    As I explained in my first article in hakirah, YHVH is a name that stands for unknowability. That being the case they would be Yotze because Yichud means unknowability. Of course this according to Rambam. Ramban I believe understands it differently. He sees it as Mehaveh, Yachol etc...

    ReplyDelete
  10. David,I don't have your article in chakirah,so I don't know what you wrote there.
    But what you're saying that according to Rambam the Name means *unknownability*,where does he say that?

    In MN 1:61,he discusses the Shem Hameforash.
    "It is possible that in the Hebrew,of which we have now but a slight knowledge,the Tetragrammaton,in the way it was pronounced,conveyed the meaning of "absolute existence". In short,the majesty of the name & the great dread of uttering it,are connected with the fact that it denotes God Himself,without including in its meaning any names of the things created by Him."
    (from Friedlander trans.).
    Nothing about its 'unknownability'.Whilst God is unknowable,the name doesn't mean it(not necessarily).

    From my reading the Tanach,especially the Torah,idolatry wasn't just the worship of many gods,but also the worship of any god other than the true God who is known as YHVH. After all,didn't the bnei Israel worship one god,the 'egel' & it was a.z. If I think long enough,I can bring you even better examples

    I wonder,how,according to what you say Rambam says the name means unknownabilit,he would explain the pasuk(Micah 4:5):

    כִּי, כָּל-הָעַמִּים, יֵלְכוּ, אִישׁ בְּשֵׁם אֱלֹהָיו; וַאֲנַחְנוּ, נֵלֵךְ בְּשֵׁם-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ--לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד. {פ}

    I see from the index that Rambam in MN doesn't quote this verse.

    As for Einstein & the Muslim,had they read the shema,would they be yotse mitsvat *yichud*?
    Well,yes,they would be yotse mitsvat yichud,maybe of the god of Aristotle or Allah,but not of YHVH,the God of Israel!!!

    ReplyDelete
  11. לכן הודיעו אז האל ידיעה, שהוא יביאה אליהם, שתאמת בעיניהם את מציאות האלוה. וזהו אהיה אשר אהיה. זה הוא שם הנגזר מן היה והוא המציאות, כי היה מורה על המשמעות של "כַּאן"9 ובלשון העברית אין הבדל בין שתאמר "היה" ("כַּאן") או "נמצא".
    כל הסוד הוא בחזרה על אותו ביטוי עצמו, המורה על מציאות, בתור תואר, שהרי אשר מצריכה הזכרת תואר מחובר אליה, מכיוון שהיא מלה חסרה הגוררת משפט זיקה, כמשמעות "אלד'י"10 ו"אלתי"11 בערבית. השם הראשון, והוא המתואר, הוּשָת אהיה; והשם השני, אשר בו תיאר אותו, אהיה, הוא הוא ממש. הרי זה כאילו הוא אמר במפורש שהמתואר הוא התואר עצמו. זאת היתה הבהרה למשמעות שהוא נמצא שלא בתוקף מציאות12. הוא הביא אפוא סיכום משמעות זאת. וכך פירושה: "הנמצא אשר הוא הנמצא" או "מחויב-המציאות"13.
    זה הדבר אשר ההוכחה המופתית מביאה אליו בהכרח, שיש דבר מחויב-המציאות אשר לא נעדר ולא ייעדר.

    MN1:63

    YHVH is a construct of this concept which is First Cause the same idea of Aristotle. It is the only provable thing about God that He exists and nothing more, therefore unknowable. I will email you my article.

    >After all,didn't the bnei Israel worship one god,the 'egel' & it was a.z.

    I don't understand yoy are bringing proof from the incorrect understanding? Just because people err does not mean that it is the theology that we are striving for. Even nowadays we have Rabannim and yes Gedolim who still have not learned what Moshe tried to teach in the midbar.

    The passuk in Micha is not a problem because Elohav does mean the god is genuine it is what they believe in while our God is the only God ein od milvado.

    However rambam does address a much more difficult verse which ramban understood otherwise.

    Hil AZ 2:1
    ועניין זה, הוא שהזהירה עליו תורה ואמרה "ופן תישא עיניך השמיימה, וראית את השמש ואת הירח ואת הכוכבים . . . אשר חלק ה' אלוהיך, אותם, לכול העמים" (דברים ד,יט): כלומר שמא תשוט בעין ליבך ותראה שאלו הם המנהיגים את העולם, והם שחלק ה' אותם לכל העמים להיותם חיים והווים ונפסדים כמנהגו של עולם; ותאמר שראוי להשתחוות להן, ולעובדן. ובעניין זה ציווה ואמר "הישמרו לכם, פן יפתה לבבכם" (דברים יא,טז)--כלומר שלא תטעו בהרהורי הלב לעבוד אלו, להיותם סרסור ביניכם ובין הבורא

    As you know I disagree with your take on Tanach. You see it as depicting an ideal situation while I see it as showing an evolutionary process which is still ongoing and will probably never end, of more and more people getting to know that there is an unknowable First Cause. The eradication of superstition is part of that process, the undersatnding of the sciences and how the world operates is another. Ultimately the goal is Bayom Hahu yhyeh hashem echad...

    ReplyDelete
  12. David,

    I see you get the same email I do.

    In any case, stories that are obviously fictional - yet claim to be true - tend to take away from the message they are trying to spread, but be that as it may, there is also inherent issue with the philosophical claim. We can measure light and heat, but can we measure 'goodness'?

    Also, see Isaiah 45:7 - " I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

    "יוֹצֵר אוֹר וּבוֹרֵא חֹשֶׁךְ, עֹשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם וּבוֹרֵא רָע; אֲנִי יְהוָה, עֹשֶׂה כָל-אֵלֶּה."

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thanks,David,for emailing me you article in chakirah.

    ReplyDelete
  14. >Also, see Isaiah 45:7 - " I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

    "יוֹצֵר אוֹר וּבוֹרֵא חֹשֶׁךְ, עֹשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם וּבוֹרֵא רָע; אֲנִי יְהוָה, עֹשֶׂה כָל-אֵלֶּה."

    Orthoprax, please reread the MN quote at the end of the post.

    BTW I agree with your comment that these stories tend to distract from the main point. It was not one of my most thought out posts. When I read that Rambam in MN came to mind so i posted it. If you read the whole chapter in context you will see it is a very deep piece.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Whoops, I apologize for not reading carefully enough.

    Though doesn't the Torah also use the word 'bara' when creating man, even though in the next chapter man is formed (yatzar) from pre-existing dirt?

    Also, Ex. 34:10 is interesting in this context - "And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done [נִבְרְאוּ] in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the LORD: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee."

    Are these niflaot not real existing things?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Orthoprax,

    You are making very good points . Rambam uses the word He'eder which means absence. Whenever something is absent and then exists the word Bara is used. As darkness is not really made but a state that is there where it was not before the word used is Bara and not Yatzar. That will fit very well in all the verses you quote. Professor Sarah Klein Breslavy wrote a seminal book on Rambam and Breishit. She has a whole chapter discussing Rambam's careful use of words and when He'eder is used as opposed to He'eder Hamuchlat.Studying Rambam is an exhilarating experience because of the subtelty, depth and freedom of thought the man had.

    I am just now preparing a post about creation and it will clarify Rambam's position on Yesh Me'ayin. You will be surprised and what is even more I will be discussing the RaN, a real "right wing" Rishon. The lesson is that Rishonim were open minded thinkers that we no longer have.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Numbers 16:30 has God creating the hole that swallowed up Korach and co. Though the passage clearly indicates it is a new thing, but in what way is a hole a new thing?

    I suspect that when the passage uses the term 'sheol' they aren't just going into a pit, but directly, while still alive, into the underworld - which would in fact make more sense in terms of it being a new thing.

    וְאִם-בְּרִיאָה יִבְרָא יְהוָה, וּפָצְתָה הָאֲדָמָה אֶת-פִּיהָ וּבָלְעָה אֹתָם וְאֶת-כָּל-אֲשֶׁר לָהֶם, וְיָרְדוּ חַיִּים, שְׁאֹלָה--וִידַעְתֶּם, כִּי נִאֲצוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה אֶת-יְהוָה

    However, the concept of Sheol is not accepted in normative Orthodoxy, but it does make sense as being the conceptual afterlife as understood by the ancient Israelites.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Orthoprax,

    see my posts on miracles and tis one in particular
    http://yediah.blogspot.com/2006/11/miracles-in-eyes-of-beholder.html

    and
    http://yediah.blogspot.com/2006/04/what-are-miracles-few-thoughts.html

    Generally the mishna in avot tells us that all miracles are just natural occurrences that are taken advantage of by prescient people. It is belittling of god for him to have to adjust to circumstances, react to an emergency. That implies that He could not foresee it thus making Him less than omnipotent.

    Re Sheol please have a look in a concordancia and you will see it is quite a common word. The concept of it is oblivion. So yes in the sense that darkness is the lack of light afterlife is the lack of sheol. There is however no afterlife in Rambam's judaism as understood by the general populace. ramban in his Sha'ar Hagemul takes him on but clearly he bases hia arguments oin a flawed understanding of nature.

    You will not find afterlife until Daniel who traditionally was at the beginning of Bayit Sheni after Babylon. The names of the months, the names of the angels and Techyat Hametim are theree concepts that came to us then. Again you touch on a very deep and lengthy discussion in theology which I hope to address eventually.

    ReplyDelete
  19. David,

    Well, yes, I understood that take on miracles - though I'm not sure how you can work it into the story of Korach. God had created that hole implicitly within the nature of the world just waiting for Korach to fall into it?

    In what way can that be fitted within the rubric of the non-existent>created = bara? Further, what does that say about free will?

    "Re Sheol please have a look in a concordancia and you will see it is quite a common word. The concept of it is oblivion."

    Well, I suppose it can be read that way, but I do believe it was also understood as a real place. The Underworld - in contraversion to the 'overworld' - the heavens. See Job 11:8 -
    גָּבְהֵי שָׁמַיִם, מַה-תִּפְעָל; עֲמֻקָּה מִשְּׁאוֹל, מַה-תֵּדָע

    That it may have also held all sorts of figurative and poetic meanings is also probably true.

    "There is however no afterlife in Rambam's judaism as understood by the general populace."

    That I also understand, but I don't believe the Rambam is the final arbiter of what was or will be Jewish belief.

    "You will not find afterlife until Daniel who traditionally was at the beginning of Bayit Sheni after Babylon. The names of the months, the names of the angels and Techyat Hametim are theree concepts that came to us then."

    'Came to us'? You mean from Zoroastrian influence? That's where I understand the traditional Hell/Heaven, etc. conceptions came from. Can't say that too loudly in shul though.

    ReplyDelete
  20. >Can't say that too loudly in shul though.

    I guess now you know why Yerushalmi is ignored by most Yeshiva guys.:-)

    The months and the names of the angels being babylonian is a Yerushalmi. The idea that there is resuurection after death got accepted by the general population at the time of Daniel is found in Rambam's iggeret techyat hametim.

    Re Bara, if it means replacing absence with something, there was no sink before and there is one now. Re the phenomenon at Krach, it was a natural event, a sinking in the gorund, a localized earthquake or some other such occurrence that is more or less common in the desert. The fact that it happened at a fortutous moment made it into a miracle. The fact that Moshe predicted it made it his miracle.

    ReplyDelete
  21. David,

    "Re Bara, if it means replacing absence with something, there was no sink before and there is one now"

    But if it can be used for such a case where the hole is clearly being made from a pre-existing ground then how is it at all significant?

    In Genesis there was no fish and then there was fish. How come that doesn't get a bara? - even while taninim does?

    ReplyDelete
  22. >How come that doesn't get a bara?

    I am not sure what you mean. Passuk 11 uses vayvra for taninim, fish and birds.

    ReplyDelete
  23. >But if it can be used for such a case where the hole is clearly being made from a pre-existing ground then how is it at all significant?

    Bara has no significance other than describing siomething that exists now while it was absent before. All Rambam is saying it therefore can be used for darkness which is not made .

    I believe I recently read someone explaining that the use of the word at Creation when applied to God is understood as something not being here at one point and in an instant it is there. God does not make things He just wills them. So too darkness is not made . It just is not there at some time and appears once light goes away. It is alittle bit too drush for me but it may have some truth in explaining Rambam's comparison here.

    ReplyDelete