The Paradox of Creationism and Non-Corporeality.

Proving the existence of God is a topic discussed from time immemorial and seems to be a never-ending subject. I believe that the cause is the lack of definitions[1]. When we are trying to prove the existence of God, the thinking is that we are talking about a personal God, an entity that created and controls existence and is involved in it on a constant basis. That is the God that is relevant to the general public and is therefore the one that is instinctively sought after. Unfortunately, the only thing that we can prove unequivocally is the existence of a non-contingent entity that is uniquely non-contingent, non-physical and whose “existence” itself is only a term used for an entity that “exists” in an “existence” that we cannot fathom.

“…for even the term “existence” is applied to Him and other things, according to our opinion, only by way of absolute equivocation.” (MN 1:52, repeated in MN 1:35, 56 and 57.)

I say “Prove”, but I have to add a caveat even to this. Let me explain. Rambam in the introductory chapters to his discussion of the proofs for the existence of God presents the most common proofs, the ones used to this day, which are based on creation and referred to nowadays as “ID - Intelligent design” and which he vehemently rejects.   Rambam explains that basing the existence of God on the argument that the world[2] must have a creator for it to be so magnificently structured is a very risky approach. He argues that there is no unequivocal proof that the world was created. It is only an argument that seems to be the most appealing and logical but cannot be proven incontrovertibly. Basing the existence of God on such a weak base is not a good idea. He therefore undertakes to prove it based on the possibility of an eternal universe too. He brings several proofs and one of the most compelling to me is the one arguing that in a world that we observe as being contingent, where every part of it is contingent on a preceding cause, there must be one entity that is non-contingent – that entity is what we call God[3]. In essence, he therefore shows that whether we believe in a created universe or an eternal one, there must be an entity, a “First Existent” that we refer to as God. The problem that we face is that the God that emerges from the eternal universe argument is necessarily uniquely non-contingent and therefore non- physical while the one that emerges from the creationist argument does not necessarily have to be non-physical and therefore uniqueness cannot be proven.

“The universe is either eternal or has had a beginning; if it had a beginning, there must necessarily exist a being which caused the beginning; this is clear to common sense; for a thing that has had a beginning, cannot be the cause of its own beginning, another must have caused it. The universe was therefore created by God. If on the other hand the universe were eternal, it could in various ways be proved that apart from the things which constitute the universe, there exists a being which is neither body nor a force in a body, and which is one, eternal, not preceded by any cause, and immutable. That being is God.” (MN 1:71)

Unity and non-corporeality can only be unequivocally proven if one assumes an eternal universe. A created universe can accept a non-corporeal unique God but it cannot be unequivocally proven. We therefore face a great paradox – accept creation – God does not have to be non-corporeal, accept eternity of the universe, God must be non-corporeal. We, Jews, who accept creation as a belief should therefore be able to live with the idea of a physical God. In fact, many great Jews did believe that God was corporeal. Ra’avad in Hilchot Teshuvah 3:7 makes the famous comment that “greater and better people [than Rambam who considers corporealists as minim] accepted that belief based on what they read in the scriptures and even more in the Aggadot that confuse thinking”.

It is with this in mind that I believe Hilchot Teshuvah 3:7 becomes clearer. 

טו  [ז] חמישה הן הנקראין מינים:  האומר שאין שם אלוה, ואין לעולם מנהיג; והאומר שיש שם מנהיג, אבל הם שניים או יתר; והאומר שיש שם ריבון אחד, אלא שהוא גוף ובעל תמונה; וכן האומר שאינו לבדו ראשון וצור לכול; וכן העובד אלוה זולתו, כדי להיות מליץ בינו ובין ריבון העולמים.  כל אחד מחמישה אלו מין.

The first of the five “Minim” must be read as one who accepts the existence of an entity such as God but does not accept Him as the entity responsible for natural law (מנהיג)[4]. An atheist, one who does not believe in the existence of God altogether, is not a Min – a religious definition. Denial of the existence of a “First Existent” is illogical because,

 יסוד היסודות ועמוד החכמות, לידע שיש שם מצוי ראשון

(Yesodei Hatorah 1:1)

The existence of a First Existent is a fact; it is the foundation and supporting column of all knowledge. In Hilchot Teshuvah, the Min rejects how our religion sees God and that places him in the category of Minim.

Micah Goodman in his excellent book “Secrets of the Guide for the Perplexed” (pg. 268-269) concludes that Rambam did not really believe that the existence of God is unequivocally provable[5]. I believe he erred by conflating the existence of God with “what” God is, an argument he himself makes several times in the discussion. True, the idea of a non-physical God is not provable; the existence of a First Existent is factual and provable. All the proofs that God is non-corporeal are based on the eternity of the universe which is not provable. The proofs for the existence of a First Existent are based on either possibilities; eternal or created universe.   

 

---

[1] In a letter to Marseilles Rambam writes:

Know, my masters, that it is not proper for a man to accept as trustworthy anything other than one of these three things. The first is a thing for which there is a clear proof deriving from man's reasoning—such as arithmetic' geometry, and astronomy. The second is a thing that a man perceives through one of the five senses—such as when he knows with certainty that this is red and this is black and the like through the sight of his eye; or as when he tastes that this is bitter and this is sweet; or as when he feels that this is hot and this is cold; or as when he hears that this sound is clear and this sound is indistinct; or as when he smells that this is a pleasing smell and this is a displeasing smell and the like. The third is a thing that a man receives from the prophets or from the righteous. Every reasonable man ought to distinguish in his mind and thought all the things that he accepts as trustworthy, and say: "This I accept as trustworthy because of tradition, and this because of sense perception, and this on grounds of reason." Anyone who accepts as trustworthy anything that is not of these three species, of him it is said: "The simple believes everything" (Prov. 14:15).

[2] I use “world” for simplicity and clarity. I am really talking about physical existence.

[3] A variation on this proof is what is referred to as the metaphysical proof; all existents are “possible existents” – they are not necessary existent. In an eternal existence, there must be a time when no “possible existents” were in existence. As we are here, there must therefore exist a “necessary existent” who is God. This proof too is dependent on an eternal universe.

[4] Otherwise, the first should be counted as two. It is only after accepting the existence of God that a discussion can be held on His role in existence. Clearly שאין שם אלוה must be read as one with . ואין לעולם מנהיג

[5] He bases it on professor Ze’ev Harvey’s article ‘Maimonides” Avicennianism” Maimonidean Studies Vol 5 (2008).

Whose God Is This? Who Wrote This?

The following quote was written by a universally recognized great man. I wonder if my readers can guess who it is? I found it indirectly through an article that was brought to my attention by Nativ.


This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokratwr , or Universal Ruler; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God¹ usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present; and by existing always and every where, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and no where. Every soul that has perception is, though in different times and in different organs of sense and motion, still the same indivisible person. There are given successive parts in duration, co-existent puts in space, but neither the one nor the other in the person of a man, or his thinking principle; and much less can they be found in the thinking substance of God. Every man, so far as he is a thing that has perception, is one and the same man during his whole life, in all and each of his organs of sense. God is the same God, always and every where. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In him² are all things contained and moved; yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God. It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always, and every where. Whence also he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act; but in a manner not at all human, in a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us. As a blind man has no idea of colours, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, or touched; nor ought he to be worshipped under the representation of any corporeal thing. We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of any thing is we know not. In bodies, we see only their figures and colours, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the savours; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds: much less, then, have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final cause: we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build; for all our notions of God are taken from. the ways of mankind by a certain similitude, which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.

Cynical Kiruv - A Chilul Hashem

In this week’s New York Times magazine there is an article about the philosopher Antony Flew’s supposed conversion from atheism to a version of Theism http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin .

I found the article very disturbing and I think that in some circles the need to succeed in Kiruv trumps truth and decency. To take advantage of an old philosopher who is in the process of losing his memory is despicable and counterproductive. I am referring to Professor Gerald Schroeder who is closely affiliated with Aish Hatorah and who has been lecturing on Intelligent Design as proof for the existence of God. Teaming up with John Haldane, a Christian philosopher and sponsored by Roy Abraham Varghese, a Texan businessman, they orchestrated a debate with Professor Flew and were able to so confuse him that he comes across as if he seemingly recanted on his earlier opposition to religious belief. Varghese then published a book jointly with Flew but apparently mostly written by Varghese claiming Flew’s participation, confirming this recantation. The reporter Mark Oppenheimer who subsequently interviewed Flew describes a confused 84-year-old man who has partially lost his memory and is completely overwhelmed and unable to maintain a coherent position for any length of time.

It is not enough that Schroeder partook in this cynical manipulation; he also uses the Intelligent Design argument as the basis for proving the existence of God. As I have written many times, using ID as proof for the existence of God is a flawed approach and Rambam has already shown its invalidity. Do not get me wrong. I do believe that God created the world and that He is the intelligence behind this incredibly beautiful and well-designed universe. I base that belief on the Torah and revelation and see it as a way of looking at the universe that has consequences in the way I act and think. I however accept that I will never be able to prove this empirically nor will any human being ever be able to prove it. I believe that all we can prove is that there must exist “out there” a non-contingent existent. We cannot define the essence of that Existent nor will we ever. All we know is that there is such a Unique Existent out there and that is all we can know and prove empirically. The fact that He has will, creates intelligently, rewards, punishes etc… are all ontological explanations based on belief and revelation. (According to Rambam, as opposed to R. Yehuda Halevi et al. prophecy as defined by him, is also a provable capability of humans – but that is a separate issue.) In other words, the process is to prove, independent of whether there is Intelligence behind the universe, that God exists and explain the rest as ontological beliefs.

It is disturbing to me and puzzling that a smart scientist like Dr. Schroeder would lower himself to this inane approach. What is even more galling is the cynical manipulation of an old man. Using lies and falsehood in this way is a Chilul Hashem of the first order. It will backfire and discredit Schroeder and his affiliation with Aish Hatorah will erode the respect that people have for that institution.

ז לֹא-יֵשֵׁב, בְּקֶרֶב בֵּיתִי-- עֹשֵׂה רְמִיָּה:דֹּבֵר שְׁקָרִים-- לֹא-יִכּוֹן, לְנֶגֶד עֵינָי.

7 He that works deceit shall not dwell within my house; {N}he that speaks falsehood shall not be established before mine eyes. (Tehilim 101)

Rambam was confronted with a similar situation where some philosophers wanted to prove the existence of God by arguing that the world must have been created by an intelligent entity from nothing. Rambam on the other hand shows that there is no such proof that can stand up to a close investigation.

“If you wish to go in search of truth, to cast aside your passions, your tradition, and your fondness of things you have been accustomed to cherish and if you wish to guard yourself against error, consider then the fate of these speculators and the result of their labors. Observe how they rushed, as it were, from the ashes into the fire. They denied the nature of the existing things, misrepresented the properties of heaven and earth, and thought that they were able, by their propositions, to prove the creation of the world, but in fact, they were far from proving the creatio ex nihilo, and have weakened the arguments for the existence, the unity, and the incorporeality of God. The proofs of all these doctrines must be based on the well-known nature of the existing things, as perceived by the senses and the intellect.” (MN 1:76)

Shavua Tov.

Professor Aviezer, Skeptics,Evolution, Intelligent Design, "Out There" and Existence of God.

Professor Nathan Aviezer in the current Skeptic Magazine has an excellent article refuting an earlier article by Alexander Nussbaum which argued that Orthodox Jews do not accept evolution and other areas of science. The article titled Jews for Darwin goes on to show that evolution is compatible with Torah, demonstrates that Genesis and science are in harmony especially based on Rambam’s understanding of the six days of creation.

Addressing the theory of ID (Intelligent Design) he correctly relegates it to the area of religion arguing that it is not science. As I have argued many times in my posts ID per se does not prove the existence of God. We believe that God willed the world into existence, not as Aristotle thought that God as First Cause and the physical world was always interdependent, God having no choice in the matter. But proving that God exists based on the fact that the universe is too complex for it to have formed on its own and therefore must have had a Creator who set in place the complex and beautiful laws that govern it, is not a good argument. As Professor Aviezer points out, God’s creative activities are usually carried out within the framework of His own laws of nature. That these laws are God’s is a religious belief not science. As I have shown in my article in Hakirah volume 3 http://hakirah.org/Vol%203%20Guttmann.pdf (pages 217-220) God having will, creating the universe, miracles and reward and punishment are all ontological beliefs dictated by religion rather then by empirical proofs.

There is one point however on which I disagree with Professor Aviezer. Professor Aviezer argues that the “prime mover” proof for the Existence of God, in his words, the most famous proof of all, is no longer applicable after Newton’s discovery of gravity. It is true that we no longer believe that constant movement requires impetus and therefore there is no need anymore for a constant “mover” to keep things moving. However we still need to explain how there can be an infinite sequence of cause and effect, which is how the universe functions based on our observations, without there being a First Cause that caused everything without Himself being an effect of another cause. Professor Aviezer left the impression that once the Prime Mover proof is no longer valid we cannot empirically prove the existence of God. I understand Professor Aviezer’s concern that the “God of the gaps” as he puts it, may at some future time play a role in refuting even this argument, that some scientific theory will eventually explain naturalistically how all things are caused. He therefore prefers to relegate the argument for the existence of God to the religious arena rather than the empirical. I have faith that the existence of God will never nor can it ever be disproved. The argument made by Stephen Hawking and the consequences of that position regarding the existence of God as discussed in my post http://yediah.blogspot.com/2006/06/professor-stephen-hawking-and-rambam.html I believe will stand eternally.

On a related note there is a fascinating article in this week’s New York Times magazine titled “Out There” which talks about dark matter and dark energy, the problem in physics that is currently at the center of research. This article brings home that, although we infer that there is a force that we call gravity and we also infer that there is dark matter and dark energy that makes up 96% of the matter in the universe, all of these entities’ essence is totally unknown. We know they exist but not what they are. In a way we are back to where Rambam stood 800 years ago when he said in MN 2:24:

“What I said before (ch. xxii.) I will repeat now, namely, that the theory of Aristotle, in explaining the phenomena in the sublunary world, is in accordance with logical inference: here we know the causal relation between one phenomenon and another; we see how far science can investigate them, and the management of nature is clear and intelligible. But of the things in the heavens man knows nothing except a few mathematical calculations, and you see how far these go. I say in the words of the poet, "The heavens are the Lord's, but the earth He hath given to the sons of man" (Ps. cxv. 16); that is to say, God alone has a perfect and true knowledge of the heavens, their nature, their essence, their form, their motions, and their causes; but He gave man power to know the things which are under the heavens: here is man's world, here is his home, into which he has been placed, and of which he is himself a portion. This is in reality the truth.”

The difference is that we have expanded what we consider the physical universe. Rambam believed the heavens were in a different realm where the laws of physics as we know them did not apply. The heavens were on the threshold between the physical and the metaphysical. We have moved them firmly into the physical. However the metaphysical issues remain, as Rambam continues:

“For the facts which we require in proving the existence of heavenly beings are withheld from us: the heavens are too far from us, and too exalted in place and rank. Man's faculties are too deficient to comprehend even the general proof the heavens contain for the existence of Him who sets them in motion. It is in fact ignorance or a kind of madness to weary our minds with finding out things which are beyond our reach, without having the means of approaching them. We must content ourselves with that which is within our reach, and that which cannot be approached by logical inference let us leave to him who has been endowed with that great and divine influence, expressed in the words: "Mouth to mouth do I speak with Him" (Num. xii. 8).”

This brings me to the subject of my previous post. Revelation has a place where our own rational intellect cannot go. It is after being properly grounded in the sciences, having understood the limitations of science, the areas that cannot be understood by analysis or inference, that revelation comes along and fills the gap. When we say that we can find everything in the Torah it is when we place scientific knowledge squarely within it and see the revelatory part as the ontological argument that complements where we cannot go alone. Revelation alone without intellectual perfection leads to idolatry and destruction.

ID (intelligent design) in Jewish Action.

The latest issue of Jewish Action (Fall 5767/2006) has three articles on Intelligence Design by three Orthodox scientists. The articles go from seeing ID as a possible idolatrous concept to the other extreme, as mainstream Jewish Hashkafah.

The first article by Professor Nathan Aviezer of Bar Ilan is, in my opinion, the best from a rational Jewish point of view. He argues that there is a clear delineation between science and religion. Science discusses “how” the universe functions while religion discusses who created it or if in fact it was created. Science deals with empirical evidence while religion deals with subjective interpretations of observations. What is important is that the religious explanation should not conflict with the empirical evidence. Professor Aviezer then explains that the Laws of Nature are unchanging. In fact science tries to define these unchanging laws thus explaining how everything functions and what can usually (emphasis on usually) be expected. God as creator does not conflict with science because He created the universe within the confines of the Laws of Nature by choice. Idolatrous religions on the other hand saw one or more intelligent beings who created the universe at a whim and continue running it that way. That idea is similar to ID thus putting ID squarely in the camp of idolatrous concepts. Professor Aviezer argues for the Anthropic principle as a better explanation. I have not read about it enough to discuss it intelligently. I do however have a minor problem with Professor Aviezer’s presentation where he states: “all of this should not be interpreted as implying that God does not interact with the physical world. This is certainly not the case as Rambam emphasized. Otherwise, our prayers for Divine help would have no meaning.” I believe he misunderstands Rambam on providence and prayer at times of distress. This type of prayer is seen by Rambam as part of Teshuvah compelling one to improve their behavior so that the bad consequences do not reoccur. I will be discussing that when I deal with Hashgacha. Otherwise Professor Aviezer’s article is very well presented and should be read by every thoughtful Jew. That cannot be said about the other two articles as we shall see.

Dr. Gerald Schroeder argues that there is an underlying “sentience” or non-physical component to the Universe. He identifies it as the entity that ID sees as the intelligence behind the design. He argues that it is statistically improbable that the complexities we see in the Universe would come about without an underlying design plan just randomly. Quoting Dr.Schroeder – “Mind is the essence of the creation. Light could become alive and sentient because within the light of the creation is the mind of God”. These are very dangerous words that border on pantheism if not full-blown pantheism. God is not a mind and anything that we can conceive as the essence of God, which this statement seems to imply, cannot be God. It would negate His uniqueness. His argument for a Creator from the Big Bang is also very flimsy. See my post on that issue here http://yediah.blogspot.com/2006/06/professor-stephen-hawking-and-rambam.html .

The next article by Dr. Arnold Slyper a pediatric endocrinologist is even more problematic. First he argues that Darwinism is anti religious because it negates God’s influence in the running of the universe. Quoting - “If one agrees with Darwin that evolution proceeded randomly, then it follows that God is no longer involved in His universe, either because He has no interest or because He lacks the power to do so. In either instance, the concept of a God who has an intimate and ongoing involvement with this world has been negated.” A random world is meaningless “a life without meaning and without absolute morality would be a prescription for despair.” He therefore argues that the universe is probabilistic rather than deterministic. That allows for God to interact through nature without contravening its laws. In his words “God is responsible for chance”. Thank God he admits that this not science only religion. He then continues with a discussion of blueprints, genetic code and Junk DNA which is completely irrelevant to the issue. He concludes that ID is “Jewish to the core and one of our fundamental beliefs”. A little further down he states “There is no one Jewish position on Evolution”. In short the article is confusing and makes very little sense. It is a model for a not thought out position governed by popular beliefs and philosophies. These have no relationship with real Judaism.

Concluding Professor Aviezer wins easily with a clear and well thought out article. It makes one excited about the greatness of HKBH and the beautiful and complex universe we believe He created. Dr. Schroeder uses the BT standard arguments that are dangerous because they smack of Pantheism while Dr. Slyper unfortunately is clearly confused.

Intelligent Design: Ungodly idea.

(Hat Tip my son Alex)

read this article

A beautiful synopsis of a great thinkers's approach to science and torah.