Get Think Jewish Delivered to your Home or Office
HOME | CONTACT US | DONATE LoginLOGIN Ask the RabbiASK THE RABBI
Chabad.org - Torah, Judaism and Jewish Info Learning & Values
 
Chabad.org » Learning & Values » Questions & Answers » G‑d and Us » Have We All the Answers?
PrintSend this page to a friendShare this
Comment52 Comments

Do We Have All the Answers?


Question:

I read your column, "How Does G-D Decide What's Right and What's Wrong?" with some interest. The question, for me, has proven (thus far) to be an insurmountable obstacle to full Jewish observance -- indeed, to religious faith itself. The concept of a creator is easy enough to understand, being logical. I have found the next step, however (accepting the concept of an interested creator who instructs as to what is and is not moral) more difficult to accept. My inability to clear this hurdle precludes me from taking the final step, i.e., accepting the concept of a creator who sets forth Jewish law for me, as a Jew, to follow. (With this in mind, please note that despite my skepticism, I am conscious of my Jewish identity, keep Kosher, and constantly wrestling with these and similar questions in the hope of opening heretofore locked doors to faith.)

Given these conceptual difficulties, I was delighted and moved by your column: the lesson of Breishit Rabbah is well taken. I have more difficulty, however, accepting the response of the Rabbis to Jeremiah (in Yoma 69b). It is one thing to remain silent in the face of individual exercises in free will, and entirely another to remain passive in the face of monstrous evil. Consider the obvious example provided by modernity -- the Holocaust -- or, for that matter, any other instance in which evil choices by men leads to the profound suffering of other men. How does divine inactivity in such instances reveal His awesomeness? How does one overcome Yehuda Bauer's sardonic logic that, "if G-d knew of the Holocaust, could have stopped it, and failed to do so, He is a sadist and I want nothing to do with Him"?

Many thanks in advance for your consideration of the question.

Answer:

Your assumption is that for everything there is an answer, until, eventually, everything can be answered.

I don't know that this is necessarily true. The Baal Shem Tov used to say that for every answer he could find another question. After all, who says that at the heart of reality lies a giant exclamation mark, a resolution of all things? Perhaps if we could delve to the essential core of the cosmos we would find there a question mark. Perhaps we will find G-d pondering the same questions we ask, but in some abstract sense. Or even in a very real sense. And from all these questions and questioning, He generates a world.

A case in point: You mention that you find the concept of a Creator to be logical. Yes, our minds are forced to accept this idea. The alternatives are absurd. And today, all the empirical evidence points towards the conclusion that the world indeed began. But is it logical that something could be made from nothing? Does an absolute beginning really fit somewhere in our minds?

We have no parallel in all of our reality for such a phenomenon, no handle to grasp it by. Our very survival relies on tracing each thing to a cause and that cause to the cause before it. This relationship between past and present and future is the basic fabric of our world. And here, we say that all this world began without any precedent, with no real reason that it should be this way and not another, no real reason why there should be anything at all, other than that "so desired its Creator." When it comes to creation, all we can do is sit back forever bewildered: Here is a world that by its own rules should not be here.

The more carefully we examine this world, the more bewildered we become. When Schrodinger, Einstein, Planck, Bohr, et al, originally came up with their mathematical models for the structure of the atom, they admitted that it really made no sense to describe the palpable matter beneath their feet in such a way. The dual model of wave and particle, in particular, had no place within the rational mind. They assumed these models were incomplete and that eventually the "hidden variables" would be filled in. Those missing factors have yet to turn up. And virtually all physicists have stopped looking for them. Nobody expects to make sense of the structure of matter any more. We can only describe the results we see -- whether they make sense to us or not.

As far as the problem of evil is concerned, with all our answers -- some of them very profound and lovely -- they are all answers only as long as evil sits in the other room. As soon as we look evil in the face, all the answers leap out the window. And thankfully so, because if not, who would fight evil? Who would be outraged at something that fits neatly into our rational scheme of how things must work? So, if G-d wishes us to fight evil, why would He want us to understand it? And when did He every promise He would let us understand everything we wish?

He wanted a world. A transparent world is not a world. If everywhere we would look we would see the hand of the Creator openly within each thing, where would lie the reality that defines this as a world? If the puppeteers use transparent puppets, where is the puppet show? This is a basic lesson of Chabad Chassidism: The world ("olam") is defined by concealment ("helem" -- of the same etymology).

That said, please tell me, what sense does it make to sit here and refuse to take another step forward until all is explained? Explained and sitting comfortably within the mind of this particular individual at this particular time under these particular circumstances within a model with which he is currently familiar? When did G-d sign a contract that He must fit into whatever boxes we design for Him? Who says He must fit into any box at all?

Reason itself concurs that there is a limit to reason. Indeed, the objective of all man's toil in this world is to reach higher than his own mind, higher than mind at all. Not to a place where the mind is ignored, but rather, to its essence, an essence which transcends all reality and from which all thoughts and realities come. And in all the ideas and thought and dialogue and philosophy of the world that essence cannot be found, but only in living this life and doing those things you need to do here now.

And now I must get to the real point, to all that really matters -- and if I sound overly blunt, it is only because it matters so much: If you are truly horrified by what happened to our people in the last century and by the current specter of evil in our world today, then how can you continue sitting there and philosophizing? Who will benefit by your musings and ponderings? How will the world change by this? How will the Jewish people be replenished and the world filled with good, until such an atrocity could never happen again?

Another answer and another answer will not change the world. Faith will. Faith that G-d is good and all His works are good. Faith that we can reveal that good and change the face of the world. A faith strong enough that we can face the Bauers and other cynics and say, "Yes, G-d knew of the holocaust and could have stopped it and gave life to every nazi and breathed His soul into every death camp. And He knows the suffering of starving children and counts the tears of abused women and lies within the pain of every man -- and I have no understanding of how this could be and why. But I have faith that G-d is good. Because without that faith there is no purpose, and that is something I am not willing to accept."

With that faith, we will change the world. Our eyes will be opened, and all creatures will see that all is good, in retrospect as well. May it be very soon.

PrintSend this page to a friendShare this
Comment52 Comments

By Tzvi Freeman   More articles...  |   RSS Listing of Newest Articles by this Author
Rabbi Tzvi Freeman, a senior editor at Chabad.org, also heads our Ask The Rabbi team. He is the author of Bringing Heaven Down to Earth. To subscribe to regular updates of Rabbi Freeman's writing, visit Freeman Files subscription.

The content on this page is copyrighted by the author, publisher and/or Chabad.org, and is produced by Chabad.org. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with the copyright policy.
 

52 Comments Posted  |  Post A Comment
Reader Comments
Latest Comments:
Posted: Mar 29, 2011
The Name and Kabbalah
Existence is wavy, diffusive waves, and wave like interaction, such that the Light from which the cosmos arose was not a particle (an idol) at all. The Tetragramation YHVH should be pronounced, “Yahwaveh.” YHVH is phonetically similar to the statement, “You’re wavy. We should think of the creation of the cosmos as more like a mother giving birth to a child through expansions and contractions, waves, while the 10 utterances, crafted creation. True understanding of the cosmos rests in understanding the nature of waves, while the wisdom of the construction of the cosmos, its invention, is masculine. Creation is not flat, but curved, hence the success of the idea of atoms being like spheres, and the success of understanding the periodic table through the wave flow of electronegativity across it. Expansions and contractions are very useful for understanding the cosmos, but straight lines are not. A question mark, curved, is closer to the truth than an exclamation mark.
Posted By Craig Hamilton, Sandwich, MA

Posted: Feb 27, 2011
Science to be explored
Another example of something I have come across that I have noted as being questionable is the idea that a refined sugar is a salt. I am all too aware of the commonly known chemistry and organic chemistry commonly reported to be known. However, as one advances in their knowledge of chemicals, they start to find out that a lot of them do not add up according to what we know about valence electrons. What is to say that we have correctly added up the correct forms of the various sugars? As evidence of my claim, I also submit that diabetics commonly have both sugar and salt problems. That is diabetics have to watch their consumption of “sugars” and “salts” carefully.
Posted By Craig Hamilton, Sandwich, MA

Posted: Jan 10, 2011
Craig's Theories Again
Craig, your original post was "Throw out gravity too. That is what got us in this mess." Maybe you should explain exactly what you meant by that before we go any further. Are you saying general relativity is wrong? Mathematics has a firm foundation, within limits such as those of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems.

The thing is that both relativity and quantum theory are so well supported by observation that it's absurd to claim they are incorrect. They might not be a complete or precise definition, just like Newtonian physics is incomplete, but calling such a theory incorrect and wanting to throw it out is ridiculous.

Maybe you could list some of the evidence supporting the "the spiritual forces" you mentioned above?
Posted By OJB, Dunedin, NZ

Posted: Jan 8, 2011
In Defense of Simply Throwing Out Gravity
Search the New York Times database for the word, "Gravity." You will come up with at least four articles that question it. The most recent is a 2010 article.
Posted By Craig Hamilton, Sandwich, MA

Posted: Jan 8, 2011
In Support of My Claims Versus OBJ’s Claims
You ask me to give a firm mathematical foundation where the very nature of the foundation of quantum physics, the one you believe (believed?), while rooted in mathematics, is not firm and is doublethink. Reasonably, if the nature of quantum physics is rooted in mathematics, then mathematics is not a firm foundation, especially if you believe in quantum physics.
“One of the few perceptive readers of Planck’s early quantum theory papers was the junior patent examiner in Bern, Albert Einstein. To Einstein, the postulate of the energy elements was vivid and real, if appalling, “as if the ground had been pulled from under one, with no firm foundation seen anywhere upon which one could have built.” As it happened, the search for a “firm foundation” occupied Einstein for the rest of his life.” - William H. Cropper
“Everything in the quantum world occurs at random and there is no direct cause for quantum events.” – Roland Omnes
What does, “God does not play dice,” mean to you?
Posted By Craig Hamilton, Sandwich, MA

Posted: Dec 26, 2010
Craig's Theories Revisited
OK. While all scientific theories can be proven wrong there is no good reason to suppose relativity is incorrect and apart from "playing" with the cosmological constant and trying to integrate gravity with quantum theory Einstein didn't try to disprove the theory as you claim.

There are generally more factors in the real world than those allowed for in typical maths but maths can provide answers arbitrarily close to reality depending on the amount of information the mathematician wants to incorporate.

I have no idea how DNA codes relate to maths and straight lines. I have no idea what your "alphabet or 2" comment means. I have no idea what a "discontinuous mind" is.

The water molecule is polarised, I agree with that, but that isn't what causes the swirling motion. The polarities are randomly distributed and the overall charge over a large distance is zero.

I'm sorry but you're just wrong and your theories aren't supported by any credible sources.
Posted By OJB, Dunedin, NZ

Posted: Dec 23, 2010
Re: OBJ - It's good that this interests you.
I am not the only one that criticized gravity. Einstein criticized his own theory. He sought to disprove it because thought it was wrong. If you consider him to be just anybody...
The point of the straight line argument was to show you that mathematical representations are not even close to full proof. I shouldn't use math to disprove math, as you wanted me to do. Perhaps, it is because we humans have DNA based on a four letter alphabet that we can understand the concept of a straight line or math in imagination. It takes an alphabet or 2 to understand math. It arises from a discontinuous mind.
And you are wrong about water pouring through a funnel not being an electrical current. Water is a bent molecule where negative charge collects near the oxygen of it, such that it is negative near the center and positive at the ends.. Water is most certainly charged. It's properties, such as the swirl when you pour it through a funnel arise because of charge.
Posted By Craig Hamilton, Sandwich, MA

Posted: Dec 21, 2010
Craig's Theories
OK Craig, I really can't say too much about your ideas because anyone can come up with statements like "Throw out gravity too. That is what got us in this mess." Unless you have some well documented, repeatable experiments supporting your theories then they really don't count for anything.

In normal circumstances you are right about the straight lines: attempts at creating one in real life are almost inevitably going to be less than perfect, but I really can't see what that has to do with the bigger debate here.

The circulation of water in a funnel is not an electrical current because no electrical charge is involved. Quantum experiments have nothing to do with electromagnetic currents because they involve subatomic and uncharged particles.

You really should stick to debating what you know because your physics knowledge isn't good.
Posted By OJB, Dunedin, NZ

Posted: Dec 21, 2010
Re: OBJ
The "straight lines" I mention are literal. The only place a straight line actually exists is in imagination. They can also be calculated with the mathematical formula y = mx + b, but they aren't realistic.
Take for instance a bow and arrow. The string, when pulled tight is a straight line, no? No, it is not a straight line because it is subject to density/buoyancy. That is, because the string is a more dense liquid, then air, also a liquid, the string becomes curved, as part of it sinks more than other parts. That is, I also disagree when science calls air a gas. Air is a liquid. Throw out gravity too. That is what got us in this mess.
The evidence of the electromagnetic mixing currents may be observed by simply pouring water through a funnel. The swirl is an elaborate pattern that is a mixing current. The swirl is an electrical current. It is not quantum indeterminacy that causes the results of your quantum physics experiments, but complex electromagnetic mixing current
Posted By Craig Hamilton, Sandwich, MA

Posted: Dec 17, 2010
Interesting
OK Craig, I really have no idea what you mean in your post above but I really do have to say that quantum physics is an extremely reliable theory and is strongly supported by experimental evidence. There's no reasonable doubt that it represents reality in some deep and meaningful way.

Not sure what these "straight lines" are. Is that a metaphor of some sort? Could you give me a credible reference to a description of these "electromagnetic mixing currents" or give some details? How can trivial forces be linked with spirituality? Finally, what is this circuit between me and my GPS?

Sorry but this all sounds very vague and based on personal opinions rather than well established reality!
Posted By OJB, Dunedin, NZ



 


G‑d and Us
Why Do Great Things Happen To Rotten People?
When People Suffer, Is It G-d's Fault?
Why Do Things Go Wrong?
Was the Holocaust a Punishment?
Divine Knowledge and Human Choice
Expand The Paradox of Free Choice: Six Questions
The Paradox of Free Choice: Six Questions
What is the Purpose of Existence?
Have We All the Answers?
Do Our Deeds Matter To G-d?
What is Prophecy?
Do (Normal) Jews Believe in Prophecy?
How Do We Know that G‑d Exists?
Is There a Logical Proof that there's only One G-d?
How Do I Deal With Doubt?
Can G‑d Create a Rock That's Too Heavy for Him to Lift?
Showing 24 - 38 of 69