Rambam Research Paper
Mathew Marko
Introduction to Jewish Philosophy (PHL 412)
January 8, 2012
Evil, Suffering, and the Human Condition according to the Philosophies of Rambam and Rabbi Artson.
It is impossible to look at the world and not see tremendous suffering, evil, and injustice. The existence of despotic rulers depriving millions of life and liberty, massive acts of natural destruction, untimely deaths, debilitating and deadly diseases, and more, must beg the religious person to question how this can be in a world created and ruled by a just and loving God. This study will investigate the philosophies of two great Jewish thinkers; Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam) of the 12th century, and the modern process theologist, Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, …show more content…
comparing and contrasting their attempts to reconcile the suffering that seems to be inextricably part of the world in which we live, and their respective understandings and beliefs in God. We will begin with Rambam and his views on the nature of evil itself. Rambam views creation as only the production of something positive. Accordingly, his treatment of evil follows the neo-Platonic tradition seeing evil not as something that is created, but rather as a lack or privation.1 Creation is
constructive, not destructive. “The action of an agent cannot be directly connected with a thing that does not exist; only indirectly is non-existence described as the result of the action of an agent.”2 So when
God created light, at that moment, it replaced previous darkness.
Darkness is the absence of light and did not need to be created. If I blow out a candle, I have not created darkness, but rather, I have destroyed the light. The same holds true for good and evil. As Rambam states: “…it cannot be said of God that He directly creates evil, or He has the direct intention to produce evil; that is impossible. His works are all perfectly good. He only produces existence, and all existence is good; whilst evils are of a negative character, and cannot be acted upon. Evil can only be attributed to Him in the way we have …show more content…
mentioned.
1 2
“Evil and Suffering in Jewish Philosophy” by Oliver Leaman, Cambridge University Press, 1995. Pg. 58 “The Guide of the Perplexed of Maimonides”, translated and annotated by M. Friedlander, PH. D., Hebrew Publishing Company, New York, 1885. Book III, chapter X, pg. 43.
He creates evil only in so far as He produces the corporeal element such as it actually is; it is always connected with negatives, and on that account the source of all destruction and evil.”3 By this line of thinking, what we perceive as evil is a lack of something else, not a creation of God. Rambam also points out that evil is a subjective concept. “Evils are evils only in relation to a certain thing, [and] either includes the non-existence of that thing or the non-existence of some of the good conditions.”4 For
Rambam, all things that are perceived as evil are actually negations or the non-existence of positive qualities of creation. So from the perspective of human existence, death is the absence of life, the pain of sickness is the absence of health, and the harshness of blindness is the lack of sight. Moving forward with the understanding that evil is not created, Rambam gives three main causes for the suffering and evils that we perceive in the world. The first reason for suffering is directly related to our physical makeup. In describing the nature of the universe, Rambam explains that “some creatures are composed of matter and form that are subject to perpetual generation and decay, such as human and animal bodies, plants and metals.”5 It is precisely this material component that is at the heart of what we may perceive as suffering. “Whatever is formed of any matter receives the most perfect form possible in that species of matter; in each individual case the defects are in accordance with the defects of that individual matter. The best and most perfect being that can be formed of the blood and the semen is the species of man, for as far as man’s nature is known, he is living, reasonable, and mortal. It is therefore impossible that man should be free from this species of evil.”6 So everything that is physical comes into being, flourishes for a time, grows old, breaks, and eventually dies. Try though we may through science and medicine to prolong life, sickness and death are inevitable consequences of simply being born. As for our perception of this being an evil, Rambam points out that it is through this process of material birth, decay and death, that the world renews and sustains itself. “In accordance with the Divine Wisdom,
3 4
“The Guide of the Perplexed of Maimonides”, Book III, chapter X, pg. 35. “The Guide of the Perplexed of Maimonides”, Book III, chapter X, pg. 34. 5 “Mishneh Torah, The Book of Knowledge, Laws Concerning the Foundations of Torah”, Maimonides, Chapter 2:3. 6 “The Guide of the Perplexed of Maimonides”, Book III, chapter XII, pg. 40.
Page 2 of 19
genesis can only take place through destruction, and without the destruction of the individual members of the species the species themselves would not exist permanently.” 7 The fact of our corporeal existence gives rise to inevitable sickness, decay and death, and is ultimately beyond our control. The other two sources of evil which Rambam says afflict human beings are largely within our control and directly related to our free will. These are “the great evils which men cause to each other because of certain intentions, desires, opinions, or religious principles…”8 Murder, robbery, cruelty, rape, oppression, and injustice are all evils inflicted by people upon people. These evils result from political events such as war, despotic rulers, poor government, and are brought upon ourselves by selfishness and poor judgment. We must remember that Rambam holds that this evil is not a creation of God, but rather a lack or privation; in this case, “due to non-existence, because they originate in ignorance, which is absence of wisdom.”9 “Various classes of men, each man in proportion to his ignorance, bring great evils upon themselves and upon other individual members of the species. If men possessed wisdom, which stands in the same relation to the form of man as the sight to the eye, they would not cause any injury to themselves or to others; for the knowledge of truth removes hatred and quarrels, and prevents mutual injuries.”10 If I, in my lack of wisdom, choose to throw my fist and your nose happens to be at the end of that punch, it will certainly get bloody. The third cause of evil according to Rambam is the evil that we inflict upon ourselves due to greed, lack of understanding and lack of self-control. Although discussed separately, this is clearly interrelated to the evils that people inflict upon one another as described above. “The world is structured in such a way that we can easily satisfy our natural requirements in it if we are moderate in our demands and limit ourselves to those requirements.”11 Poor choices will undoubtedly have a negative effect upon
ourselves and those around us. “This class of evils originates in man’s vices, such as excessive desire for eating, drinking, and love; indulgence in these things in undue measure, or in improper manner, or
7 8
“The Guide of the Perplexed of Maimonides”, Book III, chapter XII, pg. 39. “The Guide of the Perplexed of Maimonides”, Book III, chapter XI, pg. 36. 9 “The Guide of the Perplexed of Maimonides”, Book III, chapter XI, pg. 37. 10 “The Guide of the Perplexed of Maimonides”, Book III, chapter XI, pg. 36. 11 “Evil and Suffering in Jewish Philosophy”, Leaman, pg. 71.
Page 3 of 19
partaking of bad food. This course brings diseases and afflictions upon body and soul alike.”12
The
effects of poor choices on our physical beings can be easily seen. If I spend my entire life consuming vast amounts of cholesterol, I surely am in no position to blame anyone but myself if I develop heart disease at an early age. But Rambam goes on to point out the ill effects these poor choices can have upon our spiritual as well as our physical well-being. He reasons that as we become more accustomed to having superfluous things, we acquire an ever greater desire for that which we do not need, creating a cycle of more want and increased suffering. “They as a rule expose themselves to great dangers, e.g., by seavoyage, or service of kings, and all this for the purpose of obtaining that which is superfluous and not necessary. When they thus meet with the consequences of the course which they adopt, they complain of the decrees and judgments of God.”13 It is the desire to fill ourselves with things that we don’t need for our survival that can lead us to excessive physical deterioration, sickness within our hearts and souls, and to impose our will upon others. In the same chapter, Rambam points out the magnificence and wisdom of God’s creation in that “The more necessary a thing is for living beings, the more easily it is found and the cheaper it is; the less necessary it is, the rarer and dearer it is.”14 Rambam is teaching that in focusing on
what is truly important and necessary for our existence, we have the power to greatly reduce suffering for ourselves and our fellow human beings. These self-inflicted evils must necessarily raise the question of our free will. If God could have created beings that acted perfectly, why did God not do so? Instead, God created us with the capacity to choose goodness. Rambam would argue that creatures which are created with the ability to experience pain and suffering would also have been created with the ability to transform and improve themselves through their own will and intellect, thereby increasing their own perfection and connection to God. “Yet in the difficult and challenging task of transformation lies the ability of individuals to take responsibility
12 13
“The Guide of the Perplexed of Maimonides”, Book III, chapter XII, pg. 41. “The Guide of the Perplexed of Maimonides”, Book III, chapter XII, pg. 42. 14 “The Guide of the Perplexed of Maimonides”, Book III, chapter XII, pg. 43.
Page 4 of 19
for their own characters and relationships, and this leads to a more interesting and valuable form of existence than that which would be available through immediate and perfect divine intervention.”15 So we have seen that suffering and evil are inherent to the physical nature of our existence, as well as due to the selfish, misguided, and unwise actions of human beings both towards themselves and towards one another. But if we believe in a loving, just and kind God as described in our Torah, who during times of great danger beyond our control, has interceded on our behalf, how do we explain when God does not rescue us from great evils that are beyond our immediate control? If God interceded and parted the sea so that we could escape death at Pharaoh’ hands, why then would the same loving God not have stepped in to stop the Holocaust? This leads the philosophically minded to only a few conclusions. One the one hand, we have a God who is able to intervene yet chooses not to. This of course raises an ethical issue that silence is approving. If I see an act of suffering and injustice, have it within my power to intercede, but choose not to, am I not just as guilty as the one perpetrating the act? Another possibility is a God who is unable to intervene. In discussing the world as either having a beginning or being eternal, Rambam presents several views and narrows it down to a couple of choices. “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 being must have created 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.”16 In Rambam’s view, no matter the way the universe originated, God must be perfect, and a
perfect entity, by definition, must be unchanging. One cannot go from one perfect state to another perfect state. Both states can’t be perfect as there cannot be different degrees of perfection. This notion of God supports either creatio ex material or ex-nihilo and the Aristotelian notion of the Unmoved Mover. As
15 16
“Evil and Suffering in Jewish Philosophy”, Leaman, pg. 71. “The Guide of the Perplexed of Maimonides”, Book I, chapter LXXII, pg. 285.
Page 5 of 19
Rambam states, "if motion is produced in time, it should be considered that everything that is produced in time is preceded by a certain motion…consequently the first motion must of necessity be eternal or else the series will go on to infinity."17 Whether an Unmoved Mover or a Prime Cause, Rambam’s God would be by definition perfect, unmovable, immutable, and unchanging. So what this means is not only does God not intervene directly in the affairs of humankind, God by God’s very nature cannot intervene. Intervention would denote change in God, and since God is perfect, God is unchanging. But what about the miracles of intervention that we read about in Torah? Why was God able and willing to intercede on our behalf with Pharaoh? One answer Rambam might give would be that the story of the parting of the sea, for example, is an allegorical representation of Moshe’s vast understanding of the nature of God, allowing him the strength and wisdom needed to help bring the children of Israel out of their lowly state of bondage towards freedom and love of God. In this explanation, it is not God’s direct intervention, but rather humankind’s, particularly Moshe’s, increased understanding that eventually came to our rescue. God’s “providence extends to us all through the laws of nature, and some special people can, by their own efforts and abilities, come to grasp the organization of the world which they inhabit and so are able to make even wiser decisions about what they should do then are the majority of the population.”18 Rambam’s God of perfection does not and cannot intervene directly in the natural course of events of our world. “As there is a difference between works of nature and productions of human
handicraft, so there is a difference between God’s rule, providence, and intention in reference to all natural forces, and our rule, providence, and intention in reference to things which are the object of our rule, providence, and intention.”19 Here Rambam seems to be saying that it would be foolishness on our parts to expect God to intervene in the laws of nature to help us because of our prayers or good behavior. But we do not worship God in order to benefit ourselves materially. We are to seek to know God for no other reason than to know and to love God. While the supplicant should not expect God to suspend the
17 18 19
“The Guide of the Perplexed of Maimonides”, Book II, chapter XIV, pg. 286. “Evil and Suffering in Jewish Philosophy”, Leaman, pg. 84. “The Guide of the Perplexed of Maimonides”, Book III, chapter XXIII, pg. 111.
Page 6 of 19
laws of nature to benefit him, the worshipper can expect to be in a better position to understand the nature of the world, the way in which it is organized, and his or her position within the greater whole. “The
more we think of God as someone like us, but more powerful and knowledgeable, the more we go astray. God is radically dissimilar from us, and when we come to wonder what role providence plays in our individual lives we must free ourselves from the model of servants and masters. Virtuous people cannot expect to be rewarded in the way that valuable servants might tent to expect to be rewarded.”20 To summarize Rambam’s main points regarding suffering, evil, and human existence, we can say that God is perfect, unchanging and static, and created the world according to a hierarchy of natural laws. Human beings and the physical world which they occupy are made up of a material component, and by the very nature of the physical, are subject to growth, decay, and death. God endowed human beings with free will and choice, and the exercise of this free will can either serve to elevate us ever higher above our physical existence, or increase our suffering and the suffering we bring to our fellow human beings. By God’s very nature and the nature of creation, God is unable to intervene on our behalf in opposition to the natural laws that govern all of creation. God is radically different from us. If we believe in a God who is a being like us, just vastly more powerful and caring, we are bound to be disappointed and suffer with the knowledge that the wicked sometimes prosper while the virtuous suffer. Thus the purpose of prayer and supplication to God is not to entreat God’s intervention on our behalf, but rather to increase our knowledge and love of God, thereby elevating ourselves spiritually above our physical components which are the cause and perception of suffering. We must take responsibility for our own lives and strive to perfect ourselves by developing our abilities to reason and think intellectually. In contrast to Rambam, Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson through modern process theology holds a radically different view of creation and the nature of God, yet often arrives at similar conclusions with regards to suffering and evil. Process theology aims to strip away the philosophical influences of the
ancient Greek and medieval European thinkers that have become engrained in our western theological
20
“Evil and Suffering in Jewish Philosophy”, Leaman, pg. 73.
Page 7 of 19
models, allowing us to look again at our theologies through unclouded eyes.21 A major component that Rabbi Artson seeks to remove is the long accepted “omni” nature of God. A God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent is by definition all powerful, all knowing, and all good. Rabbi Artson challenges these notions of God based on many theological problems; not the least of which, and the subject of this paper, is the idea that if God is all powerful, then God is therefore responsible for all occurrences, good and bad. As Rabbi Artson points out, “A God who could have stopped ‘X’ but did not is a God with whom most of us want nothing to do.”22 Another challenge to the omnipotent view of God involves the nature of free will. Rabbi Artson argues that, due to the relational nature of power, if one has all of the power in a relationship, then by definition, the other party or parties to that relationship would necessarily have none of the power. Process theology questions how the acceptance of an all-knowing deity leaves us with any free will at all. If God knows for certain that I will do such and such a thing at such and such a time, am I truly free to do or not do the action or deed? Rabbi Artson takes this one step further, illustrating an even greater problem with an all-knowing God. “And if God knows the future absolutely, then God also knows God’s future choices absolutely. Such perfect foretelling strips God of any freedom as well…”23 How does Rabbi Artson use process theology to separate God from these long held “omni” definitions? As we have seen, Rambam’s understanding of an all-powerful, perfect, static, and
unchanging God was linked to his concept of creation itself. So too Rabbi Artson, through process theology, links his understanding of a God who is not “omni” to his particular understanding of creation. In opposition to the long held perception of God as perfect and unchanging, and therefore somehow separate from creation, Rabbi Artson views God as a partner in an ongoing process of creation. Genesis states:
:
21
“Ba-Derekh: On the Way – A Presentation of Process Theology”, Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, as printed in Conservative Judaism, Volume 62, Fall-Winter 2010 – 2011, pg. 2 22 “Ba-Derekh: On the Way – A Presentation of Process Theology”, Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, pg. 3. 23 “Ba-Derekh: On the Way – A Presentation of Process Theology”, Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, pg. 4.
Page 8 of 19
– And the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water – Genesis 1:224 Rabbi Artson shows from this verse that creation has not always been understood ex-nihilo, but rather, Judaism can authentically understand creation as ex material; the organization of what was and is already existent. The idea is that the
(often translated as chaos) and the
(the deep) have
always existed. As Rabbi Artson teaches, “The simple meaning of Genesis 1 is that there is a pre-existent darkness and chaos. The tehom, the chaos, already exists, bubbly, uncontainable, and undomesticated. God’s creative act is not the special effect of something from nothing, but the steady hesed (loving kindness) of converting chaos into cosmos.”25 In presenting this view of creation, Rabbi Artson is removing the “need” for us to view God as the all-powerful, immutable and perfect entity as perceived in dominant philosophies for centuries. Since
everything was already in existence, and science now shows that all matter is in a natural state of motion and interaction, we no longer require an Unmoved Mover or Prime Cause to explain creation. God is still a vastly, inconceivably powerful force, but need not be all powerful and unchanging. Additionally, the ever present existence of the “bubbling” chaos allows us to easily see that God is not the cause of the suffering and evil in the world, but rather a persistent and powerful force keeping it at bay. Rabbi Artson takes this one step further. He argues that if one took the same ingredients repeatedly and processed them using the same methods, one would expect similar results over and over again. But this is not what we observe in the cosmos. Over time, matter seems to organize itself into ever greater variety and complexity, even to the point of leading to life and self-awareness. Rabbi Artson reasons that it is God who is guiding, luring,
24 25
English translation from Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, PA 1999. “Almighty? No Way! Coming to Know the God We Already Love” by Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, pg. 2.
Page 9 of 19
and coaxing matter and energy against the pull of the existent chaos towards this greater complexity and variety.26 It is interesting to note that from radically differing approaches, Rabbi Artson and Rambam both seem to escape the conclusion that God is responsible for all of the bad as well as all of the good in the world. For Rabbi Artson, it is God’s non-omnipotence that relieves God of liability for not directly acting against suffering and evil. For Rambam, it is the very nature of God’s perfection that paradoxically makes God incapable by definition of interceding directly with the affairs of mankind. For Rabbi Artson, chaos is ever-present, and therefore pain,
suffering, imperfection and evil are existent in that they have not yet been affected by the loving organization of God.27 “Evil is that aspect of reality not yet touched by God’s lure or that part of creation that ignores God’s lure.”28 This is not so dissimilar from Rambam’s belief that evil is the privation or lack of something good or positive. Both thinkers seem to agree that evil did not need to be created by God, but rather exists due to the non-existence or non-intervention of some opposing force. Both thinkers also point out the subjective nature of what may be perceived as evil. As Rambam linked the process of life and death, so too does Rabbi Artson. “Much of what we understand to be evil is the very source of dynamism and life. The fact that our planet is churning, so that the rocks do not settle in order of heaviness, but the heavy ones keep getting kicked up to the surface - that is why there is life on the surface.”29 Rabbi Artson goes on to say that even natural disasters, which may be seen as evil forces from some perspectives, are also driving forces for genesis, rebirth, and ever greater novelty and development.
26 27
“Ba-Derekh: On the Way – A Presentation of Process Theology”, Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, pg. 10. “Untrammeled Future: Freedom and Becoming”, by Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, pg. 2. 28 “Ba-Derekh: On the Way – A Presentation of Process Theology”, Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, pg. 20. 29 “Ba-Derekh: On the Way – A Presentation of Process Theology”, Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, pg. 20.
Page 10 of 19
We will see more similarities with Rambam as we further explore Rabbi Artson’s understanding of suffering and the human condition.
Rabbi Artson seems to agree and even call upon Rambam’s discourse on the 3 main causes of suffering in the world. The first aspect is the fact that we and the world contain physical matter, and are therefore subject to growth and decay. As Rabbi Artson points out, “it is the nature of material reality to come into being, to grow and flourish for a time, and to then fall apart prior to going out of existence.”30 In much the same way as held by Rambam, Rabbi Artson reasons that decay and death are inextricably linked to the fact that we are even born at all. It is in the very nature of our physical existence. All matter is governed by natural law and much of what we now understand about quantum mechanics shows that everything exists in a state of probability. Something may or may not occur. Due to the vastness of existence and probability, there is a good deal of chance that operates, causing diversions and variety; sometimes varieties that we perceive as evil. Take a still-born child for instance. Under a different theology, one may wonder “why would God do this to
me?”
According to process theology, we can understand that it was not God that caused that sad birth, but rather the physical nature of existence, and the various possibilities and probabilities inherent in it. We are freed from trying to understand why we are being punished, or what possible reason would God have in God’s grand scheme of things. We can instead allow ourselves, through the pain of that loss, to try and feel God’s persistent love and support through even the most painful of times. “Instead of shielding ourselves from death, we can understand the end of physical existence as an intrinsic part of life, one with value for ourselves, our progeny, and our planet.”31
30 31
“Ba-Derekh: On the Way – A Presentation of Process Theology”, Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, pg. 21. “To Dust You Shall Return: Our Alienation from Death and the World” by Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson.
Page 11 of 19
Like Rambam, Rabbi Artson holds that a large part of human suffering and evil is due to our own often less than ideal exercise of free will. Every day we make choices that affect ourselves, our fellow inhabitants of the planet, and the world in which we live. Through greed and lack of self-control, we often make choices that have ill affects upon our health and wellbeing. Additionally, through greed and self-serving agendas, we often impose our will upon and to the detriment of innocent others.32 The ability to make these choices is a necessary by-product of free will. “There is no one who will clean up after us. There is no one who will prevent us from hurting each other or being harmed by other people’s bad choice. We are on our own. The world has been given to us, and it is ours to determine how it will fare.”33 Both Rambam and Rabbi Artson view human beings as possessing free will, though Rabbi Artson arrives at free will differently. As stated earlier, for one to be all powerful, another must be completely without power. Rabbi Artson believes that in creation, God “did irrevocable tzimtzum (withdrawal)” in which God lessened God’s power to enter into a truly interactive relationship with us and with the rest of creation. By ceding some power, God has given us true agency over ourselves and to some extent over creation itself. We are in a brit (covenant) with God; true partners in the on-going process of creation.34 But God is always with us, along for the ride to offer advice as we navigate the courses of our lives. This is the Divine Lure. God’s power is not coercive, but rather suggestive. According to Rabbi Artson, just as God lures matter in the process of creation, God lures us along the paths that will lead to the best possible outcomes given our individual situations. Throughout our lives, we are constantly faced with choices. Rabbi Artson argues that God is persistently present every step of the way, inviting us
32 33
“Ba-Derekh: On the Way – A Presentation of Process Theology”, Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, pg. 21. “Untrammeled Future: Freedom and Becoming”, by Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, pg. 3. 34 “God is Becoming: Consolation in the Face of Tragedy” by Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, as printed in The Oasis Newsletter SPAFER, Winter 2009, pg. 5.
Page 12 of 19
to make the best choices we can. When a choice has been made (either for better or worse), we are once again faced with more choices based upon the previous choices we have made, and once again, God is with us, luring us towards the most positive choice. In his “Almighty? No Way!”, Rabbi Artson clearly and cleverly compares God’s lure to using a GPS in our cars. As we approach a crossroads, the GPS will suggest which way to direct the car to efficiently reach our destination. If we opt to take that advice the GPS will offer the next suggestion when we reach the next crossroad. But if we choose not to take the direction given, the GPS will calmly and unemotionally recalculate our route and then offer the next suggestion based upon our previous choice and present location. Like the GPS, God does not get angry, does not coerce, and does not punish us for making decisions against God’s advice. But God is always there with us, luring us, should we choose to accept. A beautiful off-shoot of Rabbi Arson’s view of a changing, less than all-powerful God is not only are we affected by God’s existence, we have the ability to affect God with our existence. This is characteristic of a true partnership; the partnership of creation conceived in process theology. Creation is not static, nor are we. Humans are collections of atoms and atomic particles that interact with everything around us. “On a molecular and even a biological level, we also interact with our environment; inhaling air, ingesting food, absorbing heat or cold, sweating, defecating, shedding hair and skin.”35 We are engaged in a constant give and take with the universe and absolutely have an effect on everything else that is. In this light, and with the
perception of a changing God who has partnered with us in creation, it is reasonable to assume that our actions and thoughts can and do have an effect on God. According to Rabbi Artson, God possesses the knowledge of everything that can be known up until right now. Everything that occurs and everything that we do is added to God’s collective knowledge. We are adding to
35
“Ba-Derekh: On the Way – A Presentation of Process Theology”, Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, pg. 7.
Page 13 of 19
the divine presence. “God shares the experiences of all creatures, and is experienced by all creatures.”36 Jewish tradition and theology most definitely support this view. Rabbi Artson
reminds us of the many instances in the Torah where God expresses emotion, is engaged in an interactive relationship with humankind, and open to course change based on this relationship. While Rabbi Arson’s philosophy clearly shares aspects with Rambam, there are profound differences. Where might Rabbi Artson’s Process Theology challenge Rambam, how would Rambam respond, and how would Rambam challenge Rabbi Artson’s philosophy? An obvious place to begin is with the concept of an omnipotent God. If God were omnipotent, why wouldn’t an omnipotent God either create no creatures at all, or create perfect creatures that are insusceptible to pain and suffering? I think that Rambam would answer that God could have if God wanted to. “The
point of creating creatures which inevitably experience pain for at least some of their lives is to give them the possibility of transforming their situation by the use of their own intellect and will and thereby increasing as a result of their own efforts in their individual perfection.”37 It is through the understanding of loss that we experience triumph, through the knowledge of pain that we appreciate pleasure, and from the knowledge of inequity that we are motivated to pursue justice. Problematically, this type of answer may skate dangerously close to the “mystery” answer that is so often given in religion: There is a purpose to our suffering; whether to teach us a lesson or simply to improve us as beings. When we say that God has reasons for a young girl dying at the hand of a drunk driver, we are no longer engaging in philosophy and seeking answers to life’s most difficult questions. Rambam explains in Book 3, chapters 13 and 14 of his Guide for the Perplexed the vastness of the universe of which we as human beings only occupy a small space. “God contemplates the universe from the standpoint of eternal laws, and to think He is directly responsible for events like rainstorms,
36 37
“Ba-Derekh: On the Way – A Presentation of Process Theology”, Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, pg. 10. “Evil and Suffering in Jewish Philosophy”, Leaman, pg. 70.
Page 14 of 19
traffic mishaps, or crop-failures is sheer folly.”38 Rambam would direct us to seek greater understanding of the divine structure of the universe, not merely particular aspects of its complex organization. “If we
examine the structure of the universe as a whole we find it is replete with order and grace, according to Maimonides, as befits the creation of a rational deity.”39 God is therefore concerned with the overall
order of the universe which is based upon natural laws. The creation of humankind is on the whole perfect, even if individual components contained within it are not. This is not because God is seeking to punish and reward. God’s power is not coercive. Rabbi Artson might also challenge Rambam, in light of the greater scientific knowledge that we now possess, that God need not be the all-powerful entity as previously understood. With our knowledge of quantum mechanics, we know that the natural state of all matter is to be in motion, and therefore we no longer need to conceive of God as the Unmoved Mover. Would this cause Rambam to rethink his position? Knowing what I do about him as a great and open-minded thinker, I have to believe that he would do all he could to learn what was available to learn. Though as we discussed earlier, Rambam considered several possibilities for creation. Rambam reasons, whether God created the world from
nothing, or created the world from existent matter, something must have begun everything as we know it now. To quote again, “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 being must have created 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.”40 In Rambam’s view, no matter the way the universe originated, God must be perfect, and a perfect entity, by definition, must be unchanging. Even with the knowledge that all matter
38
39 40
“Maimonides: A Guide for Today’s Perplexed” by Kenneth Seeskin, Behrman House, Inc., West Orange, NJ, 1991, pg.60. “Evil and Suffering in Jewish Philosophy”, Leaman, pg. 77. “The Guide of the Perplexed of Maimonides”, Book I, chapter LXXII, pg. 285.
Page 15 of 19
is in a natural state of motion, we would still need some power that either created that matter, or enacted the natural state of motion. I believe that Rambam would challenge Rabbi Artson to show how he can conceive of a God who is less than perfect, less than all-knowing and less than all-powerful. In another challenge to the all-knowing God of Rambam, Rabbi Artson might question the notion of free will and how it could be possible with a God who knows not only everything that is, but everything that will be. What happens to the concept of free will if God knows for certain what we are going to do before we do it? How am I free to act as I choose if God already knows and has planned for my actions? Here Rambam must take a leap that I am not completely convinced bridges the gap. He quotes Rabbi Akiva saying “Everything is foreseen, yet freedom of choice is given.” (Avot 3:19) This seems to be saying that although God knows exactly what is going to happen, we are still not compelled to act in any certain way. A major basis for Rambam’s theology and theodicy seems to be the radically different nature of God. “As to the solution of this problem, understand that ‘the measure thereof is longer than the earth and wider than the sea’ (Job 11:19), and many important principles of the highest sublimity are connected with it. You, however, need only to know and comprehend what I am about to say. In the second chapter of the Laws Relating to the Fundamental Principles of the Torah, we have already explained that God does not know with knowledge external to Himself, like human beings whose knowledge and self are separate entities, but He, blessed be His Name, and His knowledge are One.”41 Here, Rambam argues that divine foreknowledge does not interfere with human freedom because divine knowledge is different from human knowledge. It seems as though Rambam is saying that if one person’s future decisions could be actually known by another human being, it would indeed create a problem for the former’s freedom. But God is not a human being and therefore God’s knowledge is not at all like our knowledge. Because of this, God’s foreknowledge of human decisions does not interfere with our free will. Rabbi Artson supports the notion of a changing God with Torah accounts of God’s emotions and willingness to change course based on interactions with humans. I believe that Rambam would argue that
41
“Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Teshuva, Laws of Repentance”, Maimonides, Chapter 5:5.
Page 16 of 19
these descriptions are allegories used to define a God who is so radically different than anything we can comprehend that language fails us (something I believe Rabbi Artson would fully agree with), and therefore not necessarily proof of a mutable God. In much the same way that Rambam makes a case for the corporeal nature of God in the Torah as allegory, so too would he argue these emotional and changeable characteristics of God. When the Torah describes God’s outstretched arm, we are not to take this to mean that God literally has an arm. In response, Rabbi Artson might challenge Rambam to seek to read our texts with a fresh set of eyes that are not influenced by what we may believe to be logical and true through existent philosophical models. I would like to interject my own personal challenges to both of these great thinkers and philosophical models. One question I would have for Rambam would be related to his understanding of a God who knows all things; past, present and future. If God knows for certain all things that will be, could and would not a just God create miracles (at the time of emanation so as not to contradict the concept of static perfection) that would work within the natural laws of creation, and “program” them to “enact” at the proper time to save millions from the injustice of others? Could this not be an explanation of miracles as chronicled in the Torah such as the parting of the sea? And if God’s omniscience allowed God to foresee the pursuit of Pharaoh, would that foreknowledge not also allow God to be aware of Hitler’s plans? Why would not a just, loving, and omnipotent God emanate at the time of creation some intercession and program it to enact at the appropriate time to save the death of millions of innocents? Along similar lines, I might challenge Rabbi Artson as well. I understand that according to process theology, God possesses perfect knowledge of all that has been, but does not possess definite knowledge of what will be. God’s knowledge of the future would be, like our own, predictive and based upon probability, though vastly more powerful than our own. If God possesses this vast and
unfathomable knowledge, God’s predictive and probability-based knowledge of the future would also have to be vast and beyond our comprehension. Could not a knowledge this great predict, at least, the major forces of evil that will occur, and could not God then “lure” other beings and aspects of creation towards counteracting them? Page 17 of 19
To take this one step further, it has been discussed in process theology that God lures not only beings, but all of creation towards a greater good. God does this through natural forces. But God is mutable and changes along with creation. God lures matter into more organized units, creating planets, stars, and galaxies in an on-going process. The ultimate good obviously concerns something much larger than any individual human’s existence. And does not the divine lure change with every choice we make or situation we are in? A God who is affected by everything that occurs is a God who can react. Could we not view miraculous acts in the Torah as the divine lure acting upon matter as well at choice? It has been shown that science and natural laws can explain certain miracles written about in the Torah. Returning to the parting of the sea, it has been postulated that a perfect confluence of several possible physical characteristics could have created what was perceived as a miracle. A receding storm surge, coupled with a well-timed and powerful wind, at the point where the sea was particularly shallow, etc., could have all occurred within natural laws to create a parting of the sea. Is it possible to assume that this was God luring creation towards God’s will of a greater good and still fall within the bounds of Rabbi Artson’s process thought? And if this is so, why would not God enact similar “legal” miracles to save the millions who have been slaughtered since then? This need not require omniscience, omnipotence, or the breaking of any natural laws. I would also question both Rabbi Artson and Rambam as to how we can know what divine lure, or God’s will truly is. Both agree that our perception of evil is subjective. So whose perception is true and correct? Granted, in extreme cases such as 1.5 million slaughtered babies, it would be rather easy to get consensus. But on the other hand, it is my belief that truly evil people do not view themselves as evil. Most believe that what they are doing is right and justified. One might argue that they are following the divine lure as they perceive it. Since we are defining the divine lure and the notion of good and evil as subjective, are we not possibly opening up a world of excuse for injustice? Much wisdom can be gained from studying these two great thinkers, as well as the philosophies of others. My own theological journey is in its infancy as I struggle with the questions that have been with humankind through the ages. In regards to evil and suffering, I have never been able to simply Page 18 of 19
accept that it is all part of God’s plan. This answer has always seemed weak to me and somehow letting religion and God off the hook far too easily. At the same time, I have never been able to put my faith and love in a God who has the power to head off the great evils of the world, yet chooses not to. For better or worse, this only leaves me with a God who is unable to intervene. Is this inability due to absolute perfection, or due to a lack of absolute power? I have always found myself leaning towards process theology, long before I hear it, read of it, or even knew of the term. I have felt instinctually that the universe “wants” to behave in a certain way. We can adjust our paths to align with the natural flow of things, or we can try to swim against the currents. I have also never been able to view God as separate from creation; the great power looking down from a throne of glory that religious dogma had taught me. Perhaps this is why I purposely avoided religion for most of my adult life. But if I view God as one with the universe, vastly powerful yes, but still a part of and constrained by a universe that wishes to proceed along certain courses and laws, I can begin to engage myself on a deeper level with the teachings and profound meanings of a religious life. I have had many “religious” experiences. Those moments when that tingle envelopes my body, I get a lump in my throat, a tear in my eye, and I can feel, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the existence, warmth and love of God. As I mature, I know that I do not have to understand my religion in any literal or dogmatic way, superimposing someone else’s definition of truth on what I feel to be true. I have experienced loss and pain as well. If one believes in God, it seems to be culturally engrained to question why God would do such and such a thing, or allow so and so to suffer. I find great comfort in the notion that God cannot cause, nor prevent evil or suffering, but rather is relentlessly, persistently with us and within us, giving us the strength, love, and guidance to live our lives in the best ways possible. Ultimately, I don’t believe it is possible for our limited human capacity to every fully comprehend God and God’s creation. Philosophy, logic, science, and religion can only take us so far, and at the end of the day we must put it all down and take a leap of faith.
Page 19 of 19
Introduction to Jewish Philosophy (PHL 412)
January 8, 2012
Evil, Suffering, and the Human Condition according to the Philosophies of Rambam and Rabbi Artson.
It is impossible to look at the world and not see tremendous suffering, evil, and injustice. The existence of despotic rulers depriving millions of life and liberty, massive acts of natural destruction, untimely deaths, debilitating and deadly diseases, and more, must beg the religious person to question how this can be in a world created and ruled by a just and loving God. This study will investigate the philosophies of two great Jewish thinkers; Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam) of the 12th century, and the modern process theologist, Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, …show more content…
comparing and contrasting their attempts to reconcile the suffering that seems to be inextricably part of the world in which we live, and their respective understandings and beliefs in God. We will begin with Rambam and his views on the nature of evil itself. Rambam views creation as only the production of something positive. Accordingly, his treatment of evil follows the neo-Platonic tradition seeing evil not as something that is created, but rather as a lack or privation.1 Creation is
constructive, not destructive. “The action of an agent cannot be directly connected with a thing that does not exist; only indirectly is non-existence described as the result of the action of an agent.”2 So when
God created light, at that moment, it replaced previous darkness.
Darkness is the absence of light and did not need to be created. If I blow out a candle, I have not created darkness, but rather, I have destroyed the light. The same holds true for good and evil. As Rambam states: “…it cannot be said of God that He directly creates evil, or He has the direct intention to produce evil; that is impossible. His works are all perfectly good. He only produces existence, and all existence is good; whilst evils are of a negative character, and cannot be acted upon. Evil can only be attributed to Him in the way we have …show more content…
mentioned.
1 2
“Evil and Suffering in Jewish Philosophy” by Oliver Leaman, Cambridge University Press, 1995. Pg. 58 “The Guide of the Perplexed of Maimonides”, translated and annotated by M. Friedlander, PH. D., Hebrew Publishing Company, New York, 1885. Book III, chapter X, pg. 43.
He creates evil only in so far as He produces the corporeal element such as it actually is; it is always connected with negatives, and on that account the source of all destruction and evil.”3 By this line of thinking, what we perceive as evil is a lack of something else, not a creation of God. Rambam also points out that evil is a subjective concept. “Evils are evils only in relation to a certain thing, [and] either includes the non-existence of that thing or the non-existence of some of the good conditions.”4 For
Rambam, all things that are perceived as evil are actually negations or the non-existence of positive qualities of creation. So from the perspective of human existence, death is the absence of life, the pain of sickness is the absence of health, and the harshness of blindness is the lack of sight. Moving forward with the understanding that evil is not created, Rambam gives three main causes for the suffering and evils that we perceive in the world. The first reason for suffering is directly related to our physical makeup. In describing the nature of the universe, Rambam explains that “some creatures are composed of matter and form that are subject to perpetual generation and decay, such as human and animal bodies, plants and metals.”5 It is precisely this material component that is at the heart of what we may perceive as suffering. “Whatever is formed of any matter receives the most perfect form possible in that species of matter; in each individual case the defects are in accordance with the defects of that individual matter. The best and most perfect being that can be formed of the blood and the semen is the species of man, for as far as man’s nature is known, he is living, reasonable, and mortal. It is therefore impossible that man should be free from this species of evil.”6 So everything that is physical comes into being, flourishes for a time, grows old, breaks, and eventually dies. Try though we may through science and medicine to prolong life, sickness and death are inevitable consequences of simply being born. As for our perception of this being an evil, Rambam points out that it is through this process of material birth, decay and death, that the world renews and sustains itself. “In accordance with the Divine Wisdom,
3 4
“The Guide of the Perplexed of Maimonides”, Book III, chapter X, pg. 35. “The Guide of the Perplexed of Maimonides”, Book III, chapter X, pg. 34. 5 “Mishneh Torah, The Book of Knowledge, Laws Concerning the Foundations of Torah”, Maimonides, Chapter 2:3. 6 “The Guide of the Perplexed of Maimonides”, Book III, chapter XII, pg. 40.
Page 2 of 19
genesis can only take place through destruction, and without the destruction of the individual members of the species the species themselves would not exist permanently.” 7 The fact of our corporeal existence gives rise to inevitable sickness, decay and death, and is ultimately beyond our control. The other two sources of evil which Rambam says afflict human beings are largely within our control and directly related to our free will. These are “the great evils which men cause to each other because of certain intentions, desires, opinions, or religious principles…”8 Murder, robbery, cruelty, rape, oppression, and injustice are all evils inflicted by people upon people. These evils result from political events such as war, despotic rulers, poor government, and are brought upon ourselves by selfishness and poor judgment. We must remember that Rambam holds that this evil is not a creation of God, but rather a lack or privation; in this case, “due to non-existence, because they originate in ignorance, which is absence of wisdom.”9 “Various classes of men, each man in proportion to his ignorance, bring great evils upon themselves and upon other individual members of the species. If men possessed wisdom, which stands in the same relation to the form of man as the sight to the eye, they would not cause any injury to themselves or to others; for the knowledge of truth removes hatred and quarrels, and prevents mutual injuries.”10 If I, in my lack of wisdom, choose to throw my fist and your nose happens to be at the end of that punch, it will certainly get bloody. The third cause of evil according to Rambam is the evil that we inflict upon ourselves due to greed, lack of understanding and lack of self-control. Although discussed separately, this is clearly interrelated to the evils that people inflict upon one another as described above. “The world is structured in such a way that we can easily satisfy our natural requirements in it if we are moderate in our demands and limit ourselves to those requirements.”11 Poor choices will undoubtedly have a negative effect upon
ourselves and those around us. “This class of evils originates in man’s vices, such as excessive desire for eating, drinking, and love; indulgence in these things in undue measure, or in improper manner, or
7 8
“The Guide of the Perplexed of Maimonides”, Book III, chapter XII, pg. 39. “The Guide of the Perplexed of Maimonides”, Book III, chapter XI, pg. 36. 9 “The Guide of the Perplexed of Maimonides”, Book III, chapter XI, pg. 37. 10 “The Guide of the Perplexed of Maimonides”, Book III, chapter XI, pg. 36. 11 “Evil and Suffering in Jewish Philosophy”, Leaman, pg. 71.
Page 3 of 19
partaking of bad food. This course brings diseases and afflictions upon body and soul alike.”12
The
effects of poor choices on our physical beings can be easily seen. If I spend my entire life consuming vast amounts of cholesterol, I surely am in no position to blame anyone but myself if I develop heart disease at an early age. But Rambam goes on to point out the ill effects these poor choices can have upon our spiritual as well as our physical well-being. He reasons that as we become more accustomed to having superfluous things, we acquire an ever greater desire for that which we do not need, creating a cycle of more want and increased suffering. “They as a rule expose themselves to great dangers, e.g., by seavoyage, or service of kings, and all this for the purpose of obtaining that which is superfluous and not necessary. When they thus meet with the consequences of the course which they adopt, they complain of the decrees and judgments of God.”13 It is the desire to fill ourselves with things that we don’t need for our survival that can lead us to excessive physical deterioration, sickness within our hearts and souls, and to impose our will upon others. In the same chapter, Rambam points out the magnificence and wisdom of God’s creation in that “The more necessary a thing is for living beings, the more easily it is found and the cheaper it is; the less necessary it is, the rarer and dearer it is.”14 Rambam is teaching that in focusing on
what is truly important and necessary for our existence, we have the power to greatly reduce suffering for ourselves and our fellow human beings. These self-inflicted evils must necessarily raise the question of our free will. If God could have created beings that acted perfectly, why did God not do so? Instead, God created us with the capacity to choose goodness. Rambam would argue that creatures which are created with the ability to experience pain and suffering would also have been created with the ability to transform and improve themselves through their own will and intellect, thereby increasing their own perfection and connection to God. “Yet in the difficult and challenging task of transformation lies the ability of individuals to take responsibility
12 13
“The Guide of the Perplexed of Maimonides”, Book III, chapter XII, pg. 41. “The Guide of the Perplexed of Maimonides”, Book III, chapter XII, pg. 42. 14 “The Guide of the Perplexed of Maimonides”, Book III, chapter XII, pg. 43.
Page 4 of 19
for their own characters and relationships, and this leads to a more interesting and valuable form of existence than that which would be available through immediate and perfect divine intervention.”15 So we have seen that suffering and evil are inherent to the physical nature of our existence, as well as due to the selfish, misguided, and unwise actions of human beings both towards themselves and towards one another. But if we believe in a loving, just and kind God as described in our Torah, who during times of great danger beyond our control, has interceded on our behalf, how do we explain when God does not rescue us from great evils that are beyond our immediate control? If God interceded and parted the sea so that we could escape death at Pharaoh’ hands, why then would the same loving God not have stepped in to stop the Holocaust? This leads the philosophically minded to only a few conclusions. One the one hand, we have a God who is able to intervene yet chooses not to. This of course raises an ethical issue that silence is approving. If I see an act of suffering and injustice, have it within my power to intercede, but choose not to, am I not just as guilty as the one perpetrating the act? Another possibility is a God who is unable to intervene. In discussing the world as either having a beginning or being eternal, Rambam presents several views and narrows it down to a couple of choices. “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 being must have created 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.”16 In Rambam’s view, no matter the way the universe originated, God must be perfect, and a
perfect entity, by definition, must be unchanging. One cannot go from one perfect state to another perfect state. Both states can’t be perfect as there cannot be different degrees of perfection. This notion of God supports either creatio ex material or ex-nihilo and the Aristotelian notion of the Unmoved Mover. As
15 16
“Evil and Suffering in Jewish Philosophy”, Leaman, pg. 71. “The Guide of the Perplexed of Maimonides”, Book I, chapter LXXII, pg. 285.
Page 5 of 19
Rambam states, "if motion is produced in time, it should be considered that everything that is produced in time is preceded by a certain motion…consequently the first motion must of necessity be eternal or else the series will go on to infinity."17 Whether an Unmoved Mover or a Prime Cause, Rambam’s God would be by definition perfect, unmovable, immutable, and unchanging. So what this means is not only does God not intervene directly in the affairs of humankind, God by God’s very nature cannot intervene. Intervention would denote change in God, and since God is perfect, God is unchanging. But what about the miracles of intervention that we read about in Torah? Why was God able and willing to intercede on our behalf with Pharaoh? One answer Rambam might give would be that the story of the parting of the sea, for example, is an allegorical representation of Moshe’s vast understanding of the nature of God, allowing him the strength and wisdom needed to help bring the children of Israel out of their lowly state of bondage towards freedom and love of God. In this explanation, it is not God’s direct intervention, but rather humankind’s, particularly Moshe’s, increased understanding that eventually came to our rescue. God’s “providence extends to us all through the laws of nature, and some special people can, by their own efforts and abilities, come to grasp the organization of the world which they inhabit and so are able to make even wiser decisions about what they should do then are the majority of the population.”18 Rambam’s God of perfection does not and cannot intervene directly in the natural course of events of our world. “As there is a difference between works of nature and productions of human
handicraft, so there is a difference between God’s rule, providence, and intention in reference to all natural forces, and our rule, providence, and intention in reference to things which are the object of our rule, providence, and intention.”19 Here Rambam seems to be saying that it would be foolishness on our parts to expect God to intervene in the laws of nature to help us because of our prayers or good behavior. But we do not worship God in order to benefit ourselves materially. We are to seek to know God for no other reason than to know and to love God. While the supplicant should not expect God to suspend the
17 18 19
“The Guide of the Perplexed of Maimonides”, Book II, chapter XIV, pg. 286. “Evil and Suffering in Jewish Philosophy”, Leaman, pg. 84. “The Guide of the Perplexed of Maimonides”, Book III, chapter XXIII, pg. 111.
Page 6 of 19
laws of nature to benefit him, the worshipper can expect to be in a better position to understand the nature of the world, the way in which it is organized, and his or her position within the greater whole. “The
more we think of God as someone like us, but more powerful and knowledgeable, the more we go astray. God is radically dissimilar from us, and when we come to wonder what role providence plays in our individual lives we must free ourselves from the model of servants and masters. Virtuous people cannot expect to be rewarded in the way that valuable servants might tent to expect to be rewarded.”20 To summarize Rambam’s main points regarding suffering, evil, and human existence, we can say that God is perfect, unchanging and static, and created the world according to a hierarchy of natural laws. Human beings and the physical world which they occupy are made up of a material component, and by the very nature of the physical, are subject to growth, decay, and death. God endowed human beings with free will and choice, and the exercise of this free will can either serve to elevate us ever higher above our physical existence, or increase our suffering and the suffering we bring to our fellow human beings. By God’s very nature and the nature of creation, God is unable to intervene on our behalf in opposition to the natural laws that govern all of creation. God is radically different from us. If we believe in a God who is a being like us, just vastly more powerful and caring, we are bound to be disappointed and suffer with the knowledge that the wicked sometimes prosper while the virtuous suffer. Thus the purpose of prayer and supplication to God is not to entreat God’s intervention on our behalf, but rather to increase our knowledge and love of God, thereby elevating ourselves spiritually above our physical components which are the cause and perception of suffering. We must take responsibility for our own lives and strive to perfect ourselves by developing our abilities to reason and think intellectually. In contrast to Rambam, Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson through modern process theology holds a radically different view of creation and the nature of God, yet often arrives at similar conclusions with regards to suffering and evil. Process theology aims to strip away the philosophical influences of the
ancient Greek and medieval European thinkers that have become engrained in our western theological
20
“Evil and Suffering in Jewish Philosophy”, Leaman, pg. 73.
Page 7 of 19
models, allowing us to look again at our theologies through unclouded eyes.21 A major component that Rabbi Artson seeks to remove is the long accepted “omni” nature of God. A God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent is by definition all powerful, all knowing, and all good. Rabbi Artson challenges these notions of God based on many theological problems; not the least of which, and the subject of this paper, is the idea that if God is all powerful, then God is therefore responsible for all occurrences, good and bad. As Rabbi Artson points out, “A God who could have stopped ‘X’ but did not is a God with whom most of us want nothing to do.”22 Another challenge to the omnipotent view of God involves the nature of free will. Rabbi Artson argues that, due to the relational nature of power, if one has all of the power in a relationship, then by definition, the other party or parties to that relationship would necessarily have none of the power. Process theology questions how the acceptance of an all-knowing deity leaves us with any free will at all. If God knows for certain that I will do such and such a thing at such and such a time, am I truly free to do or not do the action or deed? Rabbi Artson takes this one step further, illustrating an even greater problem with an all-knowing God. “And if God knows the future absolutely, then God also knows God’s future choices absolutely. Such perfect foretelling strips God of any freedom as well…”23 How does Rabbi Artson use process theology to separate God from these long held “omni” definitions? As we have seen, Rambam’s understanding of an all-powerful, perfect, static, and
unchanging God was linked to his concept of creation itself. So too Rabbi Artson, through process theology, links his understanding of a God who is not “omni” to his particular understanding of creation. In opposition to the long held perception of God as perfect and unchanging, and therefore somehow separate from creation, Rabbi Artson views God as a partner in an ongoing process of creation. Genesis states:
:
21
“Ba-Derekh: On the Way – A Presentation of Process Theology”, Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, as printed in Conservative Judaism, Volume 62, Fall-Winter 2010 – 2011, pg. 2 22 “Ba-Derekh: On the Way – A Presentation of Process Theology”, Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, pg. 3. 23 “Ba-Derekh: On the Way – A Presentation of Process Theology”, Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, pg. 4.
Page 8 of 19
– And the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water – Genesis 1:224 Rabbi Artson shows from this verse that creation has not always been understood ex-nihilo, but rather, Judaism can authentically understand creation as ex material; the organization of what was and is already existent. The idea is that the
(often translated as chaos) and the
(the deep) have
always existed. As Rabbi Artson teaches, “The simple meaning of Genesis 1 is that there is a pre-existent darkness and chaos. The tehom, the chaos, already exists, bubbly, uncontainable, and undomesticated. God’s creative act is not the special effect of something from nothing, but the steady hesed (loving kindness) of converting chaos into cosmos.”25 In presenting this view of creation, Rabbi Artson is removing the “need” for us to view God as the all-powerful, immutable and perfect entity as perceived in dominant philosophies for centuries. Since
everything was already in existence, and science now shows that all matter is in a natural state of motion and interaction, we no longer require an Unmoved Mover or Prime Cause to explain creation. God is still a vastly, inconceivably powerful force, but need not be all powerful and unchanging. Additionally, the ever present existence of the “bubbling” chaos allows us to easily see that God is not the cause of the suffering and evil in the world, but rather a persistent and powerful force keeping it at bay. Rabbi Artson takes this one step further. He argues that if one took the same ingredients repeatedly and processed them using the same methods, one would expect similar results over and over again. But this is not what we observe in the cosmos. Over time, matter seems to organize itself into ever greater variety and complexity, even to the point of leading to life and self-awareness. Rabbi Artson reasons that it is God who is guiding, luring,
24 25
English translation from Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, PA 1999. “Almighty? No Way! Coming to Know the God We Already Love” by Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, pg. 2.
Page 9 of 19
and coaxing matter and energy against the pull of the existent chaos towards this greater complexity and variety.26 It is interesting to note that from radically differing approaches, Rabbi Artson and Rambam both seem to escape the conclusion that God is responsible for all of the bad as well as all of the good in the world. For Rabbi Artson, it is God’s non-omnipotence that relieves God of liability for not directly acting against suffering and evil. For Rambam, it is the very nature of God’s perfection that paradoxically makes God incapable by definition of interceding directly with the affairs of mankind. For Rabbi Artson, chaos is ever-present, and therefore pain,
suffering, imperfection and evil are existent in that they have not yet been affected by the loving organization of God.27 “Evil is that aspect of reality not yet touched by God’s lure or that part of creation that ignores God’s lure.”28 This is not so dissimilar from Rambam’s belief that evil is the privation or lack of something good or positive. Both thinkers seem to agree that evil did not need to be created by God, but rather exists due to the non-existence or non-intervention of some opposing force. Both thinkers also point out the subjective nature of what may be perceived as evil. As Rambam linked the process of life and death, so too does Rabbi Artson. “Much of what we understand to be evil is the very source of dynamism and life. The fact that our planet is churning, so that the rocks do not settle in order of heaviness, but the heavy ones keep getting kicked up to the surface - that is why there is life on the surface.”29 Rabbi Artson goes on to say that even natural disasters, which may be seen as evil forces from some perspectives, are also driving forces for genesis, rebirth, and ever greater novelty and development.
26 27
“Ba-Derekh: On the Way – A Presentation of Process Theology”, Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, pg. 10. “Untrammeled Future: Freedom and Becoming”, by Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, pg. 2. 28 “Ba-Derekh: On the Way – A Presentation of Process Theology”, Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, pg. 20. 29 “Ba-Derekh: On the Way – A Presentation of Process Theology”, Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, pg. 20.
Page 10 of 19
We will see more similarities with Rambam as we further explore Rabbi Artson’s understanding of suffering and the human condition.
Rabbi Artson seems to agree and even call upon Rambam’s discourse on the 3 main causes of suffering in the world. The first aspect is the fact that we and the world contain physical matter, and are therefore subject to growth and decay. As Rabbi Artson points out, “it is the nature of material reality to come into being, to grow and flourish for a time, and to then fall apart prior to going out of existence.”30 In much the same way as held by Rambam, Rabbi Artson reasons that decay and death are inextricably linked to the fact that we are even born at all. It is in the very nature of our physical existence. All matter is governed by natural law and much of what we now understand about quantum mechanics shows that everything exists in a state of probability. Something may or may not occur. Due to the vastness of existence and probability, there is a good deal of chance that operates, causing diversions and variety; sometimes varieties that we perceive as evil. Take a still-born child for instance. Under a different theology, one may wonder “why would God do this to
me?”
According to process theology, we can understand that it was not God that caused that sad birth, but rather the physical nature of existence, and the various possibilities and probabilities inherent in it. We are freed from trying to understand why we are being punished, or what possible reason would God have in God’s grand scheme of things. We can instead allow ourselves, through the pain of that loss, to try and feel God’s persistent love and support through even the most painful of times. “Instead of shielding ourselves from death, we can understand the end of physical existence as an intrinsic part of life, one with value for ourselves, our progeny, and our planet.”31
30 31
“Ba-Derekh: On the Way – A Presentation of Process Theology”, Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, pg. 21. “To Dust You Shall Return: Our Alienation from Death and the World” by Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson.
Page 11 of 19
Like Rambam, Rabbi Artson holds that a large part of human suffering and evil is due to our own often less than ideal exercise of free will. Every day we make choices that affect ourselves, our fellow inhabitants of the planet, and the world in which we live. Through greed and lack of self-control, we often make choices that have ill affects upon our health and wellbeing. Additionally, through greed and self-serving agendas, we often impose our will upon and to the detriment of innocent others.32 The ability to make these choices is a necessary by-product of free will. “There is no one who will clean up after us. There is no one who will prevent us from hurting each other or being harmed by other people’s bad choice. We are on our own. The world has been given to us, and it is ours to determine how it will fare.”33 Both Rambam and Rabbi Artson view human beings as possessing free will, though Rabbi Artson arrives at free will differently. As stated earlier, for one to be all powerful, another must be completely without power. Rabbi Artson believes that in creation, God “did irrevocable tzimtzum (withdrawal)” in which God lessened God’s power to enter into a truly interactive relationship with us and with the rest of creation. By ceding some power, God has given us true agency over ourselves and to some extent over creation itself. We are in a brit (covenant) with God; true partners in the on-going process of creation.34 But God is always with us, along for the ride to offer advice as we navigate the courses of our lives. This is the Divine Lure. God’s power is not coercive, but rather suggestive. According to Rabbi Artson, just as God lures matter in the process of creation, God lures us along the paths that will lead to the best possible outcomes given our individual situations. Throughout our lives, we are constantly faced with choices. Rabbi Artson argues that God is persistently present every step of the way, inviting us
32 33
“Ba-Derekh: On the Way – A Presentation of Process Theology”, Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, pg. 21. “Untrammeled Future: Freedom and Becoming”, by Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, pg. 3. 34 “God is Becoming: Consolation in the Face of Tragedy” by Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, as printed in The Oasis Newsletter SPAFER, Winter 2009, pg. 5.
Page 12 of 19
to make the best choices we can. When a choice has been made (either for better or worse), we are once again faced with more choices based upon the previous choices we have made, and once again, God is with us, luring us towards the most positive choice. In his “Almighty? No Way!”, Rabbi Artson clearly and cleverly compares God’s lure to using a GPS in our cars. As we approach a crossroads, the GPS will suggest which way to direct the car to efficiently reach our destination. If we opt to take that advice the GPS will offer the next suggestion when we reach the next crossroad. But if we choose not to take the direction given, the GPS will calmly and unemotionally recalculate our route and then offer the next suggestion based upon our previous choice and present location. Like the GPS, God does not get angry, does not coerce, and does not punish us for making decisions against God’s advice. But God is always there with us, luring us, should we choose to accept. A beautiful off-shoot of Rabbi Arson’s view of a changing, less than all-powerful God is not only are we affected by God’s existence, we have the ability to affect God with our existence. This is characteristic of a true partnership; the partnership of creation conceived in process theology. Creation is not static, nor are we. Humans are collections of atoms and atomic particles that interact with everything around us. “On a molecular and even a biological level, we also interact with our environment; inhaling air, ingesting food, absorbing heat or cold, sweating, defecating, shedding hair and skin.”35 We are engaged in a constant give and take with the universe and absolutely have an effect on everything else that is. In this light, and with the
perception of a changing God who has partnered with us in creation, it is reasonable to assume that our actions and thoughts can and do have an effect on God. According to Rabbi Artson, God possesses the knowledge of everything that can be known up until right now. Everything that occurs and everything that we do is added to God’s collective knowledge. We are adding to
35
“Ba-Derekh: On the Way – A Presentation of Process Theology”, Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, pg. 7.
Page 13 of 19
the divine presence. “God shares the experiences of all creatures, and is experienced by all creatures.”36 Jewish tradition and theology most definitely support this view. Rabbi Artson
reminds us of the many instances in the Torah where God expresses emotion, is engaged in an interactive relationship with humankind, and open to course change based on this relationship. While Rabbi Arson’s philosophy clearly shares aspects with Rambam, there are profound differences. Where might Rabbi Artson’s Process Theology challenge Rambam, how would Rambam respond, and how would Rambam challenge Rabbi Artson’s philosophy? An obvious place to begin is with the concept of an omnipotent God. If God were omnipotent, why wouldn’t an omnipotent God either create no creatures at all, or create perfect creatures that are insusceptible to pain and suffering? I think that Rambam would answer that God could have if God wanted to. “The
point of creating creatures which inevitably experience pain for at least some of their lives is to give them the possibility of transforming their situation by the use of their own intellect and will and thereby increasing as a result of their own efforts in their individual perfection.”37 It is through the understanding of loss that we experience triumph, through the knowledge of pain that we appreciate pleasure, and from the knowledge of inequity that we are motivated to pursue justice. Problematically, this type of answer may skate dangerously close to the “mystery” answer that is so often given in religion: There is a purpose to our suffering; whether to teach us a lesson or simply to improve us as beings. When we say that God has reasons for a young girl dying at the hand of a drunk driver, we are no longer engaging in philosophy and seeking answers to life’s most difficult questions. Rambam explains in Book 3, chapters 13 and 14 of his Guide for the Perplexed the vastness of the universe of which we as human beings only occupy a small space. “God contemplates the universe from the standpoint of eternal laws, and to think He is directly responsible for events like rainstorms,
36 37
“Ba-Derekh: On the Way – A Presentation of Process Theology”, Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, pg. 10. “Evil and Suffering in Jewish Philosophy”, Leaman, pg. 70.
Page 14 of 19
traffic mishaps, or crop-failures is sheer folly.”38 Rambam would direct us to seek greater understanding of the divine structure of the universe, not merely particular aspects of its complex organization. “If we
examine the structure of the universe as a whole we find it is replete with order and grace, according to Maimonides, as befits the creation of a rational deity.”39 God is therefore concerned with the overall
order of the universe which is based upon natural laws. The creation of humankind is on the whole perfect, even if individual components contained within it are not. This is not because God is seeking to punish and reward. God’s power is not coercive. Rabbi Artson might also challenge Rambam, in light of the greater scientific knowledge that we now possess, that God need not be the all-powerful entity as previously understood. With our knowledge of quantum mechanics, we know that the natural state of all matter is to be in motion, and therefore we no longer need to conceive of God as the Unmoved Mover. Would this cause Rambam to rethink his position? Knowing what I do about him as a great and open-minded thinker, I have to believe that he would do all he could to learn what was available to learn. Though as we discussed earlier, Rambam considered several possibilities for creation. Rambam reasons, whether God created the world from
nothing, or created the world from existent matter, something must have begun everything as we know it now. To quote again, “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 being must have created 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.”40 In Rambam’s view, no matter the way the universe originated, God must be perfect, and a perfect entity, by definition, must be unchanging. Even with the knowledge that all matter
38
39 40
“Maimonides: A Guide for Today’s Perplexed” by Kenneth Seeskin, Behrman House, Inc., West Orange, NJ, 1991, pg.60. “Evil and Suffering in Jewish Philosophy”, Leaman, pg. 77. “The Guide of the Perplexed of Maimonides”, Book I, chapter LXXII, pg. 285.
Page 15 of 19
is in a natural state of motion, we would still need some power that either created that matter, or enacted the natural state of motion. I believe that Rambam would challenge Rabbi Artson to show how he can conceive of a God who is less than perfect, less than all-knowing and less than all-powerful. In another challenge to the all-knowing God of Rambam, Rabbi Artson might question the notion of free will and how it could be possible with a God who knows not only everything that is, but everything that will be. What happens to the concept of free will if God knows for certain what we are going to do before we do it? How am I free to act as I choose if God already knows and has planned for my actions? Here Rambam must take a leap that I am not completely convinced bridges the gap. He quotes Rabbi Akiva saying “Everything is foreseen, yet freedom of choice is given.” (Avot 3:19) This seems to be saying that although God knows exactly what is going to happen, we are still not compelled to act in any certain way. A major basis for Rambam’s theology and theodicy seems to be the radically different nature of God. “As to the solution of this problem, understand that ‘the measure thereof is longer than the earth and wider than the sea’ (Job 11:19), and many important principles of the highest sublimity are connected with it. You, however, need only to know and comprehend what I am about to say. In the second chapter of the Laws Relating to the Fundamental Principles of the Torah, we have already explained that God does not know with knowledge external to Himself, like human beings whose knowledge and self are separate entities, but He, blessed be His Name, and His knowledge are One.”41 Here, Rambam argues that divine foreknowledge does not interfere with human freedom because divine knowledge is different from human knowledge. It seems as though Rambam is saying that if one person’s future decisions could be actually known by another human being, it would indeed create a problem for the former’s freedom. But God is not a human being and therefore God’s knowledge is not at all like our knowledge. Because of this, God’s foreknowledge of human decisions does not interfere with our free will. Rabbi Artson supports the notion of a changing God with Torah accounts of God’s emotions and willingness to change course based on interactions with humans. I believe that Rambam would argue that
41
“Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Teshuva, Laws of Repentance”, Maimonides, Chapter 5:5.
Page 16 of 19
these descriptions are allegories used to define a God who is so radically different than anything we can comprehend that language fails us (something I believe Rabbi Artson would fully agree with), and therefore not necessarily proof of a mutable God. In much the same way that Rambam makes a case for the corporeal nature of God in the Torah as allegory, so too would he argue these emotional and changeable characteristics of God. When the Torah describes God’s outstretched arm, we are not to take this to mean that God literally has an arm. In response, Rabbi Artson might challenge Rambam to seek to read our texts with a fresh set of eyes that are not influenced by what we may believe to be logical and true through existent philosophical models. I would like to interject my own personal challenges to both of these great thinkers and philosophical models. One question I would have for Rambam would be related to his understanding of a God who knows all things; past, present and future. If God knows for certain all things that will be, could and would not a just God create miracles (at the time of emanation so as not to contradict the concept of static perfection) that would work within the natural laws of creation, and “program” them to “enact” at the proper time to save millions from the injustice of others? Could this not be an explanation of miracles as chronicled in the Torah such as the parting of the sea? And if God’s omniscience allowed God to foresee the pursuit of Pharaoh, would that foreknowledge not also allow God to be aware of Hitler’s plans? Why would not a just, loving, and omnipotent God emanate at the time of creation some intercession and program it to enact at the appropriate time to save the death of millions of innocents? Along similar lines, I might challenge Rabbi Artson as well. I understand that according to process theology, God possesses perfect knowledge of all that has been, but does not possess definite knowledge of what will be. God’s knowledge of the future would be, like our own, predictive and based upon probability, though vastly more powerful than our own. If God possesses this vast and
unfathomable knowledge, God’s predictive and probability-based knowledge of the future would also have to be vast and beyond our comprehension. Could not a knowledge this great predict, at least, the major forces of evil that will occur, and could not God then “lure” other beings and aspects of creation towards counteracting them? Page 17 of 19
To take this one step further, it has been discussed in process theology that God lures not only beings, but all of creation towards a greater good. God does this through natural forces. But God is mutable and changes along with creation. God lures matter into more organized units, creating planets, stars, and galaxies in an on-going process. The ultimate good obviously concerns something much larger than any individual human’s existence. And does not the divine lure change with every choice we make or situation we are in? A God who is affected by everything that occurs is a God who can react. Could we not view miraculous acts in the Torah as the divine lure acting upon matter as well at choice? It has been shown that science and natural laws can explain certain miracles written about in the Torah. Returning to the parting of the sea, it has been postulated that a perfect confluence of several possible physical characteristics could have created what was perceived as a miracle. A receding storm surge, coupled with a well-timed and powerful wind, at the point where the sea was particularly shallow, etc., could have all occurred within natural laws to create a parting of the sea. Is it possible to assume that this was God luring creation towards God’s will of a greater good and still fall within the bounds of Rabbi Artson’s process thought? And if this is so, why would not God enact similar “legal” miracles to save the millions who have been slaughtered since then? This need not require omniscience, omnipotence, or the breaking of any natural laws. I would also question both Rabbi Artson and Rambam as to how we can know what divine lure, or God’s will truly is. Both agree that our perception of evil is subjective. So whose perception is true and correct? Granted, in extreme cases such as 1.5 million slaughtered babies, it would be rather easy to get consensus. But on the other hand, it is my belief that truly evil people do not view themselves as evil. Most believe that what they are doing is right and justified. One might argue that they are following the divine lure as they perceive it. Since we are defining the divine lure and the notion of good and evil as subjective, are we not possibly opening up a world of excuse for injustice? Much wisdom can be gained from studying these two great thinkers, as well as the philosophies of others. My own theological journey is in its infancy as I struggle with the questions that have been with humankind through the ages. In regards to evil and suffering, I have never been able to simply Page 18 of 19
accept that it is all part of God’s plan. This answer has always seemed weak to me and somehow letting religion and God off the hook far too easily. At the same time, I have never been able to put my faith and love in a God who has the power to head off the great evils of the world, yet chooses not to. For better or worse, this only leaves me with a God who is unable to intervene. Is this inability due to absolute perfection, or due to a lack of absolute power? I have always found myself leaning towards process theology, long before I hear it, read of it, or even knew of the term. I have felt instinctually that the universe “wants” to behave in a certain way. We can adjust our paths to align with the natural flow of things, or we can try to swim against the currents. I have also never been able to view God as separate from creation; the great power looking down from a throne of glory that religious dogma had taught me. Perhaps this is why I purposely avoided religion for most of my adult life. But if I view God as one with the universe, vastly powerful yes, but still a part of and constrained by a universe that wishes to proceed along certain courses and laws, I can begin to engage myself on a deeper level with the teachings and profound meanings of a religious life. I have had many “religious” experiences. Those moments when that tingle envelopes my body, I get a lump in my throat, a tear in my eye, and I can feel, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the existence, warmth and love of God. As I mature, I know that I do not have to understand my religion in any literal or dogmatic way, superimposing someone else’s definition of truth on what I feel to be true. I have experienced loss and pain as well. If one believes in God, it seems to be culturally engrained to question why God would do such and such a thing, or allow so and so to suffer. I find great comfort in the notion that God cannot cause, nor prevent evil or suffering, but rather is relentlessly, persistently with us and within us, giving us the strength, love, and guidance to live our lives in the best ways possible. Ultimately, I don’t believe it is possible for our limited human capacity to every fully comprehend God and God’s creation. Philosophy, logic, science, and religion can only take us so far, and at the end of the day we must put it all down and take a leap of faith.
Page 19 of 19