Skip to main content

Chance and Probability

Text file

    

            Do you remember the insurance investigator from last week's lecture?  Perhaps his chemical research is not as absurd and superfluous as it originally appeared.  He can make use of it to ask what the chances are that such a fire would occur by accident.  Essentially, this is the question of probability.  However, probability theory teaches us something additional, a very significant lesson about theories in general.  Although we are discussing the probability of occurrences, we can apply what we learn to the probability of theories as well.  Bayesian statistics informs us of the following fact: if according to your theory, the probability that a particular occurrence will take place is a thousand to one, and it does take place, this means that the probability that your theory is correct is  a thousand to one.  In other words, we can note the probability of the theory itself, and according to its success, predict what will happen.  If according to the theory of evolution the probability of man appearing is very slight, that means that if man does exist, then the probability of this theory being true is equally slight. 

 

            Various thinkers have tried to give a quantitative expression to the question of probability.  However, it seems to me that a quantitative expression would actually weaken the direct experience of reality.  The essence of things is what is important here and not their quantity.  Let me explain: the evolutionary approach is based upon the principle of transition from simple beings to more and more complex ones.  The development of scientific equipment has shown that the complexity of the most elemental cell is not much inferior to that of man in his entirety.  The cell is not an amorphous "piece of flesh," a collection of chemical materials which possesses chance characteristics.  It is closer to a complex and highly organized system.  One might say that the cell resembles a city more than it resembles any object from our daily life.  It has a power plant, libraries for information and groups of laborers.  The concept of the simple and complex is a simplistic one.  Already at the outset, the wisdom that is so apparent in the bigger things can be clearly perceived.  The stars and constellations are not alone when they proclaim the glory of God; divine wisdom is evident at what seem to be much lower levels of sophistication.  If this is true, then the parable of the watch is misleading.  The sundial is much simpler than the spring watch.  The most primitive life forms are more similar to a wondrous digital watch than to  a sundial, even one that evolved by chance. 

 

            When we make the transition from chemistry to life, the reality becomes even more remarkable.  If we were dealing with a small number of conditions that make life possible, the Darwinian theory of evolution would be reasonable.  However today we know that the number of conditions necessary to make life possible is enormous.  Could it possibly have occurred by chance?  The chance of the world evolving by coincidence is like the chance of winning the lottery, or guessing the outcome of a throw of dice.  If  I have to guess one number out of six, my chances of winning would be reasonable.  But the more complex the gamble, the less likely I am to win.  As we become aware of the enormous complexity of life, the possibility that life would appear by chance becomes completely unreasonable.  The very fact that life exists becomes more and more remarkable; in other words it becomes a proof that someone planned it all.

 

            Let us return to the example of the watches; it can teach us something from a different angle.  All watches serve the same purpose; they measure time.  We can see how water watches or hourglasses developed, and sometimes these developments are the results of chance occurrences, or even of mistakes that certain designers made, which later turned out to be better ideas than the intentional ones.  We can also think of the progression from the large watches enjoyed by Louis XVI before his decapitation, to small spring watches, which we all wore up until a few years ago.  We would be mistaken if we overlooked the fact that the history of watches is not fully explained by its natural development, but must also include the fact that every so often a revolution takes place.  There is an fundamental difference between the regular spring watch and the digital watch.  Here an intelligent element interfered with the "natural" development, and thus caused a revolution.  Just as with the transition from the hourglass to the water watch, or from the sundial to the spring watch, the transition that we have witnessed with our very eyes with the appearance of the digital watch hints at the existence of great revolutions caused by an outside factor who intervenes in the process.  Evolution does function according to the Darwinian method, and the watch which is most suited to the market will remain while the others disappear.  However beyond this process there is another process, one of true innovation.  Every so often a new invention appears, and it enters the evolutionary process and revolutionizes it.  Rav Kook described the case accurately when he said that the theory of evolution is correct in assuming the existence of all the middle stages, of all the possibilities.  But it must add, Rav Kook claims, another option, the mutation, which is no less than a jump into a new reality. 

 

            These jumps constitute great riddles that cannot be solved with the standard explanations.  The appearance of plants, the appearance of life, the appearance of intelligence and the appearance of language are such mutations, which create fundamental differences which themselves are parallel to Rihal's division of reality into levels of existence.  If we add the riddle of the appearance of matter, then we have before us four beginnings that are parallel to Rihal's categories of animal, vegetable, mineral and human.  The appearance of religion is also a revolution which, perhaps, cannot be explained according to the earlier principles, and brings us, in a sense, to Rihal's fifth level of existence.  In short: beyond the evolutionary development there exists a factor which intervenes and effects change in our reality. 

 

            I repeat, I do not claim that the mechanisms of the theory of evolution do not operate.  They do, and it is very possible that we can learn much about the emergence of life from this theory.  However, I deny that these things could have happened by chance.  Would the scientist who believes in evolution be willing to play cards against a gambler who is dealt cards with the same luck as the development of life?  If it were me, I would conclude that there were trick cards or some other kind of deception.  Or perhaps, that this gambler had supernatural powers. 

 

            There are forces in the world that function as God's messengers.  There is a hidden power that functions through chance.  The appearance of life, creation and divine providence appear and exist in our world with the miraculous powers of that lucky gambler.

 

            The probability of life appearing on earth is close to  zero.  The whole of life can be seen as a defiant response to the theory of probability.  One could theoretically argue that the chances of winning the lottery are just as slight, and yet people do win the lottery.  This seems like a good question, but the answer is clear.  The two cases are different.  The comparison itself is erroneous.  Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz once put it well: the chance of winning the lottery is not zero but one, in other words, it is certain.  In order to understand what he said, we must remember that the lottery is built in such a way that if we had bought all the combinations, we would definitely win.  This is not the case with the appearance of life, which is statistically absurd.  Let us imagine a million people buying lottery tickets, while the lottery machine contains additional infinite random combinations which do not appear on the tickets.  The probability of someone winning the lottery would then be zero.  The chance of explaining life through examining physics, chemistry and biology, is impossible.  It is simply too coincidental to be a coincidence.

 

Divine Providence

 

            We can now glance historically at the issue of evolution.  As we have seen, Rihal did not want to present his Jewish calling card at a natural or cosmic event, such as creation, but rather in history; he chose to present it at the exodus from Egypt.  The exodus from Egypt teaches us about what classical Jewish thought has called hashgacha pratit [individual, or personal providence].  In the issue of evolution we are reminded of the importance of another concept: hashgacha klalit [general providence].  The theory of evolution in its atheistic form battles with the belief in general providence, against the recognition of God's hand in nature. 

 

The Emperor's New Clothes

 

            There is a word of Greek origin, which is periodically thrown at anyone who is involved in Jewish philosophy and attempting to answer eternal or contemporary philosophical questions: apologetics.  The dictionary definition of apologetics is "advocacy, words of justification or defense."  Whether we want it or not, apologetics create a sort of philosophical tool which man uses to defend a particular position from which he is unwilling either to retreat or to progress.  This lethargy stems from an intellectual fatigue, a lack of initiative, or other psychological reasons.  Apologetics is a word that is used to throw darts at a man who is unable to see reality as it is, and tries to explain it through various methods of escape.

 

            All this is true here as well: the use of the term evolution is an example of anti religious apologetics.  It sees many things that do indeed exist, but like the word nature, it constitutes a sort of defense line or escape route that people use.  As the Chaver succinctly put it, it is the hope of simple people, who think that somewhere there are wise experts who can provide support for the threadbare phrases that we use.  Nature and evolution are examples of those phrases, and regarding them the Kuzari said, "This is one of the powers" - and perhaps we might add, one of the processes - "that the wise men know of.  We do not  understand its essence, but there is no doubt that the wise people know its essence."  This "no doubt" is the basis for the peace of mind which many people feel when approaching a discussion of these issues.  However this "no doubt" is completely false.  With regard to those experts the Chaver said, "Their knowledge of it is no greater than our own."  This dependence on experts who have the solutions in their hands is actually a religious position in disguise, naivete or pretended naivete.  It is not far, in its powers of explanation, from the statement of that wise man who said that opium induces sleep because it has a sleep inducing quality. 

 

            The Kuzari had to respond to this explanation.  He responds not to the discussion itself but rather to "faith" and the dependence upon the wise men.  This dependence has psychological rules of its own.  For example, if a man were to go to a park and see a bench with a sign on it that says "wet paint," it is very possible that his natural inclination would be to put his finger on the bench to ascertain that the bench is indeed wet.  In contrast, if he were to read in the paper that a green creature had arrived on earth in a shining spaceship he would often be inclined to believe it.  The difference between what a person will believe and what he will not believe is a psychological difference that we must account for.  Of course we must at times depend on some scientific positions, and this is the basis for scientific tradition.  However the dependence on an answer that exists out there but is not in myself, is trap set by the evil inclination.

 

            The scope and complexity of science in our day no longer permit us to be encyclopedists, experts in all field.  However despite everything, we must judge the judges, investigate the investigators and critique the critics.  The deciding question that we must ask is whether their positions in the various areas are scientifically self-evident, or are they only results of fashion and the prevailing mood.  Perhaps their source is not in their own area of expertise, but beyond the boundaries of that field, and must therefore be classified as religious or philosophical claims, not scientific ones.  Perhaps the Kuzari's approach to this issue can be defined as a philosophical interpretation of the emperor's new clothes.  On many occasions the emperor does wear royal garb; however sometimes, and such is our case when he discusses the problems of nature and evolution, the innocent child is right when he cries out that the emperor is wearing nothing at all.

 

(This lecture was translated by Gila Weinberg.)

 

Copyright (c)1997 Prof.  Shalom Rosenberg, Yeshivat Har Etzion.  All rights reserved.

 

This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!