Contemporary approaches to divine providence and free will

Rabbanit Yemima Mizrachi, Divine Providence or Free Will?

Divine providence wins out over human free will: Mizrachi grounds her approach in the classic texts, especially the talmudic idea that “everything is in the hands of heaven except the fear of heaven.” Like Rambam, she lays out the tension between what is known to God and what is human choice. While some approaches are willing to avoid answering the question by arguing that God is completely other (like the Rambam in the unit “Hashgacha – Divine Providence”), and others are willing to limit God’s knowledge (Ralbag), Mizrachi is willing to compromise on the true and complete free will available to human beings.

Humans have the potential for good and God guides them in this way:  Further, while Ramchal held up free will as an absolute (in the unit “Free will – what is it and do we really have it?”), arguing that humans have no propensity for good or for evil, Mizrachi believes there is always a propensity for good, even if it is just a slight one. For Mizrachi, one cannot speak about true free choice because God directs each person to do good, to do what is right. One can, though, choose to ignore that guide and go the wrong way, just as one does not have to follow the instructions provided by Waze. But when one does that, just as Waze moves to recalculate and provide new directions based on a person’s choice, so too in life, after a person has made their choice, God comes back and continues to guide the person down the path they selected.

Rabbi Noach Weinberg, Free Will – Our Greatest Power

Human free will is being in the image of God: Weinberg alludes to what it means to be created in God’s image and posits that having free will is what makes humankind the image of God. Other species have the option of choosing that which they prefer, but they do not have free will as defined by Weinberg.

Free will is not choosing a preference but rather choosing a moral choice: What is preference and what is free will? For Weinberg, differentiating between free will and preference is important. Choosing red over blue is a matter of personal preference; it has no moral tone or quality attached to it. But what characterizes free will is the aspect of morality involved in the given choice.

Every person believes they are choosing “good”: And what defines that moral tone in a given choice? Is it because the choice contains a good option and a bad option? Weinberg argues that no. Good and bad are not what defines a choice as being moral. This is because, in his view, no one ever chooses bad or evil options; everyone always chooses to be “good” (compare to Mizrachi above). The problem is that people define what is good differently. What is good or evil in the eyes of one, may not be good or evil in the eyes of another. 

If good and evil are not what makes a choice moral, so what then does make a choice moral? Wherein lies the morality of the Jew? Weinberg does not state the answer clearly, but he may be implying an answer when he says, “free will is the choice between life and death. As the Torah says: ‘I have put before you, life and death… Choose life.’” How does one choose life? It is by following the laws the Torah established. It seems that for Weinberg what marks something as being moral is its being an action or a choice commanded by the Torah. Doing what the Torah tells one to do is essentially the moral thing to do, and one has free will to choose to follow what the Torah says.

Rabbi Elizabeth Dunsker, Dream to Reality

The consequence of free will: Dunsker introduces an important and significant word to the discussion of free will and God’s omniscience – “consequences.” It is in the nature of the world that one action will generate a reaction, and that reaction is a consequence of the former. If a person sticks a fork into a socket, the likelihood of being electrocuted is high. Is the universe punishing a person for sticking a fork into the socket? Some may see things in that way, but another perspective realizes that the electric shock is not a punishment, simply a consequence of one’s behavior.

Sins, or bad choices as she calls them, too have consequences, argues Dunsker. And in the same way that a person can choose to stick a fork into the socket despite awareness of the consequences, so too a person can choose to sin, even though there are consequences for this action as well. That there are consequences to one’s actions does not in and of itself guarantee a specified outcome. Therefore, free will is assured despite God’s knowledge.

Critiques of this approach: Dunsker’s attempt to reconcile the existence of human free will alongside divine omniscience does hit a couple of “snags.” Her argument that “We have complete free will. Also, God knows which choices we are going to make and maintains hope that we will make the better choices,” seems contradictory. 

Another critique of Dunsker’s stand is in her example of the speeding ticket. What allows people to speed is the fact that it is far from certain that a person will get a speeding ticket at any point in time. Given the odds of receiving a speeding ticket, many people will speed. If the certainty of a ticket is raised, speeding is considerably reduced. Consider the behavior of most drivers when passing a location known to have a speedcam. Once the location of the camera is certain, people react to speeding on that stretch of road much in the same way as they do to sticking a fork into a socket. It is thought by many that God’s reaction to a person’s bad choice would be more like sticking a fork into a socket – the certainty of it is guaranteed. If certainty is guaranteed, free will becomes limited.

Dunsker could respond to this critique in two ways: 1. God’s reaction is far from certain. It is not at all clear how and when God will react to a person’s bad choice. Perhaps God may even choose to lessen the consequence of a given behavior in certain circumstances because of any assorted number of reasons. 2. Given that some people choose to be rebellious and they will speed even though a police officer is present, and so too people will make bad choices even though God “is watching,” it means that for everyone, despite God’s knowledge, people still have the choice of  what to do and free will exists.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Free Will

Teshuvah demonstrates the existence of free will: Sacks states here what was already said in the analysis to Rambam’s writing (in the unit Hashgacha – Divine Providence“) that teshuvah demonstrates the existence of free will. One difference between Rambam and Sacks should be pointed out. Rambam speaks of personality traits and Sacks speaks of specific behaviors. That a person can change from being a stingy person to being a charitable individual demonstrates free will. That a person opts not to give charity in one situation and then opts to give charity in another situation may or may not reflect free will, because their choices in both cases could very well be driven by circumstances – in one case they have time, money, or they are not overburdened with other thoughts that kept them from giving charity the first time around. Alternatively, a person may be opposed to giving charity, but will succumb to peer pressure to make a donation. Is the individual act of making a donation a mitzvah? It may be. Is it an act of free will? Not necessarily (compare to Dunsker, Text 11 above). In any event, it would seem that even if one has no freedom to choose, it does not mean they will make the same choice each time, because what compels them in each situation may differ.

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, The Longer Short Way: Discourses on Chasidic Thought

Humanity links creation to the Divine Creator: Steinsaltz sees the human being as the only created part of the universe that links or bridges the divine and the created (for illustrative purposes, humans are at the point the two triangles touch).

The behavior of humans through free choices justifies creation: But that is not the only role human beings play. By playing the role properly, human beings can affect both sides, the created world on the one hand, and the divine on the other. If a human being acts in a way that is right and proper, a human being can “[justify] the emanation of all the worlds” and “[give] the creative process a meaning.” And it is in this that the human being demonstrates what may be the most unique aspect of their creation – the ability to choose. No other being in the created universe has been given the possibility to choose. 

Human potential for holiness: That humans have the potential to lift themselves up to holiness is an idea engrained in Jewish tradition. That by lifting themselves up to holiness, they can also uplift the rest of the created world is also an idea that is known. What may be new to some learners in Steinsaltz’s articulation here is the confirmation of the existence of a set divine plan for the world that can be changed by human engagement. “Only man has the freedom to choose and to change the otherwise fixed course of events.” Two examples of this may be God’s decision to wipe out all of the Israelites that was reversed by Moshe’s plea (Shemot 32:10–11), and the idea that that although God does have a date upon which to bring the mashiach into the world, human action can work to make that happen at an even earlier time (Tractate Sanhedrin 98a).

Viktor Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning

Humans will always be free to choose how to react: Having had everything taken away from him (see background to Viktor Frankel that precedes the text), Frankl focuses on the fact that human beings will always have a choice; maybe not a choice of what to eat or how to dress, maybe not even how to live – choices not given to concentration camp prisoners, but they will have a choice, and that is the choice of how to react to life. One cannot influence the way another acts, but one can control the way one reacts. 

Frankl’s comment brings to mind Rabbi Chanina’s statement that all is in the hands of God (or “heaven” as he put it) other than one’s fear of God (Tractate Berakhot 33b). What it all boils down to for Rabbi Chanina is the choice of fearing God or not, following in God’s dictates or not (see Weinberg above). Rabbi Chanina gets to the essence of what one’s free will is all about. Frankl is doing the same, even if his concise remark does not have the same focus as Rabbi Chanina, in his utterance, Frankl gets to the essence of what free will is all about.

Limited free will: It is true that there is no absolute free will for people. Some may wish to climb Mount Everest, and they are simply not able to for numerous reasons. Others may wish simply to go to school in safety and to come home in one piece, and that too is not possible for all. Life limits a person’s ability to act on their choices. But there is one thing for Frankl that is always in the hands of the person – how to react to what happens to a person in their life. Whether to react to life with good or evil thoughts and actions will always be a choice each individual can and must make.

Rabbi Noach Weinberg, Free Will – Our Greatest Power