Finding God in Natural Law

Is R' Hirsch's vision of nature still as powerful 200 years later?

Years ago I encountered the “problem” of natural law. Specifically, it was the question of why natural laws are so predictable and reliable. Here’s an excellent formulation of the question I recently came across in the book The Science in Torah by the late Professor Yehudah (Leo) Levi (page 78):

I well remember the opening session of a university course on mechanics;. The professor entered the classroom and asked the following question: “A body in motion remains in uniform motion until a force acts on it. Why?”

…We racked our brains, until one student burst out, “That’s Newton’s first law!” The professor said, “Indeed it is; but why did objects behave that way before Newton passed his law?”

…Finally the professor said, “I want you to know that physics has no answer to this question. It is outside the realm of science, and we are not dealing with these issues here.”

My own first exposure to the problem was probably from R’ Hirsch to Tehilim 19:6:

The Scriptures will have attained their end if man will refuse to listen to any attempts to explain away the equally irrefutable certainty that there can be no thought without a Thinker, no law without a Lawgiver.

It’s a compelling idea: there can be no law without a Lawgiver. But is it true?

I thought it might be helpful to ask for help from the smartest individual I know: ChatGPT Plus. I know it’s been a very long time since sharing AI conversations was cool. But I think this one is valuable in and of itself.

I began by asking for the latest academic thinking about why natural laws always work. Here’s the response I got:

---

The consistency in the behavior of the fundamental properties of matter across every instance is not arbitrary but is grounded in the deepest principles we've discovered about the universe. These principles include:

• Universality: The laws of physics are the same everywhere and at all times. This principle is deeply embedded in our observations of the universe and underpins the predictability of the behavior of matter.

• Symmetry: Many physical laws are derived from symmetry principles, which ensure consistent behavior across different situations.

• Quantization: The quantum nature of the universe, with discrete energy levels and quantized properties, leads to stable and predictable behavior of matter at microscopic scales.

While physics provides us with a framework for understanding the behavior of matter and energy, the ultimate source of these fundamental properties and why the universe should obey such laws and principles is still a matter of philosophical inquiry and scientific investigation. Some theories, like string theory and loop quantum gravity, attempt to delve deeper into these questions, seeking a more unified understanding of the fundamental forces and constituents of the universe. However, as of now, these remain among the most profound and intriguing questions in science, pointing toward the limits of our current understanding and the potential for new discoveries.

---

That’s not unlike what Professor Levi heard from his own teacher. I followed up with this question: “Is it possible to argue that the universality of these principles testify to the existence of a ‘lawgiver’?”

---

The question of whether the universality of physical laws suggests the existence of a "lawgiver" is a profound one that intersects science, philosophy, and theology. This question has been considered and debated by many thinkers, scientists, and theologians over centuries. The arguments and perspectives vary significantly depending on philosophical and theological viewpoints, as well as individual interpretations of scientific findings. Here are a few key considerations on the topic:

Scientific Perspective

From a strict scientific standpoint, the role of science is to observe, describe, and understand the natural world through empirical evidence and testable theories. Science seeks to explain how things work based on observable phenomena and experiments. While the consistency and universality of physical laws are remarkable and prompt deep questions about the origins and structure of the universe, science itself does not deal with metaphysical questions about why the universe exists or the reason behind the laws of physics. These questions are considered to be outside the scope of empirical science.

Philosophical Perspective

Philosophy explores questions that are often not confined to empirical evidence, including the nature of existence, knowledge, and reality. Philosophers have long debated the implications of the order and rationality observed in the universe. Some argue that the existence of universal laws suggests a rational order that points to the existence of a higher intelligence or lawgiver. Others contend that the universe may inherently possess these properties without the need for a divine lawgiver, proposing that the laws of physics could emerge from the properties of the universe itself.

Theological Perspective

Many religious traditions interpret the order and laws of the universe as evidence of a divine creator or lawgiver. In these views, the existence of universal, consistent laws governing the cosmos reflects the presence of a purposeful design and intelligence behind the universe. This perspective sees the harmony and order in nature as pointing to a higher power that established these laws.

Alternative Views

There are also alternative views that suggest the universe we observe, with its specific laws and constants, is just one of many possible universes—each with its own set of laws and constants. This "multiverse" hypothesis suggests that the properties of our universe are not necessarily unique but are simply the ones that allow for the existence of observers like ourselves. In this view, the universality of physical laws in our universe doesn't necessarily imply a lawgiver but could be a result of our universe being one of the many possible ones in which life could emerge.

Conclusion

The question of whether the universality of physical laws testifies to the existence of a "lawgiver" remains a deeply personal and complex one, intertwining empirical evidence with philosophical and theological interpretations. While science can describe how the universe works, the questions of why it exists in this way and whether there is a purpose or intention behind it often extend beyond the realm of scientific inquiry into philosophical and theological speculation.

---

I’m not necessarily impressed with the thinking behind various multiverse models. That’s not to say that I really understand them, but that by some of their own accounts, they’re driven by a preference for avoiding having to confront God as the creator. And that seems to leave us without a solid answer to the problem of natural law.

Unless R’ Hirsch’s observation remains correct.

What do you think?