Nobel Laureate Isaac B. Singer: Life Is GOD's Novel

administrator's picture
Submitted by administrator on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 22:33

Author/Compiler: Tihomir Dimitrov (http://nobelists.net; also see http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/issue/view/3)

ISAAC SINGER – NOBEL LAUREATE IN LITERATURE

Nobel Prize: Isaac Bashevis Singer (1904–1991) won the 1978 Nobel Prize in Literature “for his impassioned narrative art which, with roots in a Polish-Jewish cultural tradition, brings universal human conditions to life.”

Nationality: Polish; later American citizen

Education: Traditional Jewish education at the Warsaw Rabbinical Seminary

Occupation: Novelist, essayist, and journalist

♦♦♦

1. In his Nobel Lecture (8 December 1978, Les Prix Nobel 1978) Singer said:

“I can never accept the idea that the Universe is a physical or chemical accident, a result of blind evolution. Even though I learned to recognize the lies, the cliches and the idolatries of the human mind, I still cling to some truths which I think all of us might accept some day. There must be a way for man to attain all possible pleasures, all the powers and knowledge that nature can grant him, and still serve God - a God who speaks in deeds, not in words, and whose vocabulary is the Cosmos.” (Singer 1979).

2. “I’m a sceptic. I’m a sceptic about making a better world. When it comes to this business where you tell me that this-or-that regime, one sociological order or another, will bring happiness to people, I know that it will never work, call it by any name you want. People will remain people, and they have remained people under communism and all other kinds of ‘isms.’

But I’m not a sceptic when it comes to belief in God. I do believe. I always did. That there is a plan, a consciousness behind creation, that it’s not an accident.” (Singer, as cited in The Brothers Singer by Clive Sinclair, London, Allison and Busby, 1983, p. 30).

3. In his last interview (1987) Singer stated:

“God is behind everything. Even when we do things against him, he’s also there. No matter what. Like a father who sees his children doing a lot of silly things, bad things. He’s angry with them, he’s punishing them. At the same time, they’re his children.” (Singer, as cited in Green 1998).

4. “Man prays for mercy, but is unwilling to extend it to others. Why should man then expect mercy from God? It’s unfair to expect something that you are not willing to give. It is inconsistent.” (Singer, as cited in Rosen 1987).

5. “The serious writer of our time must be deeply concerned about the problems of his generation. He cannot but see that the power of religion, especially belief in revelation, is weaker today than it was in any other epoch in human history. More and more children grow up without faith in God, without belief in reward and punishment, in the immortality of the soul and even in the validity of ethics. The genuine writer cannot ignore the fact that the family is losing its spiritual foundation.

All the dismal prophecies of Oswald Spengler have become realities since the Second World War. No technological achievements can mitigate the disappointment of modern man, his loneliness, his feeling of inferiority, and his fear of war, revolution and terror. Not only has our generation lost faith in Providence but also in man himself, in his institutions and often in those who are nearest to him.” (Singer 1979).

6. “The material world is a combination of seeing and blindness. The blindness we call Satan. If we would become all seeing, we would not have free choice anymore. Because, if we would see God, if we would see His greatness, there would be no temptation or sin. And since God wanted us to have free will this means that Satan, in other words the principle of evil, must exist. Because what does free choice mean? It means the freedom to choose between good and evil. If there is no evil, there is no freedom.” (Singer, as cited in Farrell 1976, 157).

7. “Life is God’s novel. Let him write it.” (Singer, as cited in Moraes 1975).

♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

Comments

hspal

Fri, 11/25/2011 - 11:23

Quote: "And since God wanted us to have free will this means that Satan, in other words the principle of evil, must exist. Because what does free choice mean? It means the freedom to choose between good and evil. If there is no evil, there is no freedom.” (Singer, as cited in Farrell 1976, 157)."

I think so far nobody has been able to properly tackle the problem of evil. If God is good, then why is there so much evil? The answer mostly given by the theists is just the one we read here. God wanted us to have free will. But having free will means having freedom to choose between good and evil. But if there is no evil, then there is no more freedom of choice for us. Thus we are not actually free. Therefore evil must have to be there in order that we may have free will.

But the real story is something else. Evil is there not because God has given man free will, but because God is fully free. God is fully free means God has got full freedom to create. Similarly He has got full freedom not to create. But a good God can never have freedom not to create, because in order to do justice to His own good nature a good God is always bound to create, and thus He is not fully free. How can a good God be called good if He cannot do any good to anybody? So, in order to do good to others a good God will always be bound to create others. So He can never have freedom not to create.

Similarly it can be shown that neither can an evil God have freedom not to create. An evil God cannot be properly called evil if He fails to do any evil to others. But if God wants to do evil to others, then first of all there will have to be others. So here also He is always bound to create for doing justice to His evil nature.

But for a God who is neither good nor evil there is no such binding that He will always have to create. Here He can freely decide whether He will create or not. Thus a really free God is neither good nor evil. Like Hindu's Brahman He is beyond good and evil.

Now, if we accept that God is fully free, then we will have to admit that He is neither good nor evil. In a universe that has originated from a God who is neither good nor evil there will always be good as well as evil, as there will always be positive energy as well as negative energy in a universe that has originated from zero energy.

Theists always say that their God is all-powerful. But actually they pretend as if they are more powerful than their all-powerful God. That is why by labeling their God as all-good they dare to curtail God's own freedom, His freedom not to create.

administrator's picture

administrator

Fri, 11/25/2011 - 23:33

Hi Mr. Pal, thanks for your observation.

hspal

Tue, 11/29/2011 - 21:40

This is for those who are very much hurt by the idea that God is neither good nor evil, that He is beyond good and evil.
Traditional God is described in this way: Before creation there was only one God, and there was nothing else, no space, no time and no matter. Let us suppose that in this situation God asked Himself this question: Am I good? If in this situation it was possible for God to know with certainty that He was good, then of course He is good. But if this was not at all possible, then God cannot be called good. Those who will opt for the affirmative here should also explain by what process God could have come to the realization that He was good, because we all agree that at that time there was no one else, nothing else, other than God.

hspal

Thu, 12/22/2011 - 21:45

If I claim about myself that I am good, then I am also claiming that I am the negation of that which is not good. That which is not good is the other, and I am not the other. I am the negation of the other, and the other is my negation.

But if we claim about God that He is good, then where is the other of whom God is the negation? This is because before creation God was one, and there was no one else other than God. So for God to be good, He will have to be His own negation. For God to be good He will have to contain within Himself His own other. This can be expressed in the following way: God is the principle that represents whatever is good as well as the principle that represents whatever is not good. God is the affirmation as well as the negation at the same time. So either we will have to say that God is both good and not good. Or we will have to say that God is neither good nor not good. But to say that God is good will be philosophically naive and immature.

Mystic-philosopher Meister Eckhart had also said for the same reason that man can be good, better and even best, But God cannot be good.

We should think over the matter logically, and not emotionally.

hspal

Mon, 12/26/2011 - 11:48

Here is an excerpt from Eckhart's writings:
If I say that "God is good", this is not true. I am good, but God is not good! In fact, I would rather say that I am better than God, for what is good can become better and what can become better can become the best! Now God is not good, and so he cannot become better. Since he cannot become better, he cannot become the best. These three are far from God: "good", "better", "best", for he is wholly transcendent. If I say again that "God is wise", then this too is not true. I am wiser than he is! Or if I say that "God exists", this is also not true. He is being beyond being: he is a nothingness beyond being. Therefore St. Augustine says: "The finest thing that we can say of God is to be silent concerning him from the wisdom of inner riches."

hspal

Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:09

Here are some sayings of Boehme:

1. "When I ponder, what God is, I then say: He is the One in contrast to the creature, as an eternal Nothing; He has neither a ground, a beginning nor state; and is of naught, save only of Himself: He is the Will of the Ungrund, He is in Himself only One, He occupies no space nor place: from eternity in eternity in Himself He comes to be: He is like or similar to no thing, and hath no particular place, which He inhabits: the eternal Wisdom or Intelligibility is His habitation: He is the Will of the Wisdom, the Wisdom is of His manifestation".

2. "The eternal Divine mind is a free will, not having arisen from anything nor through anything, it is itself its own seat and abides at one and alone in itself, ungrasped by anything, for then beside it and before it is nothing, and the selfsame Nothing is at one, and is moreover itself as the Nothing. It is the one Will of the Ungrund, and is neither near nor far, neither high nor low, but is rather the All, and moreover as the Nothing".

3. "For the holy world God and the dark world God are not two Gods; there is only one God; He is Himself all being, He is the bad and the good, heaven and hell, light and darkness, eternity and time, the beginning, and the end: wherein lies concealed His love in a being is all therein His wrath revealed".

4. "The power in the light is God's love-fire, and the power in the darkness is God's wrath-fire, and is but yet only one selfsame fire, it divides itself over into two principles, in order that the one be revealed in the other: for the flame of wrath is the revelation of great -- love: in the darkness will be known the light, elsewise would nothing be revealed to it".

So as per Boehme also God is the bad and the good at the same time. And this is only because God is one. Similarly He is light and darkness at the same time. And the darkness will have to be there, as otherwise light will not be revealed at all.

hspal

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 12:10

God will exist scientifically so long as special theory of relativity will remain intact. God will exist scientifically so long as time and distance will go on becoming unreal at the speed of light. No scientist, however great, can ever be able to do anything against God so long as these two conditions are satisfied, that is, so long as time and distance can become unreal.

With the help of special theory of relativity we can explain God’s spacelessness. With the help of special theory of relativity we can explain God’s timelessness. With the help of special theory of relativity we can explain God’s changelessness. With the help of special theory of relativity we can explain God’s immortality. With the help of special theory of relativity we can explain how God can be everywhere. With the help of special theory of relativity we can explain all the major attributes of God. When we find that science can explain God, why shall we have to think then that God is non-existent? If God is non-existent, then why has science explained God? Is it the job of science to explain a non-existent entity like God? So either that particular science is faulty that explains God; or, if that particular science is not faulty, then God is not non-existent.