702
SERGIU HART
really out there. Science is built to satisfy certain needs in our minds. It describes
us. It does have a relationship with the real world, but this relationship is very, very
complex.
Having said that, I’ll get to your question. Religion is very different from
science. The main part of religion is not about the way that we model the real
world. I am purposely using the word “model.” Religion is an experience—mainly
an emotional and aesthetic one. It is not about whether the earth is 5,765 years
old. When you play the piano, when you climb a mountain, does this contradict
your scientific endeavors? Obviously not. The two things are almost—though not
quite—orthogonal. Hiking, skiing, dancing, bringing up your children—you do all
kinds of things that are almost orthogonal to your scientific endeavor. That’s the
case with religion also. It doesn’t contradict; it is orthogonal. Belief is an important
part of religion, certainly; but in science we have certain ways of thinking about
the world, and in religion we have different ways of thinking about the world.
Those two things coexist side by side without conflict.
H: A world populated by rational players—is it consistent with the religious
view?
A: Yes. Religion places a lot of emphasis on coliving with your fellow man.
A large part of religion is, be nice to other people. We can understand this in
the religious context for what it is and we can understand it scientifically in
the sense of repeated games that we discussed before, and we can understand
it from the evolutionary viewpoint. These are different ways of understanding
the phenomenon; there is no contradiction there. Fully rational players could be
deeply religious; religion reflects other drives.
H: This applies to person-to-person interaction. But isn’t there, in a sense, an
extra player, which would be G-d or something that you cannot understand by
rational means, an extra nonrationally driven player?
A: My response is that each player has to see to his own actions. In discussing the
laws, the rules by which we live, the Talmud sometimes says that a certain action
is not punishable by mortal courts but is punished by Heaven, and then discusses
such punishments in detail. Occasionally in such a discussion somebody will say,
well, we can only determine what the reaction of human courts will be to this or
that action. We cannot dictate to Heaven how to react, and therefore it’s useless
for us to discuss it. That cuts off the discussion. As a religious person I must ask
myself how I will act. I cannot discuss the rationality or irrationality of G-d.
H: The point is not the rationality or irrationality of that player, of G-d, but
how that player affects what other players do and in what ways rational players
can take this into account. Let me make it very simplistic. As you said, you don’t
know what Heaven will do, so how can I make rational decisions if I don’t know
that?
A: We don’t know what Heaven will do, but we do have rules of conduct. We
have the Pentateuch, the Torah, the Talmud.
H: I am talking more on the philosophical level, rather than on a practical
level. The point is that that player is not reducible to standard mortal arguments
INTERVIEW WITH ROBERT AUMANN
703
or understanding. Because if he were he would not be a special entity, which G-d
is. However, he is part of the world. Not only is he part of the world, he is an
important part of the religious world. He is not just a side player. He is the main
player. Not only is he the main player, he is a player who by definition cannot be
reduced to rational analysis.
A: I wouldn’t say that He is irrational. By the way, it is interesting that this
should come up just today, because there is a passage in the Torah reading of
yesterday that relates to this. “This commandment that I command you today is
not far away from you. It is not in Heaven so that one would have to say, ‘Who will
go up to Heaven and will take it from there and tell us about it?”’ (Deuteronomy
30, 11–12). These verses were interpreted in the Talmud as saying that in the
last analysis, commands in the Torah, the religious commandments, the whole of
Scripture must be interpreted by human beings, by the sages and wise men in each
generation. So the Torah must be given practical meaning by human beings.
The Talmud relates a story of a disagreement between one of the sages, Rabbi
Eliezer ben Horkanos, and all the other sages. Rabbi Eliezer had one opinion and
all the others had a different opinion. Rabbi Eliezer said, if I am right then let the
water in the aqueduct flow upwards. Sure enough, there was a miracle, and the
water started flowing uphill. So the other sages said, we are sorry, the law is not
determined by the way the water flows in an aqueduct. It is determined by majority
opinion. He asked for several other miracles and they all happened—Heaven was
on his side. Nevertheless, his opinion was rejected. Each time the majority rejected
it and said this is irrelevant. In the end he said, if I am right let a voice come from
Heaven and say so. And sure enough, a voice came from Heaven and said, why
do you argue with Rabbi Eliezer, whatever he says is always right. This was again
rejected by the majority, who quoted the verse I just cited, “It is not in Heaven.”
The Torah was given to us by Heaven, and now it is our prerogative to interpret it.
The story goes on to say that Elijah (the prophet who never died and keeps going
back and forth between Heaven and earth) was asked by one of the sages who
met him, were you in Heaven when that happened? He said, yes, I was there. The
sage said, how did G-d react to his opinion being rejected by the earthly sages?
So Elijah said, G-d smiled and said, “My children have vanquished me.”
This is an example of what is behind the figure of G-d—call it a model, a way of
thinking, a way of living. It is similar, broadly speaking, to the earth being round.
G-d is a way of thinking of our lives; translated into practical terms, it tells us how
to live as human beings.
H: This is very interesting. Let me try to summarize. On the one hand there
is an emotional and aesthetic experience, to which I can very clearly relate, like
going to a concert or seeing something beautiful. On the other hand, religion
dictates certain rules of behavior. These rules, first of all, are not well defined.
They are interpreted by human beings. Second, these rules may be justified in
a rational way. Like in your work with Michael Maschler [46], where you gave
a game-theoretic interpretation of a passage from the Talmud that nobody could
understand, and suddenly everything became crystal clear. So you are saying that