Sixteen Inches
“What do the scientists know?” Ari greeted me in the morning with a triumphant smile. “All the technology in the world, all the atheists with all their machines, and nothing. They can’t even predict the weather.”
I looked out the window. I have to defend my fellow atheists, I thought. Silently I pleaded, “Please God, make some snow appear.”
They predicted snow, plenty of it. I spent the entire previous day arranging rides for our employees, only to cancel most of them; no need to come in at all, we’d told them. We messed up, I realized in the morning. The kids were getting ready for cheider and school. No school closures were announced, their sullen faces showed their dismay. So did mine. I know that Ari will use it to beat me. Again. Ari, or Shimi, or Yoily, or anyone.
I drove in listening to the weather. “Traffic and Weather together on the 10’s only at 1010 WINS,” followed by “Traffic and Transit on the 8’s, but first the weather…” By then it was clear that we weren’t going to get sixteen inches. But we might still get twelve, that wouldn’t be too bad. I can still win, I thought. The front wiper scratched the window, but I didn’t shut it off. I was clinging to each falling snow flake as my savior, my personal snowstorm. I needed it.
There was a film of snow about an inch thick when I looked out the window again. The weather was clearly nasty, but for this they didn’t have to shut down the entire city. It isn’t the first time the meteorologists got it wrong – it’s a cliché for a reason. But to mess up that badly?
Back in the warmth of the office I had to shrug off my workmates. “They said it will snow during the day, let’s give it some time.” It was hard to concentrate at work when so much was at stake.
By lunchtime a respectable amount had fallen. “It’s at least five inches,” I told them. They made me go out in the cold and measure it. I won’t lie, it was barely three inches.
I stayed up late looking out the window, hoping for something to give me a victory the next morning. They had already scaled down the predictions to seven inches. My tape measure was showing barely six. I might still win, I thought, even seven is closer than nothing. Or I’d say we both won.
Or I should say we both lost. What was I defending? What is their position? That science isn’t accurate? I should have tried to explain that scientific predictions aren’t said to be foolproof. How meteorologists know their limits and try only to tell us what they do know. The predictors, those who made the whole fuss, gave it a percentage of accuracy. It wasn’t 100%. They knew it might be less, they know the limitations of their equipment. They also know how far we have came from the days when we used superstition to predict the weather. Somewhere, someone is working to make the technology more accurate, and we may possibly achieve that one day. “Science works,” I should have told them, “because each and every one of you used science to get to work today.”
I should have understood their mindset too. To them science is the antithesis of religion. The opposing view must have the same degree of certainty, the same quality of infallibility, as religion. Religion’s infallibility is certified, of course, because :“zehst doch, zei veisen goornisht.” And thus, with this circular logic, religion continues.
Instead I spent a whole day praying to their God for a bissele shnei. I thought He’d like the fact that I was pleading in Yiddish. I hoped He’d find it cute.
Printable Version
Maybe could these people explain, why god sends us snow in the first place. Tell them, they should tell him that it messess up my schedule, ruins my shoes, and gives me a hard time cleaning it. Besides the fact that I just slipped on the ice, today. So, if they have a non-scientific answer for everything, maybe they have an answer for that too…
Like this comment?
0
Science the antithesis of religion? Jewish history is chock full of big gaonim who studied every element of science. From Maimondides, to the Ramchal, to the Chasam Sofer – all were well versed in the overall science of his day.
Even the big “fanatical” zealot Reb Yaakov Emdin wrote in one of his Teshuvas (to a medical student) that he envies him for being a student of science.
They all seemed pretty comfortable with the teachings of science, and never saw it as something that would contradict religion.
But here’s the point that you guys might most appreciate (or, for that matter, resent) – Charles Darwin, the father of evolution – was a religious person, and yet he did not find that evolution would in any way contradict his religion. The list of religious scientists and philosophers would go on to include Descartes, Isaac Newton and so many others.
It wasn’t until science officially denounced religion that the religious element started expressing concern about embracing science. (And yet, to this day you will find many deeply religious people in every field of science.)
- – - – - – - –
Now science and religion aside – I loved the article. Funny stuff.
Like this comment?
2
Tzipi,
The Ramchal I have no idea (but an inkling), but the Chasam Sofer a scientific man? I’m sure that he wasn’t.
At which Great Science Council was religion denounced? Aren’t there “many deeply religious people in every field of science”? Change your sentence to read “It wasn’t until science started understanding things that weren’t compatible with religion…”
Like this comment?
1
Tzzipy, the Chasam Sofer said, chadash osur min hatorah. He couldn’t be too scientific.
Like this comment?
0
TP,
The Chasam Sofer wasn’t this Hungarian type leader some make him out to be nowadays, he was an educated man who spoke a good German and knew how to write in that language too. It was his talmidim who took his words to an extreme.
Like this comment?
0
The Ramchal was big in science (study your own history. It might fascinate you.) And the Chasam Sofer was most definitely very well versed in medical science as well as physics(as far as it had advanced in his day).
Alright – rephrase:
It wasn’t until some scientists started to interpret certain studies in a way that offended some – as they found it inconsistent with their own interpretations of religion…
(Small example: Evolution; in no way contradictory to Creation ex nihilo.)
Like this comment?
1
I’m still not sure about the Ramchal, and frankly, I don’t care for gedoilim without beards. Those Modern Ortho’s are worse than the goyim. But where do you get this information on the Chasam Sofer? Licht Shtralen?
Scientists (some) interpreted evolution to be very much inconsistent with most religions. Start by rereading the first chapter in chumish to know the inconsistencies. And indeed, as soon as evidence countering the torah came pouring out (some) religious people started a war with science. Some even banned books that try very hard to make it consistent. It’s all the scientists fault though, right Tzipi?
Like this comment?
1
It’s all the scientists fault though, right Tzipi?
I don’t recall blaming scientists, and if I did – I’m apparently too tired to recall.
I merely stated that some were scared off by what confused them. Small minds I’m sure, or they didn’t trust the small minds of the general population. The real point though is that the biggest minds in Jewish history weren’t in any way concerned about inconsistencies between science and our beliefs.
I’m a huge fan of science myself – - especially insofar as it has enhanced my day to day existence. Not entirely interested in studying subjects that bore me to death though.
And yet of all the books I’ve read, I’ve curled up with a healthy number that delve into a variety of scientific fields. (More than I can say about licht shtralen- of which I read none. Think I missed something there?)
Like this comment?
0
Tzipi, you missed a lot. I’m doubting your whole Chasidishness now.
I guess we’re more in agreement then, though it’s not “some” that were scared off, it is our whole community. Those who are fully on with the program. Slifkin was banned for heavens sake.
There’s just one thing we need to clarify. The biggest minds in Jewish history weren’t exposed to science that contradicts the Torah, so I’m not sure why we’re even talking about them.
Same thing goes for Darwin, and the many scientist preceding him. See, since he came along the ideas ideas he formulated evolved, only now we know that everything can evolve.
What I’m saying is that there’s no point in the “real point” you’re trying to make. Or I’m failing to see it.
Like this comment?
0
“More than I can say about licht shtralen- of which I read none. Think I missed something there?”
Don’t tell me you didn’t read “Der Maharal in die Shteiner fin Choishen”! Greatest story in chasidish lit. Although — I have a hunch most who read it thought it was a true story. Like that other fable with the Maharal: creating a golem. But then, Chasidim were never into fantastical superheroes, hence the story has to be true. (Ditto for the tale of R’ Mayer Baal Akdomus, the Midrashic tales of the Benei Yakov’s wars with the Canaanite nations after the massacre in Shechem, Yehuda and Menashe in Yosef’s court, and countless others. Obvious fables, except for those who have no tradition of fable as fable. But I digress…)
Like this comment?
0
I can give reason to snow. If not for the snow the jewsih nations would have been exterminated. So would various other nations.
Hence, Napoleon and Hitler at the gates of Moscow.
Rebel
The ramban refers to the storys with the benei Yankov and says: “if you believe those stories”. Same of course to all other tales. Those who believe got to tip their hats in understanding to the rest of us. Religious or not.
Like this comment?
0
Choileh, Hitler never reached the gates of Moscow, and Napoleon actually promised the emancipation of the Jews.
Like this comment?
0
Operation Typhoon,anyone?
Emancipation or assimilation?
Point is shnei as we know it had huge influence at world demographics.
Like this comment?
0
Tzippi, Darwin says of himself “I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be a more correct description of my state of mind.”
Like this comment?
0
Darwin was often cryptic in his theological views, and I never had made a study of his opinions. They just don’t matter all that much. But killing time is a pastime of mine and so I decided to review it some. That said, here goes:
Darwin was careful with his phrasing of his religious views for most of his life. The whys notwithstanding, Darwin did at the end admit to finding agnosticism crawl up on him. But his slip into agnosticism wasn’t that of the readers’ of this blog. He didn’t denounce God as this Being who, in light of his discoveries, he would just have to accept that there is no proof of His existence. Darwin’s take on religion wasn’t a matter of dismissing the likelihood of God, but of being of the opinion that there would no way for the human brain to comprehend, and therefore decisively state whether or not He is present.
Darwinism might indeed be the basis of all agnostic belief, but it isn’t definitively atheistic. It doesn’t argue against God or creation, and certainly in no way opposes the possibility of creation – merely against the necessity of God.
Like this comment?
1
Tzippi.
The Ramchal was indeed educated in a non Jewish university and his great non mystical works are on Hebrew poetry and linguistics. He is by some named the father of Modern Hebrew poetry.The noteworthy history of the Ramchal was the cult he led in his youth claiming to receiving messages from angles and Moses, Aliyohu etc. all the while being a bachelor shaved his beard not going to Mikvah as his Rabbi (Mahri Boson) scorns him in letters.
The Chasm Sofar was only versed in the ancient science of the Greeks as was Mimonides. In a long essay on astronomy the C”S has no clue on the new astronomy already well underway in his time also he clings to the old nonsense on the 4 elements which by the way is still talked about in Yeshivas today as a valid item while it’s been long obsolete we know about the atoms and the 92 elements.
And science and Halache can not be reconciled. Halacha is based on the wisdom of Chazal which is erroneous in many areas a few examples: The laws of Nidah are entirely based on wrong knowledge of the anatomical makeup of the female body. Chazal believed menstrual blood is a different blood then regular blood, leading to many laws on no ground. It’s permitted to kill lice on Shabbos because it doesn’t reproduce according to Chazal and was the universal view in the old time but we all know today lice reproduces as all living things. Hilchos Triefos is full with false facts on the animal parts. The list is endless. It’s either science or halacha.
Highly rated. Like this comment?
6
>But his slip into agnosticism wasn’t that of the readers’ of this blog.
Who am I to argue with one who no doubt carried out a comprehensive survey on this blog’s readership.
As for Darwin, he wasn’t cryptic, he was reserved in what he said out of respect towards his family, he says so. You might mean Einstein who was rather cryptic, who disliked the career Atheist’s “venom”, but who was agnostic too.
Both say that they use the term Agnostic due to a dislike of the militancy portrayed by atheists albeit for very different reasons. Einstein because he thought they miss the music of the spheres, and are preoccupied by god of whom they have become free, and Darwin for he thought that the masses need religion.
Both state categorically though, that they believe that there is no evidence for the historicity of the events in the Judeo-Christian bible.
For the record, your definition (Ver 2.0) of the term Atheist is inaccurate. Atheism too argues only against the necessity of God. If there is no necessity, there is no evidence. That in a nutshell is a defunct hypothesis.
As for Emden, he believed that one is permitted to study science and the likes between day and night at dawn, so as to keep within the “Yomam valayloh” advisory.
On the one hand he did not believe that the Rambam wrote the guide given the heresy contained within, yet was vehemently opposed to irrational Judaism in the form of Sabbateanism and he was not a great fan of the Zohar to say the least.
I am quite sure that the priestly writer rolls in his grave with your misinterpretation of his creation account. It was NOT what he intended. He did not intend for Adam to have parents, for Adam’s children not to intermarry incestually, and for civilisation to have been well established prior to Adam’s birth. Same goes for the J account.
Like this comment?
1
Chasam Sofer had broad mind, and could have certainly been a learnt man outside of religion. But how could anyone use him to prove science could go along with religion? It’s precisely he and his school of fanatical Orthodoxy who have made radical moves to estrange any advancement.
Jewish scholars of old cherished knowledge and prided in Torah as the prime source of light. Of course, one who completed Torah shouldn’t stop short, but go on to quench his thirst for knowledge wherever it might be found. The notion that Torah is separate from science is pretty new—let alone them being diametrical.
Like this comment?
0
Tzipi.
The fascination with secular studies is idiosyncratic for the most part to the Sefardic Rishonim. The science of the times was still completely compatible with religion. As Science and religion have moved further and further apart, a general disdain has clearly been established by the religious community towards the scientific community. With the advances science has made, the only way religion can be reconciled with science is by implementing significant compromises in some fundamental traditional doctrines.
Have you ever heard of the Scopes trial?Raya”h (Harav Kook yemach shemoy vezichroy- zecher tzadik livrucheh- to which ever moniker you apply yourself to) did that with evolution and the traditional creation story. In the traditional sense evolution doesn’t fit with the biblical scheme, don’t kid yourself. Raya”h modified the creation story by saying: one day is not 24 hours and so on. But, in the way creation was always understood to have happened, it is in direct opposition to what evolutionists posit.
The Chassam Sofer? You kidding? He writes in one of his responsa that the Jewish anatomy is different than the goiyish anatomy. He paskenes a shaaleh based on this sublime and fundamental scientific fact.
Like this comment?
2
Rupch,
It’s not science that changed dramatically, but the attitude towards it. Chazal did exactly what apologetics do today. They pinched; they tweaked; they twisted verses, mishna, and common sense on a demand-basis until everything was made fit. The science of their time wasn’t naturally compatible with Torah; they adapted Torah to make it compatible.
Gemarah states that in an argument of astronomy, Jewish sages had to admit Greek scholars were right. Maharsha, apparently alarmed, comments they were made to admit but in fact the Jewish sages were right. This is telling. For 1700 years they had no trouble with science winning an argument, but for 300 years they had.
Like this comment?
0
Have any of the many great resident lomdim here, those delving into the distant past for different religious sources and digging up the data of rabbinical positions on the issue of the sciences and religion, made note of the fact that everything of evolutionary theory is now banned by Chassidus?
You’d almost believe evolution and religion are dancing the cha-cha-cha together if a twelfth century Jewish authority had controversial pseudoscientific views for his day. Is a rich and diverse history of Jewish thought actually distracting the very bold, black-magic-marker X across everything remotely related to the science of evolution? Do we have to go back 1000 years of rich, complex history (rachmuneh litzlon! The earth isn’t even that old!) to know the reality of religion’s scorn towards science?
Earth to the cavepeople: where have you been living? Religion has loudly, clearly and officially rejected science while you were evolving under a rock.
Highly rated. Like this comment?
6
Shpitz,
I don’t think anybody here failed to take note that the theory of evolution is being banned in contemporary Judaism. Commenters were digging up data from the distant past to show a contrast.
Like this comment?
0
First in regard to science and religion:
Our Torah never denounced science. Quite the contrary, Torah is in itself a blueprint of science. True, it is open for interpretation, and the interpretations weren’t always accurate – but that is only because of the inaccuracies of science itself.
Throughout the ages science has been an ever evolving study, where each generation refuted that which had previously been accepted as the ultimate truth. Current studies are only true insofar that they haven’t yet been refuted. Torah however, being Divine and the Final Word, has never faltered and never been altered.
Being religious therefore does not in any way mean being threatened by the science of the day. It gives us the comfort of knowing that whilst scientists come forth with their next retraction to explain the latest discovery, the Ultimate Truth will not have changed an iota.
Our current stance on science:
It isn’t science per se that had the rabbonim of this past generation concerned, but rather the youth’s embrace of secular studies and the secular lifestyle that went with it – prior to them being fully prepared with the gems and wisdom from their own backyard.
As for us having this discussion – again:
Let’s quit the pretense that this is an actual intellectual debate, since this topic goes far deeper and further than a forum format lends itself to.
And there’s no need to continuously make a half-assed attempt to repeat your position on the matter either – I think we all know where each of the commenters stand. So unless anyone is ready to write a full length paper (with all the footnotes and relevant sources) and has the patience to wade through the response, can we just please put this age old debate to rest?
Much appreciated.
Like this comment?
0
>Torah is in itself a blueprint of science
How so? Torah, as we know it, presents itself as a source of knowledge, but certainly not science in the scientific sense.
>Each generation refuted that which had previously been accepted as the ultimate truth
The ultimate truth can never be refuted. Only what was believed to be true can be refuted, and science doesn’t present something as true based on a belief.
>So unless anyone is ready to write a full length paper (with all the footnotes and relevant sources) and has the patience to wade through the response, can we just please put this age old debate to rest?
From now on the only talk allowed is white paper or college paper. I feel a bit restricted.
Like this comment?
1
How so? Torah, as we know it, presents itself as a source of knowledge, but certainly not science in the scientific sense.
So unless all the information about all elements in the universe are put forth in the format that has been deemed academically sound, it isn’t good enough for you. That’s OK. It’s good enough for the rest of us.
Each generation refuted that which had previously been accepted as the ultimate truth
The ultimate truth can never be refuted. Only what was believed to be true can be refuted, and science doesn’t present something as true based on a belief.
No. Science doesn’t put forth its findings based on beliefs. In fact science uses its “fail-proof” methods to arrive at a conclusion that they believe to be the truth – the ultimate truth. Until they have to tweak it. or alter it. Or altogether retract.
Precisely my point.
Ultimately, everyone believes in whatever they choose to believe. Take note though, those are beliefs too. The question is only – how certain are you of your sources? Mine hasn’t change an iota and never will.
Like this comment?
1
Science, is the wonderful process of finding the best explanation for evidence presented. It does not concern truth. And thank God for that.
Like this comment?
1
Indeed. Science is a process – and a wonderful one at that – at finding answers. I naively assumed that people care if the answers they receive are the truth.
But indeed why would it matter? Who needs the truth to denounce it all as one big lie?
Like this comment?
0
It is the closest to truth that we can possibly get, but never the ultimate truth. Once we reach the ultimate truth, science has no raison d’etre.
Evidence suggests that everything within Judaism has mutated and morphed. Including its doctrine and scripture. Only unlike science, not as the result of a logical process.
Like this comment?
2
Science is a process of arriving at the truth. Nobody can argue the veracity of that.
The problem starts when people with an agenda manipulate science to their advantage, to make it look like their agenda has scientific backing. For example: global warming. Whether or not there is truth to the phenomenon isn’t the point, the point is that the science we trusted to give us that evidence, isn’t that trustworthy.
Similarly, religion and science don’t necessarily conflict each other, the problem occurs when people with an athiest agenda are using (and manipulating) science to their point.
Like this comment?
0
“The problem starts when people with an agenda manipulate science to their advantage, to make it look like their agenda has scientific backing.”
When science intersects with any kind of ideology it is bound to be misappropriated — even if not distorted — by those with no scientific credentials to do so. Science must remain dispassionate; otherwise it’s no longer science. That is true regarding atheism, global warming, homosexuality, or any other political/ideological issue for which science might have something to say but many don’t want to hear it. But that’s not a failure of science; it is a failure on the part of those who use it without understanding its limitations.
Like this comment?
0
Misyavni: “I don’t think anybody here failed to take note that the theory of evolution is being banned in contemporary Judaism. Commenters were digging up data from the distant past to show a contrast.”
Didn’t fail to take note? And I thought I was the only one that knew!
Evolution is a fairly contemporary theory. Going back to times before evolution, when science itself was hardly “scientific” and often entirely religious (the field of science arose from the same questions religion did) is entirely fallacious. You need to look at what contemporary religion says about contemporary science in order to accurately examine how the two come together.
Not that the historical evaluation isn’t interesting. But it is ludicrous to make assumptions about what major Jewish minds would have thought of evolution based on what they thought of the very undeveloped science of their day. Those that want to argue in the harmony between religion and science may wish to go back to pre-Scientific Revolution/Enlightenment rabbinical figures for Jewish authority over an issue that didn’t even exist at that time. If these authorities did or didn’t agree with science doesn’t matter because it was a difference science then, and getting led into examining their positions is futile.
Highly rated. Like this comment?
4
Corrective mutation: *different*
Like this comment?
0
Shpitz:
True evolution is a new theory Judaism had to deal with, the fundies simply labeled it apikorses and mishigas, while the MO will reconcile evolution with chazal. I think in the end evolution is not a smoking gun against the rebonah shel olem.For me the fact that Chaza”l erred in so many hard facts proves it’s not the word of God because God doesn’t make mistakes and if Chazal’s words are as human as we the entire house comes down like a deck of cards.
Like this comment?
1
Evolution shmevolution, I think we’re losing sight of the argument. The question is not whether any specific scientific claim can be synthesized with religion. Many religious people see no fundamental problem with evolution. Others instinctively scoff at the idea that humans and apes could possible have shared a comon ancestor. Whatever. The question, rather, is whether the scientific method in general and its epistemological claims are accepted as valid if and when they do pose a challenge to religious faith.
Whether the Chasam Sofer was “well-versed” in science is immaterial (as ludicrous as such a claim might be — unless one’s conception of the term “science” is very broad and fluid). But would the Chasam Sofer (and the Ramchal, for that matter) have respected scientific findings that presented stark claims that contradict their most basic dogmas? I’d suggest they wouldn’t. And that was essentially Shtreimel’s claim that “science is the antithesis of religion.” Point being, the scientific method is not accepted by people of faith as valid enough to shatter their faith. Tzippi, for all her arguments that Jewish sages were “well-versed” in science, said as much: science, to her, is not fail-proof. Which means she’ll accept its findings as long as they don’t contradict her beliefs. Which means, she concedes the argument. Next topic.
Like this comment?
1
HR: But would the Chasam Sofer have respected scientific findings that presented stark claims that contradict their most basic dogmas?
[Faints]
Contradicts their most basic dogmas? No such thing!
Next topic!
Like this comment?
0
Tzippi, for all her arguments ….. said as much: science, to her, is not fail-proof. Which means she’ll accept its findings as long as they don’t contradict her beliefs. Which means, she concedes the argument.
Who? What? Hu?!?
Indeed I accept that science is not failproof. As such I would not allow its current ‘contemporary’ findings bother me too badly if they wouldn’t jive with my religious belief. As of yet though, I haven’t come across anything that has been proven scientifically that is in direct contradiction to any of my beliefs.
You’re saying that I believe as long as they don’t contradict… I don’t see how science ever can.
Like this comment?
0
Abe,
Science posits MANY things that contradict the torah. The first Human for instance. How do you reconcile it without distorting the verses?
Like this comment?
0
Tzippy, you seen my pants? I think you wearing them!
Like this comment?
1
Abe. Amen, brother. Especially if you’re like me and my good second cousin Tzippi, of the Abrahamic faith and believe in the torah and the biblical narrative of creation. How can science contradict our religion?
[Yawns.] I think the gods of this blog will be very cross with me if I provoke an MO reconciliation sermon, so let’s leave it that there have never really been astronauts on space.
Like this comment?
0
PROCESSING: RECONCILING ABE AND TZIPI.
STATUS: COMPLETE
RESULTS: Errr! What the f*&&^@?
RESULTS: AMEN. No contradiction!
Like this comment?
0
HR: But would the Chasam Sofer have respected scientific findings that presented stark claims that contradict their most basic dogmas?
[Faints]
Contradicts their most basic dogmas? No such thing!
Next topic!
Maimonides is the one who in essence established Jewish dogma with the 13 principles of faith. One of them is that God created the world ex nihilo, and yet the Rambam himself, in The Guide clearly states that if someone were to prove to him logically or scientifically that the world has existed ever since, then he would have to interpret the word Bereishis differently.
Science when accurate, merely enhances our explanations on religion. They don’t contradict.
Which brings me to the very important point that seems to have been missed. As a believer in God as a Superior Being and Creator of all of the universe – and everything in it, I believe that science too is an element in His world. A fascinating tool He gave us to understand, explore and further appreciate the nature of the world. I therefore believe that a mere creation can’t contradict its Creator.
Like this comment?
0
>the point is that the science we trusted to give us that evidence, isn’t that trustworthy.
If a tiny fraction of the evidence was distorted, the bulk of if it still remains for us to contend with. You need to counter it, not bash it by means of character assassination. That’s simply a lazy way out.
Like this comment?
0
There must be a 14th principle you have hidden somewhere, Tizp baby. I don’t recall Maimonides saying the world was created ex-nihilo.
Like this comment?
0
“As of yet though, I haven’t come across anything that has been proven scientifically that is in direct contradiction to any of my beliefs.
I don’t see how science ever can.”
If so, why the insistence on pointing out science’s failings?
Although now that we reached this point (where you contend that science can’t and doesn’t pose serious challenges), I am curious: do you contend that humanity’s descendency from the primordial soup, with its many stops along the way including ancestors that produced every single life-like being known to humankind, is compatible with Jewish tradition?
Or do you simply dismiss it as not being ‘real’ science or something?
What about theories of an expanding universe going back to a single explosion that produced time, space, matter, and energy in one fell swoop (or bang) — a direct contraction to a literal reading of Genesis… No problem?
What about archaeological findings that contradict the biblical narrative? Doesn’t bother?
Just curious.
Like this comment?
0
“I therefore believe that a mere creation can’t contradict its Creator.”
Understood. But suppose, just suppose, that ’science’, with all its failings, should produce a conclusion that starkly contradicts your religious beliefs. Suppose for a moment that science would give us a clear proof, as basic as any a priori mathematical premise, that God doesn’t exist. I know it’s hard to conceive of such, but just suppose that it can, just for argument’s sake.
Regardless of whether you accept or reject the scientific conclusions, in either case one would have to give. Unless you decide to accept both in a wonderful feat of cognitive dissonance — but in that case you’ll have rejected your own statement quoted above.
Like this comment?
1
I’ll let Abe answer the first, while I deal with the second question posed – The big bang theory (funny sitcom btw).
The big bang doesn’t contradict Genesis simply because it can either be the exact explanation of creation, or there is the other small detail that the big bang theory is just that – a theory. Not that there isn’t scientific proof to back it up, but that there is no definite way of knowing that the proof isn’t faulty.
As we’ve already determined, science can make mistakes.
Like this comment?
0
do you contend that humanity’s descendency from the primordial soup, with its many stops along the way including ancestors that produced every single life-like being known to humankind, is compatible with Jewish tradition?
The Ralbag (13th century), in his commentary on Genesis, was the first one to allude to the day and night cycle mentioned in the narrative, as not being a 24 hour cycle day as we understand it today. He explained it as longer periods of time, throughout which was the process of evolution.
Consider that this is prior to any scientific proof hinting at this discovery.
More specific to the process of human evolution, prease refer to Rav Gedalia Nadel (known as the favorite talmud of the Chazon Ish) in his Betoraso shel Rav Gedalia where he clearly states that:
“Regarding his [Rabbi Ovadia Sforno's] approach, that the creation of man in the image of God marked the end of a long process which started with a non-cognizant animal which gradually evolved until this creature was given a human mind… this is an accurate description. Darwin’s proofs, and those of geologists, for the existence of early stages of mankind, seem convincing.”
and he goes on to say:
“It is a mistake to think that all of science [e.g. carbon dating, geology] is wrong. Regarding issues of life and death – some of the most stringent laws in the Torah – we rely on the scientific method without doubts. When a doctor gives a drug that was produced based on scientific methods of inquiry or when a surgeon operates on the eye or the brain with the aid of sophisticated scientific equipment we rely on science. We do not suspect that these doctors are lying. There is no reason to believe scientists are lying about the age of the world.”
I can’t find the book online, but here’s a review – http://www.rabbisedley.com/node/106
So much for science challenging the biblical narrative.
Like this comment?
0
Who comes first, birds or the animals, the biblical order is completely off for reconciliation with evolution. Why the confusion?
The story doesn’t read like a designers guide to his product. Does god want his bright people, the most dedicated ones to think that the world really is 5770 years old, while the rest of humanity gets to know the truth?
Regarding the golden rule on the other post, I cited samples of its written existence prior to 1313 B.C. Convenient silence?
Like this comment?
0
“Gets to know the truth”?
Pen,
Wasn’t it you that claimed sceince does not concern truth?
Like this comment?
0
If you insist, I’ll rephrase that to: while the rest of humanity gets to know an age that is suggested by the evidence, that you see as the “truth” based upon the Ralbag et al.
Like this comment?
0
Tzippi, you have naively trespassed on one of Chazal’s dictums: Do not discourse with a min. Perhaps that’s what they meant when they said, nashim da’aten kalos.
Go back to the kitchen and make some kugel or something.
Like this comment?
0
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/how-valid-are-tv-weather-forecasts/
Weather forcasting is very clost to superstition.
Like this comment?
0
FYI Tzippy’s Kugel,Chulent and all other Shaboss food is done, and boy is it ever delicious!
Like this comment?
0
Choila nefesh, it doesnt make sense that god would give us snow for years just to halt hitler at moscow. It was just a coincidence, like all the battles he lost without His official help.
Like this comment?
0
Look who’s been right afterall.
Like this comment?
0
16 inches? you had me going there for a minute.
Like this comment?
0
Froylein,
No, god sent us snow to prevent something… There was supposed to be a second 9-11 attack, but because of the weather, the planes were delayed… Everything has a reason…
Like this comment?
0
And there I was, thinking god took sides with Shtreimel…
Like this comment?
0
I’ve read some good stuff here. Certainly worth bookmarking for revisiting. I wonder how much effort you put to make such a excellent informative web site.
Like this comment?
0