[Avodah] Some thoughts on a recent book "Knocking on Heaven's Door: How Physics and Scientific Thinking Illuminate the Universe and the Modern World"

[Micha Berger]

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 05:41:43AM -0400, Rich, R Joel continued an
exchange with RMYG:
:> R' Joel Rich (in middle of a long exposition): Maimonides is famous
:> for saying that he believes in creation ex-nihilo but should science
:> prove that this was not the case, he would reinterpret scripture to be
:> consistent with the scientific evidence (i.e., there is only one truth
:> and reason and revelation will converge to it).

:> Where did Maimonides say this?

: moreh nevuchim 2:25

Except that the Rambam says it in a "if my grandmother had wheels she
would be a trolly" sense.

In 2:25 the Rambam explains the difference between taking pesuqim as
anthropomorphication, and taking the fact of creation (if not the details
in the chumash) literally. He mentions that the text itself admits such
allegoriation, but there are two reasons one wouldn't:

1- Aristotle doesn't prove his point. His arguments on the eternity
of matter (a) assume the laws of physics cannot be violated even by
G-d, disallowing miracles of all sorts and (b) that the world in its
"gestation" would be similar to the world after it was made. Neither
are true.

2- It would defy all of Torah (particularly because of 1a).

The Rambam holds there is only one truth, not reparate
revalatory/religious and philosophical truths. Therefore, a contradiction
of the sort RJR speaks of is impossible. The Rambam's (2) means he didn't
seriously consider the hypothetical of needing to reinterpret scripture
to be possible.

R' Dr Shinnar and I have argued whether (2) is specifically something
that overturns the entire Torah (RMS) or anything that would defy TSBK
as understood by TSBP. I required bringing in other sources to prove the
latter. But that's off topic here, since we're talking about the same
case the Rambam did. (Whereas RMS and I were arguing about the mabul.)

Summation: the Rambam says such a retranslation is possible, but denies
that the situation could possibly come up. Since maaseh bereishis is
essential to Yahadus, there cannot ever be a good proof against it.


BTW, while the Rambam denies Aristotilian qadmus, his positrion on
Platonic qadmus is less clear. He might hold of it, or (more likely
IMHO) believe it's a wrong but permissable belief.

Aristo: the universe always existed because what we today call the
law of Conservation of Matter doesn't allow for new matter to come
out of nowhere. Matter changed forms, but never increases or
decreases, so he concludes it must always have been.

Plato: G-d causes the rest of existence. Since G-d always was, the
universe always had a cause, and must therefore always have been.
If having a universe is a good idea now, there was nothing to
keep it from being a good idea an arbitrarily long time ago.

This makes Hashem the Creator in the sense of causing the universe,
but doesn't give maaseh bereishis a moment (or week) in time. Recall
from other discussions that in MN 2:30 the Rambam says the 6 "days"
of creation are causal steps, not in time. IMHO, ch 30 says that MB
is in time, but took a single moment. But some do argue, including
rishonim, that the Rambam meant something more platonic.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha at aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv