<html><head><title>[Aspaqlaria] When Science and Torah Conflict</title><link rel="stylesheet" href="http://www.aishdas.org/asp/wp-content/themes/mandigo.20100630/style.css" type="text/css" media="screen" /></head><body>Aspaqlaria has posted a new item, '<a href="http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2010/12/when-science-and-torah-conflict.shtml">When Science and Torah Conflict</a>'<br />
<br />
<p>(With thanks to R’ Eli Turkel for providing some of the sources and all of the motivation for this post.)</p>
<p>Obviously (I hope), the scenario described in the subject line of this post can’t happen. There is only one truth — even if we might have conflicting experiences within it — and thus science and Torah can’t conflict. E.g. Rabbi Yehudah haLevi writes (Kuzari 1:67):</p>
<blockquote>
<div dir="rtl">חלילה לאל מהיות דבר התורה סותר עדות דבר הנראה עין בעין או דבר שהוכח במופת שכלי</div>
<p>G-d forbid there would be anything in the Torah which contradicts the testimony of something eyewitnesses or proven intellectually.</p></blockquote>
<p>And similarly the Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 2:25) compares why it is okay to say that anthropomorphic descriptions of G-d, such as “<em>yad chazaqah — </em>strong hand”, “vayeired Hashem — and Hashem went down” (as though He were within space) are idiomatic, but he did not take this approach to Creation. After all, Aristotle taught the eternity of the universe, so why didn’t the Rambam reintepret the first chapter or two of Bereishis idiomatically or allegorically to conform?</p>
<blockquote><p>We do not reject the Eternity of the Universe, because certain passages in Scripture confirm the Creation; for such passages are not more numerous than those in which God is represented as a corporeal being; nor is it impossible or difficult to find for them a suitable interpretation. We might have explained them in the same manner as we did in respect to the Incorporeality of God. We should perhaps have had an easier task in showing that the Scriptural passages referred to are in harmony with the theory of the Eternity of the Universe if we accepted the latter, than we had in explaining the anthropomorphisms in the Bible when we rejected the idea that God is corporeal. For two reasons, however, we have not done so, and have not accepted the Eternity of the Universe. First, the Incorporeality of God has been demonstrated by proof: those passages in the Bible, which in their literal sense contain statements that can be refuted by proof, must and ca
n be interpreted otherwise. But the Eternity of the Universe has not been proved; a mere argument in favour of a certain theory is not sufficient reason for rejecting the literal meaning of a Biblical text, and explaining it figuratively, when the opposite theory can be supported by an equally good argument.</p>
<p>Secondly, our belief in the Incorporeality of God is not contrary to any of the fundamental principles of our religion: it is not contrary to the words of any prophet. Only ignorant people believe that it is contrary to the teaching of Scripture: but we have shown that this is not the case: on the contrary, Scripture teaches the Incorporeality of God….</p></blockquote>
<p>The Rambam thus gives two criteria — (1) that the philosophy be a solid proof, which he shows in the previous 10 chapters the argument for eternity is not, and (2) that the conclusion not defy “any of the fundamental principles of our religion… the words of any prophet.” But an actual conflict, in which a philosophical proof does contradict a Jewish teaching? Impossible.</p>
<p>So, in the case of incorporeality, the Rambam shows how our mesorah endorses his philosophical interpretation, and therefore the literal read bows to what is logically and mesoretically compelling. And in the case of eternity, the <span style="font-style: italic;">mesorah </span>does not allow for the possibility, and the philosophy isn’t compelling, so there it’s the philosophy that bows.</p>
<p>Notice that within this model, the question isn’t literal vs. figurative readings of <span style="font-style: italic;">Tankh</span>, but whether one has permission to go beyond a <span style="font-style: italic;">mesoretically </span>supported reading. And there the answer is no — because the situation of compelling philosophy contradicting all <span style="font-style: italic;">mesoretically </span>supported readings would never arise.</p>
<p>As I see it, the often-asked question, “Would the Rambam have found a new interpretation of the Torah if the philosophy was sound?” is meaningless — the Rambam denies the the possibility of that happening. We would never require a new interpretation in response to real proofs, as the hypothetical — a solid proof of something which doesn’t fit the Torah as our <em>mesorah </em>explains it — cannot occur.</p>
<p>Note how the Rambam concludes the chapter. <a href="http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp112.htm" target="_blank">Freidlander’s translation</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<div>If, on the other hand, Aristotle had a proof for his theory, the whole teaching of Scripture would be rejected, and we should be forced to other opinions. I have thus shown that all depends on this question. Note it.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>R’ Yosef al-Qafeh (“Kapach”) <a href="http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/more/b9-2.htm#2" target="_blank">renders it</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<div dir="rtl">כי אילו הוכח החידוש, ואפילו לפי השקפת אפלטון, היה נופל כל מה שהעזו בו הפילוסופים נגדנו.<br />
וכן אילו נתקיימה להם הוכחה על הקדמות כפי השקפת אריסטו, הייתה נופלת כל התורה ויעבור הדבר להשקפות אחרות.<br />
הנה ביארתי לך שכל הענק תלוי בחקירה זו דעהו.</div>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_2_25.htm" target="_blank">And Dr Yehudah Schwartz:</a></p>
<blockquote dir="rtl"><p>כמו כן אילו התאפשרה להם הוכחה מופתית לקדמות על-פי שיטת אריסטו, התורה כולה היתה מתבטלת, והיו מתקבלות דעות אחרות. הבהרתי לך אפוא שהדבר כולו תלוי בבעיה זאת. דע זאת אפוא.</p></blockquote>
<p>I could only find <a href="http://www.teachittome.com/seforim2/seforim/moreh_nevuchim_2.pdf%20" target="_blank">Ibn Tibbon in <span class="ubernym uttInitialism" onmouseover="domTT_activate(this, event, 'content', 'Portable Document Format' );"><abbr class="uttInitialism">PDF</abbr></span></a>, pg 68. So rather than manually type in yet another translation, let me just note he also has “<em>tipol haTorah bikhlalah</em>” (the entire Torah would fall). You would have to take another <em>hashkafah</em> (Kapach) or religion (Schwartz). If Artisto had a solid proof to the eternity of the universe, he would reject “the whole teaching of Scripture”. “All depends on it.” Not just reinterpret the one <span style="font-style: italic;">pereq </span>or two, but it would be a proof against Torah, and Torah would be demonstrated as wrong.</p>
<p>Reinterpreting something allegorically because of non-Torah arguments isn’t on the table. Either things work <span style="font-style: italic;">mesoretically</span>, or we disproved prophecy as understood by the Oral Torah, and the whole enterprise of <span style="font-style: italic;">Yahadus </span>would be undone. Since that is an absurdity, the Rambam concludes with a <span style="font-style: italic;">Reductio ad absurdum</span>.</p>
<p><span class='st_facebook' st_title='' st_url='' ></span><span class='st_twitter' st_title='' st_url='' ></span><span class='st_email' st_title='' st_url='' ></span><span class='st_sharethis' st_title='' st_url='' ></span></p><br />
<br />
You may view the latest post at<br />
<a href="http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2010/12/when-science-and-torah-conflict.shtml">http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2010/12/when-science-and-torah-conflict.shtml</a><br />
<br />
You received this e-mail because you asked to be notified when new updates are posted.<br />
Best regards,<br />
micha<br />
micha@aishdas.org</body></html>