[Avodah] Rav Keller's JO article on evolution (Micha Berger)

[Meir Shinnar]

me

: 2)  there is a strong tradition (even amongst literalists like the kuzari)
> : that, even if one does not argue for the rationality of torah, torah
> does
> : not contradict reason - eg, the kuzari argues that there is no good,
> solid
> : evidence for a world older than 5000 years (his time) - but admits that
> if
> : there was such evidence, the position and argument would have to be
> : rethought - because nothing in the torah can contradict reason.
> RMB
> Actually, the statement is that the two could never contradict. Period.
> The Kuzari and Rambam probably didn't entertain the possibility that
> their shitos in Torah would need to be rethought. And if they did face the
> apparant contradiction, it can not be proven that they would reinterpret
> the pasuq rather than question the philosophical grounds of using science
> to understand origins.


1) The rambam and kuzari are different.  Without going again into our debate
on the meaning of that phrase in MN, as a general rule the rambam believed
that truth from torah and philosophy coincided - but that torah expressed
its truths allegorically.  He is explicitly aware and states elsewhere that
his allegorical interpretation doesnot come from a specific tradition about
a verse or an issue - but that the two sources of truth  need to be
reconciled.  We can argue about the limits of this reinterpretation - but he
is quite explicit that issues of time don't bother him....

The kuzari isn't as clear, but I think is somewhat stronger than RMB states
- he says that if the  king  had stronger proofs  for the  age of the  world
being  ~5000 years than merely  Indian traditions,  which  were dismissed
as  more  mythological than  historical,  then  he would have to  give  a
different  answer.

It is also in the Kuzari that he explicitly accepts a position that matter
is eternal as being acceptable (not that it is his position or what he
considers to be true - but that it is an acceptable position for a ma'amin)

However, the kuzari was brought in for a different reason - not for the
issue of explicit allowing of reinterpretation - but that his statements
about the pshat meaning occur within an explicit  framework of accepting the
intrinsic compatibility of torah and reason - and that that compatibility is
one that is an intrinsic part of torah beliefs..  For those of us who accept
an ancient universe as scientifically and rationally proven - the choice is
between accepting the pshat statements of the kuzari about a particular
statement, or accepting the framework in which they were said - the two are
now incompatible.

Therefore, while I can't prove what the kuzari's position would be today,
the use of the kuzari (or any of the other rishonim or statements of hazal
brought down which suggest a pshat understanding is problematic evidence for
this discussion - because they are all made in the framework where that
understanding is viewed as compatible with reason. Therefore, the question
is what their position would be if it was now viewed as incompatible with
reason - as many of us do.

Meir Shinnar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061006/79cdcf85/attachment-0001.htm>