[Avodah] Rav Keller's JO article on evolution

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, October 6, 2006 2:09 pm, Meir Shinnar wrote:
: 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....

But because of your reisha, I disagree with your seifa. Yes, the Torah
expressed some truths allegorically. However, there is no indication that the
Rambam held this was possibly true even of statements for which we have no
mesorah indicating allegory. The Me'iri limits allegorization in this way, and
they way I took that pereq (a few phrases) in the MN, the Rambam agrees. But
even without that text, there is no proof he is choleiq; it would be an
argument from silence.

Despite the above, you and I have no difference WRT ma'aseh bereishis since I
believe there is such TSBP indicating that the literal text would be
misleading historically. Our debate revolved around the events in parashas
Noach. RZLampel and I both understand the Rambam as agreeing with the Me'iri,
and dispute whether such indication from the TSBP is real.

: 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.

Here is my excuse for saying the post adds something new to the debate.

The Kuzari doesn't seem to me to say that at all:
> 60. Al Khazari: Does it not weaken thy belief if thou art told that the
> Indians have antiquities and buildings which they consider to be millions
> of years old?

> 61. The Rabbi: It would, indeed, weaken my belief had they a fixed form of
> religion, or a book concerning which a multitude of people held the same
> opinion, and in which no historical discrepancy could be found. Such a book,
> however, does not exist. Apart from this, they are a dissolute, unreliable
> people, and arouse the indignation of the followers of religions through
> their talk, whilst they anger them with their idols, talismans, and
> witchcraft....

> 67. The Rabbi: ... Heaven forbid that there should be anything in the Bible
> to contradict that which is manifest or proved! On the other hand it tells
> of miracles and the changes of ordinary, things newly arising, or changing
> one into the other. This proves that the Creator of the world is able to
> accomplish what He will, and whenever He mill. The question of eternity and
> creation is obscure, whilst the arguments are evenly balanced. The theory
> of creation derives greater weight from the prophetic tradition of Adam,
> Noah, and Moses, which is more deserving of credence than mere speculation.
> If, after all, a believer in the Law finds himself compelled to admit an
> eternal matter and the existence of, many worlds prior to this one, this
> would not impair his belief that this world was created at a certain epoch,
> and that Adam and Noah were the first human beings.

The Kuzari would consider strong proof to be capable of weakening belief in
Yahadus -- NOT a call to allegory. Yes, they must be consistent, but that
doesn't mean the Torah is malleable enough to always be made consistent.
Rather, contradiction would never come up. It seems that the Me'iri would only
reinterpret when he feels there is room to say it was misunderstood, not when
there is a clear statement.

Remember, this is the rishon who said that mesorah was more certain than
philosophy. That the Greeks have an excuse; being deprived of one, they were
forcably left to the other. (Which they also only got after exposure to
Semitic Persians, to boot.) It is clear which he would assume requires
reinterpretation.

The only thing he offers is that perhaps the eternity of matter could fit the
Torah if we posit earlier worlds. Something the mequbalim were positing for
their own reasons. But the thrust of the paragraph, and the first book as a
whole, is "the prophetic tradition ... is more deserving of credence than mere
speculation."

RSCarmy wrote:
> Regarding evolution, cosmology and similar questions, however, the
> fact that Rambam, Halevi and other rishonim were willing to revise
> their understanding of Torah to avoid contradicting reason does not
> entail that they would automatically capitulate to evolution. That
> is because their conception of rational proof was more rigid than
> our ideas of what is scientifically beyond reasonable doubt.

To elaborate on my own (meaning I'm about to nauseate RSC by posting
oversimplification), they lived in a world where such studies were "natural
philosophy", not "science". Philosophy aspires to proofs from first
principles, not collecting data by experiment. The latter works well in that
it gives you the means to collect more data with which to reason and to narrow
speculation. But the results aren't necessarily more certain; and it's
unlikely they would have thought it was.

Tir'u beTov!
-mi

-- 
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