[Avodah] Local, Non-Global or Global Flood

[Meir Shinnar]

> 
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:27:54PM -0500, Meir Shinnar wrote:
> : > But from a process and acceptability point of view, my problem is with
> : > the creation of new peshatim where there is no TORAH reason to do so. I
> : > find that kind of force fitting to another discipline beyond my personal
> : > range of acceptibility. (Meaning that it doesn't even feel to me like
> : > "a different but valid shitah".)
> 
> : The problem with this approach is how one defines what is a TORAH
> : reason - and one of the TORAH reason that I (and I think many
> : rishonim) subscribe to is that the TORAH has a monistic view of truth
> : - truth from the torah and from other valid sources can't be in
> : conflict...
> 
> Yes. So the question is which do I assume was misunderstood, the science
> / philosophy, or the Torah. I'm arguing that if you have to change the
> Torah ONLY because you need to eliminate the conflict, then to my mind
> (or should I say "to my gut instinct?") you should instead wait for the
> science to be ammended.
> 

The moment that one allows for changing pshatim - changing our understanding of the torah - based on what you would recognize as internal torah dynamics - and therefore our understanding of torah is not static - whether that change comes from seeing a possible contradiction between textual sources, or contradiction between other sources of knowledge through which the bore reveals himself seems a question as to how one views those other sources of revelation...a



> The issue isn't a rejection of monism, it's epistomology -- how much
> weight do you give to the "evidence" of mesorah vs that given to
> scientific data and theorization? At which point do you consider one
> more likely to be in error than the other? And at which point do you
> realize the whole topic is beyond our ken, and our understandings of
> BOTH must be limited enough to cause the apparent problem.
> 
The epistemological issue is that both sources of knowledge - both mesora and science/reason - both come from hashem - and are both true - and you reject that monistic approach.   Yes, when there is a contradiction, one has to weigh the evidence - but we are used to assessing and deciding between variant positions in the mesorah - suggesting an imerfect understanding - and the question is why is knowledge obtained by one of hashem's other ways of revelation to us not included in this type of debate?  I am not arguing that science is always right - nor that we jump on the latest bandwagon. However, once we recognize that on many positions our understanding of the mesora is conflicting and imperfect - which WE do not think impacts on our belief in torat hashem temima - then positions where what we know of the mesora seems to agree internally, yet conflict with other evidence - including that other evidence in the discussion of how we understand what happeneddoes not also impact on torat hashem temima..


> (I repeatedly suggested a generic answer based on the Maharal about
> the nature of miracles (pardon that turn of phrase) and suggested that
> according to his formulation, they would leave never evidence behind
> that could be experienced by anyone who doesn't live with the miraculous.)
> 


 an understanding of much of tanach - that things happened in a miraculous realm that left no impact on the general physical world - seems far more radical than most allegorical approaches...
eg, a flood that affected the entire world - but left no traces that it actually happened?
Meir Shinnar