<div><div><br>me <br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">: 2) there is a strong tradition (even amongst literalists like the kuzari)
<br>: that, even if one does not argue for the rationality of torah, torah does<br>: not contradict reason - eg, the kuzari argues that there is no good, solid<br>: evidence for a world older than 5000 years (his time) - but admits that if
<br>: there was such evidence, the position and argument would have to be<br>: rethought - because nothing in the torah can contradict reason.<br>RMB<br>Actually, the statement is that the two could never contradict. Period.
<br>The Kuzari and Rambam probably didn't entertain the possibility that<br>their shitos in Torah would need to be rethought. And if they did face the<br>apparant contradiction, it can not be proven that they would reinterpret
<br>the pasuq rather than question the philosophical grounds of using science<br>to understand origins.</blockquote><div><br>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....
<br><br>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.
<br><br>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)
<br><br></div></div>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.
<br><br>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.
<br><br>Meir Shinnar<br>