Torah, science and the limits og human knowledge

Knowledge is a highly treasured commodity -- and we believe that the Torah was composed by the ultimate source of knowledge. For many, therefore, there is a keen expectation that familiarity with the Torah’s text and laws grants one an automatic and profound insight into the truths and mysteries of the universe. Such an expectation however is not easily compatible with a verse in this parashat Nitzavim: a verse which forms the basis of that week’s discussion in Judaism Reclaimed:

“The hidden matters are for Hashem our God, and the revealed matters are for us and our descendants forever to perform all the words of God.”

What are these “hidden matters” which remain in God’s domain rather than our own?

Our analysis starts with Rambam’s citation of this verse in Mishneh Torah. There he teaches that the Torah’s process of verifying prophets and its reliance upon two witnesses are not fool-proof measures. In this context, the Torah appears to provide certain mandatory steps which must be followed, rather than a method for obtaining absolute certainty in these important areas.

We explore some interesting further applications of this idea to matters of kashrut. Rambam states in Hilchot Shechitah that the list of treifot (animals that may not be slaughtered for food because they are injured) taught by the Sages is binding – even if there is no objective evidence that the wounds suffered by such animals are immediately fatal. This is because the Rabbinically-formulated Torah law is granted full legal status under the verse “according to the Torah that they shall teach you…”. We then cite a fascinating expansion of this principle by R’ Tzvi Hirsch Chajes to cover many of the practical regulations of kashrut which feature so prominently in typical semichah programmes.

“… several regulations which were accepted by the Rabbis in the administration of the law without their having any basis for them in Scripture nor claiming support for them from tradition; they merely studied and sought to comprehend the nature of meat, salt, blood, the liver and the like, and by experiment came to lay down sound foundations for these practical decisions which were subsequently adopted among us as definite rulings.”

Concentrating on kashrut and Shabbat, as well as citing consistent examples from other areas of the Torah, we highlight how halachic definitions follow what is observable to the human eye; animal life, interactions of tumah and property damage which cannot be picked up by the naked eye [nistarot] will often not register for halachic consideration.

Note the irony : far from seeking to provide us with absolute objective truth, the Torah appears to be quite uninterested in it, defining its laws instead in terms of human experience and perception! This phenomenon of anthropocentric halachic definitions seems particularly congruent with the approach to mitzvot championed by Rambam – who views the Torah’s commandments as having been carefully designed to train and rectify the frailties of the human character and mind. On this basis it is to be expected that mitzvot will relate specifically to the realm of human and perception and experience. This phenomenon is however harder to justify for those who understand a primary function of halachah to be the manipulation of celestial spheres.

The Torah’s recognition of the limitations of human understanding is not restricted to the realm of halachah. Ralbag, in his explanation of “nistarot”, applies this concept to speculation as to reasons for the mitzvot – an application that Rambam supports elsewhere. Drawing upon the evident divergence of understanding between man and God, we observe how the Mishnah openly recognises that certain areas of the Torah – including its account of Creation (Ma’aseh Bereishit) – include hidden Divine mysteries which transcend regular human understanding.

We note Rambam’s quotation of a tantalising Midrashic statement on the subject ““Since to tell of the power of the act of Creation to flesh and blood is impossible, the verse writes simply “In the beginning God created…”. This leads us to question the accuracy of the much-touted clashes between Torah and science: one opaque source which declares itself to have hidden depths and a discipline which has yet to reach its final understanding of the world’s origin. A lengthy footnote attempts to extrapolate, from Rambam’s analysis of Torah and science in his own era, a suggestion as to how he would have approached the matter in today’s world. No firm conclusion is offered.

Finally, we question the function of the Torah’s passages describing Creation if, as is claimed by the oral tradition, they defy a simple understanding – and offer a solution from the writings of the late Rabbi Jonathan Sacks.

First posted to Facebook 22 September 2022, here.

Blood. Torah. Science. Magic.

Parashat Va’eira features a fascinating episode in which Pharaoh, having witnessed the miraculous transformation of the Nile to blood, calls upon his court magicians who apparently succeed in imitating the feat. The wizardry of Pharaoh’s servants, which is the earliest biblical reference to witchcraft, confronts us with difficult questions: How does the Torah regard magic? Does it recognise the existence of a “dark side” or are its prohibitions against practising sorcery truly outlawing trickery and sleight of hand?

The chapter of Judaism Reclaimed which grapples with the question of Torah and magic focuses primarily on the approach of Rambam, who understands all sorcery to be a form of intelligent trickery and sophisticated sleight of hand. This approach, which views all darker arts as an outgrowth of idolatry, was the subject of this post last year. 

We note however how many commentaries follow the position of Ramban, who taught that sorcery and the “dark side” do indeed have a genuine existence, the exploitation of which the Torah forbids.It is of particular interest that Ramban’s literal understanding of the passages discussing the darker arts does not appear to have been based solely on his wish to adhere to the simple meaning of the Torah or Gemara’s texts.

Ramban notes the “pious interpretation” of those who did not consider magic to be genuine, but objects that “we cannot deny matters which are proven in front of our eyes”, the prevailing wisdom at his time being that magic and divination were genuinely efficacious. Ramban’s words allow room for speculation as to whether he would have withdrawn his objection to Rambam’s “pious interpretation” of these prohibitions had he lived in a modern scientific era.

This suggestion can perhaps draw support from the position taken by Rabbi S. R. Hirsch. As a matter of general principle, R’ Hirsch strongly endorsed Ramban’s “traditionally-sourced” approach to Judaism over that of Rambam, whom he accused of being unduly influenced by external rational trends. Nevertheless, R’ Hirsch unequivocally cites Rambam’s rationalist conclusion on the subject of magic, writing that it is “merely deception; it is nothing but getting the better of the other person’s mind”.

For some people there is a measure of discomfort in allowing the fickle and fluctuating findings of science to dictate to the Torah’s timeless truths. A subject which is explored in greater detail in a later chapter of Judaism Reclaimed in the context of both halachah and broader Jewish beliefs.

On the subject of halachah’s reliance on and willingness to change in light of new scientific knowledge I saw this very interesting recent video from Rav Asher Weiss, one of the leading halachic decisors in today’s generation.

R’ Weiss, speaking in the context of scientific and medical advice concerning Coronavirus and vaccines, presents eight examples from different areas of Talmudic discussion as to how halachah is often both premised on and prone to change on the basis of scientific findings. Particularly significant are the sources he cites on the subject of blood found in parts of the egg yolk and questions of niddah in which halachah is shown to have changed on the basis of science having improved its understanding of the facts which halachah is interpreting.

Does such an openness to scientific discovery also apply to the realm of Torah interpretation and allow us to favour the approach of those such as Rambam, who understood biblical sorcery as sleight of hand? Or is it legitimate for those following the footsteps of Ramban to suggest that the darker arts – efficacious in an earlier era of prophecy and open miracles – no longer hold sway in our spiritually sub-standard generation?

First posted on Facebook 13 January 2021, here.

Do any of us really have free will?

The opening verse of this week’s parashah describes Pharaoh having his heart hardened by God – his free will being withdrawn from him – a process which various commentators find disturbing. Without getting into any of their detailed responses to this specific event, what emerges is the centrality of free will to Judaism specifically and religion in general. Judaism Reclaimed traces the dispute between Jewish belief and proponents of determinism from its ancient pagan form through to the writings of Rabbi Sacks in the modern era.

In his Hilchot Teshuva (5:3-4), Rambam sets out exactly why free will is considered so important in Judaism:

“This principle is a fundamental concept and a pillar [on which rests the totality] of the Torah and mitzvot…Were God to decree that an individual would be righteous or wicked or that there would be a quality which draws a person by his essential nature to any particular path [of behavior]… how could He command us through [the words of] the prophets: "Do this," "Do not do this," "Improve your behavior," or "Do not follow after your wickedness?"…What place would there be for the entire Torah? According to which judgement or sense of justice would retribution be administered to the wicked or reward to the righteous?”

The impression that one gets from Rambam’s maximalist position is that every aspect of human activity is believed to be governed by free choice. Other rabbinic thinkers, meanwhile, spell out a more nuanced position with Rabbi Eliyahu Dessler writing that, in practice, most of a person’s actions are determined by nature and habit rather than the operation of free will:

“Everyone has free choice – at the point where truth meets falsehood. In other words, behira takes place at the point where the truth as the person sees it confronts the illusion produced in him by the power of falsehood. But the majority of a person’s actions are undertaken without any clash between truth and falsehood taking place. Many of a person’s actions may happen to coincide with what is objectively right because he has been brought up that way and it does not occur to him to do otherwise, and many bad and false decisions may be taken simply because a person does not realise that they are bad. In such cases no valid behira or choice has been made. Free will is exercised and a valid behira made only on the borderline between the forces of good and the forces of evil within that person”. [Strive for Truth vol. 2]

Others have presented the notion of free will like a muscle that people can either exercise and empower to take control of their lives or allow to atrophy and descend into gradual enslavement to the demands of their animalistic physicality.

In the modern era, the notion of free will has increasingly been challenged from the fields of neuroscience and philosophy, which have produced claims that human consciousness in general, and free choice in particular are an illusion. What is really occurring, they argue, can be reduced to electrochemical brain processes meaning that, as Bertrand Russell phrased it:

“[Man’s] origin, his growth, his hope and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling can preserve the body beyond the grave…”

These arguments were given a boost in recent decades with a series of experiments performed by neuroscientist Benjamin Libet, which appeared to demonstrate that areas of the brain light up – showing mental activity – before a decision had been made to e.g. turn on a switch. What the experiment – as well as subsequent neuroscientific theories – has failed to show, however, is that the sort of painstaking moral dilemmas which we most strongly associate with free will can be traced to a pre-determined mental process. In the accompanying video we see Fagin in the Oliver Twist musical going back and forth as to whether to reform his criminal lifestyle and become an honest citizen. Are we to suppose that each stage of such difficult decision-making can be traced to an electrochemical prompt?

Science has nothing to answer to this question – at least for now. One thing that we can be sure of is that it will not discover any evidence for a spiritual dimension of a human being – a metaphysical soul which is capable of making choices. This should not be seen as a critique of the scientific process but rather as a recognition of its limitations from the outset. As Professor Sam Lebens noted on this group in a different context:

“Methodological naturalism rules out any theories that use God to explain phenomena. So you can guarantee, before you start your investigation into who wrote the Bible, that methodological naturalism won’t discover a Divine author. But its failure to find a Divine author is not evidence that God wasn’t involved. It’s not a finding. It’s not a conclusion.”

(https://www.facebook.com/.../permalink/3174484782780676/)

Those who reject free will with certainty, do so because they cannot make any sense of it within the confines of their parameters of investigation – natural physical phenomena. Refusal to consider the possibility of anything beyond physical cause and effect is not evidence that it doesn’t exist.

Yet on the other side of the equation is the most powerful human intuition – that of self-existence, thought and choice. While we may be prepared to accept that nature and nurture are able to influence and sometimes limit the scope of our choices, can we embrace the implications of our minds being fully governed by physical phenomena? It would seem that the social dynamics and legal systems of even the most secular societies are predicated upon the moral reality of free choice and humans bearing responsibility for the decisions that they make.

Reviewing the situation, here.

First posted to Facebook 22 January 2023, here.

Can we 'prove' the existence of God from Science?

The question of how much we should strive to reconcile prevailing worldly wisdom with that of the Torah – and draw upon it when interpreting the word of God – is one which Jewish thinkers have grappled with for millennia. From the Tannaic sages who conceded that “the knowledge of non-Jewish sages is superior” in certain matters to medieval rabbinic thinkers who were tasked with explaining Jewish thought in the face of strong prevailing scholarly belief in an eternal, non-created universe (kadmut ha’olam). 

At the forefront of these discussions tends to be Rambam, whose attempts to plot a traditional yet scientifically plausible path earned him condemnation from both sides. The Vilna Gaon famously criticizing him for being “corrupted by accursed Greek philosophy” while Ralbag considered that Rambam’s conclusions were overly based on “theological considerations rather than reason”. 

As Judaism Reclaimed examines, Rambam rejected the prevailing Aristotelian doctrine of an eternal universe, as well as Plato’s alternative (creation from eternal matter). Despite finding their arguments to be reasonable, Rambam did not find them sufficiently compelling to justify reinterpreting the Torah’s account of Creation. Rambam’s caution was ultimately vindicated, with the Hubble Telescope and science’s adoption of the Big Bang Theory finally removing the ancient theories from their pedestals.  

Judaism Reclaimed attempts to follow Rambam’s cautious approach in dealing with modern questions of Torah and Science. No firm conclusions are proposed. Both on account of my lack of serious education in the relevant fields of science, and from having heard rabbinic historian, Rabbi Berel Wein, discuss the damage that has been caused by those who have sought to interpret the Torah as reflecting scientific theories which have then themselves been disproven. 

Are things different, however, when we consider twenty-first century science?

I have been told by many of today’s students of science that modern methodologies are far more rigorous and precise, and that this should give us more reason to trust the theories it produces when compared to ancient Aristotelian ideas. Similar confidence was shown in previous centuries, however, and subsequently shown to be mistaken.

Two recent works that I’ve recently come into contact with take quite different approaches to this question. On the one hand there is Professor Sam Lebens’ A Guide for the Jewish Undecided (see herehere).

In the middle section of his book, Lebens presents a couple of dozen arguments for God – one of the first being the sheer unlikeliness that the world could have evolved on its own as an arena to support human life: 

“If we were to rewind things back to the beginning and replay the Big Bang…how many times should we expect to see a universe emerge that would be hospitable to life?”

Taking the law of gravity as an example, Lebens cites various studies which show that there are various strengths which gravity could have taken:

“Astrophysicists tell us that this time around we were extremely lucky. Had the force of gravity been somewhat weaker, then the stars would never have become supernovae so as to spew out the heavier elements necessary for life. Had the force of gravity been slightly stronger than it is, stars would have formed from smaller amounts of material and would have been too short-lived to support the evolution of life.”

Moreover, it was absolutely critical for the formation of a universe that the “energy density of space” would be at exactly the right value. 

“If it were not precisely what it is, either space would expand at such an enormous rate that all matter in the universe would fly apart, or the universe would collapse back in on itself immediately after the Big Bang. Either way, life could not possibly emerge anywhere in the universe. Some calculations put the odds…at well below one chance in a trillion trillion trillion trillion.”

And that is before other factors are considered such as temperatures, atmosphere and further precise phenomena which had to be just so in order for complex life to evolve as science currently understands it to have done. 

Yet Lebens’ stated aim does not involve proving God’s existence. Indeed, he opens the book by telling the reader: “If someone tells you that they can prove the truth of Judaism, be suspicious. I don’t even think that there are watertight proofs for the existence of God” (though to put this in the context of his field of analytical philosophy, Lebens also inform us that “Similarly, I don’t have any watertight proofs that my wife, Gaby, exists” – I would love to have been a fly on the wall when he proposed to marry her! 

Instead, Lebens limits himself to the modest aim that “at least 50% chance that it came from God” – the book often presents these proofs in statistical terms. 

It is to be recalled that the God of the Jewish tradition transcends the physical realm. It is not within the parameters of scientific research therefore to either directly discover or disprove His actual existence. The best that we can hope to achieve is to detect compelling indications of His carefully designed handiwork which are highly unlikely to have evolved on their own from chaos and nothingness.

Nevertheless, given the direction in which modern physics has progressed since rejecting the Aristotelian eternal constant universe which had reigned supreme for millennia, is Lebens being too modest in his claims?

A couple of rabbis with a strong grounding in physics think so. In their new user-friendly videocast “Physics to God”, Rabbis Elie Feder and Aaron Zimmer aim to show – based on matters such as universal constants and fine-tuning – that what science has now discovered about the state of the universe can justifiably be said to prove God’s existence. Have they over-stepped? How might Rambam have analyzed the arguments that they are advancing in these videos? I am reserving judgment for now but would certainly be interested in the input of members of this forum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSDpRe1TLlk&t=259s&ab_channel=PhysicstoGod

First posted on Facebook 4 June 2023, here.