Genesis, Darwin and Life in Two Worlds
By Tzvi Freeman
 | A new science that sees consciousness not as an epiphenomenon, but as a building block of existence
18 Comments Posted
Is one meant to understand the story of creation as literally taking place? Or Jonah being swallowed by a monster fish ? How about the anthropomorphizing (ascribing human characteristics to something non-human) of G-d?
The Torah is not a scientific textbook or a great work of historical facts; rather it is an instruction manual on how to live a moral, ethical, and meaningful life in any society and under all circumstances.
Yevamos 24a states that “a verse may never be divorced from its literal meaning.” This statement should not be confused as espousing a strictly literalist approach to scripture becuase we find verses in Torah are interpreted metaphorically, such as instances where G-d is described as having human characteristics. “He ceased and rested” (Shemos 31:17) “G-d smelled the pleasant aroma” (Genesis 5:21) those are all obviously metaphors. If one took those passages literally they would be going against the Torah since we are forbidden to attribute human qualities to G-d.
Rather the statement “a verse may never be divorced from its literal meaning,” according to Midrash Tana’im, refers to cases where a point of practical observance (such as a commandment) arises from a literal reading of the text.
Thus, the directive to take things literally would not apply to narrative that is meant to teach us lessons in life. Therefore, biblical stories (stories that we don’t derive commandments from) do not have to be taken literally; rather they can be taken as cosmic metaphors with relevant messages to all humankind.
Since the Torah is by definition a spiritual document, the fact that some parts of it (with the exception of commandments) are only true from a metaphorical/spiritual perspective does not compromise that fact that the messages are still eternal.
Thus evolution and the Breisheis creation story are perfectly compatible !!! The Rambam in the second book of The Guide explicitly states that the creation story “cannot be taken literal in all it’s parts.”
|
The Torah provides a reason for keeping Shabbat: "For in six days did G_d create the heavens and the earth and on the seventh day He rested." Therefore, according to everything Anonymous of Milwaukee has written, we must take literally the six days of creation as six 24 hour days. Otherwise, this would severely affect the timing (and sanctity) of Shabbat.
In the Guide, the Rambam explains that if we have proof, logical or empirical, that a certain phenomena could not be, we must interpret it figuratively. He applies this to the anthropomorphism you mention. The science of his day stated that the world has already existed, but the Rambam refused to reinterpret "In the beginning G_d created the heavens and the earth"--because, as he states, "they do not know this as a certainty." Similarly, there is no way to know with certainty (or to falsify) that the world did not come into being in six days.
|
If 40 years in the wilderness purging out the less faithful for the eventual cross into the land promised isn't evolution then I'm not sure what is. The Hebrews who left Egypt were not the ones who entered the land flowing with milk and honey, they were the next generation, a generation forced to evolve away from the hundreds of years in Egypt in order to survive in the new environment. An environment that was only a distant memory of their past.
|
The problem lays in interpretations that pit G-d against science. Rabbi Freeman, may I commend you for putting it in terms 'could' and 'should'. At the risk of oversimplifying here, science tells of what we could (or can), while Torah tells us of what we should. Science has no 'should' or 'shouldn't'. It of itself has no inherent sense of morality. It is just a tool with which we can ask-'could we do that' ('can we do that')? But science in and of itself will not guide us as whether we should or shouldn't. We can all see that it is true that all of civilization is centered around the seven day week. We all share that in common as we do the seven noachide laws. This didn't come to us 'naturally' from science. It's not a matter of what we can or could do with science; yet all of creation and civilization as we know it; all of our lives revolve around it. Thus, it's not a matter of whether G-d created the world in six days (with a seventh for rest). It's a matter of should we.
|
Science and empirical knowledge shows us that all of creation was not accomplished in six days; however, all of civilization is built around the six days with a seventh for rest. Even today in America, where most people work five days instead of six, and take the weekend off, even that delineation of time has it's 'genesis' from the six days and the seventh decreed to G-d that starts written Torah. Why would G-d create, put us in the midst of this creation, and then not inform us how to re-create it into civilization? How much meaning can creation have without the civilization that has been formed from it? As clearly as written Torah starts, it is the 'blueprint of civilization' for all of civilization revolves around the week. The beginning of Bereshith describes how G-d created civilization from creation in six days; the Torah being the 'blueprint' of THAT creation.
|
Interesting explanation on the Ramabam Rabbi Freeman.
According to the Breishes account of creation, the sun and moon are not created until day four.
The first three days could not have been 24hour periods as we define them today because Jewish law defines a day based on the sun and moon.....Thus, the first three days were not necessarily 24hours periods they were probably (at least considering the scientific knowledge we have) epochs of time amounting to million if not billions of years......
|
This is an issue dealt with in the Talmud and by the classic commentaries, such as the Ramban (Nachmanides). However, back to my original point, if the days were not 24 hours, then we have a problem with Shabbos.
Nevertheless, we could look at it the other way around: Who says that the natural processes that take billions of years under current conditions had to happen that way during the six days of creation, when existence was only emerging? The same G_d who operates nature now operated it then in an "emerging modality".--just as a fetus develops much faster than a born child. See my article here, "How Old is the Universe".
|
What is the problem with saying that G-d created the world in 7 light-darkness cycles, first three of which would have spanned X number of hours/days/years, had there been a sun, and the rest spanned exactly 24 hours? (Not that it solves the problem.)
What is the problem of saying, "There were seven periods called in Torah symbolically 'days', and therefore in our times, when there are also cycles of seven periods each being called a day, we celebrate the seventh one as Shabbos." You can say that during the first billion-year period there was sphirah of Chesed, second -- sphirah of Gevurah, etc. Just like today, on Sunday there is Chesed etc.
Not that you HAVE to do this, but why can't you? (What about Shmitah, by the way?) Halachah of Shabbos is not based on the assumption that the first Shabbos was exactly 24 hours long. It is based on the explicit law given to Jews at the time when week had seven 24-hour periods.
|
This article is very well written and probably amongst the best I've read on Chabad.org however I would like to mention that Science, in its own right, has its valid uses for that which can be proven. The danger, is when scientific theory, is accepted as scientific fact based on circumstantially compelling evidence.
|
Quantum mechanics postulates that there is a very real connection between consciousness (observance) and the existence of matter/energy in time and space. Genesis teaches us that this is so. Is there a "real" universe before the evolution of a completed and full consciousness? At some point in time, homo sapiens, evolved full consciousness of self and an awareness of God. Adam'Eve were conscious of their limited and unlimited selves simultaneously, and the universe, as we know it, came to be.
|
The anology is quite appropriate but if taken to its logical conclusion , then the programme director can keep revising the contents to produce a masterpiece. Thus Darwinism or any genuine science can be true, and torah is truth. As a famous scientist said, science without religion is lame but religion without science is blind. Maybe the two can collaborate to attain CHABAD, with the lame climbing the blind's shoulders to see beyond the horizon. The problem is the 'popular' religions that seem more interested in blind competition than the pursuit of truth
|
Actually Science does not contradic the Account given in Genesis.
The works of Hugh Ross, and this work-Does Old-Earth Creationism Contradict Genesis 1, by Greg Moore, both whom are members of Reasones To Believe, go a long way in explaining many things in the Bible, and they usually show that there are no contradictions between Science and the Account in Genesis.
Annick De Souzenelle, the great French Bible scholar, using the Kaballistic point of view, greatly clarifies many of the hidden messages in the Bible and she shows many times the hidden depth of the Bible.
|
Rabbi Tzvi and the other authors at this website never cease to amaze me. It is very interesting, stimulating, and refreshing to read ideas which challenge mere materialistic mechanics while pointing out the pointlessness of so-called "Creation Science" which might better be called pseudo-science. The idea in this article which interested me the most was the one about conciousness being more than just an epiphenomenon, but as a building block of existence. It is consciousness itself -- the experience of having it-- of being aware of one's own existence and that of of one's environment -- which makes me contemplate the supernatural.
|
the title "Life2" is incorrect. Rabbi Freeman's point is that there are two levels of life, or two worlds, which need to be united. If you want to describe this unification using an algebraic expression, you would write "2 X life=2life" or "Life + Life = 2life." Thus, the title should be 2life.
If you davka want to use fancy characters, you can write Life2 with the two as a subscript. While in mathematics the subscript generally describes ordinal numbers (as opposed cardinal numbers) which would make a subscript inappropriate for this article, in chemistry subscript numbers do denote cardinality, so I suppose a Life2 in subscript would also be all right.
About one thing I am certain: the superscript gotta go. It makes no sense at all! Why are we multiplying life by life? (I suppose the expression "life raised to the second power" might appeal to some hassidics, but the mathematical meaning of that phrase is irrelevant to this article, as I explained earlier.)
Of course this is your website, and if you tell me to jump in a lake I'll understand, just I wanted to let you know what the title actually means.
Also, whatever I said about Life2 applies equally to Jew2, which is how Rabbi Freeman addresses his response.
|
Man, reading you is truly a Trippy experience. I feel you 'bring up' what's revelant then I feel you 'bring down' what I don't know then you graciously put it together, then you go deeper. Love it.
Okay, why can't I view Bereishis 1 like a Koan, or meaningful riddle? The answer to 'The sound of one hand clapping' applies to the human experience. Why would I have to disregard an Enlightenment commentary, which may speak to me over a classic that may not? If Torah is devine how does one filter falty commentary? Why do I have to listen to this guy not that guy? Lastly, what you write is so cool. But where is a Rashi style commentary from the Baal HaTanya? I'm not yeshiva educated but I believe "The Ari" didn't write much, his students did. Where's the cool stuff you're writing about available to us Baal Tshuvah? I'm searching for certian continuities the Torah is asking me to put together myself. I don't think I'd ever make it out of your library, is it all Chabad?
|
You should start with the Heaven Exposed series. I wish I could tell you to get the book, but it's out of print. B"H, most of it is online, however. Look here: www.chabad.org/443979
Everything that's there is firmly based on Kabbalah of the Ari and Chassidus Chabad--which is really just an extension and re-articulation of the Ari. But it's in an edutainment format for the modern reader.
|
Science continues to provide elegant answers about life and the universe while in the past, religious dogma, because of our lack of scientific understanding, was relied upon to provide answers.
Today because we know better through scientific inquiry and understanding, we shouldn't pretend to know things we don't know and especially that which cannot be proven.
|
Changed title to something that more directly reflects the contents.
|
|
| |
|
LOGIN
ASK THE RABBI
Read this article
