Printed from Chabad.org
Contact Us
Visit us on Facebook
Meet the new Chabad.org
Switch to OLD version

How Scientific is Torah?

Print
E-mail

Question:

So we hear all the time about how Torah and science don't really contradict. But can you give me at least one or two examples where they actually coincide?

Answer:

  • The most outstanding example: For millennia, we were ridiculed for believing the world began. Only in the latter half of the 20th century did the evidence come out overwhelmingly on our side. As Dr. Arno Penzias (one of the three who received a Nobel Prize for identifying the "background radiation" that became one of the pillars of the current Big Bang cosmology) writes, "science has finally vindicated Moses and Maimonides over Aristotle."1

  • Abraham was a maverick for believing that all the forces of the cosmos are really a single force. This is the contention of science for the past 100 years and the driving force behind the search for the Unified Field Theory.2

  • The Torah's account of Creation and of events that defy the laws of physics -- and even defy logic -- implies that the laws of logic are not absolute -- i.e. it is not impossible for those laws to have been created otherwise, and even now, the Creator could adjust them or supersede them at whim. An inkling of this kind of thinking opened the way for modern mathematics, breaking away from the Euclidian view that the axioms of geometry are absolute "self evident truths," and laying the ground for Einstein's relativity. Indeed, later attempts to demonstrate that mathematics is based on logic have all failed. Thinkers today question the absoluteness of logic itself.3

  • Torah, by presenting the concept of Divine Providence within nature, requires a universe that is only loosely linear, rejecting the determinist concept that cause and effect are inherently linked. This is an outcome of the Principle of Uncertainty, first enunciated by Heisenberg in 1928.4 Over the past 30 years, experimentation has repeatedly affirmed this concept.

  • Torah does not talk in terms of matter as a self-contained substance, but as an event, a 'word'. Today we understand matter as simply a dynamic of concentrated energy, as in the familiar formula E=mc2. Or, in physicist David Bohm's definition, "That which unfolds, whatever the medium."5

  • Torah relies on witnesses and observation over intuition. Today we call this objective empiricism. It is what distinguishes the scientist from the Hellenist or medieval philosopher.

  • Torah recognizes the role of human consciousness as an active, rather than passive, participant in forming reality.6 This outcome of the standard model of quantum mechanics was first enunciated by John von Neumann in 1932.7

  • Torah consistently relies on the concept of synergy: The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This has become an essential principle in many modern disciplines, from sociology to chemistry.

  • Torah, in many halachic applications, relies on "quantum" -- smallest possible increments of change within space and time. This was the postulate of Max Planck that opened the field of quantum mechanics.

  • The Torah describes all of humankind as descending from a single man and -- earlier -- a single woman.8 The overwhelming genetic evidence concurs, although the dating is still somewhat skewed. They're still catching up.

  • Torah understands the human psyche as being multi-layered and multifaceted -- there isn't just one person inside. Welcome to modern psychology.

  • Torah describes planet earth and the entire cosmos in holistic terms. Science today is moving sharply in this direction, in life sciences and in physics and cosmology.

  • Torah provides inference to many of the customs, beliefs, politics, technologies, etc. of ancient times at which historians once balked and archeologists have only recently confirmed.

  • Torah presents and rigorously develops the chazakah: An event must occur repeatedly under identical conditions to be considered the most likely outcome in the future (such as the case of the consistently goring ox). This is the basis of the scientific method.9

  • Torah prescribes public education, popular involvement and constitutional governance. Sociologists describe how these elements generate stability and productivity in a society.

  • Torah prescribes a responsible stewardship of our environment. Today we have demonstrated that such an approach is the only one possible for sustainable life on the planet.

Many of these examples may seem obvious and trite, however none of them were accepted as such until recently. I'm sure there are more -- if you think of some, please fire them over.

Acknowledgement is due to Dr. Moshe Genuth for his valuable suggestions and assistance with this article.

FOOTNOTES
1. See his Creation is Supported by All the Data So Far, page 78 in Margenau and Varghese, Cosmos, Bios, Theos, Open Court, 1992.
2. As the Lubavitcher Rebbe once put it to a group of scientists, "So let's just say we already know there is a Unified Field Theory and we'll call it G-d."
3. See Tzvi Saks, On the Nature of Truth in Mathematics, in B'Or HaTorah vol 9, pp. 95-103. In the inimitable style of George Burns (playing G-d), "Mathematics! Another one of my mistakes!"
4. For an intelligent exposition of this concept for the rest of us, see John Gribbin, In Search of Schrodinger's Cat, Bantam, 1979. Gribbin dismisses the common misconception that Heisenberg et al are talking about our inability to measure precisely. Rather this is an inherent characteristic of the universe, that there are no perfectly knowable ("discrete") states. As Heisenberg himself put it to the philosophers of his time: Without discrete causes, there are no pre-determined effects -- and determinism is out the window.
5. In Wholeness and the Implicate Order, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980
6. See Tzvi Freeman, Knowledge and Reality, Chabad.org., 2001
7. In Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Eugene Wigner later became the major proponent of this idea, the only coherent competition being the "Multiple Worlds Model". That's not so original, either.
8. Men (y chromosone) from Noah. Women (mitochondrial DNA) from Eve. The women on the ark were from various families, while the men were from a single father and mother.
9. See responsum of Rabenu Asher ("the Rosh" 1250-1328 ) 68:23 for a very modern exposition of this concept.
By Tzvi Freeman
Rabbi Tzvi Freeman, a senior editor at Chabad.org, also heads our Ask The Rabbi team. He is the author of Bringing Heaven Down to Earth. To subscribe to regular updates of Rabbi Freeman's writing, visit Freeman Files subscription.
The content on this page is copyrighted by the author, publisher and/or Chabad.org, and is produced by Chabad.org. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with the copyright policy.
Print
E-mail
Sort By:
Discussion (161)
November 13, 2012
Google University of Michigan and generating matter and anti-matter from a vacuum
If you google the above proposition, you will find that the experiment shows that a vacuum is "not nothing," but is actually redefining nothing as something. A vacuum in this experiment is defined as a combination of particles and antiparticles, which have a tremendous density that is not observed because their observable characteristics cancel each other out. Then, they take a high energy laser to rip apart these combinations generating additional matter/antimatter pairs producing gamma photons, high energy particles of light which form electrons and positrons (antimatter foil to electrons). As stated in articles regarding this experiment, "The first step in understanding their line of thinking is to change the way you look at a vacuum; rather than being an empty void, they say, a vacuum is a balanced combination of matter and antimatter, or particles and antiparticles." Thus, is the creation in reality something from something? As a vacuum is no longer defined as a "void."
Susan
June 3, 2012
Re: areas of con-contradiction.
Here is a statement of Godel's theorem (easily found on Wikipedia, the reference is to Mathematical Logic, Kleene, 1967).
"Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory."
Three points:
1) This is about the necessity of having axiomatic statements in certain systems of logic. It does not say that such a system, with its axioms, has to include contradictions.
2) Who says Torah is required to be that sort of system?
3) Anyway, it is 100% consistent with Torah. Substitute revelation (or prophecy) for axiom
Michoel Katzenelson
Somewhere, USA
June 1, 2012
Torah/Science:areas of con-contradiction.
Godel (I cannot find an 'umlaut') in his most reliable assessment of formal logic was able to provide a proof to the proposition that any formal system of statement (arithmetic is one, euclidian geometry is another) eventually comes to an impasse of contradiction. Interestingly that great eccentric, A. Einstein found Godel's company rewarding. And Godel was no slouch when it came eccentricity.

If Torah is a closed system of logic as some claim then there must be contradictions in it in the form a=not a
robert maslansky MD
new york, NY USA
April 17, 2012
Definitions
The reason communicating such subtle concepts is so difficult is because words fail. Whether we realize it or not, we all conceptualize and communicate verballly with slightly different definitions of the words we use. The appparent "disagreement" in the preceeding conversations between, Paul, Michael and Rabbi Tzvi is illusion; all the stated viewpoints (ways of seing 'what is,') are right. For example: was Adam the first human? First define human, then we can talk. If full consciousnes of the dichotomy of subjective/objective awareness; full understanding of "I am; you are" must be part of the definition of "human" then the knowledge that many anthroploigists estimate that the human with full consciousness did not exist before Jerricho. Without quibbling about a few years, this is what Torah teaches. Adam was the first human. Science demonstrates that animals in human form may have appeared millions of years ago. Does this contradict Torah? I don't know. Let's explore our definitions
Irving Newman
Henderson, NC
April 17, 2012
A Little Busy....
Michoel, thanks for your commitment to the conversation. I am snowed under with work (I'm just knocking off at 2am) so apologies for not giving your postings the attention and response they deserve. Bed beckons.

If it's any comfort, my experience with science isn't from "science popularizations," but from 30+ years working with the Smithsonian, Chicago Academy of Sciences, Franklin Institute, and several university biology departments, etc. Helping scientists explain their work is what I do for a living.

Re: your comment that "it is not a contradiction to what Rabbi Freeman wrote" -- I'm not sure which of the many comments you're referring to.

As for the something from nothing: agreed that a vacuum isn't "nothing." Hard to discuss the universe in 1,000 characters. And I confess little joy in physics; I prefer biology. But I submit that in the absence of direct evidence, concepts like Prof. Krauss's bring us closer to understanding origins than do supernatural non-explanations.
Paul
New York, NY
April 12, 2012
PS
By the way Paul, the geneticist that i mentioned earlier is the inventor of one of the first gene therapies. We met while i was a postdoc at Brookhaven National Laboratory.

When he says something is possible or not, i understand that he knows the subject and if i ask him to support it, he will.

In this instance i gave you a clear and relevant example from the literature and the concurrence of an actual expert. In reply you gave me a "no it isn't". Do you have anything to support that position?
Michoel Katzenelson
somewhere, USA
April 11, 2012
Something not nothing
Paul, you are missing another two points. One is that the example was to establish feasibility. That is all that is needed to show that it does not contradict science. It happens to be good anyway.

Explaining the SNL reference: The science in question was not well known 50 years ago. That the story might have been seen then as a contradiction and now seen as mundane, demonstrates something important about your premise re contradicting science.

Re your last paragraph, if you really think so, tell me how much is needed, how much can you get per stick, and how long did Yaacov do this. Keep in mind how easy it is easy to find examples of dietary epigenetics and how easy it is to change markings on animals' coats.

Re not-nothing, just now another physicist strolled into my office. When i told him about the Krauss thing, he rolled his eyes and exclaimed "the vacuum is not nothing!". He is someone who has quantum states named after him.
Michoel Katzenelson
somewhere, USA
April 11, 2012
There you go again
Paul you are way off on both comments.

First, science popularizations are not a good way to learn science.

Second, it is not a contradiction to what Rabbi Freeman wrote. The basic idea is not new (see E. Tryon, Nature, 1973). But you would need to learn some real physics to appreciate it. Since i did (doctorate, chemistry and physics), take it from me that there is no contradiction.

Third, you did not understand the epigenetics and the peeled sticks. Perhaps i could have been more specific. Here is a little more detail:

The article shows that feeding the mothers (as in the water trowel), can produce mottled offspring and that it can be inheritable. The biochemistry and genetics is not hard, but you don't need that to see the result.

The reference to volatiles is about hormone mimics and the excitement of the sheep. It is well known that plants produce hormone mimics, and that hormones can be effective by breathing them.
Michoel Katzenelson
somewhere, USA
April 11, 2012
Re: The Emergence of Existence
Quite obviously, what I mean by nothing and what Dr. Kraus means by nothing have nothing to do with one another.

Nothing, in Jewish philosophy (as in creation ex nihilo), does not mean a state of zero energy, zero mass, or any other such relative state. Not even zero time or zero space. All of those are relative terms—defining nothing by the absence of the something we have now. (Ramban calls this "hiyuly." The Kabbalists call it Briah.)

Nothing means that nothing needs to be. As soon as something must come to be, there is not nothing, but something in potential. That is not nothing, but a definable cause, carrying with it all sorts of other definable baggage.

Again, the problem: The theologian says one thing, the scientist hears another. Each in his own world…
Rabbi Tzvi Freeman
mychabad.org
April 8, 2012
Religious & Scientific Views of the World
Michoel, your posting about epigenetics & mice illustrates why religion and science are fundamentally different ways to see the world.

Religious folks start with preconceptions of “what is.” If those later conflict with science they search for any interpretation of the text, or any scientific explanation no matter how far-fetched, that can reconcile the two.

Science, done right, takes the opposite path, forever re-testing ideas & happily rejecting those that fail. Your SNL anecdote reveals science’s strength: no qualms about discarding ideas that don’t hold up. Religion celebrates sages who reinterpret the past for today. Science lauds those who’ve overthrown the past.

So, your explanation (volatiles released by sticks affecting coloration) isn’t impossible. But the chances of peeled sticks yielding sufficient compounds to alter fetal genotype of higher mammals is so profoundly unlikely that objective observers not concerned with defending ancient tales would dismiss it as absurd.
Paul
New York, NY
Show all comments
Load next 50
1000 characters remaining
Email me when new comments are posted.
FEATURED ON CHABAD.ORG