Get Think Jewish Delivered to your Home or Office
HOME | CONTACT US | DONATE LoginLOGIN Ask the RabbiASK THE RABBI
Chabad.org - Torah, Judaism and Jewish Info Torah & Science
 
Chabad.org » Learning & Values » Torah & Science » Essays » How Scientific is Torah?
PrintSend this page to a friendShare this
Comment124 Comments

How Scientific is Torah?


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.

PrintSend this page to a friendShare this
Comment124 Comments
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   More articles...  |   RSS Listing of Newest Articles by this Author
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.
 

124 Comments Posted  |  Post A Comment
Reader Comments
Latest Comments:
Posted: Jan 12, 2011
Mystics & Realists
Irving, your point is well taken. Much theoretical physics has a lot in common with philosophy. That probably explains why I have so little interest in (or so little understanding of) theoretical physics, and so little patience for the airy abstractions of Zen or Jewish mystics.

I suppose I'm just a plodding observer, or too dense to appreciate the cleverness. (I also disagree that a "sound" by definition takes both a vibration and an ear. I prefer to use the straightforward definition of a physical phenomenon rather than an egocentric, anthropomorphic view that sound doesn't exist just because we don't hear it. I'm not so vain.)

But what do these musings, interesting though they may be, have to do with the topic of this discussion page? Just because there are some theoretical branches of science that can get as abstruse and philosophical as religion doesn't change the fundamental incompatibility between they way science and religion view the world and how they arrive at conclusions.
Posted By Paul, New York, NY

Posted: Jan 11, 2011
To: Paul
Much of recent "scientific" speculation has all to do with airy musings and contemplating abstractions. What else can we consider the "scientific" hypothesis that the essential particle of all matter is a string of energy, vibrating at a frequency that determines it's attributes and doesn't even exist in a definite time and space until someone observes its manifestation as a "quark." The greatest scientific "discoveries" of the last hundred years were postulated by theoretical physicists (very imaginative "scientists")I do understand and appreciate the view that if you can't see, hear, taste, touch or smell it, it doesn't exist. And how the tree in the forest conundrum is resolved simply by ackowledging that, by definition, "a sound" takes two components; a vibration in the air and an ear. And the Jewish mystics predate the Zen mystics; "....and Abraham sent from his children with Hagar as emmisaries to the east to proclaim to them the Oneness of God." Thanks Paul, I am enjoying this.
Posted By Irving Newman, Henderson, NC/USA

Posted: Jan 11, 2011
RE: Mighty Odin
Most people find it easy to dismiss other people's religions as absurd. We laugh at "primitive" people who worship volcano gods or perform bizarre rituals. But we take our own culture's equally bizarre rituals and equally outlandish supernatural beliefs seriously because we've been taught to accept them for as long as we can remember.

Richard Dawkins said it best: "We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
Posted By Paul, New York, n

Posted: Jan 11, 2011
To Irving Newman
I'm afraid I don't share your Zen approach, that reality is subjective and simply a question of perception.

Perhaps I'm just pleadingly unimaginative, but I see us as physical beings living in a physical world that has identifiable and measurable (and to a large extent, understandable) attributes.

Abstract philosophical questions -- such as whether a falling tree makes any sound if nobody is there to hear it, or whether, as you suggest, reality exists simply because we agree it exists -- can be fun and can make for merry conversation. But for me, at least, they are just airy musings and have no practical value in actually understanding and interacting with the world around us.

I guess I'm not cut out for the life of the Zen master or the hermit philosopher contemplating abstractions.
Posted By Paul, New York, NY

Posted: Jan 11, 2011
Mighty Odin
So, even assuming a creator, where is the "science" to prove that he's Ha-Shem/Yaweh, instead of Odin or Chthulu?
Posted By Pippi Langstrump, Boden, SWEDEN

Posted: Jan 11, 2011
To: Paul
What "pulls it all together" regarding reality v hallucination is agreement. What we define as physical reality is the product of our (yours, mine and whoever else wants to play with us)that the chair is solid. Reality is agreement.
Posted By Irving Newman, Henderson, NC/USA

Posted: Jan 11, 2011
Science Cannot be "Created"
One of the things I find most odd about this discussion is that various postings continually refer to science as if it were a tangible thing. But science is not an object, or a being, or a an entity, or even a body of knowledge that can be created.

Science is an attitude, a way of looking at the natural world, a methodical process for examining evidence and testing hypotheses to see if they hold up.
Posted By Paul, New York, NY

Posted: Jan 9, 2011
Science is G-d's creation
If G-d created the world, then Science is just one part of it...
Posted By Rachel, nyc, ny

Posted: Nov 4, 2010
dear Paul and Bill
Judaism teaches that we are indeed willed into being constantly by the thoughts of G-d. This is a central Jewish teaching.
Posted By raziela

Posted: Nov 4, 2010
To Bill Kelley
You explain the concept very succinctly and clearly, and the logic is straightforward.. Hats off to you. (Well, except for the Orthodox readers of this page, of course, who probably prefer to keep their hats on!)

In a general sense I agree with you. Although, of course, as an atheist, I'd reverse the proposition, suggesting that instead of us being "a figment of HIs imagination," He is a figment of ours.
Posted By Paul, New York, NY



 


Essays
Something from Nothing
How Scientific is Torah?
Religion and Science
Who's Painting the Leaves?
The Torah-Science Debates
Spiritual Molecules
Quantum Repentance
Torn Between Torah and Science
Reality and Its Shadow
In Pursuit of Ignorance
Knowledge and Reality
Where Kabbalah Kisses Science
The Abraham Principle
The Berlin and Paris Years
The Faith of the Farmer
Showing 1 - 15 of 23