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.
| |
|
Latest Comments:
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.
|
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.
|
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."
|
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.
|
So, even assuming a creator, where is the "science" to prove that he's Ha-Shem/Yaweh, instead of Odin or Chthulu?
|
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.
|
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.
|
If G-d created the world, then Science is just one part of it...
|
Judaism teaches that we are indeed willed into being constantly by the thoughts of G-d. This is a central Jewish teaching.
|
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.
|
|
|  |
|
|
Showing 1 - 15 of 23
|
|
|
LOGIN
ASK THE RABBI
124 Comments
