August 28, 2006
Reconciling Torah and Science
The preferred approach by most quasi-rational Orthodox Jews to reconcilling Genesis with a scientific account of the age of the universe seems to be what I call a Schroederian approach (named for Dr. Gerald Schroeder, a quantum physisct who authored several works attempting to reconcile modern science with the Biblical text). Typical of this type of approach is an acceptance that the Biblical narrative does not literally correspond to the actual truth of the creation of the universe, but, when properly interpreted metaphorically, the cosmogony presented by the Bible is in congruence with the accepted scientific theory. The most basic example of this, as Dr. Schroeder explicates in his book, is the non-literal interpretation of the word "yom" (day), allowing it instead to signify a stage of universal development , which may or may encompass a significantly longer period of time (such as millions or billions of years) than a single day. By interpreting the text of the Torah as metaphoric, while at the same time aligning the interpretation with modern science, the conflict between reason and belief in the Biblical text is done away with.
I have a serious problem with this approach. As I will demonstrate, I believe that taking a Schroederian approach to interpreting the Genesis narrative requires one to affirm one of two positions, both of which I believe to be untenable for anyone with an honest intellect and a serious sense of religion.
When taking a Schroderian approach, one must affirm one of the two following assertions. Either that the text of the Torah, when given, was incomprehensible to all previous generations that did not have knowledge of modern science, and that only now, in our time, do we have the means to properly understand the true meaning of the text; or that the Torah, being divinely composed, was written in such a way that the science of each generation would be able to be read into the text. So, in the times of Artistotle, Genesis would be reconcilled with Artistotle; when Newtonian physics became the dominant theory, the interpretation would be revised to match the current understanding. The same would apply to quantum physics, and any other theory that should arise in the future.
My objections to the first approach should be obvious: to affirm that all previous generations had an incorrect understanding of Genesis is, to me, an unacceptable position to take. In addition, the nature of science is that, while we have a workable system today, as time goes on, revisions and adjustments will be made to that system, and, quite possibly, an entirely new paragidm will become accepted. Science is a moving target, to assert that the Torah was given and that our current understanding is the correct understanding is both arrogant and illogical.
Regarding the second approach: I find the idea that God composed a text with such exquisite nuance that it could encompass any past, present or future scientific explanation to be a bit unreasonable; if, however, we are accepting the concept of an omnipotent deity, I suppose it is possible. But still, if we take this approach, what we are saying is that knowledge of the universe comes not from the Torah, but from a combination of our reason and experience. Only once we have come up with a system using science as our guide do we go back and read it into the Torah. The Torah, from this perspective, becomes irrelavent in teaching us anything about the universe; rather, it is just an outline into which we place the fruits of our own reason. For this reason, I find this position as well to be untenable.
If this approach, namely re-reading the current scientific cosmongy back into the Genesis narrative, is untenable, what other approaches are there? One could believe that the Torah itself is the literal truth of the creation of the universe (i.e. that things really happened about 6000 years ago, and only took six 24-hour days), but this runs contrary to reason, and so is not a rational position. Another option is to understand Genesis as referring to some other metaphorical type of creation, such as the creation of society or of civilized Man. Yet another approach is to presume that the Genesis narrative reflects the best available information from the time in which it was composed, and to accept that what we know now may very well conflict, even contradict, the biblical text.
I don't really disagree with you, but what about the reverse? If Genesis was written as an ancient Near Eastern mythology for an audience which was already familiar with that genre then that implies that it was written for that generation but not future ones which would fail to understand it correctly as a "God's take" on the common origin myth of the ancient Near East.
If it is untenable for you that the original audience could not have understood it correctly, why is it acceptable if ONLY the original audience (and modern scholars) were capable of understanding it correctly?
Posted by: S. at August 28, 2006 2:16 PMI think a present-day audience could understand it that way as well; it may have ramifications for how it is viewed, but it certainly could be understood nowadays that way. Your explanation, in fact, proves it.
Posted by: Greg at August 28, 2006 8:04 PMWhen discussing unusual language in the Torah, the Gemora (Talmud) often answers "Dibra Torah C'Lashon Bnei Adam" (loosely "The Torah used the common vernacular.") Apparently this refers to the common way of speaking at an (unspecified) earlier time.
Why doesn't that apply here? Before time periods and distances were known why not use terms that could be understood before much astronomy etc. was known even they lack the precision that would be appropriate now that those terms have been defined and measured?
Posted by: soccer dad at August 29, 2006 4:09 AMCheck out Hazony's piece in the Winter 5759 / 1999, No. 6 Azure. He puts it more eloqently (which is why he's running Azure, I guess), but says essentially the same thing.
http://www.azure.org.il/magazine/magazine.asp?id=103&search_text=the%20science%20of%20god
Posted by: NusachAnglia at August 29, 2006 5:36 AMMy objections to the first approach should be obvious: to affirm that all previous generations had an incorrect understanding of Genesis is, to me, an unacceptable position to take.
I don't understand your opposition - the entire mitzvah of talmud torah is to be mechadeish, which must mean determining things previously unknown.
Posted by: Moishe Potemkin at August 29, 2006 1:11 PMNusachAnglia: wow; that is awesome. I wish I would have seen that before, I wouldn't have bothered to write anything (a link is always better - and easier - than a post).
SoccerDad: even so, but you still have the issue that what the Torah is saying is a) impossible to fully understand until you reach our point in scientific history and b) knowledge is outside the Torah, not intrinsic to it. The Hazony piece linked to by NusachAnglia says it much more elegantly than I did (or could).
Moishe: "the entire mitzvah of talmud torah is to be mechadeish." Huh? I think there are many facets to the mitzvah of talmud torah. My personal approach is that Talmud Torah is delving into the The Will of God. Hidush is an incidental aspect of that. I would question whether homiletics would even count as Talmud Torah (ergo I read the Jewish Times in the bathroom). Even so, what you are then saying is, if the act of Talmud Torah is being mechadesh, and the only way to be mechadesh means aligning the current scientific understanding with the text of the chumash, then your version of talmud torah is more science than Torah.
Posted by: Greg at August 30, 2006 12:02 AMDid G. Schroeder learn in a Yeshiva ? is he a Shomer Shabbos ? Has anybody seen this person ? Is he a Rov ?
Posted by: MuMu at August 30, 2006 11:18 AMYour approach presumes that God has a will, which I think is incorrect. I would suggest that instead, Torah represents God's message, and to the extent that we are better prepared to accept and understand his message (because we are safer, smarter, healthier, or better informed), we're better off. Being mechadeish isn't my chiddush, of course. It's the Rambam's.
And MuMu can rest assured that Dr. Schroeder passes all of his or her arbitrary tests of pedigree.
Posted by: moishe potemkin at August 30, 2006 3:58 PMLast point - your science vs. Torah bifurcation seems off - perhaps it's only hechsheir talmud torah, but I don't see any exclusivity.
Posted by: moishe potemkin at August 30, 2006 4:06 PMWhat about saying that the Torah was written like a great piece of art - or a Pixar movie? It's something the kids can enjoy, and the adults too. Each understanding is correct, even if one is more sophisticated than the other.
Remember - God created both us and the Torah, so the linkage between our progress and the understanding of the Torah can go hand in hand.
Posted by: Dave at August 31, 2006 9:59 AMWhere did this Schroder person learn ? Is he self-taught ? Who is his rebbe ? Is he a talmid chochom ? is he Shomer Shabbos ? How come such silence on this ? He sounds like a Kofer Beikar. Someone who says Torah is like a Pixar movie certainly is.
In the latest Jewish Action there are 3 articles about ID one of them by schroeder. The only one that makes sense more or less is Aviezer's piece. Schroeder is off base, I will post about it in the next few days.
Posted by: david guttmann at September 3, 2006 5:14 PMThe Torah “was written in such a way that the science of each generation would be able to be read into the text. So, in the times of Aristotle, Genesis would be reconciled with Aristotle…”
That actually is very interesting. Why not have the Torah valid on multiple levels. Valid that is for the generation, which had to reconcile their knowledge with that of the Torah. (Also I agree with Dave that the Torah is true on multiple levels to different intellects).
Another approach is to eliminate the need to have any scientific congruence whatsoever with the account of creation. The Torah isn’t a scientific text and it had no intent on teaching us about the steps of the universe’s creation. It’s an ALLEGORY serving to teach us a lesson. Its message is to combat creation mythologies of other religions where cosmic battles are fought and the victor creates the world. Other creation myths begin similarly with chaos and then a great battle ensures. The reader of Genesis is primed to hear such a tale with the preface that the universe was a void. But then a very different story emerges. Here the unity of God is espoused and the message is that there is one God from whom all emanated. For more on this see my blog:
http://shmuzings.blogspot.com/2006/09/zoo-torah.html
