Science and Religion (1)

 

Rav Kook's Approach

 

            We have previously examined Rihal's approach, which relates to philosophical solutions as models which can guide us, despite the fact that we can never be certain of their merit; for in the final analysis every theory is a fallible and transitory creation. 

 

            An understanding of Rav Kook's approach is essential in any contemporary discussion of science and religion.  We will use Rav Kook's book Eder Hayakar as our base, with occasional references to his other writings on the subject.

 

            The uniqueness of Rav Kook's approach lies in the claim that this "conflict" must be approached with an emphasis on the historical context, and particularly what Rav Kook calls the "moral foundation."  He writes:

 

            All human conflicts of opinion, within each particular            nation, and within the Jewish nation most particularly,     are based only on the moral foundation.

 

In other words, contradictions between science and religion stem from a severe moral problem involving the "religious establishment," which is revealed through social and economic injustice and political oppression. 

 

            Scientific development has caused religious problems, and we will discuss them later on.  However, Rav Kook maintains that these problems were meant merely to be stages in the conceptual development of humanity:

 

            ... If not for the hatred, which was planted [in the       hearts of many people] by the corrupt leadership of             Catholicism ... [against] the glory of faith in divinity   and in the sacredness of the Scriptures, by its corrupt             moral leadership ...  as well as [by] the rest of the       religions who sanctify the Scriptures, [who inspired             hatred of their religion] by their corrupt behaviors with           regard to human morality, in the name of faith, it would have been inconceivable to supplant the [original] faith          with new approaches, neither past ones, nor present ones,            nor future ones. 

 

            Judaism's openness to the new world brought about the "rise of blasphemy" among Jews in the form of an "unnatural disease."  However in this "infiltration" we must distinguish between two levels - the intellectual and the ethical.  If I understand Jewish Thought correctly, it does not contain anything that could cause a fundamental conflict with science.  We will discuss this thesis at greater length later on.  However this is not true on the ethical level.  The conflict has succeeded in "infiltrating" the Jewish world and "finding a stronghold through the protection of some moral rights, which [are only in need of protection because of] incidental deficiencies and dereliction in the [development] ... of the positive attributes."  Indeed, deficiencies have been found in the social structure of the Jewish nation, not essential deficiencies in the Torah, but rather "incidental dereliction" in "the [development] of ... the positive attributes."  These deficiencies contain the source of the conflict.  The responsibility of the religious person is twofold.  Not only is his Torah to be pure and uncorrupted; this obligation applies to him personally as well.

 

 

The Torah as a Source of Information

 

            What does Rav Kook have to say about our central question - the conflict between religion and science?

 

            We sense this naturally.  For example, every intelligent person knows that the existence of faith, both in its general assertion of the divine foundation [which asserts  the potential for human] ... knowledge of God, and in the sanctity of the Torah [as it is manifest] in practice, is completely unaffected by the state of [human] knowledge about characteristics of geology.  And that in general the Torah, in its revealed perspective, relates only to    the knowledge of God and of morality and their extensions    in life and in behavior, in the life of the individual, the nation and the world, which knowledge is essentially  the apex of all of life, the basis for everything and the   receptacle for everything.  However, with regard to the  forms of investigative and experiential information, which are minor sparks in relation to the general apprehension of divine knowledge and holiness of life, their [constantly changing] relationships to the Torah is  [of no consequence], and there is no difference between their various relations to the Torah, and there is no distinction [in these relationships], for example,  between the position of Ptolemy, of Copernicus and Galileo etc.; [in this assertion I] include all the  newest information, which exists at present, and which       may develop; and such is the case with all knowledge which is discovered through research and investigation in  each period. 

            It is already quite well known that prophecy chooses parables for human instruction, according to what is well known in the language of the people at that time, to give  the ear what it is capable of hearing at the present, since "time and justice are known to a wise heart." ... And the truth which stems from the depths of the Torah is much higher and more exalted than this, because human conjecture, however it relates to reality, certainly also contributes to man's ethical development and his other higher faculties, in each generation, according to its ideas, which continually change, and adapt to the goal of  the general good and the everlasting divine benevolence.  [Yet] the inner concept, which is pure divine knowledge  and practical and intellectual morality, exists forever,  [as it is written,] "Indeed the nation is as grass; grass   dries, blossoms wilt, and the word of our Lord will stand forever." [Isaiah 40:8]

 

            In this section Rav Kook stresses the eternal quality of revelation ["the word of our Lord"] in contrast with those transitory elements - the faiths of each passing generation - which are expressed both in scientific theories, and in the ideas which inspire each new generation, and which serve as a backdrop for the revelation.  If so, we need not claim prophetic authority for the explanations of those scriptural passages which seem to us to correspond with the Ptolemeic approach, and to reject a newer approach based on those passages.

 

            In one of his letters, Rav Kook uses the kabbalistic term "tzimtzum" (contraction) in order to deepen this explanation.  The creation of the finite world is the result of tzimtzum, the transition from the infinite to the finite.  Rav Kook saw tzimtzum not only in creation but in revelation as well:

 

            The midrash has already stated that it is impossible to communicate the essence of the creation of the world to  flesh and blood, and therefore the scriptures are muted   [and merely say] "In the beginning God created."  And the  essential thing is the knowledge which arises from this   issue, [contributing to] the achievement of knowledge of God and true morality ... God takes this into  consideration even [with regard to] the spirit that falls   upon the prophets; he limited [the spiritual revelation],  because only when the divine concepts are clothed in  these [familiar] images can people draw out, with all of their ability, whatever is useful and elevating for them. (Letter 19)

 

            "The essence of the creation of the world" - the true substance of creation - cannot be adequately described.  Any description is bound to be incomplete and somewhat distorted.  The creation of the world that is described in the Torah is none other than tzimtzum, the tzimtzum of the hidden into the revealed.  According to Rav Kook's approach, to solve the problem of the relationship between Torah and science one must begin with the premise that a fundamental distinction exists between the hidden and the revealed.  The concepts in the scriptures are not "revealed" but "hidden," and their true meaning is very far from the plain reading of the text.  In contrast, in the "revealed" Torah we find only commandments and moral exhortations based on the fundamental axiom of "divine knowledge," which is the true content of the "revealed" Torah's description of the creation of the world.  The answer to our question is simple: there is no conflict, for the revealed Torah does not pass on information that could in any way generate a conflict with the claims of science.  On the other hand, the information in the hidden level of the Torah can possibly be termed philosophical, but in no way could we justifiably call it scientific. 

 

            Another issue regarding the "information" that the Torah passes on is discussed in the Ramchal's (Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzato) essay about the Aggadic legends.

 

            The rule that the Torah "speaks the language of people" is true for the Sages as well.  They also used the language of the everyday people.  This is why it is important to research the method in which the legends were written.  The Ramchal explains this method to us.  He stresses the form of the parable, a device well known to writers, who often make use of images taken from other areas.  A second method is the method of omission, in which various legends are written with certain facts that are necessary to understand the story glaringly absent.  These are facts that exegesis must supply.  This method of the Ramchal is important because it describes the state of the text.  One of the central problems in understanding a written text, or another person speaking, is that we will always be missing information. 

 

            A classic example of these methods are the stories of Rabba Bar Bar Hanna.  We, as modern people, understand the significance of the absurd story, or what our Sages termed "leshon guzma ve-havai."  The absurd story is one of the literary devices that only we today can properly understand.  One of Rabbi Nahman of Breslov's important contributions was the return to the absurd story.

 

            Here we reach the third, most important method, which deserves our attention and emphasis.  The Ramchal writes:

 

            The third method is lightness.  This is when some great  principle is hinted at using things that seem to be    trivial and insignificant, similar to the parables of  simple folk.  They use this method to illustrate exalted  and significant issues which the trivial things can  illuminate, just like a person who is familiar with these  hints knows how to flow in his conversation and his   thoughts from the revealed to the concealed and from the lowly to the exalted.

 

            In other words, sometimes we use a colloquial expression in our conversation, and it is clear that we don't mean to express that phrase but to express a different idea which we clothe in the colloquial expression.  This much is obvious; however, the Ramchal's conclusion is interesting:

 

            You must also know that many of the principal secrets are  hinted at by the Sages using issues from natural science.   They used teachings that were taught in those days by the  experts on natural science.  In fact, the scientific issue was not important to them, but only the secret that  they wished to convey by its means.

 

            Sometimes we don't use phrases but rather scientific facts to explain things that are beyond science.  Science changes, and there are statements in our Sages' writings which are seemingly connected to science, and which are therefore no longer meaningful to us.  We are faced with two options, both of which are mistaken.  One option is to absolutely disqualify the legends as meaningless.  Another option is to stick to the simple explanation of the text, and insist on defending an outdated scientific position.  The Ramchal teaches us that the truth is found in a third possibility, which is actually expressed in the simple mathematical principle: a/b = c/d.  Let us assume that b is a particular piece of  scientific information.  If the intention of the Sages was to teach us b, then b is not true.  However the Sages did not want to teach us b.  They wanted to teach us a/b.  They wanted to teach us how we try, through looking at certain facts, to convey a spiritual-religious, and not scientific message.  Today we do not accept the information in b, just as we do not accept the position of  Ptolemy, who claimed that the sun rotates around the Earth, and in its place we accept something else, a doctrine which we will call d.  The background has changed, however the relationship of a/b has remained constant.  The purpose of the legend was to try to understand c, which is learned from the relation of a to b.  The same spiritual truth that we received thousands of years ago continues to be true today as well.  In the language of the Ramchal, the point is not the "scientific issue, but the secret that they wanted to allude to through it."  The Ramchal adds:

 

            Therefore it is irrelevant to the truth of the issue that   is alluded to whether or not the outer clothing of the parable is true, because the intention was to clothe that secret in what was well known ... among the wise men  The matter itself could have been dressed in another garb according to what was well known in other generations;  and the originator of the statement would have done so, if he had said it in those days." 

 

            This is the unique quality of our Holy Scriptures and the legends of our Sages.  Holy matters continue to be true even if their outer garb alters.  The content that is clothed in a scientific background continues to be true when the background changes.  One might say that in a sense the famous miracle that occurred during the exodus from Egypt is recurring in our time: the clothing continues to grow along with its wearers.

 

(This lecture was translated by Gila Weinberg.)

Copyright (c)1997 Prof. Shalom Rosenberg, Yeshivat Har Etzion.  All rights reserved.