Science and Religion (3)

     Rav Kook addresses the question of the world's true age in his letters (#91).  He points out the existence of various statements in early rabbinical literature and in the classical commentaries which imply a chronology much longer than tradition seems to permit; and although some of these statements can be interpreted in a number of ways, they open the option of accepting the scientific age of the world without rejecting the traditional Jewish approach. 

 

     However, this response is only a preliminary solution.  To reach a comprehensive understanding of the topic we must begin by distinguishing between the hidden and the revealed aspects of our religion.  The core of the Jewish world view is only to be found in the hidden side.  What is known as scientific information is completely absent from the revealed element, for the revealed side is but a framework for the achievement of divine knowledge and the performance of the commandments.  This reality does not prevent us, however, from accepting the literal interpretation of the revealed Torah, for practical purposes:

 

     "Regarding to the issue of the number of years since creation in relation to the geological findings of our    time, it is generally assumed that there were already    many periods prior to our own.  It was well known among    all the ancient kabbalists, and in the Midrash Rabba,    [that God] 'built worlds and destroyed them,' and in the      Zohar ... that there were a number of types of people besides Adam ... however in this regard one must     comprehend all of the deep symbolism, which require very extensive clarification ...

 

     We keep count according to the literal interpretation of   the Scripture, which touches us much more than all the    ancient knowledge, which we do not hold in great esteem.      And the Torah of course silenced itself on the topic of   creation, speaking in hints and parables, since everyone   knows that the original act of creation is part of the    mysteries of the Torah, and if all the things were to be      taken literally, what mystery is here?" (Letter 91)

 

     However, the age of the world is a minor problem.  Rav Kook progresses from it to the essential problem.  The theory of paleontology seemingly contradicts not the details but the essence of the biblical description of creation.  A complete understanding of Rav Kook's response requires that we refer to scientific theories which were prevalent in nineteenth century paleontology.  Although the debates surrounding these problems are dated, Rav Kook's position is not essentially bound up with them.  It demonstrates an interesting conceptual alternative, which can contribute to our own understanding of the problem.

 

     Rav Kook was faced with two alternative theories, which were connected to the names of Cuvier and Darwin, respectively.  According to Cuvier, the father of modern paleontology, the development of species is the result a process of creations, which are followed by destruction, whose remnants can be seen in the findings of paleontology.  In contrast with Cuvier's approach, Darwin's theory emphasizes the development of the species without intermediate leaps, and without the interference of supernatural elements. 

 

     However, Cuvier's understanding of creation as formed by a series of creations and destructions forms a striking parallel to the midrashic statement attributed to Rabbi Abbahu: "From here [we learn] that God creates worlds and destroys them" (Bereishit Rabba, 9).  The midrash extrapolates this from the verse, "These are the chronicles of heaven and earth when they were created" (Bereishit 2:4), explaining that "Wherever it says 'and these,' it is an addition to the first, and wherever it says 'these,' it disqualifies the first." 

 

     This approach, which sees creation as a series of creations and destructions, was accepted by certain nineteenth century Jewish sages.  Such was the opinion of Rabbi Yisrael Lifschitz, author of the famous commentary to the Mishna, "Tiferet Yisrael."  In his treatise "Drush Or Ha-chayim," which is appended to his commentary on Nezikin, he elaborates his interpretation of the scriptural account of creation.  The first verse, in his opinion, refers to the first creation, while the second assumes the existence of a destroyed cosmos: "'And the land was in chaos:' this means that it became barren and desolate once again."  Regarding the prehistoric era, Rabbi Yisrael Lifschitz writes: "In my humble opinion, it appears that those people who existed in the ancient world ... I refer to those people who were in the world before the creation of Adam ... they are the nine hundred and seventy four generations that are mentioned in Tractates Shabbat and Chagiga, who were created before the contemporary creation of the world."

 

     Rabbi Lifschitz maintained that his position was in keeping with the geological findings of his day.  The remains of prehistoric animals are so bizarre "...that it cannot be assumed that such a creature came into being simply through the revolution that God performed at one point in time ... Similarly, sea animals have been discovered in the deep in the higher mountains, which have hardened and become stone.  And one wise natural investigator, by the name of Coffier, wrote that from all the seventy eight types of animals that have been found in the depths of the earth, there are forty eight species, that cannot be found at all in the present world ... From all of the above it seems clear that what the kabbalists have been telling us for hundreds of years, that there existed a world previous to ours, and it was destroyed and recreated ... all of it has become proven in our day to be true..."

 

     A similar approach can be found in the writings of Rabbi Eliyahu Benamozegh.  In his commentary on the Torah, the significant alteration in his interpretation of the statement "The Holy One ... creates worlds and destroys them" is particularly striking.  Jewish philosophical thought in the middle ages vacillated between belief in the eternal existence of the world and the belief in creation.  The creation and destruction of worlds is a puzzling issue for the proponents of either approach.  The accepted solution was to relate to these worlds as possible worlds, our world being the most perfect of them all.  This Leibnizian interpretation supported the accepted rationalistic explanation.  In contrast, the kabbalistic interpretation accepted this statement, in addition to a symbolic interpretation, with all its import.  If we ignore specific claims, the new geological theories seemed particularly fitting to that hidden Jewish doctrine, in Cuvier's version, which speaks of destructions and creations. 

 

     Rav Kook discusses this doctrine, although he does not mention Cuvier explicitly:

 

     "If so, those excavations teach us that creatures from     certain periods were discovered, and people among them,      but that there was not a general destruction and a new   creation in the interim: for this there is no proof, but      only empty suppositions, which should not be noticed at      all."  [Letter 91]

 

     These words seem to imply that Rav Kook failed to see any decisive proof in favor of the Darwinist approach.  However, Rav Kook did not feel that his role was to offer a seemingly "scientific" answer to the question.  Rather, he desired to emphasize the fundamental claim that the Torah is not to be harnessed to any scientific theory, despite any apparent suitability to the text:

 

     "But truly we do not need all this, since even if it would become clear to us that the process of creation   occurred in the fashion of the development of species,     there is still no contradiction ... for the basis of      everything is what we teach in the world, that everything is an act of God.  And the means, whether many or few, up    to thousands upon thousands, are all acts of God, who did    not leave in his world anything lacking, and whose      heroism, strength, wisdom and glory are infinite, blessed is He and blessed is His name for ever and ever.  And     sometimes we declare the means to be God's work, in order      to widen our conceptions, and sometimes we say ... "and   God created," as we say "then Solomon built," and we do    not say that Solomon commanded the ministers, and the   ministers those beneath them, and they the architects and     the architects the artisans and the artisans the simple      workers, because it is a known process, and is also      unimportant.  So too all that will be investigated in the course of many thousands of years, with the expansion of methods and means, which add to our knowledge and   intelligence of the divine genius, are, for the most part, shortened."  (Letter 91)

 

     Rav Kook places an alternative before us, without choosing or rejecting it explicitly himself.  The two positions are different not only in the fact that they are different paleontological doctrines, which in turn causes their differing approaches to certain texts.  The difference between them is much deeper.  These are two distinct perceptions of the concept of creation.  In the first approach, creation is a historical occurrence, a break in the natural order, which is transcendental in origin.  In the second approach, the concept of creation lies beyond the boundaries of the scientific discussion, which can only explain the intermediary causes. 

 

     These two approaches are parallel to two positions regarding the doctrine of creation which were formulated in medieval Jewish philosophy.  Rabbi Saadia Gaon, for example, represents one type of position, according to which creation can be proved by relying on the laws of nature and certain empirical facts, or even from logical-mathematical considerations.  According to the Rambam's position, however (and indeed, the fact that Rav Kook bases himself on the Rambam's Guide for the Perplexed is no accident), creation is not to be proven through the natural sciences.  The relations between a world which is rationally possible, to a reality which is rationally imperative, is completely beyond the scope of the scientific debate.

 

     An informed look into Rav Kook's analyses of these issues teaches us that one must not seek an absolute position which describes the facts and a single authoritative interpretation of the scriptural account of creation.  In this issue we are faced with a doubt, which, perhaps, our generation will never overcome.  This doubt opens various possibilities before us, all of which are legitimate within the framework of Jewish thought. 

 

     What was Rav Kook's personal opinion regarding this alternative?  Letter 91 seemed to imply support for the position that sees creation as a break in the natural order.  In contrast, in "Orot Hakodesh" (pg. 537), Rav Kook points out that perhaps the theory of development of species is suited to "the weighty secrets of the Kabbala more than all the other philosophical doctrines." 

 

     An in-depth study of his approach, including all its diverse sides, certifies that this was indeed his true opinion.  However, here as well, one must take care not to simplistically identify Rav Kook's position with the Darwinist approach.  My objection is not related to facts but to the philosophical explanation of development.  It is possible to view the process of development and improvement as guided by a supernatural force:

 

     "The development that treads the path of improvement ...   we discover the divine shining within it with absolute     clarity, when the operative infinity succeeds in     activating what is infinite in its potential."

 

     Rav Kook's discussion of the scriptural account of creation, which we mentioned earlier, is essentially one instance of the problem of religion and science in general.  However, in addition to specific claims in each of the problematic areas, we must state two fundamental conclusions, which express the history of the conflict between religion and science within the framework of the spiritual development of humanity:

 

A: The changing understanding of truth is in itself a part of the divine revelation, continuous revelation; there is meaning to what is revealed and also to when it is revealed, just as there is significance to what was hidden in certain generations:

 

     "But all these require times and preparations, and the     narrative imagery - both those that are drawn by the      power of the intellectual perusal of creation ...  and    those that emerge from the revelation of the hand of God     by his prophets - must always carry with them the power    that strengthens life and true success, and not offer     mankind a harvest of fragmented information with which to amuse himself in childish play.  And when you understand this, you will understand that there is an exalted worth   to what is revealed, and also to what is concealed, and the manners of concealment are many..."  (Letter 91)

 

B: The alterations in religious thought, which occur as a result of a conflict, are also part of the continuous revelation:

 

     "In general, this is an important rule in the war of opinions, that every opinion which comes to contradict    something from the Torah, we must initially not   necessarily contradict it, but rather construct the palace of the Torah upon it, and thus we are elevated by it.  Because of this elevation, the information is   revealed, and afterwards, when we are not pressured by      anything, we can with a heart full of confidence battle    it as well."  (Letter 134)

 

     The phrasing here has two meanings: the construction of "the palace of the Torah upon it" can seem like a mere tactical move.  However there is much more here.  For the idea itself is elevated as a result of the conflict.

(This lecture was translated by Gila Weinberg.)

 

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