Q&A: Questions After Reading the Five Notebooks
Questions After Reading the Five Notebooks
Question
Hello,
I finished reading the Notebooks of Faith that the Rabbi wrote. I tend to agree with the content of what is said there (although I don't accept some of the proofs and have doubts about the others), but I have several difficulties accepting the proofs.
The Rabbi proves faith in the Revelation at Mount Sinai based on the revelation and the tradition about it. But today there are scientific findings that refute a foundational branch of that tradition. Chief among the difficulties is the relationship between the Written Torah and science, and in particular the theory of evolution.
That is, if I write briefly the conflicting findings (the ones that bother me most):
- According to the Torah, the first man was created about six thousand years ago. But according to evolution, man came into being millions of years ago.
- There are many fossils that confirm this theory, especially prehistoric humans.
- According to the Torah the world was created in six days, but according to the Big Bang, over about 15 billion years.
That is, in practice there are before me two contradictory sources of information. One source of information seems to me stronger than the Torah source of information, together with the information about the discovery of fossils, which disproves the claim that the world was created mature.
I did not see a detailed treatment by the Rabbi of this topic, nor did I find a satisfactory resolution of it on Google. (Other than the claim that evolution is false and its purpose is to permit heretics, led by Darwin, their lusts and the trampling of moral values.)
If the Rabbi has an answer to this question, I would be glad if he would write it so that I can become wiser and see a response to it.
Answer
These are really not the hard problems. You do not derive information from the Torah, and if science reveals to us new, well-founded information that contradicts it, then Maimonides already taught us what to do with that (creative interpretation).
By the way, I know of no refutation of the idea that the world was created mature, and in my opinion there cannot be such a refutation (though I doubt whether that is plausible in itself).
Discussion on Answer
What is wrong with innovations? The question is whether you think this is a correct interpretation, or at least a legitimate one, of Scripture or not. In my view it is. If you reach the conclusion that the Revelation at Mount Sinai is also a parable, then that is indeed your conclusion, and who am I to tell you not to think so?! Of course, in my opinion, once that is indeed your conclusion, there is no point in observing commandments, but that is indeed your conclusion. My personal assumption is that things that appear to be facts are facts unless there is a significant constraint forcing us away from their plain meaning and turning them into allegory or parable.
By the way, to the best of my impression, Finkelstein's theories are not worth much. The man has a pathological need to look for sensations, and even his colleagues in academia criticize him for that.
Fair enough; certainly if you accept that this is a legitimate interpretation, then it is one—I completely agree with you on that.
But the obvious question is: why assume that this is a legitimate interpretation?! Why does the Rabbi see it as such? I'm sorry, but I think (almost certain) that the burden of proof is on the Rabbi in this case, to prove that this interpretation is indeed legitimate.
To claim a creation lasting 15 billion years instead of six days, or different orders of creation than what is written in the Torah (for example regarding plants and more), these are things that require proof that they can be taken away from their plain meaning.
Yochai, do you really think the days of Genesis are literal when there is no sun until the fourth day? Today there is no such thing as "morning" and night without the distinctions created by the sun and moon.
And in general there is the midrash of the Sages that the Holy One, blessed be He, created worlds and destroyed them, and the fossils are probably remnants of those previous worlds.
I know this Maimonides in the Guide for the Perplexed, but in my opinion he has no tradition from Moses at Sinai about this; rather, it seems the opposite—that it is an innovation.
If so, the question still stands.
And insofar as the Rabbi accepts the concept of "creative interpretation," how does the Rabbi distinguish what can be given a creative interpretation? Maybe we should also apply creative interpretation to the Revelation at Mount Sinai and the Exodus from Egypt… After all, according to I. Finkelstein there was no entry from outside at all, nor any foundational event called the Revelation at Mount Sinai. Maybe we should also give these texts a creative interpretation…