Q&A: Physics and Philosophy
Physics and Philosophy
Question
What does the Rabbi say about philosophical arguments that are based on *complex* physical claims? (Complex = claims that are more complicated than simply looking at and understanding reality.)
In my opinion, one should not mix physics and philosophy—certainly not astrophysics, where every few years some genius can come along and overturn our entire understanding. Real explanations and real answers cannot be built on something like that. I also don’t understand astrophysics, so for me it’s almost like an explanation in Chinese—I don’t understand Chinese. In addition, physics at that level includes a great many things that are unknown and unclear, so how can one make theoretical claims about reality with the help of something so fluid? It is preferable to have an explanation that is as theoretical as possible, one that we can define and examine from every angle.
And another thing—so what, was Maimonides, who didn’t know about the Big Bang, “stupid” (God forbid) because he believed that the Creator exists, while we are so smart because we have telescopes and know about the Big Bang? And what will they say about us in another 500 years? If this explanation was not good for Maimonides, then it also
probably is not good enough or true enough for me.
On the other hand—it is impossible to ignore what we think and completely shelve physics—but it is dangerous to use it.
Therefore, in my opinion, all physics can do is add complication to our philosophical arguments, which will now also have to solve the physical questions.
But we will not be able to make philosophical claims with the help of physics (such as about creation by means of the Big Bang).
What is the Rabbi’s view on this?
Answer
I didn’t understand any of this. In order to take a position about physics, you first have to study physics. After that, you can form an opinion as to whether it is well-founded or not, and whether it is preferable to philosophy or not.
Discussion on Answer
First, the Big Bang is not an explanation, nor a cause, nor a proof. It is a physical fact (at least in the accepted theories).
As for what is interesting, each person has his own interests.
But how can one give weight to a physical fact in such a theoretical world, when we have already seen in the past that physical theories are replaced and change from one extreme to the other every hundred years?
I’m not saying it’s forbidden, only that it’s dangerous. It is preferable to work with an explanation that is fully understandable, that I can analyze from every angle, rather than work with an explanation that has many missing or unclear details.
What’s more, such an explanation is problematic (from a side perspective)—because you are basically saying that only someone who has this physical knowledge, which became possible only in your time, can accept this explanation. What were the sages of earlier generations supposed to do? Were they just stupid for believing without a reason?
With all due respect, this discussion seems bizarre to me. We have scientific knowledge, and it is the best we currently have. It may turn out to be wrong. True. So should we not get on an airplane? Or perhaps should we build airplanes on philosophical rather than scientific grounds? Is philosophy really more solid than science? Earlier generations worked with their tools, and we work with ours.
As far as I’m concerned, this discussion is exhausted.
The question refers specifically to the Big Bang as proof of the universe’s first cause.
I want to say that such an explanation is not “interesting.”