Q&A: Reconciling Contradictions Between Religion and Science
Reconciling Contradictions Between Religion and Science
Question
Hello,
I was thinking about the way contradictions between religion and science are reconciled—for example, by saying that the creation story is a metaphor, an allegory, and therefore it doesn’t clash with evolution. The problem is that if you apply this same method of reconciliation to other religions, it works great there too—so where exactly is the difference?
Also, more generally, words are something subjective, and you can easily swap the meaning of something if supposedly "everything is allowed" and there’s no iron rule that what is written is exactly what was meant, period. Because that opens the door to changes, and then it’s not a fair fight. It’s like someone proving you wrong about something, and every time you just change what you meant to fit reality. There’s no consistency here.
And the very claim that religion has nothing to do with science and that these are two different things is also a way to preserve it, because then no matter what scientifically false claims come out of it, people will say it’s irrelevant. Then anyone can invent a religion and say that even if there are contradictions, there’s no need to address them because that’s not what the author meant. And as for "what the author meant"—who is given the right and the authority to decide what that intention was? If the requirement is to be an expert in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and the Talmud, then there will be plenty of experts who interpret things differently—that is, they’ll interpret them against the religion. Why is their opinion not valid while others' is? What’s the difference?
A good example, by the way, is Galileo Galilei, who discovered scientific findings that contradicted his religion, and he was convicted of heresy and sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life. Then 350 years later, the Church admitted it was wrong. But what’s interesting in that story, in relation to the question, is that the religion didn’t collapse, and they probably reconciled it more or less with the same method… so how can you know that something is true that way?
Answer
Nobody is trying to have a fight with other religions. Indeed, you can reconcile things this way in any religion and with any source. The question of which religion you believe in will not be decided by contradictions in its scriptures. I wrote here in the past about the ridiculous book by Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook (a chapter from it was published in Tzohar, volume 1 or 2), in which he criticizes the New Testament with all kinds of klutz kashyas, when questions no less difficult can be raised against the Torah.
Discussion on Answer
There is no such thing as a right to decide. Everyone decides for himself.
In my view, this is about an overall impression of the reliability of the tradition and its implications in the world. Questions such as the reliability and detail of the tradition, survival and prominence in the history of the people/religion, lead to an advantage for Judaism. In addition, we were first, and Islam and Christianity also acknowledge the revelation at Sinai, except that they claim there was a continuation. So there is a presumption in our favor here, and doubt does not override certainty. But it is בהחלט possible that someone else will reach a different conclusion. In my estimation, anyone who acted according to the best of his understanding is okay with the Holy One, blessed be He.
Okay, let’s say contradictions in the religious texts won’t determine my belief in it, even though it’s definitely understandable and not foolish of me to think that way (if people greater than me thought in that direction—you yourself brought Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook in the answer, who also tried to show flaws in the New Testament). Then the next question would be: how do you know? Objectively, I mean. Suppose a person comes from outer space, knows no religion and no social nuances—would he choose our religion? (Assuming, of course, that he first decides there is a need for religion and for God, which is another process in itself.) Would he choose Judaism? And if not on the basis of contradictions in the texts, how would you expect such a person to examine things? And suppose he examined them by your method—would the answer be Judaism? I’d also appreciate it if you addressed the question: who was given the right to decide what the texts mean?