I had the pleasure this week of fulfilling my (first ever) civic obligation of jury duty and was one of the first people interviewed to sit on a case involving an auto accident. The pleasant, lightly bearded judge asked each of us 16 questions, each aimed at determining if we could adjudicate the case without bias. It was, I realized toward the end, with good reason.
Most people readily believe that they themselves are essentially fully independent thinkers, and that closed-mindedness, intellectual inflexibility and an irrational commitment to pre-conceived thinking dwells only in the feeble minds of others. Think about it: When was the last time in the course of discussion that someone admitted to you something like, "You're right, I have just blindly swallowed all of the positions and cultural mores of my milieu" or, "Yes, I agree that no amount of oppositional information will ever dissuade me from the beliefs I hold?" No one is immune from this state of affairs, and it requires courage and perpetual vigilance to even venture outside of the intellectual echo chamber that most of us inhabit.
There are those who believe that the scientific community is uniquely positioned to avoid these pitfalls. They suggest that the system of peer review is inherently self-critical, and as such is structurally quarantined from bias. Some scientists think otherwise and note that science, in as much as it is conducted by human beings, is subject to the same partiality as every other endeavor. As the (secular) scientific philosopher David Berlinski, author of "The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions," has suggested, the peer review process itself is often a rubber stamp of certain designated culturally acceptable positions. Berlinski writes that, "like the communist party under Lenin, science is [in its own eyes] infallible because its judgments are collective. Critics are unneeded, and since they are unneeded, they are not welcome." The mere mention of non-doctrinal positions frequently elicits (unscientific) histrionics and name calling. Words like "creationist," for example, are readily bandied about to silence dissent and are designed to assign idiocy to those people (even secular) who dare note that modern evolutionary and cosmological theories are fraught with gaps, inconsistencies and fragmentary evidence. Tellingly, this is done by people who have a predilection to embrace randomness and who tenaciously proclaim the coincidental nature of anything and everything in science or theology.
A classic example of this endemic bias at work is illustrated through Einstein. He was disturbed by the implications of an expanding universe. For thousands of years it was assumed -- outside of some theological circles -- that matter was eternal. The notion that it came into being at a discreet point in time naturally implied that something had caused it and quite possibly that that something had done it on purpose. Not willing to accept this new information, Einstein added a now famous "fudge factor" to his equations to maintain the solid state universe that he was comfortable with -- something he would later describe as "the greatest blunder of my career." Similarly, earlier in his career Stephen Hawking had posited that the universe originally began as what he had termed a "singularity," a point where the curvature of space-time is infinite, or, in other words, possesses zero volume and infinite density. Perturbed by its eerie Divine overtones (Hawking himself has written that "so long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator") and heavily invested in maintaining a coincidental option of the origin of the universe, he set about creating his own fudge factor in the form of the multidimensional "M-theory." Utilizing certain axioms (assumptions) and creative math, he succeeded in inventing the theoretical structure of a theoretical reality -- one that could have occurred coincidentally. As Mathematical Physicist Frank Tipler has written, "Hawking has pinned his hope of eliminating God on M-theory, a theory with no experimental support whatsoever, hence not a theory of physics at all."
If there is great resistance to notions of design and causality in science, it is exponentially greater when it comes to theology. There are times when theists point out unlikely instances of purpose and design within religious texts. For instance, I recently posted a piece that outlined a derivation of Pi that was embedded in the Hebrew Bible. Here's how it works: In Kings I 7:23 (which describes the construction of a large, circular water basin for the Temple) the word for "line" is spelled "kaf-vav" in Hebrew, which has a numerical value of 106. In Chronicles II 4:2 the same word, in the same context, is spelled "kaf-vav-heh," which equals 111. (The extra letter makes no sense in this context so it is assumed to be purposeful). So here's the calculation -- keep in mind that the circumference was 30 cubits and the diameter 10. Therefore 30/10 = 3 x (111/106) = 3.141509. Was that clearly placed there or would you just chalk it up to coincidence?
Another well known example concerns the inter-calculation of the lunar cycle. Though the calculations are more involved, starting with the first letter of the Torah (bet) and counting out equidistant letter skips of 42 yields a formula of 2, 5, 200 and 4. These numbers were used (as was outlined in the Talmud 2,000 years ago) to derive the exact duration of the lunar cycle to within five parts in a million. Meaning, thousands of years before NASA did it, the text of the Torah was used to conclude that the lunar cycle is 29.530594 days. Is this a coincidence as well? Were these sages just tossing thousands of these equations off the wall and happened to just hit a couple of them? There is no evidence to suggest that that is the case, and the Talmud states clearly that they simply had the formula as a tradition. Clearly, these examples are not falsifiable. The question is, as in a court of law, where the evidence is also not falsifiable, just how many examples of this type would be required for one to conclude that there is a) a clear pattern of purposeful design in the Torah (and in life) and b) that some of those designs by all accounts should not have been possible given the scientific knowledge of humanity at the time.
Note that Jewish theology is in no way anti-science. It views exploration of the natural world to be a logical and worthy endeavor (when performed with noble goals in mind) and one that actually enhances one's sense of spirituality. The preceding were but two examples of many by which the sages utilized scientific thinking to assist with their transcendental aims. For many more examples, have a look at Bar Ilan University professor Haim Shore's work "Coincidences in the Bible and in Biblical Hebrew."
There is a phrase that is used in a courtroom when it is no longer logical to assume coincidence: "beyond a reasonable doubt." Imagine a jury's reaction to the defense claiming that the DNA evidence, multiple witnesses, probable motive and admission of guilt on the part of their client were all circumstantial. Though it is always possible, through our bias, to rationalize away all countervailing information, at a certain point -- just as in legal proceedings -- a decision must be made. The truly rational mind, presented with sufficient evidence (to convict, or of design in nature or Torah), will observe, with its unbiased objectivity, and conclude: guilty as charged. This did not happen by accident.
Follow Rabbi Adam Jacobs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RabbiAdamJacobs
Torah & Science - Exploring the interplay between faith and logic ...
Rabbi, it may not be quite that immediate, but every atheist who was raised in a culture with a predominant religion does exactly that at some point.
You talk about the numerical value of the word "line" in two places in the text. Yes, I know that Hebrew numbers are letters, and that one can add the numbers of a word together and get a value. But Numerology has never produced any knowledge of real value, only a mystical feeling of "I'm better than you because I know something you don't."
In any case, the text of the message contains the message, not the numerical values of the words. The text of the message referring to the circular water basin says that for a diameter of 10 cubits, a line of 30 cubits would compass it about. That makes pi to be 3. Talking about extra letters and numerical values of words is meaningless if it goes against the clear message.
How would anyone else have seen the message? What would possibly have possessed them to look at the numerological values of the words to obtain a message contradicting the clear message?
And this is another reason Science is so important to us. Science is open knowledge. Religion is secretive. Anyone can do science. Only the initiated can understand religion because of all the secret ways it twists the plain message.
Me? I'll take open any day.
But creationism is one big gap. So is "intelligent design". They fill no gaps, other than with a "God did it."
I will raise you further. Every time we add a piece of knowledge inside a gap, we create two other gaps. Answer one question and you get two more. That is how science works. The more you know, the more you realize that there is to know.
But never, ever, has creationism or intelligent design filled a gap. Science has always added the pieces and science always will. Creationism has never spotted an inconsistency in science or corrected an error. It can't. It doesn't know how. Scientists do, however.
The peer review process in science, while inadequate, is infinitely better than what religion has. Religion has no peer review. It relies on authoritative comments without proof, without demonstration, or even contrary to what has been demonstrated. Faith cannot be peer reviewed. But how the facts are handled and how the scientific method is used can be reviewed and critiqued.
Rabbi, I appreciate your zeal, but you are way off base where science is concerned.
"God" explains nothing where science is concerned. "God" means nothing in the development of knowledge. Knowledge is developed piece by piece, bridging a gap here, walking around a chasm there.
Since you do not know science, you would be better off not talking about it.
Of course, there's also the issue of "which came first, the prediction, or the observation?" I.e., Presumably people observed the moon for a much longer time than writing existed. How hard would it be to encrypt one's observations into one's holy texts? Then ask yourself, which is more likely: ancient people observed a phenomenon and then wrote a text which incorporated it, or ancient people wrote a text that magically incorporated an observed phenomenon?
The moon is continually moving further from earth which means the lunar orbit will take increasingly longer time. Odd that a deity would provide a hint to facts that are only a little inaccurate for a very brief window - unless the deity is having humans observe it for only a brief time.
Science is simply ABOUT what can be known about the physical universe independent of our experience. Unlike ideas that arise from our subjective experience, scientific knowledge is testable. If something is not causal and rational it doesn't even fall within science's purview.
It is important to distinguish science from the philosophical views of scientists. They aren't the same thing. Science is a testable body of knowledge about physical reality, while the interpretation of that knowledge is not science. Scientists are very bad about distinguishing for the layman their own speculations and philosophical viewpoints from science. Richard Dawkins is a wonderful example.
Speaking of it, it's pretty clear that the level of mathematical sophistication of the movie "pi" is not going to be sufficient. The problem with that movie is that it doesn't explain well enóugh which kinds of "patterns" are known to be absent in "pi".
But the larger question of how the study of the properties of that number have driven all kinds of intellectual progress - and not even merely of the speculative kind - is certainly a worthy effort.
To be sure, it's also an effort that is being carried out, even scientifically. So it's also not accurate to pretend that this is some kind of "under-dog" subject. It is not.
if a typo and some letter counting are the best evidence that you have for your holy book being divinely inspired, you had better go back to the drawing board - i could get the same information from random noise if i cared to look hard enough.
Did the Greeks claim their mathematical insights came from the gods? Do their insights prove that Zeus is in fact the father of all gods?
Do the very accurate Mayan calendars prove their religious beliefs?
It is not unusual for myths to contain useful observations about nature, a way of passing down knowledge to promote farming, animal husbandry, building and other cultural information that promotes survival. All of this knowledge is not proof of any single religion, not proof of any single god. The unspoken assumptions in this article really imply an agenda to obscure the relevance of science and myth.
In any event, Archimedes did not claim divine inspiration, and I wonder if you think mathematical insight is a reflection of human intelligence/creativity or the result of gods planting the knowledge in humans?
And Pythagoras and Euclid were not original thinkers, but derivative borrowers from the Assyrians? Provide some information.
Science, unlike religion, expands as more information becomes available to us.
As for your little Math exercise, countless civilizations had amazing mathematical abilities, The Mayans The Greeks, The Egyptians, Phoenicians, Chinese, far too many to mention on here.
If not for religious oppression, I truly believe we would be much farther on than where we are today.
Religion has a lot to answer for in the development of mankind, mostly detremental to our progression.
But now I get it. Like so many of the scientifically minded in the universe I was asking the wrong questions, because they weren’t based on the correct conclusions.
42 letter skips.
42.
Of course 42.
The meaning of life, the universe and everything have been proven once and for all by God and Rabbi Jacobs.
Don’t tell the mice..
Interesting. The xian bible is great for math problems, too! If you look closely, you'll find that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 is a purposely designed coincidence.
You see, Creationist views of the universe, (even some atheists have a structurally-similar view of how things are 'put together:' ) ...tend to a priori assume that the only way to make a world or universe is to lay everything out beforehand: as if it were the contention of science that an impossibly large number of separate rolls of untold numbers of 'dice' all came up sixes at once.
That's not how it goes.
This is not what a scientific/evolutionary view of the universe claims: Charting probabilities is not, for one, the same as claiming 'It's all totally random.' Structure builds on structure. Self-replicating structure becomes more common. Every single change may not be predetermined, but in the aggregate, there are only so many ways that things can happen *next.* And whatever can happen does, usually with fairly-chartable probabilities.
It may be *easier* to discount all scientific evidence and understanding by waving a hand and saying, 'It's not complete or good enough for me, so I can call whatever I like about it bunk.' ....but that's not understanding science.
Or the world we're given to see.
Too many treat science as some kind of 'rival prophecy' when it's authoritarian religions that have overreached in their claims about matters scientific.
But what's this weirdness involving the ancient hebrew writings? I'm not sure what the point is. Does an ancient culture figuring out Pi or the Lunar Cycle (and I'm sorry, the thing about Pi is pretty forced) bear proof of anything except a smart person lived thousands of years ago?
The rest of this is pretty much anti-science theology trying to claim science isn't what it is, to claim there's 'gaps' that mean all evidence can be disregarded.
Self-centeredly claiming that M-theory was simply a matter of finding an elaborate way to avoid anything that might be 'Creationist' is wrong on several counts: in fact, the primary purpose of it is to reconcile the fact that there are several different 'string theories,' each mathematically-consistent and fitting what observation can be applied.
M-theory reconciles them and accounts for certain questions, like the relationship between gravity and electromagnetism (why's the former so much weaker, for instance,)
Now, the peer-review process and the like in science is *not* claimed to be perfect or incorruptible: in fact, if you know actual scientists, it's quite a thing. Over *time,* though, it does indeed self-regulate, ...even if you aren't like Einstein admitting he made a mistake trying to fit the mathematics into what happened to be a more conventional view.
Believers, on the other hand, have always been open to new and challenging ideas, tradition be damned.
Jacobs sneers at skeptics for supposedly not giving religion an intellectual chance. But when has he ever approached atheism with an open mind?