In the constant search for truth in the brutal and intellectually honest fashion that is his style, the artist formally known as ‘Not the Godol Hador’ seeks to construct a theology for Orthodoxy that will make science and Torah totally compatible. To put it the way he does:
“(W)hat’s the best rational ideology/theology we can come up with in this space, given … contradictory goals? And once we have come up with it, will it be any good?”
“Is it inevitably going to be Reform Theology + Utilitarian Orthopraxy? Or is there something a little better we can come up with?”
“Some may ask, why do we want to come up with something compatible with (Orthodox Judaism)? Why not just become Conservative or Secular? Sure, we could just become Conservative, but that's not very original. Also this blog would get boring. Also (and more seriously), OF COURSE most people here are invested in (Orthodox Judaism) in one sense or another, AND they are also invested in believing things which are true, and would like these two aspects of their life to co-exist in some sensible way.”
The truth is that one cannot get away from it. What XGH is in essence espousing is a version of Conservative theology. Emet Ve-Emunah is the name of the Conservative Movement’s defining document.
When he retired as chancellor of the Conservative Jewish Theological Seminary, Dr. Ismar Schorsch’s urged the new leadership to keep the movement loyal to Halacha. He characterized Orthodoxy, Reform, and Conservative in terms of Emet (Truth) and Emunah (Faith). He said something to the effect that, “Orthodoxy has Emunah but no Emet and Reform has Emet but no Emunah. It is only the Conservative movement that has both and that without Halacha which is the offshoot of faith, the Consevative Movement would in essence bvecome just another version of Reform. The Emet he spoke of is that of taking into account the very ame issues that XGH does.
XGH looks at scientific facts that seem incompatible with the more traditional literalist interpretations of the bible, and says that Metzius, nature as 'proven' through scientific evidence, trumps the Mesorah, the traditional understanding of the Torah. We must, therefore re-interpret the Torah so that it doesn't contradict the Metzius. That is precisely what the Conservative movement does.
They look at biblical criticism, scientific evidence, and archaeology, and conclude that all those criticisms are valid and thus make and the traditional interpretations problematic. Traditional understandings must therefore be wrong and they re-interpret. Their re-interpretations have made just about the entire Torah narrative an allegory with no basis in fact. No Exodus. No Sinai. No mass revelation. Is that really Judaism? Not to me.
As rational and appealing as this approach is, there is problem with it. Automatically rejecting traditional interpretations of the Torah when confronted with scientific evidence to the contrary is no guarantee that one has found a clearer vision of truth. There are always going to be new discoveries that will which change our understanding of the Metzius as previously perceived. Who is to say that at some point science won't take a turn towards a more traditional and literal understandings of the Torah? It could happen. And it has happened.
Recently DovBear, featured an article describing an archeological find that corroborated the existence of a minor biblical figure. Of course that could be explained away by the skeptics. But doesn't that at least show that scientific discovery can just as easily prove as disprove?
Science if nothing else is about the truth of nature. Dogma has no place in it. That includes any science that is today treated as dogma. This fact, at least for me, prevents me from automatically rejecting Masoretic interpretations of portions of the Torah that are disputed by the current science.
Changes in scientific knowledge in the future may alter our understanding of natural evidence in ways that make it compatible with a more traditional understanding of Torah. A good example of this is the relatively recent acknowledgement by science that the ‘Big Bang’ that began the universe was ‘Yesh MeAyin’, something from nothing. Matter and energy had not pre-existed in any form. Yesh MeAyin is a core belief in Judaism. The universe was created from nothing. If I understand correctly, until recently Yesh MeAyin was incompatible with the known science of our time. Now it IS the science of our time. Who is to say that something else like this won’t happen again in other areas?
In short we can't really know the truth of the Torah through the study of science since science by definition is subject to change. Torah on the other hand does not change. What may change is our understanding of it. Does mankind now understand the entirety of Torah? No. Only Moshe Rabbenu had that merit. Almost.
We do the best we can when seeking truth with the intelligence God gave us. I believe that a complete understanding of both the Torah and nature (which is what science studies) would without a doubt show one hundred percent compatibility.
