Found in the original here.
Science Vs. The Supernatural
Rabbi Slifkin wrote: “When [young people] encounter statements in the Talmud or Midrash that run counter to their knowledge of the natural world, they are challenged in their faith. If their rabbinic leaders dismiss their questions or, worse, chastise them for asking, their difficulties become a crisis. For such people, learning that the great Torah authorities of history did not see any need to accept Talmudic statements of science as being infallible is a great reassurance, and can be a lifeline for someone whose emunah is drowning. Precisely that approach which causes a crisis in rabbinic authority for some, rescues rabbinic authority for others.”
But why are they challenged in the first place? Why is their faith in the sages’ mastery of all levels of reality so frail and their faith in science so strong? Believe me, I also wonder how to reconcile many fantastic statements of Chazal with empirical reality. The problems are quite perplexing, but they don’t challenge my faith.
I am in no way chastising such Jews for having little faith in the sages and enormous faith in science. Such chastisement is clearly inappropriate. They are clearly the innocent victims of a certain zeitgeist that has filtered down to even the very young. They apparently have become so assimilated into the mythology surrounding modern science that they cannot conceive of the physical existence of any mystical reality. Shooting the messenger of such a state of affairs is uncalled for.
But as Jews who firmly believe that the world of the spirit is more real than the world of the laboratory, we need to cry over such people, not berate them. Rabbi Slifkin’s books only extend such people’s complete acceptance of science into the realm of religion in general, and specifically the many clearly observed and directly experienced supernatural claims of Judaism that run contrary to science.
I humbly submit that it is completely counterproductive, in an attempt to strengthen faith, for Rabbi Slifkin to cater to a mindset (one perhaps shared by Rabbi Slifkin himself) that cannot accept, in principle,the real existence of a supernatural reality. Such a reality is attested to by many first-hand accounts of our sages which none of the classic commentaries (marshaled by Rabbi Slifkin in his books) categorically denies.
Dovid Kornreich
(Via E-Mail)
What does the Hazal speaking about a mouse that is half dust and half flesh
have to do with accepting a supernatural reality? And where does Rabbi Slifkin
deny supernatural reality?
lawrence kaplan
If we agree that such a mouse (if it existsed) does not conform to any known laws of biology, then its existence must be supernatural.If one cannot in principle accept that such a creature could exist in the physical world, then apparently he cannot accept a supernatural reality.
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
While I haven't read R. Slikin's books, I presume that he believes in the
existence of God and revelation. How else would he understand the fulfilment of
prophecy and history of the Jews? Of course, anyone who believes this believes
in "a supernatural reality".
God is not just a supernatural reality. He is all of reality according to Rav Chaim of Volozhin.
Prophecy does not take place in the physical realm. It is a purely spiritual experience that science cannot confirm or deny. Denying the existence of mystical creatures on the other hand, is what science in fact does. And Rabbi Slifkin has accepted this. Fulfillment of prophecies could have completely natural agencies and need not be supernatural.
It completely misses the point; that Chazal did NOT consider such creatures
supernatural, they considered them very much part of the natural order.
I don't think Chazal thought that phoenixes and certain salamanders were "normal" creatures even though they had an orderly, non-miraculous existence. They probably regarded them as "extraordinary".
However, I'm even more concerned with the side implications of this
statement. Surely yetziat mitzrayim and the revelation at Sinai were
supernatural events. Is Dovid Kornreich suggesting that R' Slifkin and his
readers "cannot accept" that such events took place, that they "really
existed"?
sumdumju
Certainly Rabbi Slifkin believes in the miraculous events of the exodus (up to a point).But there is a big difference between singular miraculous events that requires special divine intervention in history and a consistent supernatural order that parallels the natural but cannot be scientifically explained.
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
While I'm sure this has been said many times over, science is not about belief -
it is about observation. There are some things in the natural order that we
assume or theorize to be true based on observation and experimentation - but we
don't BELIEVE in them in the same way one would believe in God.
Stating that certain creatures cannot exist because they violate the known laws of biology, as Rabbi Slifkin has, is a statement of faith in science. -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
Can anyone explain to me what it means to say something is "more real" than
something else? Either something is real or it isn't; you can't be partially in
existence, can you?
sumdumju
God is "more real" than anything created. By analogy, the soul is "more real" than its temporary physical host (the body) which it manipulates.So too, certain creatures can be said to physically exist but as a rule, not be bound by the limitations of scientific laws.They have supernatural laws of their own that function in the physical world.Scientific laws describe the lowest plane of physical reality that should not be a ceiling for the believing Jew.
Dovid Kornreich Homepage 08.09.07 - 12:41 pm #
By "more real" I mean whose existence is less contingent on other factors and is therefore less transient and limited. "Muchrach Hametzius" is more real that a contingent existence. And various things are "more contingent" than others, relative to one another.
Pure physical existence is contingent on all the relevant laws of nature PLUS the all relevant laws of the spiritual realms above it that determine the physical one.
The higher up on the chain of hishtalshelus you go, the less contingent on higher worlds you are; since you are in that higher world.
(God's existence is not contingent on anything else whatsoever as the Rambam explains in the very begining of Yesodei HaTorah.
The Jewish soul has its roots in the highest spiritual realm with no contingent factors besides his own free-will and God's will as the Derech Hashem and Rav Chaim Volozhin explain.)
Many of the mysterious creatures
mentioned in Chazal (but not all, granted) are probably ones that exist in the world just above the lowest and are not contingent on the laws of nature for their physical existence.
I hope this clarified things somewhat.
To my limited understanding, "Nishtaneh Hateva" in this context means that human beings have sunk into such a material existence that they can longer percieve the inhabitants of that higher realm.
Dovid Kornreich Homepage 08.10.07 - 3:47 am #
"By "more real" I mean whose existence is less contingent on other factors and is therefore less transient and limited."
So a person on a respirator (R"L) is less real than a healthy person, because his existence is contingent on more factors? That doesn't seem right to me.
In broader terms, both the sick and healthy person's physical existence are EQUALLY contingent on the same laws of biology. (The sick person is actually losing his physical existence as a function of of being subject to the same laws. The healthy person has this same potential loss of existence since he is mortal.)
But beings who are above the laws of biology IN PRINCIPLE will not lose their physical existence as easily.
In other words: If it's "harder" in principle for a being to lose its existence, that being "more real" in a philosophical sense. And conversely if its "easier" for a being to lose his existence.
I don't think this is too abstract a concept to say that an immortal physical being is "more real" physically than a mortal one.
It also doesn't make a lot of sense to me why contingency or governing laws on anything affects how "real" it is. Something hanging by a thread is 100% as real as something iron-clad.
A federal official who is not subject to state laws isn't "more real" than a regular citizen, who is subject to federal, state and city laws. Why is something more or less real just because it is or isn't affected by physical laws?
You are not grasping that these laws are affecting one's very existence. That's why these laws are understood to diminish one's level of reality.
To adjust your analogy:
If a federal official is given permanent citizenship status because he is a federal official, regardless of circumstances, then you can very well say that his citizenship is "more real" than an ordinary citizen whose laws subject his citizenship to being revoked under certain circumstances.
"all relevant laws of the spiritual realms above it that determine the physical one."
First of all, what's a spiritual law? A law, be definition, must be enforceable. Otherwise it is not a law, it is just an assemblage of words. (If I say X is illegal, it's not a law; if Congress says it, it is a law because Congress can enforce it.) Can you give me a single example of a spiritual law that determines the physical world?
Secondly, where do these spiritual laws come from? If someone declares a spiritual law, how do you know if they are right or wrong?
sumdumju
I am refering to spiritual laws in the same way people refer to natural laws. No-one but God is "enforcing" natural law to keep things in physical existence, right? The same is true with spiritual laws. They have been set up to keep the physical realm functioning in a certain way.
The functioning of the Zodiac and the astrological bodies you mentioned is just such an example of spiritual "laws".
And as we know, "Ayn Mazel B'Yisrael" so there are certain overriding principles to these spiritual laws. But that's only because the root existence of a Jew comes from a realm above the Zodiac which in turn determines the Zodiac beneath it- in the chain of Hishtalshelus.
This is all very basic Kabbalah and I don't think I'm saying anything novel.
Plese study the Derech Hashem -section three, chapter two- for a brief explanation of the mechanics of spiritual laws. All the Derech Hashem's principles are considered to be quite definitive and can easily be coroborrated with all the classic works on Kabbalah and be traced back to many statements of Chazal.
Dovid Kornreich Homepage 08.12.07 - 4:03 am #
|
Dovid: It would help your credibility to detail the inhabitants of this alleged supra-physical world. Are Sheidim supra-physical? If so, how does that reconcile with their not having a soul? If they're not supra-physical, why don't we see them anymore? Are salamanders and dirt-mice supraphysical? If so, what is their function?
Y. Aharon
1) The classic inhabitant of the realm(s) I refer to is the Leviathan.
I refered you to the FIRST comment of Rabbeinu Bachye to Bereishis 1:21 (quoting the Rashba verbatim) on numerous occasions. I also cited the Ramban's commentary to Parshas Vayeira above.
These sources are the key to this entire concept in my humble opinion.
2) You don't need to have a HUMAN soul in order to be a supra-physical being. Why should you assume that?
3) Their function is similar to the function of all physical phenomena that we still can observe- they are the lowest expression of their spiritual root.
Its the same thing as the physical qualities of "male and female", or "right and left". These qualities we see in the real physical world have their roots in the highest spiritual realm and are brought to concrete expression all the way down.
But I could imagine a point of human spiritual deterioration where the concepts of male and female, and right and left, become meaningless to us. We will simply cease to perceive them in our reality (Think Post-Modern).
Look, I would love to spend hours trying to address every single kasheh about these ideas but first it behooves you to study this Rashba and the Ramban and internalize the general concept.
After the concept is clear, you will find many sources that subtly corroborate them in the Maharal, Ramchal, and Nefesh Hachayim.
See the Gur Aryeh to the verse "Lo Sisgoddedu" which I believe refers to the concept of "a truer existence" of the Jewish People vis-a-vis the non-Jewish nations.
Even the Rambam agreed (in the very end of the Moreh see from the "note" till the end of chap. 51 Book III
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/.../gfp/ gfp187.htm
that if a person has a close enough connection with Hashem, he can transcend normal limitations of natural law even though he is still a physical being.
This clearly indicates a sliding scale of physical existence exists according to all sources.
Dovid Kornreich Homepage 08.12.07 - 4:37 am #
|
In addition to Y. Aharon's comment above, there's not just the question of what's in this supra-physical world, or even why, but how you know it.
There is nothing (that I can see) in the various gemaras mentioning, e.g., spontaneously generated lice and maggots, to lead one to conclude they were referring to anything but this physical realm. One can't work backwards and say "well, there's no evidence in this realm, therefore Chazal must have been referring to supernatural events": that's just circular reasoning.
Just to reiterate, what Chazal percieved as part of the physical world doesn't mean they percieved them as completely obeying natural law.
My point is that for Chazal, the things that were bound by the lowest realm of pure material existence were the least important of all.
There is a SLIDING SCALE to the physical realm itself.
I don't think that Chazal would feel any need to map out where exactly on the scale they were holding when refering to any particular "physical" phenomenon.
The commentaries were left with the job of deciphering which level of reality they were describing. And when it came to the zodiac or the sun's motion, these commentaries-centuries old- clearly say that Chazal were refering to the "more real" root existence of the physical sun, moon and stars. It doesn't strike me as ad hoc because some vivid descriptions of Chazal must have defied EVEN THEIR OWN empirical knowledge of these pheneomenon in their time.
does nishtaneh habriyot mean we can't comprehend the geocentricity of the solar system?
I think that since Einstein's relativity we certainly can comprehend the geocentricity of the solar system. It's a great illustration of the abstract perspective imposing its model on the real world in certain respects.
This is nishtaneh hateva in reverse!
It all seems a very, very difficult understanding in the words of Chazal.
sumdumju
Without the classic commentaries to give one the requisite background, anyone is bound to misread any given statement of Chazal. The Rambam in Moreh says this idea repeatedly.
Dovid Kornreich Homepage 08.12.07 - 5:01 am #
|
