In our previous post, we examined Rabbi Meiselman's contention that "hashkafah" is practical. In this post, we'll examine whether or not such a category of "practical hashkafah" can be applied to disputes of the age of the universe, making it amenable to P'sak.
Can we "pasken" the age of the universe?
As described in the last post, the notion of "practical hashkafah" is bounded by the set of mandatory beliefs in Judaism. What are these mandatory beliefs according to the Rambam?
It is necessary to bear in mind that Scripture only teaches the chief points of those true principles which lead to the true perfection of man, and only demands in general terms faith in them. Thus Scripture teaches the Existence, the Unity, the Omniscience, the Omnipotence, the Will, and the Eternity of God. All this is given in the form of final results, but they cannot be understood fully and accurately except after the acquisition of many kinds of knowledge. Scripture further demands belief in certain truths, the belief in which is indispensable in regulating our social relations: such is the belief that God is angry with those who disobey Him, for it leads us to the fear and dread of disobedience [to the will of God]. There are other truths in reference to the whole of the Universe which form the substance of the various and many kinds of speculative sciences, and afford the means of verifying the above-mentioned principles as their final result. But Scripture does not so distinctly prescribe the belief in them as it does in the first case; it is implied in the commandment, "to love the Lord" (Deut. xi. 13). It may be inferred from the words, "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might" (ibid. vi. 5), what stress is laid on this commandment to love God. We have already shown in the Mishneh-torah (Yes. ha-torah ii. 2) that this love is only possible when we comprehend the real nature of things, and understand the divine wisdom displayed therein. We have likewise mentioned there what our Sages remark on this subject. (Moreh 3:28) [emphasis mine]The Rambam makes a clear distinction between the basic assertions about beliefs in God and reward and punishment, and the subject matter of the speculative sciences which are very important to religion, in his view. In the former case, the Torah teaches us specific principles, such as those encompassed by the Rambam's 13 principles of faith. In the latter case, we are enjoined to investigate them in order to fulfill the Rambam's understanding of the mitzvah to "to love the Lord", but we are not given a specific set of beliefs:
What is the path [to attain] love and fear of Him? When a person contemplates His wondrous and great deeds and creations and appreciates His infinite wisdom that surpasses all comparison, he will immediately love, praise, and glorify [Him], yearning with tremendous desire to know [God's] great name, asDavid stated: "My soul thirsts for the Lord, for the living God" [Psalms 42:3]. (Yesodei Hatorah 2:2)Now let's examine Rabbi Meiselman's application of his principle of P'sak in "practical Hashkafah". He explicitly applies his theory of P’sak to Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s attempt to resolve the known age of the universe using various Kabbalistic concepts such as the existence of 6 sabbatical cycles in addition to the cycle that comprises this world (see The Age of the Universe). In this work, Rabbi Kaplan explicitly relies on minority opinions, since no P’sak is possible in “Hashkafah”, which Rabbi Meiselman maintains is an illegitimate approach (TCS pg. 535).
To begin with, the age of the universe is a scientific and factual question. As demonstrated above, the underlying reality of the universe’s age cannot be determined through the process of P’sak. Rabbi Meiselman is sensitive to this problem and devotes some chapters of his book to the notion that the conclusions of modern science are either based on false assumptions or else are mere “theories” with no compelling evidence behind them. In my humble opinion, it is difficult to see, based on this, how any legitimate effort to reconcile the Torah with well-established science could be problematic simply because a only minority of prior interpretations of some elements of Torah can be accommodated.
In addition, a young earth is not one of the thirteen principles of belief enumerated by the Rambam. Based on the definition of “practical Hashkafa” above, it is unclear without more analysis, why the belief in an old universe would impinge on any of the 13 essential beliefs postulated by the Rambam. Instead it seems to fall squarely in the realm of "speculative sciences" where the Rambam declares that we were not given specific items of belief.
While a young earth was certainly the belief of most authorities in Judaism until recent times, so were beliefs in an unmoving earth at the center of the solar system, the existence of crystalline spheres in the heavens, and the composition of all matter out of 4 or 5 basic elements. In fact, these are all beliefs held by the Rambam, and some were used in his explanation of Pesukim and in his interpretation of the commandment to believe in God's existence:
This entity is the God of the world and the Lord of the entire earth. He controls the sphere with infinite and unbounded power. This power [continues] without interruption, because the sphere is constantly revolving, and it is impossible for it to revolve without someone causing it to revolve. [That one is] He, blessed be He, who causes it to revolve without a hand or any [other] corporeal dimension. (Yesodei Hatorah 1:5)
Fortunately for us, the Rambam has already done much of the analysis for us. In his discussion of the possible “eternity” of the universe, he states the following (Moreh 2:25):
We do not reject the Eternity of the Universe, because certain passages in Scripture confirm the Creation; for such passages are not more numerous than those in which God is represented as a corporeal being; nor is it impossible or difficult to find for them a suitable interpretation. [...]
For two reasons, however, we have not done so, and have not accepted the Eternity of the Universe. [...] the Eternity of the Universe has not been proved; a mere argument in favour of a certain theory is not sufficient reason for rejecting the literal meaning of a Biblical text, and explaining it figuratively, when the opposite theory can be supported by an equally good argument.
Secondly, [...] [i]f we were to accept the Eternity of the Universe as taught by Aristotle, that everything in the Universe is the result of fixed laws, that Nature does not change, and that there is nothing supernatural, we should necessarily be in opposition to the foundation of our religion, [...] If, however, we accepted the Eternity of the Universe in accordance with the second of the theories which we have expounded above [that of "Plato" which allows for Providence] [...] we should not be in opposition to the fundamental principles of our religion [...] But there is no necessity for this expedient, so long as the theory has not been proved. [...] we take the text of the bible literally, and say that it teaches us a truth which we cannot prove: and the miracles are evidence for the correctness of our view.The amazing implication of this Rambam is that even an eternal universe is not automatically excluded by the Pesukim of Genesis or any other fundamental principle of Judaism. Instead, the Rambam emphatically rejects the eternity of the universe on two grounds:
1. An eternal universe that doesn’t admit of Providence, such as that of Aristotle, would contradict many of the fundamental beliefs of Judaism such as the belief in divine reward and punishment.
2. There is no proof of an eternal universe. This excludes even speculative theories of eternity which admit of providence, such as that of Plato.It seems clear that if an eternal universe can theoretically be fitted to the Pesukim of Genesis and the fundamental principles of Judaism, then an 13.8 billion year old universe most certainly can. And since the age of the a non-eternal created universe has no implications on the possibility of Providence, the only remaining factor is whether or not there is actually strong evidence for an ancient universe. We won’t delve into that question here, but the evaluation of that evidence is a matter of science and not a matter that can be decided by P’sak. And since it is apparent that an old universe, according to the Rambam, can be fitted to the Pesukim, the fundamentals of Jewish belief are not implicated and the possibility of a limited of role for P’sak in “practical Hashkafah” has no bearing on this topic.
In the next post, with God's help, we’ll complete our examination of Rabbi Meiselman’s thesis by examining his assertion that the Rambam decides non-halachic issues on halachic grounds.
The views in this post are mine and may not represent the views of the blog owner. I encourage comments and will make every attempt to address any questions in the comments section.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteRabbi Dovid Gottlieb has explained chapter 2:25 in the Moreh Nevuchim via what he learned from Moshe Meiselman at link below: just one mention from the link- "...It remains to comment on the Rambam’s meaning for “philosophical demonstration”. It is clear from Part 2 chapter 17 that any demonstration relying on the assumption of the uniformity of the laws of nature in the past would not count. On the other hand, the Rambam’s own demonstrations start from presently observed realities and use natural physical/philosophical reasoning, so something like that would count. In any case, the age of the universe and evolution and relating theorizing clearly will not count."
ReplyDeleteTherefore Oshie's recent claim regarding an old universe is not applicable to Maimonide's position in 2:25.
see fully here: http://blog.dovidgottlieb.com/2013/06/guide-of-perplexed-part-ii-chap-25.html
Secondly, the 6000 years of human history is a fundamental as Maimonides states in MN 3:50 and additionally there are no available alternative meanings to reinterpret the histories of man that yield 6000 years ( science maintains that man is not 6000 years old and languages are not less than 6000 years old etc...)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRabbi Dovid Gottlieb has explained chapter 2:25 in the Moreh Nevuchim via what he learned from Moshe Meiselman at link below: just one mention from the link- "...It remains to comment on the Rambam’s meaning for “philosophical demonstration”. It is clear from Part 2 chapter 17 that any demonstration relying on the assumption of the uniformity of the laws of nature in the past would not count. On the other hand, the Rambam’s own demonstrations start from presently observed realities and use natural physical/philosophical reasoning, so something like that would count. In any case, the age of the universe and evolution and relating theorizing clearly will not count."
ReplyDelete[I deleted my first response and updated because of a bad typo. No substance changed].
Thank you for our comment. (I deleted the double posting).
I'm not going to get here into the issue about whether or not there is good evidence for an old universe, although I do believe that the evidence is quite strong, and it is not based on any a priori assumption about the uniformity of the laws of nature. Certainly, modern scientific arguments are much stronger than the sorts of "philosophical demonstrations" that the Rambam had to rely on in his day to understand the physical nature of the universe, due to improvements in both scientific method and technology.
My point here is that you can't "pasken" the age of the universe. Your response doesn't dispute that. Addressing Rav Meiselman's direct arguments for a young earth is a topic for a different post.
Secondly, the 6000 years of human history is a fundamental as Maimonides states in MN 3:50 and additionally there are no available alternative meanings to reinterpret the histories of man that yield 6000 years ( science maintains that man is not 6000 years old and languages are not less than 6000 years old etc...)
This is your opinion and your are entitled to it. My point here is that this is not something that can be "paskened", as a variety of interpretations are possible.
You argue from Moreh 3:50. Here is a partial quote:
"It is one of the fundamental principles of the Law that the Universe has been created ex nihilo, and that of the human race, one individual being, Adam, was created."
We've already shown from 2:25 that this statement from the Rambam about the Universe being created ex nihilo is actually something that he might be willing to change given enough evidence (in reality, there is no such evidence of an "Providential" eternal universe and thus no reason to change this specific interpretation). So I'm not sure why you think that the other elements of 3:50 might not also be reinterpreted if there was compelling evidence otherwise.
Oshie wrote: "I'm not going to get here into the issue about whether or not there is good evidence for an old universe, although I do believe that the evidence is quite strong, and it is not based on any a priori assumption about the uniformity of the laws of nature."
ReplyDeleteThe conclusion of a 13 billion year age of the universe is based on a priori assumptions about the uniformity of the laws of nature. It would be interesting to see an argument to the contrary.
Oshie wrote: "I'm not going to get here into the issue about whether or not there is good evidence for an old universe, although I do believe that the evidence is quite strong, and it is not based on any a priori assumption about the uniformity of the laws of nature."
ReplyDeleteThe conclusion of a 13 billion year age of the universe is based on a priori assumptions about the uniformity of the laws of nature. It would be interesting to see an argument to the contrary.
If my time permits and our gracious host is interested in publishing such a discussion, then I'll write something on the topic in the future. But my argument here does not depend on that; I'm only arguing here that a dispute of the age of the universe cannot be settled through P'sak.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI hate to be a nudge but as Rav Dovid Gottlieb says, one may pester rabbis because they are the national property of the Kal Yisroel, so I am asking again that even if the blog owner doesnt post your posts would you post a contact link/blog url by which we can check to see if you posted on what you wrote "...then I'll write something on the topic in the future" ?
ReplyDeleteI hate to be a nudge but as Rav Dovid Gottlieb says, one may pester rabbis because they are the national property of the Kal Yisroel, so I am asking again that even if the blog owner doesnt post your posts would you post a contact link/blog url by which we can check to see if you posted on what you wrote "...then I'll write something on the topic in the future" ?
ReplyDeleteI'm not a Rabbi; however, I don't consider comments to be pestering, we can consider that a wash :).
I don't have my own blog and I'm not at this point interested in starting one, which is why I very much appreciate Rabbi Slifkin's hospitality. If you are interested in the topic, I suggest that you look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#Uranium-lead_dating_method and consider whether there is anything there that could be relevant to the topic. Also, I suggest thinking deeply about the evidence on page 550 note 38.
Very interesting post, David.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there is also a proverbial elephant in the room here. The Rambam says that you can't put a specific date or time on the creation of the world because that contradicts monotheism (or, is a form of apikorsus). (I learned this from Rabbi Meir Triebitz, as I lack any kind of expertise in the Rambam or Moreh Nevuchim to be able to make such a claim myself). That position of the Rambam really puts the 6000 yrs old claim into the grave. I haven't seen anyone else address this other than RMT. Does anyone discuss it?
Very interesting post, David.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there is also a proverbial elephant in the room here. The Rambam says that you can't put a specific date or time on the creation of the world because that contradicts monotheism (or, is a form of apikorsus). (I learned this from Rabbi Meir Triebitz, as I lack any kind of expertise in the Rambam or Moreh Nevuchim to be able to make such a claim myself). That position of the Rambam really puts the 6000 yrs old claim into the grave. I haven't seen anyone else address this other than RMT. Does anyone discuss it?
I'm sorry that I can't help here; I've never heard that claim. I'm hesitant to say this because there is much more that I don't know than what I do know, but the claim doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps another reader can help make sense of this.
Can you comment on this?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/435111/jewish/The-Age-of-the-Universe.htm
I read this back in the day as an intellectual Mesivta Bochur in a Litvishe Yeshiva.
Love to hear your comments!
Can you comment on this? http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/435111/jewish/The-Age-of-the-Universe.htm
ReplyDeleteI read this back in my impressionable days and reading the wikipedia you shared brought it back to the fore of my mind.
Thanks!
Can you comment on this? http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/435111/jewish/The-Age-of-the-Universe.htm
ReplyDeleteI read this back in my impressionable days and reading the wikipedia you shared brought it back to the fore of my mind.
Thanks!
Thank you for the reference. I see that part of the latest comment on that page is plagiarized from my first post! I'm amused and I'm Mochel :).
The Rebbe's letter makes many of the same arguments that Rabbi Meiselman makes. I think that those who find such explanations useful would benefit from reading that letter.
However, for those who are not so inclined, because they believe the findings of science to be more solid, I recommend the essays of Rabbi Kaplan and Rabbi Carmell, as well as Rabbi Slifkin's book.
The purpose of my essay is to counter the notion that those who believe in the basic conclusions of science are automatically excluded from belief in Orthodox Judaism. I'm not interested in criticizing other approaches as long as they don't claim exclusivity.