Academic Kids talk:WikiProject Judaism/Science 1

Science and theology

RK, the reason for this is that only recently some avowed Haredim have joined the project. And frankly, there is a fair bit of bias when anthropological or revisionist research on Judaism is taken without a pinch of salt. Indeed, historical research is seen as heretical because the inevitable conclusion of such research is something that clashes with the Jewish principles of faith. Some faith is irreconcileable with science, especially when the science is somewhat subjective in itself, almost pathetically rejecting classical Jewish sources as proof because they happen to be religious sources. Scrupulous adherence to NPOV should iron out the differences, but I do believe there's a fair bit of mending to do. JFW | T@lk 17:30, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Once you imply that you view scientists and archaeologists as heretics, you show endanger your ability to work on this project. I still think you two fail to understand the point of thi encyclopedia project. This is not a religious Jewish encyclopedia, and none of our particles follow an orthodox Jewish point of view. Similarly, this is not a not a religious Christian or Muslim encyclopedia. No religion has the right to make sure that they agre with our articles. Rather, Wikipedia is a non-religious encyclopedia which states all known facts in accord with our NPOV policy. If a certain believes X, we say that According to Orthodox Jews, X is true, but according to other groups, Y is true, and according to the nearly unanimous findings of modern science, Z is true. That is all that the adherents of any religion can hope for. RK 12:30, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Insisting that the current archeological/anthropological/sociological view of Jews, Judaism, Torah, Jewish history, etc. is "fact" and therefore NPOV is a grave misunderstanding of both the meaning of the word "fact", and the intent of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Stating that "a, b, and c are the views of archeologists/anthropologists/sociologists while x, y, and z are the traditional Jewish views" is NPOV. However, I've already had to edit a number of articles on Jewish-related topics (some of which you were heavily involved in creating or editing to begin with) which say things like "Jews used to believe x, y, and z, but archeologists/anthropologists/sociologists have proved them wrong because of a, b, and c." This violates NPOV in all sorts of ways, is endemic in many of the less scrutinized articles on Jewish related topics, and I believe this is what JDwolff was referring to. Jayjg 15:44, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, I agree with you that we must phrase all statements in acord with NPOV policy. However, many of the findings of scientists and historians are facts. There is no misunderstanding. The world really is spherical, and not flat, as a literal reading of the Bible tells us. The world really is 4.5 billion years old, and not 6,000 years old, as as a literal reading of the Bible tells us (the same reading still accepted by most Orthodox Jews.) Life today really did evolve from earlier forms of life, despite that fact that most Orthodox Jews deny this. The patriarch Abraham did not wear a modern day kipa and tallit, and study in a yeshiva, despite the anachronistic teachings of some rabbis. Similarly, all historians and archaeologists are convinced that the Torah we have today has been redacted together from a number of earlier sources (i.e. the documentary hypothesis), and not a single reputable historians holds otherwise. RK

In fact, none of this is contrary to Orthodoxy! In Orthodox Judaism itself a great change in thinking has taken place over the past 100 years, and many Orthodox Jews now believe that the world really is 4.5 billion years old, and that evolution does take place. Also, despite a belief to the contrary, many Orthodox Jews have changed their minds on the documentary hypothsis, and now accept some form of it! (I can e-mail you details and references on this point; I wouldn't make such a claim without multiple references.) RK 13:36, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, you said that you found some articles which said things like "Jews used to believe x, y, and z, but archeologists/anthropologists/sociologists have proved them wrong because of a, b, and c." "This violates NPOV in all sorts of ways... and I believe this is what JDwolff was referring to."

I understand your point; but in the past Jews really did believe W, X, Y, and Z, but now, since modern science and history, many Jews really did change their minds. Now I understand that many religious Jews are very upset about this. And we can say this within the article. I understand that on points W, X, Y and Z most Orthodox Jews have not changed their minds, but Orthodox Jews are only a small fraction of Jews living today. In the USA most synagogue-going Jews who practice Judaism their faith are not Orthodox. So to maintain NPOV we have to say that Orthodox Jews today believe W, X, Y, and Z, but due to changes in science and history, non-Orthodox Jews believes in W and X, but Y and Z have been modified or dropped, etc. This is factually true, and is stated in a neutral sort of way. RK 13:28, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

RK, in the areas of archeology and history, what "scientists" say are not "facts" in the same was as what they say regarding the atomic weight of various atoms. Rather they are hypotheses which are quite often debated, with paradigms being overturned on a regular basis. Now, it is true that some historical facts can be stated as such; for example, the dates of the reign of Queen Victoria are undisputed. However, other historical "facts" are indeed disputed; for example, the date which the Book of Daniel was written. The former are based on documented and unambiguous evidence; the latter is based primarily on linguistic theories and analysis. And it is the latter areas which tend to impinge most strongly on the articles in question. Whether or not many Jews have come to believe the views of archeologists or historians or whoever is not relevant to NPOV, but saying that Jewish beliefs have been "proved wrong" in these kinds of areas definitely does violate NPOV. Jayjg 04:46, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am Ok with this. As you may have noted, I have not reverted any of your edits; I was just trying to clarify my thinking on this issue. RK 20:06, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

And I appreciate that. However, what I have often had to NPOV was the exact kind of bias referred to at the top of this section; not Orthodox vs. science, but a consistent pushing of the Conservative POV as correct (and an undercurrent that the Orthodox view is fundamentalist and backward), often combined with a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues involved. Jayjg 23:54, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I've been away for week or two, and I've been strawmanned rather badly. RK, I do not endanger my objectivity by stating that Orthodoxy considerers some scientific ideas heretical. I am merely stating that this is the Orthodox POV, to which I adhere in person, but I am not arguing against inclusion of these ideas, as long as they are kept seperate and under a clear banner that this is science rather than Judaism. You cannot claim that Judaism now believes that the world is 4.5 billion years old. You can state that in recent times, Jewish scientists and religious authorities have found ways to harmonise the scientific and midrashic accounts. If you could email me your quotes on the documentary hypothesis, I'd be most indebted. JFW | T@lk 09:33, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Since I misunderstood you, I apologize. But you may misunderstand me as well. I did not claim that our articles must say something like Judaism now believes that the world is 4.5 billion years old due to advances in science. Rather, I basically said that due to advances in science that most Jews have come to accept as reliable, most Jews have come to reinterpret their traditional religious beliefs. I want our articles to point out that today most Jews, including many Orthodox Jews, do believe that the world is 4.5 billion years old. We also must point out that many within Orthodoxy reject the findings of modern science, and believe that Earth is only 6,000 years old. I will e-mail you the material on Orthodoxy and the documentary hypothesis. RK 16:41, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

At my mother's Sephardic Synagogue, the issue of Creation vs. Evolution was never a problem. I read a book by Gerald Shroeder (and Orthodox Nuclear Physicist), and it seemed to rectify the "contradiction" quite nicely. So it seems there are Orthodox who do, and Orthodox who don't, have a problem with evolution.--Josiah 14:55, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this effort started with the Tifereth Yisrael (a 19th century Mishnah commentator) trying to fit the recently-found dinosaur bones into the context of midrashim. Still, many present-day haredi authorities shirk all these efforts, and even the Tif. Yis. treatise Drush Or ha-Chaim is slightly controversial.
Therefore, one cannot simply claim that Orthodoxy now accepts that the universe is 4.5 x 10⁹ years old. This lies at the heart of my disagreements with RK on many issues. Instead of changing the traditional view as described (e.g. "Orthodoxy accepts homosexuality"), it may be entirely more helpful to distinguish between normative positions (e.g. the Shulkhan Arukh and its glosses), and only then mentioning any recent "progress" in these matters.

But I did not say that! I said that some within Orthodoxy accept this view, and some do not. This is not a position of Orthodox versus non-Orthodox. This is a debate within the Orthodox Jewish community itself. RK 16:41, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

It's rarely (if ever) a debate within the Orthodox community. Rather, these kinds of statements are usually included as an attempt to support non-Orthodox acceptance of these positions, by pointing out that some Orthodox Jews believe these things as well. As such, they are also promoting the Reform (and often Conservative) point of view. Jayjg 01:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, this claim is absolutely wrong. Please take the time to read the many Orthodox Jewish sources I just gave on this issue. They are written by well known and respected Orthodox rabbis and scholars! This really is an inter-Orthodox debate. Anyone who told you otherwise must have been an Orthodox Jew who is trying to deligitimize all other Orthodox Jews, and present them as non-Orthodox. (I also must protest about the way that the terms "Reform" and "Conservative" are effectively being used as insults.) RK

I have seen those sources. In fact, they are very a small number of Orthodox writers, who are presenting their attempts to reconcile Science and Torah. They are not debating anyone, and I am not aware of any Orthodox debates on the issue; if you are aware of Orthodox authors or authorities "debating" this topic with other Orthodox authors or authorities, please bring them forward. As for the rest: 1) Please stop trying to personalize this discussion. No-one has "told me otherwise", so any agendas you have invented are imaginary. 2) The terms "Reform" and "Conservative" have in no way been used as an insult, unless you think that stating the Reform and Conservative movements have a point of view is an insult. Jayjg 16:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, these are word games. There most certainly is a debate between Orthodox Jews who advocate the views I mentioned, and Orthodox Jews who perceive these views as mistaken or even heretical. We can use any word we like for this ongoing Orthodox debate. You can call it a dispute, debate, argument, discussion, or anything else! But the word itself isn't important, the ideas are. When you start arguing about the choice of words, instead of the actual phenomenon, it looks as if you wish to avoid the topic. Some people are unable to recognize the significant changes within Orthodox Judaism in the last 200 years, but there are plenty of Orthodox Jews who admit that they debate (or discuss, dispute, argue, whatever) with other Orthodox views. RK 00:31, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Also, these are not from a "very small number of writers". A great many Orthodox Jews have written on this issue, and their positions have become mainstream in much of Orthodoxy, at least in American Orthodox Judaism. RK 00:43, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Challenge: Torah Views on Science, is a publication of the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists (AOJS), a mainstream Orthodox Jewish group. It it wrong to question their religious credentials, and falsely accuse them of pushing Reform and Conservative views, while only pretending to be Orthodox Jews. That is lashon hara. This WikiProject is about standardizing Wikipedia articles on Judaism, and is not a platform for attacks against all Orthodox Jews who happen to study science and find it compatible with Orthodox Judaism. Our articles may, of course, note that some Orthodox Jews find such thinking non-Orthodox or heretical, but we must also note that this is an inter-Orthodox dispute, and not a dispute between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews. RK

The authors of the articles in this book include: Rabbi Aryer Carmell, yeshivat Devar Yerushalayim; Cyril Domb, Professor of Theoretical Physics at King's College, London University, President of the British AOJS; Nachum L. Rabionovitch, Principal of Jews' College, Longdon; for year he served as a Rav in Tortonto; Alvin Radkovsky, Professor of Nuclear Engineering and Physics at Tel Aviv University; Rabbi Israel Lipschitz; Rabbi Zvi H. Chajes, noted Talmud commentator; Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook; Rabbi E. E. Dessler; Professor Sanford Aranoff, University of the Negev; Rabbi Simon Schwab; Rabbi Norman Lamm, Yeshiva University RK 15:20, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

No-one has challenged the Orthodox credentials of these people, or "accused" them of being Reform or Conservative. Please stop inventing straw-man arguments. The issue is whether or not this is an inter-Orthodox debate, which is a different question. Jayjg 16:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is not a straw-man argument. You publicly questioned their credentials, and that was offensive. If you believe them to be wrong, that is not offensive. It should never be offensive to disagree with someone's argument, if you have a counter-argument that you feel is more compelling. But you are publicly questioning their Orthodox credentials, and that is not appropriate. No one here is publicly questioning the credentials of rebbes you follow. RK 00:43, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Charges of really "not being Orthodox" and of "being Reform in disguise" have unfortunately been a common tactic in inter-orthodox disputes. However, those who wish to write on this subject should read some of the the many books and rabbinic journals written in the Orthodox community, when we do so we find a wide variety of views on these subjects. RK

Perhaps they have, but this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Please read my statements more carefully next time; they say exactly what they mean, no less, and certainly no more. Jayjg 16:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For RK's ears: halakha does not need the documentary hypothesis to arrive at justifiable conclusions. The tool that halakhists have employed for centuries is called ta'uth sofer (scribal error), and is not controversial at all. Yet, this tool is not used on the scriptures (at all), but it has been employed extensively in arriving at the present-day editions of the Talmud (e.g. by the Vilna Gaon and by Jacob Emden). JFW | T@lk 12:06, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Why would you believe that I think that we need the documentary hypothesis to arrive as justifiable conclusions? RK

I suspect JFW is referring to your earlier claim that despite a belief to the contrary, many Orthodox Jews have changed their minds on the documentary hypothsis, and now accept some form of it! Jayjg 16:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Again, I do not understand the charge made against me. Indeed, many Orthodox Jews have changed their mind (references and quotes available on requst.) That is an inter-Orthodox dispute. Currently, any Orthodox Jew who accepts the DH, however, is considered mistaken, or even heretical. Acceptance of the DH is, as a sociological reality, not an Orthodox position. (Whether or not it should be, however, is a different issue.) RK 00:31, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

And, RK: since modern science and history, many Jews really did change their minds (your quote) does not affect Judaism. Many Christians, lehavdil, claim to be Christians but are in doubt whether their deity was in fact resurrected. Does that change anything in the "official" Christian stance on this?? JFW | T@lk 12:06, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here you are now attacking many Orthodox Jews, including Orthodox rabbis. Maybe you do not think that Judaism has changed, but it has. Many Orthodox Jews have views that have changed in the last 150 years, due to advances in science. The same is true for nearly all non-Orthodox Jews. It is thus a historical, indisputable fact that Judaism has changed. Only a small group of ultra-Orthodox Jews, angry at their co-religions, deny otherwise. They claim that Judaism has not changed at all, and that anyone who believes differently from them is a heretic who rejects Judaism. RK

JFW is not "attacking" anyone; please tone down this kind of immoderate rhetoric. As for the rest, if you think an Orthodox responsa on the use of electricity means that Judaism has "changed", or an Orthodox view attempting to reconcile modern cosmology with Bereishis means that Judaism has "changed", then I understand your position. However, most Orthodox Jews would not view either of these things as "change" at all, but rather standard parts of the Orthodox process. As for the aspersions you cast on "angry" "ultra-Orthodox" Jews, they display a bias which all too often creeps into the Wikipedia articles as well. Jayjg 01:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Why do you and JFW keep changing subjects, and talking about halakha? I never spoke about that subject at all. I was specifically talking about theology. RK 15:04, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Well, you weren't specific at all; you said that "Judaism has changed", but did not indicate what part of Judaism you meant. Thank you for clarifying that you meant Jewish theology. Jayjg 16:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can you give a good example where science has changed the interpretations of halakha? I can't think of one. Do you mean exact sciences or the humanities? Judaism has changed - absolutely. But I am not sure if it's that science that's doing it. My comment was aimed at your claim that "many Jews did change their minds". This does not, as a rule, dictate halakha. Just that many people speak leshon ha-ra does not mean the laws do not apply anymore!
As for the documentary hypothesis bit, I'm eagerly awaiting your response. I might have been ranting against a nicely dressed-up strawman in my statement above. JFW | T@lk 16:56, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I tried to e-mail you. If you have not yet received my e-mail on the DH, please come to my user page and e-mail me; I will respond with a copy of my original e-mail. RK 00:48, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

I was not talking about halakha (practical law); I was specifically talking about beliefs (theology). As far as I can tell, we are in agreement on this issue. Scientific discovery, in of itself, can not change halakha. Halakha is a legal system, not physics. Sure, rabbis can use discoveries in science as one factor, among many, to clarify or change halakha, should they wish. But (for Jews who consider halakha normative, like Orthodox and even Conservative) changes in halakha have to follow the halakhic process. RK

Orthodox Judaism has very few fundamental beliefs; Maimonides thought there were 13, and this is widely accepted, though there have been other counts. If a non-fundamental belief that many Orthodox Jews hold changes, how does this mean Jewish beliefs or theology has changed? Jayjg 01:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I never claimed anything of the sort. You seem to believe that Judaism has no theology at all, except for Maimondies 13 principes of faith. Traditional Jewish theology covers many topics, not just those 13 propositions. Look, if you are saying that on the tiny number of core points of Jewish theology, no changes have occured, I could, in some form. agree with you. But then again, I never said otherwise. Jewish theology has always included hundreds of points on many issues. By the way, many Orthodox Jews strongly disagree with us; they hold that accepting a 4.5 billion year old world is rejecting the words of the Torah, and thus hold that such Orthodox Jews are heretics. RK 15:31, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying any more. If you're not talking about halakha, and you're not talking about fundamental principles of faith, then exactly what "Jewish theology" is it that you think has changed? Jayjg 16:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The many other parts of Jewish theology! The majority of Jewish theology has had little to do with Maimonides' 13 principles of faith. For well over 1,000 years works on Jewish theology have included issues regarding the creation of the universe, the creation of Earth, the nature of the soul and the human body, the creation of life on Earth, the nature of angels, the nature of God, the nature of revelation, and in some rabbinic works even speculation on the existence of life outside of Earth. The changes that some Orthodox Jews today have on some issues are - by definition - changes in Jewish theology. below are some of the examples that I am talking about. RK

(A) The world is 4.5 billion years old; not 6000 years old.

(B) The universe is over 10 billion years old; not 6000 years old.

(C) All life on Earth today was not created by God. Rather, life on Earth has evolved over time.

(D) Life, possibly intelligent life, may exist on other planets.

(E) The documentary hypothesis is a valid way of describing the history of how the Torah came to its current form.

BTW, what do you think of the section on The Halakhic process in the halakha article? As far as I can tell, this represents a mainstream view of the halakhic process. RK

I have not read that section, and won't (as I'm about to break my fast). But: could you state other "theological" issues that have changed due to scientific findings? JFW | T@lk 20:51, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here are some huge changes in Jewish theology that were driven by religious Jews accepting scientific findings as factual. As you note, of course, not every Jew has changed their theology; these changes occured in much of Modern Orthodox, and all of Conservative Reform and Recon. Judaism. Also, note that many of the below positions are not only the Conservative point of view. The following is also from a Modern Orthodox point of view; I will add Orthodox references. Also, note that until recently such claims were considered to be a denial of the mesorah (Jewish tradition), and thus were seen as heretical. Today, most religious Jews see such views as compatible with Jewish theology.

(A) The world is 4.5 billion years old; not 6000 years old. (B) The universe is over 10 billion years old; not 6000 years old. (C) All life on Earth today was not created by God. Rather, life on Earth has evolved over time. (D) Life, possibly intelligent life, may exist on other planets. (E) The documentary hypothesis is a valid way of describing the history of how the Torah came to its current form.

Orthodox Jewish sources on how Jewish theology has been changed by science

Aviezer, Nathan. In the Beginning: Biblical Creation and Science. Ktav Publishing House; 1990. Hardcover. ISBN 0-881253-28-6.

Branover, Herman (ed.); Attia, Ilana Coven (ed.). Science in the Light of Torah: A B'or Ha'Torah Reader. Jason Aronson; 1994. Hardcover. ISBN 1-568210-34-5.

Carmell, Aryeh and Domb, Cyril, eds. Challenge: Torah Views on Science. New York: Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists/Feldheim Publishers, 1976. ISBN 0-873061-74-8.

Kaplan, Aryeh. Immortality, Resurrection and the Age of the Universe: A Kabbalistic View. Ktav Publishing House; 1993. Hardcover. ISBN 0-881253-45-6.

Schroeder, Gerald L. The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom. Broadway Books; 1998. Paperback. ISBN 0-767903-03-X

Non-Orthodox Jewish sources on how Jewish theology has been changed by science

Genesis, Science, and "Scientific Creationism" Jeffrey H. Tigay, Conservative Judaism, Vol. 40(2), Winter 1987/1988, p.20-27

The Effects of Science on Jewish Law Elliot Dorff, Conservative Judaism, Vol.40(2) Winter 1987/1988 p.52-60

In A Beginning...Quantum Cosmology and Kabbalah Joel R. Primack and Nancy Ellen Abrams, Tikkun, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 66-73

1. Please give specific references for specific beliefs.

2. Please explain in what way these authors represent Orthodox theology.

3. Please explain which of these "new" beliefs contradict fundamental Orthodox theology.

--Jayjg 01:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I just did give you specific references. They are listed above. I have some in my own personal library. But why do you seem to be questioning the credentials of these people? You didn't even look at the contents of these references yet. RK 15:31, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

No, those are general references, names of books and articles, not specific references to specific issues. In fact, I also own a number of those references, so I have indeed looked at their contents. As for the Strawman argument suggesting that I have questioned the credentials of all of these people, please cut it out already. Jayjg 16:34, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Incorrect; every one of these books and articles containt specific references to specific issues. Are you asking for a specific references on a specific issue? I would be glad to give some; just ask. RK 00:37, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)