Image from borhatorah.org
While browsing Google News I came across an article on the recent death of a theoretical physicist named Cyril Domb. It mentioned his interest in the reconciliation between Science and Jewish beliefs, so I checked out a link that took me to some correspondence between him and Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (Lubavitcher Rebbe – ‘the Rebbe’) over an article Domb published in London’s Jewish Chronicle back in 1961. In their correspondence the Rebbe was ‘distressed’ over Domb’s failure to bring what he perceived as the proper attention to specific matters regarding the idea of ‘truths’ behind Science and Religion, so after an enjoyable read (click) I thought I’d try to expand on an issue I had with the Rebbe’s idea of truth.
The Rebbe nicely points out that the general perception of ‘science’ presumes that it is about ‘facts and truths’ when in further contemplation the scientific process is ultimately rooted in probability. He states: “As a matter of fact, the whole problem is based on a popular misconception as to what science is. Where there is a true understanding of what science really is, there is no room for such confusion. For, as it is well known but too often overlooked, the sciences, even the so-called “exact” sciences, are at bottom nothing more than assumptions, work hypotheses and theories which are only “probable”, as indeed you pointed out in your article, but all too briefly.“ I will agree with the Rebbe’s point. Science, as it is commonly applied in our everyday lives, is at its center ‘probable’, and as such is open to questioning and skepticism, and ultimately open to the possibility of revision. It’s somewhat like a ‘fact for now’ – or a rule or law that is receptive to the possibility that new ways of thinking will reshape and recontextualize it in the future. That which is certain today may not be certain tomorrow. Religious truths however, as the Rebbe argues, are “…definitive and categorical [and] science cannot, a priori, challenge religion, especially our religion, for science can never speak in terms of absolute truth.”
For the Rebbe, religious truths (in this case the Torah and its precepts) are absolute. The problem I have though, is with a remark he later makes (in his response to Domb’s reply) that revolves around a supposed misconception by the many Rabbonim that Domb chooses to rely upon: “Unfortunately, the majority of Rabbonim stand too much in awe of scientific theories, for they still adhere to the attitude of bygone generations, when science was regarded as an absolute truth, as something apart from human intelligence and speculation, in other words, that scientific laws are not produced, but merely “discovered” by the scientist, and are infallible and immutable.“ Am I to understand then, that the term ‘absolute truth’ (as it is used by the Rebbe in this context) is something apart from human intelligence and speculation? And if so, by that admission then, are not religious truths (which according to the Rebbe are absolute) also something apart from human intelligence and speculation?
It’s a paradox of sorts; to state that religious truths are absolute and as such “definitive and categorical” and “something apart from human intelligence and speculation” is at odds with Man’s attempt to understand, interpret, explain and/or rationalize the very sacred texts that define religious truths in the first place. That is, you can’t base an argument on the absoluteness of religious truths because these truths, by the Rebbe’s own admission, are beyond his (and all human) intelligence and speculation. I profess it may be an issue of semantics (but what isn’t really), and my contention is that both truths (or even others we may choose to create!) are but human constructs, and like all human constructs, are put to test in, as the Rebbe states, “the rational and sensible world.” A world which I believe, by the way, allows science and religion to operate on equal terms.
Professor Domb’s reply to the Rebbe is rather brief (not touching on my concern as only the one reply from him was given), and he did avoid much of the Rebbe’s conjecture in regards to scientific vs. absolute truths. He did end his reply however, with the wonderful statement; “I have therefore always taken the attitude of the Mishnah in Hagigah אין דורשין במעשה בראשית i.e. the ultimate secrets of creation are beyond normal human understanding. Any scientific theories are only temporary structures, and as long as their limitations are fully appreciated they may help in technical progress….“
I wonder though, if Professor Domb might consider religious truths (ie: absolute truths) as ‘temporary structures’? I suppose I’ll find out when I add some of his works to my every growing reading list.
