Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 027

Tuesday, November 16 2004

• LECTURE #3: TORAH AND SCIENCE -- Rambam, methodological naturalism, and the starlight p
• Torah and science
• Re: Torah and science
• Two observations in a beis olam
• Re: Two observations in a beis olam
• Re: Two observations in a beis olam
• Re: Two observations in a beis olam
• Re: Torah and science
• Re: Torah and science
• Re: Two observations in a beis olam
• Re: Asking questions
• Re: Asking Questions
• RE: Torah and science
• Re: Torah and science
• Re: Torah and science
• Re: Torah and science
• Re: Asking Questions
• An Orthodox Conservative Rabbi?

ZL:
> This is why I maintain that the Maharal, like the Rambam (both citing the
> same posuk, "The Glory of G-d is a hidden thing, and the glory of kings is
> to investigate a thing" -- Mishlay 25:2), hold that much of the /unstated/
> mechanics involved in the creation are beyond our comprehension, but the
> facts (such as the length of the processes and the origins of created
> things--e.g., animals and man from the earth) and the sequences of events
> that /are/ revealed in the Torah are meant to be taken as stated... Otherwise,
> the passages of Maharal I cited above would be incomprehensible.

RMB:
> I don't see that in the Maharal's words. He speaks of ma'aseh bereishis
> being incomprehensible even by nevu'ah, that creation can't be understood
> by beings who have only experienced the world once created. Nothing about
> this element yes, that element not.... Derekh haChaim is
> far from a historical work -- Pirqei Avos is about mussar, no? Neir Mitzvah
> is more obviously historical, but as we agree as to when beri'ah ended, I
> don't see the contradiction.

Ok, so you're saying that in his mussar works, Maharal treats the
p'sukim of Brayshis as facts (re: time, sequence, place of origins),
but in reality he holds even those facts are not true on the surface,
and the true facts are incomprehensible. And in Ner Mitzvah, he's talking
post-beriah history. Regarding the former, I find it hard to accept that
he doesn't really hold the facts upon which he's basing his mussar to
be what he says they are, regardless of the mode of mussar that he's
in. Regarding the latter, yes, he's major topic is post-beriah history,
but his statements about beriah are about beriah.

RMB:
> I found accepting that far less problematic than the reinterpretation
> of a pretty clearly stated thesis that you're calling for.

I'm not reinterpreting. I'm interpreting differently than you are. It
seems obvious to me that one can accept the basic outline of facts as
stated in Braishis while pointing out that the process was not natural
(how do creatures appear "poof" and/or out of the ground, for instance)and
(largely therefore)not comprehensible to us or to prophets. Just as one
might say that the very phenonemon of prophecy in incomprehensible to us,
yet we accept that the prophets had prophecy.

Maybe we should sit down and learn Maharal together.

Zvi Lampel

zlochoia@bellatlantic.net (R. Yitzchok Zlochower)posted on: Nov 14, 2004:> 

> The issue of facts mentioned in the torah, nach, and talmud being 
> apparently inconsistent with scientific findings is a long-standing 
> subject of debate in Avodah. ... The great antiquity of the earth
> is attested to by various independent lines of evidence. ... The idea that
> "natural law" that we observe in this era did not apply for the first
> 6 days (although the sun rose and set in the same 24 hour cycle since
> the 4th day), or that the earth preceded the heavenly bodies is a large
> mouthful to swallow.

If you have been following the discussion in Avodah, you must know that
this idea is held by Rambam and others very strongly, and was used to
debunk the "obvious fact" that the world is eternal--even though it
certainly looks/looked that way. And you must be aware of the approach
that Hashem created the world in a mature state, just as he did Adam. Or
that the processes of Creation produced results which in post-Creation
"Nature" indicate events and lengths of time different from what actually
occurred. (Hashem did not intrend for us to use the rocks, trees, or
stars to calculate how long ago He created them. They were created for
other purposes. One can indulge in the fascinating study of determining
at what age Hashem created all these, but as far as /when/ He created
these, He tells us plainly. This is Moreh Nevuchim 101, and should not
be hard to swallow.

RYZ:
> Those to whom the 
> scientific evidence is compelling are caught in a bind.

Again, you can accept the current "scientific evidence" as 100% infallible
emmess l'amitto, compelling the belief that the world is now any age
you conclude it is, but that is irrelevant to how long ago the world was
created (in whatever degree of maturity Hashem so desired to create it
in). So you're out of your bind.

Zvi Lampel

In Avodah V14 #26 dated 11/15/200 Yitzchok Zlochower
<zlochoia@bellatlantic.net> writes:
> ...  This era 
> featured the general divine cessation from overt regulation of earthly
> affairs ["Va'yichal Elokim ba'yom ha'shevii melachto asher asa,
> vayishbot ba'yom ha'shevii mikol melachto are asa." Note that the
> cessation from creative work occurs in the 7th day]. That cessation
> occurred at the end of the biblical period. Ever since, we have
> been left to direct our affairs as best we can as a test of whether we
> have matured sufficiently to take over as the world's caretakers. ...

Are we talking about a Deus absconditus, a watchmaker Creator who winds
up the watch and then leaves? If so, I don't think that is generally
considered to be within the acceptable range of Orthodox belief.

When you say, "we have been left to direct our affairs our affairs as
best we can," my understanding is that it is NOT within our power to
decide whether the sun will rise tomorrow, where and when rain will
fall or whether a volcano will blow. "Oseh maaseh bereishis" in my
understanding is that the Ribono Shel Olam continues to run the world
on a minute-to-minute basis.

We are not "the world's caretakers" except in a moral sense.

If you are alluding to environmental concerns, then yes, mankind has a
duty to keep our water and air clean, as part of our duty to build and
maintain civilization [=tikun olam]. But we have neither the duty nor
the ability to "take care of the world." [I will add here that I don't
believe that global warming or the melting of the permafrost is in the
hands of human beings to cause or to prevent; there have been many ages
in the world's development in which average global temperatures were
far higher than they are now, long before there were human beings here.]

We do have some limited ability to interfere with nature--we can find
medicines that heal illness, for example--but even that is not truly
in our hands. All our amal tachas hashemesh is somewhat illusory, since
we can do our best hishtadlus--in parnasah, health or whatever--and yet
the final result is not truly in our hands. Or to be more precise, the
final result is in our hands only indirectly, via our tefillos, mitzva
observance and so on. "Hakol beyedei Shomayim chutz miyir'as Shomayim."

Your understanding that Hashem's "rest" in the Seventh Era consists
of leaving the world to us is very interesting and even has /some/
element of truth in it. But what I would add is that, since the end of
the Sixth Era, He does not create anything truly new but only rearranges
the Lego blocks He already made--and that is the true meaning of His
"rest." However, it is not correct that He has left the running of the
world to us--the operation of the physical plant.

RYZ also wrote:
> The traditional objection to having the creation days other than 24
> hour periods is based on a seeming diminution of the relevance of our
> shabbat observance if the 7th day was not a real day. However, I find
> a powerful message in considering the creation shabbat to be an era -
> for it is our era, the era of mankind.

IIUC, this is an allusion also to the disproportion between six days that
last millions of years and a seventh day, a Shabbos, that lasts only
a few thousand years. I like the suggestion that the last day "weighs"
more than the others because it is the "Era of Mankind." I'm not sure
that is an entirely satisfactory answer, however, and admit to being
bothered by this same disproportion. Nevertheless, the idea that the six
days were really six eras seems to fit the pesukim better than any other
solution I can think of, especially since the sun and moon appear only
on Wednesday and I haven't heard a satisfactory explanation yet of what a
"day" is without the sun.

The most important pasuk in the Torah, if one is allowed to say one is
more important than another, is "Bereishis bara Elokim...." That is one
pasuk I take absolutely literally. On this ground, I divide totally and
forever from modern science or science-ism--as does everyone on Avodah,
no matter how much they want to be taken seriously as scientists.

Another pasuk I take absolutely literally is, "Vayivra Elokim
es ha'adam...." I understand this to have been a separate Creation,
different from that of any other species. This is BOTH a moral statement
and a statement about reality. I utterly reject Stephen Jay Gould's
suggestion that religion and science deal with different kinds of "truth."

I reject Gould's subtext, that the religious kind of truth is not "true"
in the way that science understands truth, but is only "true" in the
sense that some myths provide spiritual and emotional comfort to human
beings. I was shocked to see a variation of Gould's "two kinds of truth"
made here on Avodah recently in the name of a prominent rav; I didn't
have time to respond then and now don't remember the citation exactly.

There have been some very fine posts on Avodah in recent months about
these issues, which gives me the relief of knowing that it is not up
to me to address them. Others wiser and more learned than I can take up
the battle.

--Toby Katz
=============

"Zev Sero" <zev@sero.name> wrote:
> But the boxes certainly seem the most convenient and practical way of
> getting a kohen through a cemetery.

In my naivete' I thought kohanim were not supposed to be in a cemetery.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

"Gershon Dubin" <gershon.dubin@juno.com> wrote:
> 1. Those who went to the kever took off their shoes and put on slippers.
> 2. There was a box there (I did not see it in use) that I was told was
> to be used to bring kohanim into the "ohel".

> Are there sources and/or precedentsfor these practices?

I don't know the reason or source for not wearing leather shoes in the
ohel, but the box is very simple - the path leading to the ohel itself
is fenced in, but the road leading up to that path is not, and it's not
8 amot wide, so a kohen walking along it, even in the middle, would be
within 4 amot of graves. The box is a personal mechitzah that he carries
with him as he walks, thus allowing him to get to the fenced-in path.
Another method that used to be used before they came up with the boxes
(and can still be used if there are no boxes available) is to have people
surround the kohen and walk with him, creating a human mechitza. Or,
on a day when there isn't much traffic, one can drive right up to the
fenced-in path, and step directly from the car into the path. But the
boxes certainly seem the most convenient and practical way of getting
a kohen through a cemetery.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> wrote:
> In my naivete' I thought kohanim were not supposed to be in a cemetery.

Huh? Kohanim go to cemeteries all the time - they just have to stay on
the marked paths and areas. They are not supposed to come within 4 amot
of a kever, unless there is a mechitza between them. In most cemeteries
that I've seen, the graves start 4 amot from the edge of the path, so
a kohen who sticks to the path has no problem. Nor is there a problem
if a path comes closer than 4 amot to a grave, but it is fenced in.
The problem arises when people are buried right up to the path, and
there is no mechitza; the simple solution is to create a mechitza.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

"Zev Sero" <zev@sero.name> wrote:
> Huh? Kohanim go to cemeteries all the time

What happened to sechor sechor?  Mah lo lekohen beveis hakevaros?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> The most important pasuk in the Torah, if one is allowed to say one is
> more important than another, is "Bereishis bara Elokim...." That is one
> pasuk I take absolutely literally. On this ground, I divide totally and
> forever from modern science or science-ism--as does everyone on Avodah,
> no matter how much they want to be taken seriously as scientists.

Modern Science is nothing more than a method of ascertaining the facts of
nature. It is not necessarily a means toward truth. As I have said time
and again facts and truth are not the same thing. Truth may be better
ascertained through belief than scientific study although scientific study
may aid you in finding truth. I therefore must humbly disagree with your
view. The ultimate truth of nature cannot possibly be in condradiction
to Torah. What can and ofetn does happen is that scientific study can be
in error. This happens constantly in history. what was once cionsidered
to be a sceintific fact often becomes disproven by the discovery of
new data or information or through the refinement of modern technology
enabling study and discovery heretofore impossible.

IMHO when there seems to be a contradiction between scinetific data and
Mesorah then either we do not have the complete scientific story and
therefore do not understand the new data... or we do not sufficiently
understand the Mesorah. But as a matter of Truth... there can be no
real contradiction.

HM

In a message dated 11/15/2004 _RHM_ (mailto:RHM@yahoo.com)   writes:
> Modern Science is nothing more than a  method of ascertaining the facts of 
> nature.... I therefore must humbly  disagree with your view.  The ultimate 
> truth of nature cannot possibly be  in condradiction to Torah. ...

You are correct, but you misunderstood what I wrote. When I say that
my views are incompatible with "modern science or science-ism" I mean
to say--and I mistakenly THOUGHT it was clear--that I was expressing
disagreement with and disdain for the IDEOLOGY that is called "Modern
Science."

You are perfectly correct that the scientific method will never discover
or prove anything that contradicts the Torah, because the Torah is true
and the scientific method is a way of finding out facts. FACTS cannot
contradict truth, by definition.

However, at a point so far back in time that the scientific method
cannot be used to ascertain the facts--viz., at the beginning of the
universe--belief steps in and substitutes for fact. "Modern Science"
(with the honorable exception of a few daring scientists) takes it as a
matter of FAITH that there COULD NOT have been a Creator. This is the
point at which an ideology that arrogates to itself the name "science"
parts company with every individual on Avodah.

I put "Modern Science" in quotation marks advisedly. I have no quarrel
with real science; in fact I am fascinated and inspired by science,
which is one way among many of glimpsing the profundity of "Mah gadlu
ma'asecha Hashem."

 -Toby  Katz
=============

> What happened to sechor sechor?  Mah lo lekohen beveis hakevaros?

I'm not sure what happened to it, but pok chazi ma ama devar; go to any
cemetery, and the paths are marked to tell the kohanim where they can
go and where they can't. And kohanim's relatives are commonly buried
next to kohen-accessible paths, so they can visit.

Perhaps the very existence of these marked paths, and the notices to
kohanim to stay on them, *is* a fulfilment of 'sechor sechor'. As is
the provision of boxes for kohanim to use when walking between graves;
a kohen, by using such a device, is constantly reminding himself *not*
to approach within a grave without a mechitzah.

--
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

As I recall reading Reb Chaim Brisker's comment (I believe it was in
R. Zevin's "Ishim v'Shitot"), it was not about asking of questions on the
Torah per se. He referred specifically to questioning a contradiction in
commands, as in the case of the Akeidah: Avraham does not question the
apparent contradiction between "ki v'Yitzchak yikarei l'cha zara" and
"ha'aleihu l'olah" until _after_ he has been told "al tishlach." (See
Rashi on 22:12.) He posits that we must not ask about shnei k'suvim
hamachchishim zeh es zeh "ad sheyavo hakasuv hash'lishi." -- until we
have the resolution in hand. He did not say that there was a blanket
injunction against asking questions about the Torah's words.

As for the cynic and the answers to questions as opposed to answers to
answers, it sounds like the story told of the Netziv, who met a former
Volozhiner talmid who had strayed. When the Netziv asked him how come,
he said, "Rebbe, I had kashes." To which the Netziv retorted, "Kashes
host du gehat? Du host gezucht teirutzim!"

(For the benefit of the Jewishly challenged, "You had questions?
You were looking for excuses!," the retort being a play on the fact that
in Yiddish, "teirutzim" means both "answers" and "excuses.")

EMT

R'n TK:
"It seems to me that there is a way to reconcile the two different
opinions--ask questions, don't ask questions. It depends entirely on how
you ask the question. If you are seeking information and understanding,
you can ask the question. Even if you don't have an answer yet, you
will keep looking for one, with confidence that an answer exists. But
if you are trying to challenge and debunk the Torah, then your question
is cynical and verbalizing it cannot lead to anything good."

I believe there are those who explain the difference between the Chochom
and the Roshah of the Haggada - both of whom question the avodah of
Pesah - based on this point.

Moshe Yehuda Gluck
mailto:mslatfatf@access4less.net
www.esefer.blogspot.com

R. Yitzchok Zlochower  wrote:
>  As a working scientist,  I find the
> efforts to bridge the differences by speculative reinterpretation of
> scientific data or restricting their validity to the current era to be
> most unsatisfactory.   The great antiquity of the earth is attested to
> by various independent lines of evidence.   The oldest rocks dated by a
> variety of radioactive decay processes are some 4 billion years old.
> ...   There is an anti-creationist
> website run by scientists which features detailed articles setting forth
> such lines of evidence.   Little in what I alluded to has any connection
> with the speed of light.   Any attempt to reconcile 6 days of creation
> with scientific data on the age of the earth and the universe by such
> ad-hoc speculation must remain unconvincing.  No drift in the speed of
> light (c) is apparent since accurate measurements were first made late
> in the 19th century.  The speculation by P.A.M. Dirac on the drift in c
> with time is just that - speculation [Even the greatest physicists
> entertained themselves with "what if" questions].   The interpretation
> of a few physicists on star data as indicative of a variation in the
> spectroscopic (Rydberg) constant with time is disputed by others.   In
> sum,  we have no real basis for doubting the various lines of evidence
> that the earth and solar system are some 4.5 billion years old, while
> the universe is some 14 billion years.

I welcome the comments of a working scientist to this discussion
especially as this is not my area of expertise. RYZ is, perhaps,
responding to my earlier comments on variable light theories (VLTs)
as a putative answer to the starlight problem posed by scientism
against Maaseh Beraishis. We are informed that there is an (unnamed)
anti-creationist website which will set us right. RYZ assures us that
"no drift in the speed of light is apparent", a position consistent with
what I was taught in my college physics courses and which nicely displays
the uniformatarian principle (a branch of methodological naturalism) to
which we were all taught to adhere. A skeleton version of the argument
goes something like this:

(1) "The speed of light is one of the most sacrosanct of the universal
physical constants" (see [e] below).
(2) As RYZ writes: "No drift in the speed of light is apparent since
accurate measurements were first made late in the 19th century".
(3) Ispo facto, we can extrapolate this constant back to the ancient past. 
(4) Maaseh Beraishis must be reinterpreted to fit this reality.

I would like to ask some questions about this story, in particular,
to understand the assumptions underlying conclusions such as (3) and (4).

(5) At point (3), we have an extrapolation from a small body of recent
observations to the vast eons of time. But, this is an assumption with
very little direct evidence to commend it (of course it is also part
of a very accurate physical theory for *current events* called general
relativity). More on this below [e].

(6) Even given this uniformatarian assumption, we do not know what the
speed of light was at or before the big bang (in the standard big bang
theory the "bang" was not an event taking place at a time or in a place --
space and time were themselves created by the big bang).

(7) Thus, when RYZ writes that it is unsatisfactory to restrict the
validity of current scientific theories to the recent past, he omits
to tell us that the standard big bang theory also ultimately refers to
a singularity where current laws no longer apply (at the very least,
no scientist has the slightest clue as to how this universe of plan and
purpose sprung into being at the big bang).

(8) Further, the sacrosanctness of the speed of light only holds up to
1998. Until that time, an "anti-creationist website run by scientists
which features detailed articles setting forth such lines of evidence" for
the uniformatarian principle is to be found. Creationists beware! However,
starting in 1999, heretical opinions start to appear in archival journals
of record such as PRD and Nature:

[a] Albrecht, A. and J. Magueijo. A Time Varying Speed of Light as
a Solution to Cosmological Puzzles. Physical Review D, 59(4): 043516-1
to 13, 1999.
[b] Barrow, J.D. Cosmologies with varying light speed. Physical
Review D, 59(4): 1999. [c] Davies, P.C.W., T.M. Davis, and
C.H. Lineweaver. Black holes constrain varying constants. Nature, 418
(8 August 2002): 2002.
[d] Magueijo, J. Plan B for the cosmos. Scientific American, 248
(58-59), 2001.
[e] Reich, E.S. If the speed of light can change. New Scientist,
183(2454): p6(2), 2004.

(9) In fact, the authors of [a] calculate that the speed of light must
have been 60 orders of magnitude faster than the current value in the
early history of the universe! This would be needed to save the big bang
theory from various "pirchas" and as an alternative to speculative and
unverified assumptions in big bang theory such as the inflation field,
dark energy and dark matter. This is called Plan B to save the big bang
theory from self destructing. Note that [a] works within the normal
uniformatarian assumptions of methodological naturalism -- natural law
always prevailed and what we now observe gives us sound and reliable
evidence for what was. Nevertheless, it is instructive that yesterday's
"heresy" is today's Physical Review D. All that we need for the starlight
problem to disappear is a much more conservative 11 orders of magnitude
during maaseh beraishis.

(10) While workers such as [a] at Imperial College, [b] now at Cambridge
and [c] at the Australian center for Astrobiology (and others) are
presumably a minority opinion, references [c, e] present putative
*experimental* evidence for a changing speed of light. Here is how the
recent survey [e] reports the matter

"The speed of light, one of the most sacrosanct of the universal physical
constants, may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago -
and not in some far corner of the universe, but right here on Earth. The
controversial finding is turning up the heat on an already simmering
debate, especially since it is based on reanalysis of old data that has
long been used to argue for exactly the opposite: the constancy of the
speed of light and other constants. A varying speed of light contradicts
Einstein's theory of relativity, and would undermine much of traditional
physics. But some physicists believe it would elegantly explain puzzling
cosmological phenomena such as the nearly uniform temperature of the
universe. It might also support string theories that predict extra spatial
dimensions. The threat to the idea of an invariable speed of light comes
from measurements of another parameter called the fine structure constant,
or alpha, which dictates the strength of the electromagnetic force."

Contra RYZ, this seems a little stronger than Dirac asking mere "what
if" questions.

Finally, (11) let us try to understand how one of the most sacrosanct
of the universal physical constants is now a "simmering debate" with
multiple VSL theories rife. I have argued in earlier posts that not all
scientific results have equal credibility.

The current speed of light (just under 300,000km/s) is credible because
it is based on repeatable observable experiments. However, results at the
end of a long chain of inferences based on interpolation, extrapolation
or deep theory are less credible, and of course more vulnerable to future
experimental disconfirmation.

In addition, in previous posts, I mentioned stubborn anomalies in current
dating methods involving order of magnitude discrepancies (I would be
happy to review some of these amazing anomalies which must surely prompt
many questions about the current dogmatism of methodological naturalism).

It seems to me that the certainty with which scientific results are
presented (well-described in RYZ's post), in which we are urged to
endorse far-fetched naturalistic assumptions for every phenomenon --
regardless of the facts -- is just poor science. That kind of science
is just prejudiced by the unwarranted assumption that all the phenomena
of plan and purpose can be explained by purely natural causes, which
is to say (in the opinion of materialists) unintelligent causes. I
respectfully submit that religious scientists be more skeptical about
Trojan horses such as [0-4] and examine these theories more carefully
for their underlying assumptions, as described in [5-11].

Finally, I conclude once again with the MN II:17, where the Rambam
writes that: "No inference can be drawn in any respect from the nature
of a thing after it has been generated ... to the state of that thing
while it is moved towards being generated".

The Rambam writes that he can show this with an argument that comes
close to a demonstration. The 2nd chelek of MN is very instructive in
this regard.

KT.
JSO

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:00:28 EST, t613k@aol.com <t613k@aol.com> wrote:
> We are not "the world's caretakers" except in a moral sense.

Eicha Rabba would disagree.

Akiva

-- 
there are no dilemmas without confusion, there's no free will without
dilemmas, and there's no humanity without free will.

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:57:57 EST, t613k@aol.com <t613k@aol.com> wrote:
> You are perfectly correct that the scientific method will never discover
> or prove anything that contradicts the Torah, because the Torah is true
> and the scientific method is a way of finding out facts. FACTS cannot
> contradict truth, by definition.

Depending on your definitions, of course. And shouldn't that be "Truths"
with a capital 'T' to differentiate them from truths with a small 't',
which *can* be contradicted by science?

(for example: "the world is flat" was a "truth" that was contradicted
by science.)

> universe--belief steps in and substitutes for fact. "Modern Science"
> (with the honorable exception of a few daring scientists) takes it as a
> matter of FAITH that there COULD NOT have been a Creator. 

Actually, the *majority* of hard scientists, according to every survey
ever done, express belief in a Creator.

The group you are thinking about is a small minority -- the "NK" of the
science world.

Akiva

-- 
"Contrary to popular belief you are not entitled to your opinion.
You are entitled to your informed opinion."
Harlan Ellison

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> You are correct, but you misunderstood what I wrote... I was expressing
> disagreement with and disdain for the IDEOLOGY that is called "Modern
> Science."

> You are perfectly correct that the scientific method will never discover
> or prove anything that contradicts the Torah, because the Torah is true
> and the scientific method is a way of finding out facts. FACTS cannot
> contradict truth, by definition.

> However, at a point so far back in time that the scientific method
> cannot be used to ascertain the facts--viz., at the beginning of the
> universe--belief steps in and substitutes for fact....  I have no quarrel
> with real science; in fact I am fascinated and inspired by science,
> which is one way among many of glimpsing the profundity of "Mah gadlu
> ma'asecha Hashem."

Well, I think that you and I agree almost entirely here. The only quibble
is that I do not necessarily accept your assertion that "at a point so far
back in time that the scientific method cannot be used to ascertain the
facts--viz., at the beginning of the universe" . We may be able to apply
the scientific method... but I do think it is true that the further back
in time we go the less able we are to apply it, and the less accurate
therefore, our knowledge of the facts may be. Belief doesn't replace
fact and Facts do not replace belief.

HM

Toby Katz wrote in Avodah Volume 14 : Number 026
> I remember a story about a godol--if anyone remembers which one, please
>let me know--who was asked a challenging question about something
> in the Torah that didn't seem to make sense to the challenger. R'
>Godol's reply was, "To questions I have answers. But you don't have
>a question, you have an answer. To answers I don't have answers."
>And he dismissed the cynic with no further ado.

I also heard this story in the name of R. Chaim Brisker, as RMB did.
The story as RTK relates it loses a bit in the translation.
Tayrutz means (in Hebrew/Yiddish)
1) An answer, the resolution of a difficulty, the opposite of a kashya
2) An excuse.
Thus R. Chaim saw that the cynic's questions were not questions at all,
but *excuses* whereby he justified his irreligiosity. Therefore he said
"Ich darf nisht metaretz zein ah tayrutz" (Yeshivish "translation":
"I don't have to be metaretz a tayrutz").

Saul Mashbaum

[If we can kindly stick to a halachic discussion.... -mi]

What do my fellow Avodites think is the Halachic status of a conservative
rabbi who considers himself Orthodox? The one I am thinking of (no names)
is a rabbi for many years in a conservative synagogue, and yet considers
himself Orthodox - to the degree that (I am told) he davens at home
before he goes to the synagogue.
I understand that this was rather commonplace forty-fifty years ago,
but I believe this situation is still ongoing.
Would he be kosher l'edus? Does his "lifestyle choice" show that he
doesn't accept the 13 ikkarim (as conservative judaism doesn't)?

Kol tuv,
Moshe Yehuda Gluck
mslatfatf@access4less.net
www.esefer.blogspot.com

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]