Taken from Daas Torah page 53
Rav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik (The Halakhic Mind): the problem of evidence in religion will never be solved. The believer does not miss philosophic legitimation; the skeptic will never be satisfied with any cognitive demonstration. This ticklish problem became the Gordian knot of many theological endeavors. Philosophers of religion would have achieved more had they dedicated themselves to the task of interpreting concrete reality in terms and concepts that fit into the framework of a religious world perspective.
Rav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik (Lonely Man of Faith): I have never been seriously troubled by the problem of the Biblical doctrine of creation vis‑à‑vis the scientific story of evolution at both the cosmic and the organic levels, nor have I been perturbed by the confrontation of the mechanistic interpretation of the human mind with the Biblical spiritual concept of man. I have not been perplexed by the impossibility of fitting the mystery of revelation into the framework of historical empiricism. Moreover, I have not even been troubled by the theories of Biblical criticism which contradict the very foundations upon which the sanctity and integrity of Scriptures
====================================
Rav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik (Unpublished 7th Lecture on Bereishis): Indeed, one of the most annoying scientific facts which the religious man encounters is the problem of evolution and creation. However, this is not the real problem. What actually is irreconcilable is the concept of man as the bearer of a divine image and the idea of man as an intelligent animal in science. Evolution and creation can be reconciled merely by saying that six days is not absolutely so, but is indefinite and may be longer. Maimonides spoke of Creation in terms of phases and the Kabbalah in terms of sefiros, the time of which may be indefinite. However, our conflict is man as a unique being and man as a friend of the animal. Science can never explain how being came into being, for it is out of the realm of science, while the Bible is concerned with the problem of ex nihilo. Aristotle could not accept evolution because he believed in the eternity of forms. (Lecture XII).
The Emergence of Ethical Man, pp. 4-5:[from R' Gil Student]
Indeed, one of the most annoying scientific facts which the modern homo religiosus encounters and tries vainly to harmonize with his belief is the so-called theory of evolution. In our daily jargon, we call this antinomy "evolution versus creation." The phrase does not exactly reflect the crux of the controversy, for the question does not revolve around divine creation and mechanistic evolution as such. We could find a solution of some kind to this controversy. What in fact is theoretically irreconcilable is the concept of man as the bearer of the divine image with the equalling of man and animal-plant existences. In other words, the ontic autonomy or heteronomy of man is the problem.
Rav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik (The Halakhic Mind): the problem of evidence in religion will never be solved. The believer does not miss philosophic legitimation; the skeptic will never be satisfied with any cognitive demonstration. This ticklish problem became the Gordian knot of many theological endeavors. Philosophers of religion would have achieved more had they dedicated themselves to the task of interpreting concrete reality in terms and concepts that fit into the framework of a religious world perspective.
Rav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik (Lonely Man of Faith): I have never been seriously troubled by the problem of the Biblical doctrine of creation vis‑à‑vis the scientific story of evolution at both the cosmic and the organic levels, nor have I been perturbed by the confrontation of the mechanistic interpretation of the human mind with the Biblical spiritual concept of man. I have not been perplexed by the impossibility of fitting the mystery of revelation into the framework of historical empiricism. Moreover, I have not even been troubled by the theories of Biblical criticism which contradict the very foundations upon which the sanctity and integrity of Scriptures
====================================
Rav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik (Unpublished 7th Lecture on Bereishis): Indeed, one of the most annoying scientific facts which the religious man encounters is the problem of evolution and creation. However, this is not the real problem. What actually is irreconcilable is the concept of man as the bearer of a divine image and the idea of man as an intelligent animal in science. Evolution and creation can be reconciled merely by saying that six days is not absolutely so, but is indefinite and may be longer. Maimonides spoke of Creation in terms of phases and the Kabbalah in terms of sefiros, the time of which may be indefinite. However, our conflict is man as a unique being and man as a friend of the animal. Science can never explain how being came into being, for it is out of the realm of science, while the Bible is concerned with the problem of ex nihilo. Aristotle could not accept evolution because he believed in the eternity of forms. (Lecture XII).
The Emergence of Ethical Man, pp. 4-5:[from R' Gil Student]
Indeed, one of the most annoying scientific facts which the modern homo religiosus encounters and tries vainly to harmonize with his belief is the so-called theory of evolution. In our daily jargon, we call this antinomy "evolution versus creation." The phrase does not exactly reflect the crux of the controversy, for the question does not revolve around divine creation and mechanistic evolution as such. We could find a solution of some kind to this controversy. What in fact is theoretically irreconcilable is the concept of man as the bearer of the divine image with the equalling of man and animal-plant existences. In other words, the ontic autonomy or heteronomy of man is the problem.
The Emergence of Ethical Man, pp. 4-5:
ReplyDeleteIndeed, one of the most annoying scientific facts which the modern homo religiosus encounters and tries vainly to harmonize with his belief is the so-called theory of evolution. In our daily jargon, we call this antinomy "evolution versus creation." The phrase does not exactly reflect the crux of the controversy, for the question does not revolve around divine creation and mechanistic evolution as such. We could find a solution of some kind to this controversy. What in fact is theoretically irreconcilable is the concept of man as the bearer of the divine image with the equalling of man and animal-plant existences. In other words, the ontic autonomy or heteronomy of man is the problem.
What is the difference between R. Slifkin's books and these posts. Both say that the Universe is more than 6000 years
ReplyDeleteand we may have come from apes. Did not R. Sturnbach and you not call it apikursis? Also, since the chazal did not know science and many of their explanations used wrong science that implies they erred. Whose side are you on?
Since you are posting parts of the notes could you find the scetion on the creation of "woman". Did she come from Adam's rib? Is this true or not true scientifically. Did man believe that so that the Almighty could play along? Etc.
ReplyDeleteThis approach leaves me empty.
Two weeks ago we read about Jacob's controlling the sheep's coating. Does that match our knowledge of genetics? Come on?
There are problems - but I do not feel comfortable with this approach. This is what we call apologetics.
confused said...
ReplyDeleteWhat is the difference between R. Slifkin's books and these posts. Both say that the Universe is more than 6000 years, and we may have come from apes. Did not R. Sturnbach and you not call it apikursis?
=================
DT: If you have been reading the recent postings I mentioned that R' Slifkin did not originate the idea. Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky and Rav Yisroel Belsky both told me that it is not kefira to say the universe is more than 6000 years old. Even Rav Sternbuch who has stated that this view is kefira acknowledges that such a view used to be acceptable because there are legitimate sources which support such a view. His assertion is that now that the majority of gedolim view this a kefira it has in fact become kefira. However he added that since there are clear sources for an ancient universe - the person who holds such a view is himself not a kofer - even though the view is.
I did not state my view - I only reported that there are clearly two views as to whether it is kefira.
=================================
Also, since the chazal did not know science and many of their explanations used wrong science that implies they erred. Whose side are you on?
DT: As noted above - my self appointed job is simply to inform people of the variety of legitimate views. The fact that Rav Soloveitchik relies on the view of the Rambam and others makes it a legitimate view - even if it is a minority view.
As Rav Leff has pointed out it is a dispute between a majority and minority view. The question is whether the minority view should be taught in the yeshiva world where the majority view holds clear dominance. The majority view also holds that the minority view is kefira while the minority holds that it is not kefira.
Troubled said...
ReplyDeleteSince you are posting parts of the notes could you find the scetion on the creation of "woman". Did she come from Adam's rib? Is this true or not true scientifically. Did man believe that so that the Almighty could play along? Etc.
This approach leaves me empty.
Two weeks ago we read about Jacob's controlling the sheep's coating. Does that match our knowledge of genetics? Come on?
There are problems - but I do not feel comfortable with this approach. This is what we call apologetics.
=======================
It is apologetics only if one is embarrassed with the Torah position and feel a need to justify it in the face of science. [Something which Rav Hirsch accussed the Rambam of when he equated the Rambam to Mendelson in the 18th Letter.] Rav Solveitchik is not embarrassed with the Torah position and is thus not writing apologetics.
If you are uncomfortable with his approach - no one is requiring you to read it. The only question is whether his approach is a legitimate approach or not. I would not be posting it if I didn't think it was legitimate.
It is nice to tell someone "not to read" which translates to "get lost". I asked real questions. How are we to understand the "stories" in the Bible which are contrary to science. They are not agodos.
ReplyDeleteSo. Duck if you want. it is your blog. Critiquing is not the same as criticizing. Leaving empty to me is another way of saying that the Rov has not solved enough for me.
confused said...
ReplyDeleteIt is nice to tell someone "not to read" which translates to "get lost". I asked real questions. How are we to understand the "stories" in the Bible which are contrary to science. They are not agodos.
===========================
I am not sure why you are taking this discussion so personally. You are asking basic questions - some of which was a request for clarification - which I provided. You are now apparently saying - what is "the" answer. I am not ducking the issue - but don't think I have anything to add to what has been rehashed many times. I am not, chas v'shalom, telling you to get lost.
I still don't have any claritiy of what conciousness is or even free-will - even though I have worked in psychology for over 35 years. Even the Rambam didn't have a clear answer to these issues.
If you have specific issues - I might be able to provide sources that are relevant - but so far I haven't seen any answers that solve all the problems.
A blog can't be all things to all people.
Apologetics have nothing to do feeling embarrassed.
ReplyDeleteThe definition of the word is:
1. The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of (Christian) doctrines.
2. Formal argumentation in defense of something, such as a position or system.
It does not mean you are apologizing for something. :-)
Wikipedia asserts:
ReplyDeleteColloquial usage
Today the term "apologist" is colloquially applied in a general manner to include groups and individuals systematically promoting causes, justifying orthodoxies, or denying certain events, even of crimes. Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric. When used in this context, the term generally has a pejorative meaning.