Chachmei Hatevah, that is.
This past tuesday, I left class at 5:58, walked outside to my school's miniature backyard, waited until 6:04 pm., and stared. I didn't see Venus. I stared at the sun for approximately 5 minutes before giving up on seeing a little black dot. And yet, I had, "faith," that the Transit of Venus took place. As with all my other questions I ever have about physics, I always tell myself that my science teacher probably has an answer. And if not him, I'm sure there is a scientist out there who could answer my basic question. If I think of some sort of flaw in science, I assume that the scientist who made the discovery or theory would've thought of my simple question, and is therefore insignificant and in no way challenging to science.
However, any logical flaw I find in Torah, Jewish thought, or philosophy, immediately sends me down a whole winding trail of questions and attempted answers. I end up doubting fundamental bases, or creating new ones. Of course I have certain mental barriers which I've created which prevent me from going completely heretical, but nonetheless I sometimes come close. Where's my Emunas Chachamim now?
UPDATE: Apparently, not too many people have as high of a madreiga of emunas chachmei hatevah as I do. see here. I guess some people could use some strong mussar and chizuk in their emunah. :)
Gubbish, this is totally legitimate. You're comparing apples and shoes. Most of science is empirical, investigatable (it's a word now). Assuming you trust your and scientists' senses and intellects, if people observe or calculate a phenomenon, it can be concluded as true before all the kinks are ironed out. It doesn't need to be proven or held up, because seeing is believing. It can be assumed that there is an answer to your questions, unless you'd like to go all Berkeley on me. Besides, scientists' whole life is making sure they have answers to those questions that you might think of.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to Jewish philosophy, you're in the world of the abstract. With each question or challenge, much more is at stake, because denying underlying assumptions is an option, מה שאין כן ב empirical science.
Now that I thinking about it, you're probably talking about things that are less empirical like evolution and some astronomy. But this was a fun rant anyway.
yeah. There's plenty of science that is still only theoretical, educated guessing though it may be. And there are parts of Jewish philosophy that are generally agreed on by everyone. And note how I said Torah, not just Jewish philosophy. About a scientists whole life being dedicated to getting answers, that is true of Jewish thinkers throughout the ages to the nth degree.
DeleteSo here's a bit of an edited version of the above rant:
ReplyDeleteI think the real reason why this happens (and yes, I feel this way too) is that we have very little confidence in our knowledge of the physical sciences. We know that there's a huge body of knowledge out there that we haven't touched, and it simply seems more likely that our question emanates from our own ignorance rather than a problem with the system.
However, we are, in the scheme of things, relative בקיים in Jewish philosophy. We live Jewish philosophy. We're Jews. We know quite a bit about it, or at least we think we do. And since everything is abstract anyway, we're not going to assume that our question could be answered if we just spent a few years in a lab. It's much harder to conclude, when it comes to Jewish philosophy, that the answers to our questions lies in our ignorance, because philosophy is all in our heads - by definition we should be able to think of the answers, and if we can't, there just might be a problem.
The question is whether that attitude makes any sense. The influence that some verging-on-charedi rebeeim has had on me is screaming that I should assume the גדולי ישראל have an in infinitely greater understanding of Jewish philosophy than I do - they are exactly like empirical scientists, and we should assume that our questions come from our ignorance. But I'm not sure that's totally valid. I think it's true to an extent, but a distinction between philosophy and empirical science should be conserved. I think your attitude is definitely natural, if not justifiable.
Yeah, about that verging-on-charediism rabbinic influence, who do you think asked the, "Where's my Emunas Chachamim now?" question? :)
Delete(And btw, Miriam Einhorn, a.k.a "Rabbi Haber," liked your answer)