GENESIS AND THE BIG BANG
GENESIS AND THE BIG BANG: PERMISSION TO EXPLORE
By Rabbi Yaakov Singer and Joseph Harris
Science and religion are often portrayed as complete opposites, as if one totally contradicts the
other. Popular wisdom would have you think that to believe in one is to entirely negate the
possibility of the other's veracity, and vice versa. Some scientists look upon the believer with
unabashed disdain. It is unfathomable to them how an otherwise intelligent person can set aside
all rationale and believe some deity or worse, suppress independent thought based on a view that
has no physical evidence to support itself. Witness one of the many scathing remarks from
Oxford University Professor Richard Dawkins, a British zoologist and Fellow of The Royal
Society,
I oppose fundamentalist religion because it is hell-bent on ruining the
scientific education of countless eager minds.1
This quip from the famous British philosopher Bertrand Russell also makes the point,
Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence; it will
fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines.2
DEFINING OUR TERMS
Before we go further, we have to clarify for the purposes of our discussion what we mean by
science and what approach to faith we will take. Both science and theology have many terms,
that when used, mean very specific and carefully defined ideas. Precise language is essential
because without it, one can quickly lose the point, or be led to understand something completely
different than what is being said. Everyday communication rarely requires such precision. Much
unnecessary conflict between scientists and believers comes from the misuse of technical words
by confusing them with their everyday meanings.
THE DEFINITION OF SCIENCE
Science means the body of knowledge about, and consistent models of, natural phenomena as
only obtained and rigorously tested through the scientific method, or the act of obtaining such
knowledge or creating such models through the scientific method.
This immediately implies that something which is outside of the scientific method is automatically
neither science nor scientific. Now, “not scientific” does not necessarily mean bad, wrong, useless
or untrue. For instance, the notion that one should treat animals compassionately has nothing to
do with the definition of science, but has everything to do with ethics. Even though
1
Excerpt from "The God Delusion" by Prof. Richard Dawkins http://www.beliefnet.com/story/203/story_20334_1.html
2
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/bertrandru141329.html
1
GENESIS AND THE BIG BANG
Shakespeare’s sonnets are not taught in Physics 101, they do beautifully express how some
people feel about their spouses. On the other hand, “not scientific” means just that, and it can
cut two ways. If an idea cannot be approached by the scientific method, then it can never be
either supported or denied by science.
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD is the four step process by which the scientific community
collectively gathers and analyzes observations of the natural world in order to create tested,
consistent, predictive and falsifiable models of natural phenomena. Further, this process demands
that the final arbiter of any scientific dispute is observation3.
THE FOUR STEPS:
1. An interesting phenomenon is observed and described.
2. A hypothesis is formed to explain the phenomenon.
3. If the hypothesis actually reflects what is going on, it will not contradict other observed
phenomena and the existence of new phenomena will be predicted as consequences of the
hypothesis. These consequences are identified and searched for. For example, if your
hypothesis is that the Earth is round, it is implied that one could go west from England, go all
the way around the world, and eventually come back to England from the east. The
experiment would be to get on a ship or a plane and try it. If you fall off the edge, then the
hypothesis was wrong. This is what we mean by falsifiable.
4. Evidence mounts. Experiments and analyses are done by multiple independent observers. If
the predictions of the hypothesis keep coming true and the hypothesis continues to be
consistent with observed phenomena, it starts to become accepted by consensus as a correct
model of the physical world. If new evidence comes in, that challenges the model, the model
is either refined to incorporate the new evidence, and thus, once again be consistent with
known observation, or the model is completely rejected and a new hypothesis must be
started back at step one. The latest, refined version of the model, which is consistent with all
tested predictions and available observations, is called a theory. Theory does not mean here
what it does in everyday use.
Once something has been established as theory in the scientific sense, it is as true as the entire
scientific community can tell, to a standard far stricter, than any court of law. The whole point of
the independent observers doing independent trials is to remove human error and bias from the
process. If 1,000 people show that something happened in 1,000 different ways, what are the
odds that all the 1,000 observers were biased and that all of the 1,000 experiments were flawed?
Some theories, once established, go for centuries without needing to be refined. By that point,
3 Before getting to the four steps, it is important to note that nowhere in this definition is there any room for democracy,
personal preference or being “even handed” with the other side. In a scientific debate, once sufficient data comes in, there is
always a winner and a loser. Amongst professional scientists, these debates generally take two forms. Firstly, “does this really
mean what you think it means?” Secondly, “did you really see what you think you saw?” Both debates are closed by more data
and/or better analysis. Eventually, the evidence mounts and consensus is reached. An open debate implies that there is, as yet,
insufficient data, incomplete analysis or both. The final word always goes to the physical evidence itself. There is no “second
place.” This is as it should be. Good scientists do not say that the universe is some way that it isn’t, to please anyone.
2
GENESIS AND THE BIG BANG
the evidence literally comprises millions of observations and man-years of work. Refining does
not mean throwing out either. For instance Newton’s theory of gravity was refined by Einstein’s
theory of gravity. However, Einstein’s theory contains Newton’s theory, and after almost 400
years, Newton’s math is still all that one needs to put a satellite into orbit or a man on the
moon.4
THE DEFINITION OF FAITH AND BELIEF
So what do we mean by faith?
Webster's definition of faith is (1) belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) belief in the traditional
doctrines of a religion.5 Our problem is that the array of religions and belief systems is very
broad. The secondary definition of Webster's faith, namely, "firm belief in something for which
there is no proof,"6 may fairly describe a number of religious systems, but it is contrary to Jewish
thought.
From a Jewish perspective we make very clear distinctions between the terms "faith," "belief," and
"knowledge." Faith is, in fact, the adherence to a conviction for which there is no evidence or is
contrary to the evidence. Belief is the adherence to a conviction for which there is some
evidence, though it is not necessarily conclusive. Knowledge is a preponderance of evidence for
a conviction such that any new piece of information fits into the "picture" created by all the
previous evidence. In this sense, Judaism would not be defined as a religion. Judaism requires
a rational knowledge basis for belief in God, not just faith or even belief.
It is important to understand that in Jewish terms God is incorporeal and beyond time and space.
Thus, fundamentally you cannot make a measurement regarding Him. Anything you say about
Him, therefore, is not science by definition. Furthermore, it is outside of the authority of science
to make any claims on the existence or non-existence of a Creator, just as scientific facts are
outside of the authority of faith. On the other hand, that does not mean you cannot be rational
or logical about what you say in regard to a theistic worldview.
It is important to note two things.
1. Many of the references to faith and people of faith in the public discourse, especially
those by defensive, incensed scientists, are citing non-Jewish belief systems and believers.
4
As another example, many think that the Earth is round, means that the Earth is a sphere. For many problems, this is a perfectly
acceptable model. In reality, spheres don’t have mountains or valleys, but the Earth’s shape is still round, if not a perfect sphere.
“The Earth is round” is an example of a valid scientific theory.
5
6
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith
3
GENESIS AND THE BIG BANG
2. Although they are not consistent with the normative Jewish view, there are examples in
history and in today's public forum of Jewish believers who rightfully have brought upon
themselves the scorn of the scientific community.
YOU HAVE A POINT
Having laid some groundwork, we can pause to recognize that there is a kernel of truth found
within the misconception of each viewpoint. The scientist finds a host of faithful who treat
science like a jukebox, choosing the tunes they like and rejecting those that challenge their
theological views. Science is not a jukebox. You cannot simply pick and choose. Moreover,
from the worldview of the believer himself, God created the world, the natural laws, and the
beauty and awe of the universe. Exploring the world with the tools of science is to explore
intelligently God's handiwork. Further, to deny the order of God’s handiwork as revealed by
those explorations is to presume that one knows better than God. To appreciate the intricacy of
the human eye, the wonder of an imploding star, or the diversity of animal life should only
heighten one's awe for creation.
From the Jewish perspective, the obligation to inquire and search, using all of the tools available
to man, is much more demanding. The first commandment that God gives at Mount Sinai is "to
know God". If you reflect for only a moment, you will be compelled to ask, "why do you need
such a commandment, everyone who was standing at Mount Sinai was surely a believer? The
purpose of the injunction then was to assert the importance of deepening one's understanding of
God. As Rabbi Meir Leibush7 explains,
When it comes to religious belief it is…necessary for you to know yourself
the God of your father by means of your own intellectual analysis and
understanding.
Thus, one who is capable of comprehending something deeper with his intellect is exhorted to
pursue this path fully. The prominent medieval commentator Maimonides (1135 – 1204) takes
this one step further in his work Mishneh Torah. In describing how to develop a love of the
Creator he states,
When a person takes the time to meditate upon and think deeply about
the works of the Creator and the great wonders of His Creation and
allows himself to be filled with awe of the Creator’s wisdom which has no
measure or end, he will love, praise, and exalt the Creator. He will desire
greatly to know more deeply the Almighty.8
7
The Malbim, Rabbi Meir Leibush ben Yechiel Michel was born in Volhynia in 1809 and lived until 1879. His fame and immense
popularity rests upon his widely esteemed commentary to the Torah.
8
Mishneh Torah, Sefer Madah, Hilcos Yesodei HaTorah, Chapter 2, Halacha 2
4
GENESIS AND THE BIG BANG
Maimonides is saying that studying our physical world is an important and beneficial path for the
believer. The awe and wonder that it evokes will awaken feelings of love and gratitude. In short,
such study should be embraced.
WHEN SCIENCE PRESUMES
The scientific community also has a capacity to overextend itself, beyond the realm of science,
and to speculate on issues that are matters of faith in the name of science. When some of the
greatest Nobel laureates of our day claim that one can conclude that there is no God9 from the
evidence of scientific discovery, they are ultimately making a statement of faith, and not science.
One who precludes the possibility of anything beyond the physical observations of the world and
declares all matters of belief entirely valueless based on empirical evidence has ventured beyond
the bounds of the scientific method. To use the authority of science to make claims on a matter
outside of the scientific method is simply bad science. One cannot do an experiment on God
by definition. The claim that God does (or does not) exist is not physically testable and it is not
falsifiable. Thus, any “scientific” claim that God does not exist is not scientific at all.10 This is not
just an opinion, but a matter of intellectual honesty, and without intellectual honesty, there can
be no effective science.
The difference between a theologian and a scientist going beyond their respective boundaries is
that when a scientist does it, he is doing it with the credentials that carry the most weight in our
society. When a giant of the stature of Nobel Prize-winning scientist Steven Weinberg says, "The
more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless,” he is subtly crossing
over the line between science and faith. The more comprehensible the universe, the more we
are able to narrow the philosophical possibilities about whether one can ascribe meaning to our
existence in the universe to two, nihilism11 and a theological alternative12. Picking sides is not
based in or motivated by science. It is a personal choice and faith-based. Everyone, scientist and
theologian alike, can proffer an opinion on the origin of the universe. We simply need to
understand, however, that the opinion is not standing on the shoulders of science, but on the
logic and reason of the individual.
9
Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion refers to "colleagues who agree that there is no God"
10 The strongest scientific claim that an atheist can make is that he has not observed God. To this, the believer might well
respond “then you aren’t looking enough.” Further, simply because something has not been observed does not preclude the
possibility of its existence. A scientist, who claims that science precludes God has no physical evidence or mathematical
calculation to support his claim. He is again, by definition, proclaiming his own personal dogma that there is no God. He has not
only improperly usurped the authority of science, but whether he likes it or not, he has left scientific debate entirely and is now
talking theology.
11
12
Nihilism argues that the world, especially past and current human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose,
comprehensible truth, or essential value. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
The theological alternative is that the hidden variable (a term used to account for the inherent randomness in quantum theory)
has a metaphysical source – a spiritual dimension. On a cosmic scale that source could be called God; on a personal level, it
would be called a soul, rooted in the metaphysical source of creation.
5
GENESIS AND THE BIG BANG
Further, the offering of "scientific" opinion on the origins of the universe is becoming more than a
pastime among scientists today. Recently the "Beyond Belief" conference13 in La Jolla, Ca.
sponsored by the Science Network offered a platform for scientists to go on the "evangelical"
offensive. As the New York Times reported recently,
….a forum this month at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla,
Calif., which might have been one more polite dialogue between science
and religion, began to resemble the founding convention for a political
party built on a single plank: in a world dangerously charged with ideology,
science needs to take on an evangelical role, vying with religion as teller of
the greatest story ever told.14
CONSISTENT AND HARMONIOUS
Summarizing, the believer, according to his own tenets, ought to embrace the study and
exploration of the physical world, rather than challenge the value of scientific inquiry. So, too,
the scientist, according to the rules of science, should comment in the name of science, only on
those things that are subject to the scientific method. If so, that is, that in a real sense, science
can not touch matters of pure faith and faith can not touch matters of pure science, then it is
clear that there should be no irreconcilable philosophical conflict between the two. This is
because there is no legitimate overlap between the purviews of the two disciplines. It is in fact
perfectly possible to understand, accept, and believe scientific fact as true and be a believer.
Science, focused solely on the empirical, answers the "how" questions of our world. Torah15,
from a place of tradition, is not limited to, but is uniquely capable of addressing the "why"
questions that life throws our way. Maimonides, who was also the medical doctor for the Sultan
Saladin of Egypt, says that one who encounters a seeming contradiction between the wisdom of
the Torah and that which is observed in nature either does not understand the Torah properly
or does not understand the physical world properly.16 Elaborating on this, the Midrash17 teaches
us that God looked into the Torah and created the world. In other words, the Torah is really
the blueprint of all of creation. Like an architect has made all of the designs for an office building
before the construction crew begins to dig, so too the Creator of the Universe had a complete
plan before the moment of creation – the Torah. So, by definition there is no inconsistency;
rather, an inability to see the harmony. As Roy Abraham Varghese elaborates in his book The
Wonder of the World: A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God,
14
15
13 http://beyondbelief2006.org/
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60C11F63E5A0C728EDDA80994DE404482
"Torah" is often the word that describes the Five Books of Moses. It is a word that has many connotations. In this context, it
is meant to refer to a Jewish world view.
16
17
Bereishis Rabbah 1:1. The Midrash, according to Jewish tradition, is a portion of the of the Oral Torah. The principles
contained in the teachings of the Midrash were given to the Jewish people at Mount Sinai.
6
GENESIS AND THE BIG BANG
He [Maimonides] held that there could be no conflict between the truths we
discover in science and philosophy and the truths we believe to be revealed from
God. He also did not believe that religious authorities could answer
scientific questions. The human intellect reaches the summit of its powers,
said Maimonides, when it studies God, who is absolute, pure Intelligence,
since the ultimate goal of life is to know God and love him. We enhance
our intellectual growth by studying nature and mathematics, and in fact we
come to know God better precisely through these endeavors. But to be
truly fulfilled we must also aspire to moral perfection.
THE STAKES
Science and its derivative technology gives us power that our ancestors would have only ascribed
to God Himself. However, science gives us no moral or ethical guidance as to how to apply that
power. In the words of Albert Einstein,
Religion without science is lame; science without religion is blind.
Rationalism is the counter to religious excess. Compassion, born of religion, is the counter to
brutal nationalism employed by atheist dictators.
The reason that you don't say “I was just following orders” is because you believe that this world
is meaningful and has value. You believe that there are things that are right and wrong.
CONCLUDING WORDS
Despite the popular notion that to believe in religion is non-scientific, absurd and stupid, when a
scientist says that being a thinking, rational person is incompatible with believing in Torah and
Judaism the scientist is engaging in a non-scientific activity. He is telling you his faith-based belief
in regard to the existence of a Creator of the universe. Similarly, a religious person who says
that proven science is incorrect is a person exercising bad faith. In short, the study of both
science and the spiritual dimension is completely philosophically sound. There is no inconsistency
between belief in a Creator and the study of science.
Science suggests that there is a start to time and space. At a certain point, current scientific
observation stops and beyond that lies the realm of philosophy. One can, as a matter of faith or
belief, posit that we live in a universe bereft of any meaning or purpose as the nihilist suggests.
Or, he can posit that the free will he intuits is real and that it must have its source in a spiritual
dimension. That choice is a matter of evaluating the evidence. The evidence to substantiate the
arguments in this case is not subject to scientific test and observation, but it is the product of
deductive reasoning and subject to logical analysis. Thus, this essay should be viewed not as a
conclusion, but as a beginning to explore, unfettered, the possibilities of the spiritual dimension
along side the investigation of our physical world.
7