Silver Trumpets

This article was written over the course of the events of the Slaughter of the Seventh (10/7/2023) wherein hundreds of Israelis (including children) were tortured, raped, kidnapped, and murdered by Hamas terrorists. This article is written in loving memory of the victims. A reminder that morality, including the sanctity of life, must remain absolute. Their suffering is yet another example of the evil that results from the failure to believe in absolute morality.

In a previous article I discussed the philosophy of Baruch Spinoza and my own general interpretations and criticisms. It will be helpful to be familiar with Spinoza’s philosophy generally as I will now focus on one aspect of his religious thought to expand upon.

Baruch Spinoza

Baruch Spinoza offered us the concept of Panentheism, which holds that everything that exists is one with Hashem (G-d) but that Hashem is more than just everything that exists; He is the conscious universe. Spinoza further postulated that Reason, the pursuit of objective truth, is a separate and co-equal form of divine revelation to the moral disciplines offered by the Torah and other revealed Holy Scriptures. The implications of this profound philosophical breakthrough have, in my opinion, never been fully thought through; neither have they been considered within the context of Judaism. The Rambam (Maimonides) established the philosophical prescription that the pursuit of science and knowledge about the world is part of the religious pursuit of Judaism in the 10th Century CE. Therefore, the pursuit of objective and universally understood knowledge, which stems from Reason, can also be argued to be an extension of the Rambam’s philosophical directive to gain scientific knowledge.

Spinoza, however, takes this a step farther: rather than look on the pursuit of knowledge and science as something Jews should do and should find valuable to their faith, he grants this pursuit an equal station to the effort to live according to the Torah and scriptures. Reason, in Spinoza’s view, is to be a second pursuit of religion requiring the equivalent energy and passion. It is important to understand that far from the Neo-Aristotilianism of the Rambam’s era, the scientific method had, by Spinoza’s time, become the primary methodology of pursuing objective knowledge. In the 16th Century Francis Bacon and several other philosophs developed the rudiments of what we now regard as the scientific method. While Spinoza did not have access to the scientific method as we now understand it, a methodology like it was popular in his time. Thus, his understanding of objective knowledge was more sophisticated than that of Rambam’s era.

Sadly because Spinoza was estranged from the Jewish community of his time, he seems to have pursued reason and science with far greater passion than faith. While his example does not bear emulation, his philosophy certainly warrants greater attention. Science studies the natural laws, that constitute the objectively established rules of our reality. From basic physics to biology, from chemistry to entomology, from engineering to medicine, science establishes how our reality works. The knowledge gained leads to incredible improvements in the human condition from safer housing structures and medicines that preserve life to secure supplies of clean water and ample food. Nevertheless, one must ask: who created all of this? Who wrote the natural laws? Who created everything and causes it to exist? The answer, in a Jewish context, is obvious: Hashem (G-d).

If that is the case, then is the natural law not a revealed truth on a par with that of the Torah? If these are rules Hashem created to govern our reality, are they not equally divine to the words He gave our ancestors to offer moral guidance? The Torah was given to men (and women) to teach the Israelite Nation how to behave morally, how to govern themselves, how to live happy and meaningful lives in good times and bad. The Torah does include some observations about the world in which we live but was never intended as a complete explanation of existence and how everything came to be. The Torah tells us what we need to know to live right, science studies everything else Hashem created, how He manages it, and the mechanisms He established to govern everything.

Baruch Spinoza

Perversion of Science

Unfortunately, even as I write this argument I am burdened by the perversions that pervade the sciences today. Not content to study objective knowledge, too many scientists have taken up a political agenda that has become a religion unto itself. The processes of evolution can be established by science. The question of “who created humanity” is a metaphysical one that cannot be answered by objective science. Science can offer its own narrative, that mammals evolved and primates from among them. Over the length of millions of years one line of primates evolved into apes and then into what we now understand to be sentient humans. Science cannot say why it happened, only that it happened and can establish the evidence for it and study the mechanisms by which it happened. Of course, no theory is complete and there will always be new evidence to study, new mechanisms to understand, and major changes in our understanding of the process. That is science, but that fact does not change the reality that even if small details of the theory change over time, or new avenues of study develop that change what was held to be factual previously; the greater part of the theory withstands.

Metaphysical questions cannot be tested, the results observed and repeated. A hypothesis about whether a conscious being created everything that exists is beyond any scientific evaluation. This does not mean it is impossible that such a being exists, it simply means science has no means of studying the matter. Likewise, science cannot address whether our lives have meaning beyond what we experience on a daily basis. In one example, an anthropologist described a village in Africa wherein a structure had fallen and killed a resident. The villagers thought it was witchcraft. The anthropologist explained to me that while science can tell us the structure was unsound and termites had eaten away at it, it cannot explain why it collapsed at that moment and killed that resident. It cannot offer meaning to what happened. Thus, the mourning villagers performed a ritual to expel the spirit of witchcraft. This made everyone feel safer and allowed them to move on with life. How can science evaluate the accuracy of these beliefs? Can science say there was no witchcraft? Certainly not to the satisfaction of the villagers. Nevertheless, explaining that the death resulted from random chance is likewise a metaphysical evaluation.

Does Hashem exist? Did Hashem create mankind? These are not a questions science can address. I know that Hashem did create humanity and science can at best study the means by which He created us. Who can prove otherwise objectively and factually in a way that I cannot argue against? If you throw a ball it will fall in a predictable curve. We know this to be the case, we can experiment and reproduce the results. The path of the ball can be described mathematically with the height of release, speed of release, and wind resistance (among others) as variables. Can we describe the meaning of life mathematically? (Aside from 42?) Can we create a model to establish whether there is a deity? Can we create a means of proving that the collapse of a structure had nothing to do with witchcraft? Can we prove random chance?

It is unfortunate that many people try to substitute science for faith. They establish a new deity “random chance” and ascribe to this new deity the power of creation. This offers mankind no moral status, no value, no meaning. We are just accidents of creation. While those who believe in this pseudo-religion are entitled to believe as they wish, they are not entitled to attack others for holding differing beliefs. Unfortunately, they fail to understand that they are adherents of a religion and try to argue that they are “above” religion. This arrogant attitude and their desire to force believers in other faiths to believe as they do are nothing new to the world. From the cult of Ares to the Mythraic mystery, from Buddhism to Islam (and yes at certain times in Judaism as well), members of one faith have sought to persecute those of a second faith and coerce them into adopting the dominant faith.

None of this has any impact on the fact that Science is ideally the pursuit of objective knowledge, nor does it impact the rightness of belief in meaning and morality. It is merely the abuse of science by one faith in its harrying of other faiths. The science is still correct and our goal should be to end its abuse rather than to undermine it. Those who try to use faith to undermine science end up demonstrating their ignorance of science and those why try to use science to undermine faith end up demonstrating their ignorance of morality. There is no cause for conflict. If one’s beliefs are irrational and cannot accommodate objective science, or basic morality then those beliefs and practices should be changed as they are arguably harmful. Why refuse a life saving medicine because of a belief, for example? Naturally, we cannot force others to do anything against their will; outside of the commission of crimes.

The conflict between science and religion is an unnecessary one. The two are infinitely compatible. In fact, the one needs the other. As Albert Einstein once said: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” Why should we deny ourselves the benefits of medicine or the benefits of holding human life to be sacred? Why must we choose between them? Life saving antibiotics and the sanctity of life are both benefits obvious to any thinking person.

Albert Einstein

If one’s faith in a supreme deity is too weak to accept the idea that the same supreme deity created everything that exists and that science studies that deity’s work; then I suppose there is nothing more to be said. If one’s faith is contingent upon the existence of the supernatural and magical, then I would argue this is not faith at all but sophisticated superstition. Likewise, if one’s faith excludes the possibility of a higher power that establishes absolute moral rules, I would likewise argue that this is not objectivity but hedonism. Much harm can be rationalized and justified in the absence of moral laws as much harm can be done by denying reality. One must have a true, deep faith to be able to understand that the supreme deity (Hashem) is real and not a supernatural fantasy. There are firmly established moral laws that follow from that and that the study of science (real science not the new religion that has grown up around it) is of equal value.

Biblical Support for Reason

The very first thing we learn in Torah is that Hashem began to create the skies and the land (B’reishit [Genesis] 1:1). In verse 4, we learn that Hashem saw the light “and it was good” (Kiy Tov). Hashem began to create and what He created was good. In this case the word Tov (“good”) means good, positive, acceptable, in order, and generally not bad. References to creation being good are littered throughout the early chapters of Torah. These passages teach us three important lessons that are easy to miss in their simplicity. First, that Hashem created everything deliberately. Most of the belief systems of those nations who lived around the ancient Israelites held that creation resulted from an accident, from perversion, or that many deities created certain parts of it and were jealous of their parts and at odds with one another and with mankind: “the g-ds are capricious.” Hashem did all of the creating Himself and He did so deliberately. It was also essential to Him that He convey this fact to us, as He had Moshe record the fact for posterity.

Second, we learn that everything that exists He created. Nowhere in the scriptures is there any hint that there is anything Hashem did not create, that was created by something or someone else, or that there is anything He did not intend to create. In fact, mankind is the only disloyal creation mentioned. Every other character, officer, or thing serves Hashem or acts as His messenger. Hashem commands the forces of nature, animals, and the celestial bodies that provide signs of the time, and so on. Nothing is beyond His control, except mankind; and He created us that way deliberately. We are made in His image (unlike everything else) in that we are sentient, thinking, self-aware beings capable of breaking free of the natural laws and the forces of nature. Third, we learn that everything Hashem created was “good” in His eyes (anthropomorphisation as metaphor to enhance human understanding, Hashem has no “eyes” neither does He require them). What Hashem created He looked upon with satisfaction, as He conveyed to Moshe, to let us know that He approves of His creation. This includes humanity, in spite of our disobedience.

If it is the case, then, that everything that exists was created by Hashem, functions according to His will, and is satisfactory to Him, then science studies His works as much as does religious scholarship. We are commanded not to kill by the same being who established the speed of light. We are commanded not to steal by the same being who established gravity. We are given laws in a language created by the same being who created mathematics. All of these originate from the same source. Moral authority and the natural, observable universe were both created by Hashem. Why not awe in both? Why not accept mathematics as a divine language so much as Hebrew? Why not accept the natural laws so much as the moral laws? Why not accept natural miracles, like the conversion of matter to energy (as in fission or fusion) with the same enthusiasm as the parting of the sea of reeds? The only reason I can see not to do so is human misunderstanding or human arrogance; in either event the failure lies with us, not with Him.

Faith in Truth and Faith in Reason as Faith in Hashem

In this article/essay I have argued that those who are eager to pursue moral discipline through faith in a divine metaphysical deity, should be equally eager to pursue knowledge through observable fact and repeatable experimentation. Likewise, I have argued that those who pursue objective knowledge will be enhanced by the pursuit of moral discipline. Certainly with regard to the application of the knowledge gained which must be utilized for moral purposes that do not cause undue or unwarranted harm to others (obviously self-defense requires the development of weapons but we should not be eager to use them to hurt others unnecessarily). When one holds that life is sacred, one is likely to cause far less harm than one might if one believes in a metaphysical “random chance” that offers no moral guidance. Likewise, a person who believes in a divine being who has given moral laws to guide mankind should also awe in the natural creations of that divine power and seek to learn about that creation.

The first task Hashem gave Adam was to name everything. He made us curious that we might learn, grow, and evolve as people. We should thus pursue knowledge and understanding with the same enthusiasm as we pursue moral discipline and religious devotion. Jakub Al-Qirqisani, the Rambam, and Baruch Spinoza were right that these are both pursuits of approximately equal value.