DISCUSSION GUIDE for Part Four: Does Science Make Belief in God Irrational Guide by Olga Kirschbaum CHAI MITZVAH
i INTRODUCTION: Is Religion for Dummies Shay argues that the atheists make several claims about why science disproves religion. 1. Atheists are fond of pointing out that advances in physics indicate the world came into existence from nothing. Atheists consider advances in science to be their slam-dunk case against religion. Why posit the involvement of such an omnipotent and omniscient deity at all if nature perpetuates itself, with no need of divine intervention It seems far more rational to explain that the universe(s) and all it encompasses is an awesome, wonderful, and perhaps infinite physical place. 2.Don t biology and chemistry also teach us that the inception and evolution of life after creation contradict the Bible s account This theory of irreconcilability casts a long shadow over the reliability and authority of the Bible. According to the atheists, the biblical version of creation is no different from any comparable ancient Near Eastern myth. 3.How can belief in God be rational if it bases itself on an attendant belief in miracles, for which, the atheists claim, there is no existing or possible proof As Hitchens writes: Miracles have declined, in their wondrous impact, since ancient times. Moreover, the more recent ones that have been offered us have been slightly tawdry. The notorious annual liquefaction of the blood of San Gennaro in Naples, for example, is a phenomenon that can easily be (and has been) repeated by any competent conjuror. In Shay s view all of these claims are based on misunderstandings. 1. The atheist authors do not recognize this congruence because they totally misunderstand monotheism s relationship to empirical reality and logic. Nor do they get how monotheists traditionally interpret biblical texts. The fact is that neither these texts, when read properly, nor their interpretations contradict the findings of science. 2.The atheist authors do not recognize this congruence because they totally misunderstand monotheism s relationship to empirical reality and logic. Nor do they get how monotheists traditionally interpret biblical texts. The fact is that neither these texts, when read properly, nor their interpretations contradict the findings of science. Rather, they affirm God s choice to operate through nature. Were the Bible to have given us a clear, concise, and mathematically elegant set of equations describing creation, we human beings would have no free will. Perhaps more significantly, we would lack any ability to partner with God on our journey of discovery. 3.The atheist view of miracles is not the Biblical view.. 39 PART FOUR: Does Science Make Belief in God Irrational
Do you often hear people says science disproves religion Are they usually scientists and how much do they know about religion, specifically Judaism What were your thoughts about science and religion before reading Shay s book Have you ever experienced or witnessed a miracle What were your thoughts about the Genesis narrative before reading Shay s book What does the idea of God s being behind nature mean to you 20 CHAPTER 20: Getting the Record Straight on Religion and Science Shay shows how idolatrous societies had scientific knowledge but that the lies of idolatry ultimately limited scientific advances. All animistic and idolatrous societies, past and present, developed specialized knowledge about the plant and animal life around them that enabled their survival. Scientists today are interested in testing much of this traditional knowledge Nevertheless, because of erroneous beliefs by ancient Near Eastern societies in the authority and supernatural powers of finite people and things, much of ancient Near Eastern astronomy and medicine in particular was riddled with superstitions. Historians have demonstrated that ancient Egyptian medicine was useless or worse. One of the key results of the monotheistic revolution, Shay explains, was advances in science. In contrast to the ancient Near Eastern peoples, the Greeks made significant strides in the fields of mathematics, astronomy, and biology. Because the pre-socratic philosophers were skeptics of idolatry that is the deification or attribution of supernatural powers to nature and people they were able to consider the workings of nature on its own terms, that is physical laws. The Islamic view that God operates though natural means contributed significantly to the flowering of scientific knowledge during the Islamic Golden Age. Ibn al-haytham is widely considered to be a founder of the experimental method, which departed from the Greek emphasis on observation and mathematics. In contrast to atheist claims, Shay argues that science and monotheistic religion are different forms of knowledge, but both are rational. Science engages in understanding the mechanisms of natural processes, and it seeks to uncover and articulate rational tenets about the nature of reality. Scientists also engage in theorizing about the physical world, either through deduction attempting IN GOOD FAITH: A Critical Take on Religion and Atheism 40
to explain a process by the available evidence or through mathematics and logic. Both methods are ways that cannot be proven experimentally. Scientists also develop and propose tenets about the cause and purpose of reality. The monotheistic faiths primarily describe the nature of moral life and the nature of the world by means of rational tenets. In other words, monothe istic tenets ought not to contradict physical reality. Religious teachings must, however, conform with reality. Religious practices that falsely claim to be empirically valid are actually no more than superstitions. Thus the conflict between religion and science is actually a conflict about tenets. 21 Tenets are principles, beliefs, or doctrines generally held to be true, and often espoused by members of a group or organization. Based on both the random and nonrandom mechanisms of nature, atheists extrapolate the tenet that these mechanisms are self-creating and self-perpetuating. Religious people, in contrast, extrapolate the tenet that these mechanisms were created and are perpetuated by God. Atheists claim that the more we know about the mechanisms of nature, the closer we are to writing God out of the picture. In contrast, monotheists claim that the more we know about the workings of nature, the more we come to know about God. Is there any traditional or ancient science you know of or use in your everyday life What did you know about the development of science before reading Shay s book Discuss some scientific non-religious -- tenets about the cause and purpose of reality Discuss some religious tenets about the cause and purpose of reality Do you know any religious scientists and what are their views of science and religion Are there superstitions that you have used or appeal to you, and if so why CHAPTER 21: Science, the Bible, and the Origins of the Universe Shay argues the Biblical creation story is different than idolatrous creation myths. 41 Ancient retellings of the story of creation with the notable exception of the views of the Greek philosophers range from utterly fantastic to downright weird, from a scientific perspective. According to the Egyptian creation myth, the world rises out of prehistoric chaos in the form of a mound, from which various gods, and ultimately the sun god, appear. Psychologists and anthropologists may study these creation texts as a window into a given culture s values and fears. PART FOUR: Does Science Make Belief in God Irrational
In contrast, the Bible speaks in allegorical terms, not in mythical ones. The text does not explicitly indicate how God created the earth we inhabit. Its plain meaning is to simply insist that, gloriously, He created everything. When God began to create heaven and earth (Genesis 1:1). The first verse of Genesis thus denies the deification of nature. This not only resembles our scientific view but has informed it. Shay shows how some interpretations of Genesis are surprisingly close to modern scientific views. In Jewish tradition, the Seder Olam (Order of the World), a second-century Midrash (commentary) on the Book of Genesis, reads the chronology of Genesis literally and dates the world to less than six thousand years old based on a literal reading of the days of creation and of the genealogies after creation. Rabbi Yitzchak of Acco argued that the universe was even older than forty-two thousand years based on the idea that the years before the creation of Adam had to be measured in divine years rather than human years. Referring to a psalm that states that a divine day is like one thousand years, Rabbi Yitzchak of Acco calculated that the universe would exist for 42,000 x 365,250 or 15.3 billion years There are also a number of parallels between quantum physics and biblical tenets about nature. Quantum mechanics paradoxically affirms the laws of nature without claiming they are deterministic. Because Jewish commentators accept the laws of nature, many have questioned how nature can coexist with the concept of reward and punishment. Rambam discusses this seeming paradox in his Guide to the Perplexed. In Rambam s view, the laws of nature operate at all times. Nevertheless, there exists within the framework of these laws the possibility for reward and punishment. While many commentaries on Genesis have remarkable parallels with quantum physics, theologians just like physicists are still uncovering secrets. In contrast, the key atheist tenet about the universe that we are here by chance, is hugely improbable. While many physicists consider that the multiverse theory proves that we are here by chance, the probability of this fact is actually virtually nil. Of all the modern theories on the origins of the universe, the multiverse theory presents the biggest challenge to the notion of a creator God. Were there to exist an infinite number of universes, one could have arisen to accommodate life simply by chance. IN GOOD FAITH: A Critical Take on Religion and Atheism 42
What polytheistic and idolatrous creation myths are you familiar with What things stand out for you in the biblical creation myth How old would you have judged the universe to be if you did not know modern physics What are your thoughts about the relationship between quantum physics and divine providence Do you find the idea that the universe arose by chance convincing 22 CHAPTER 22: Science, the Bible, and Evolution While scientists have a pretty clear understanding of evolution, Shay points out there are still aspects that defy explanation. Darwin s world-shaking, and yet simple, hypothesis about the foundation and evolution of life is based on just two theoretical pillars. The first is that all life on earth descends from a common ancestor. The second is that natural selection is the mechanism that leads to the diversity of life. Contemporary scientists link natural selection to the concept of genetic mutation, which produces diverse traits within a population of a particular species. One of these aspects is the origins of life. Currently, no scientific evidence identifies the way that the first spark of life came to be. Scientists certainly are considering a number of hypotheses. Another is the rate of the evolution of species. The Cambrian explosion of species was a fifty- to eighty-million-year period starting about 580 million years ago, during which time the diversity of life literally exploded well beyond what can be reconciled with Darwinian evolution. The biblical account of creation does not accord with the theory of evolution in all its detail, though it does accord with it on major aspects. Although a literal reading of the text of Genesis seems to contradict the theory of evolution, it also reveals conceptual hints that creation evolved in a natural process and describes a more naturalistic vision of the living world than do ancient myths. In other words, unlike ancient myths it does not attribute supernatural qualities to or deify nature, or invent mythical creatures. That being said, a literal reading of the biblical text seems to contradict the key pillars of Darwin s theory of evolution. First of all, the biblical text appears to suggest that God created all of the species ex nihilo. Second, the text does not strictly follow 43 PART FOUR: Does Science Make Belief in God Irrational
the order of evolution. The biblical text claims that the sun and the moon were created on day four, after the trees, which were created on day three, when according to science they were created before trees. These discrepancies, along with others such as the literal duration of creation have led many to an allegorical reading. While I personally embrace such an allegorical reading, even the plain meaning of the text introduces the concept of natural progression, and therefore makes an important conceptual point about the nature of creation. For example, verses 1:11 13 of Genesis contain language that suggests a natural process: And God said, Let the earth sprout vegetation: seed-bearing plants, fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it. And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that this was good. The text also offers other clues to its interpretation. For example, the text uses the verb yatzar, rather than bara, to indicate the creation of most species. The early modern commentator Yitzchak Abarbanel (1437 1508), writes that the presence of the verb yatzar suggests that plants, animals, and man were not created ex nihilo but, rather, they were fashioned out of something else. When did you learn about evolution and what effect did it have one you Do you think we will ever uncover all he mysteries of evolution Will discovering a scientific theory for the origin of life challenge the concept of a creator God Is Shay s reading of Genesis surprising to you Are there details about the Genesis story that delight or disturb you Do you find the Genesis story to be an obstacle for belief in God for you 23 CHAPTER 23: Natural Miracles Unlike the atheist view, which sees miracles as contrary to nature, Shay argues that there is common usage of the word miracle that has a somewhat different meaning. We usually use miracles in everyday speech to denote events that are improbable, which is very different from inexplicable. Most people use the word miracle to refer to an unexpected recovery or deliverance and often feel that events unfolded unexpectedly in a precise way to allow for this. He describes the story of his father s survival as such a miracle. Such was the case with my father, who told me that he was saved during World War II in Europe by numerous miracles. The first of many low-probability events occurred IN GOOD FAITH: A Critical Take on Religion and Atheism 44
when the Nazis and their local collaborators initially abducted him and my grandfather. Separated from my grandfather, my father frantically searched for him to no avail. A Nazi guard grabbed my father and heaved him into a different group than the one he had originally been put in. The Jews in the first group were murdered prior to deportation. For my father, this one action saved his life. If he had not searched for his father, he would have been murdered. If he had successfully found his father and joined him, my father would have been murdered. Had the Nazi guard thrown him in a different direction, he would have been murdered. Had the Nazi guard actually helped my father find and join his father, my father would have been murdered. Had he previously left Švėkšna to be with his uncles, he would have been murdered when the Nazis arrived in their community. And all of this occurred as so much of my father s journey went. There was an extremely narrow quantum path for him to have arrived alive in Chicago. Today there is a scientific way to explain miracles. Quantum mechanics depicts a vast array of possible outcomes, some of them quite counterintuitive. Such a premise suggests that virtually nothing is impossible in the universe. For example, it is possible for you to walk through a brick wall, although the odds of you doing so by having the appropriate energy and wave function calibration are such that you might have to wait longer than the existence of the universe to experience that event. Further, there is no telling what you would look like after you pass through that brick wall. But it is not impossible. Quantum mechanics has also demonstrated that the action of observation impacts outcome. So, our observation and I might add, our attitude has a determining effect on what actually happens. We find instances of this in stories of yogis and other meditative mystics who seem to defy the laws of nature in various ways. The monotheistic view of miracles accords with the quantum view of reality. Just as the human mind may be able to affect events, so too could the divine mind. Quantum mechanics certainly provides a plausible description of how God could engineer encounters and events within the bounds of nature and even seemingly beyond nature. 45 PART FOUR: Does Science Make Belief in God Irrational
Do you relate to Shay s definition of miracle Have you experienced that type of miracle in your life Do you understand the basic difference between deterministic mechanics and quantum mechanics Have you experienced the influence of your thoughts on outcomes Is Shay s view of miracles and the quantum view of reality convincing to you and if not, why not Do you experience divine providence or God sending you messages through events to teach your lessons 24 CHAPTER 24: Science, the Bible, and a Theory of Everything Shay argues that many scientists today adopt the tenet that the world is material. Our atheist authors are among those who believe the universe is composed of matter alone and that it developed by chance. They point to the very advances in physics and biology we have been discussing as proof that the world is completely material. They argue that the more we know about subatomic particles and the development of the universe and the evolution of life, the more we can rule out any form of divine consciousness. The revered late physicist Stephen Hawking, for example, publicly shared his conviction that there is no God. From his perspective, there is nothing beyond the universe, except other universes. These same scientists adopt the tenet that the world has no purpose. For many scientists, since the world is simply the result of random physical and chemical reactions and processes, it has no specific reason for being, no directed goal in its development. For many atheists, the world is progressing neither biologically nor in terms of consciousness (understood not as subjective thought, but rather as shared knowledge). No, the world simply follows random and evolutionary mechanisms and will one day end. Yet other scientists take the opposite view that the world is not just material or purposeless. Quantum theory points to the power of the mind and opens the possibility that matter and the universe are not randomly assembled. Scientific advocates of the strong-form anthropic principle describe a purposeful process whereby the world was compelled IN GOOD FAITH: A Critical Take on Religion and Atheism 46
to develop for man as an alternative to the multiverse theory. Atheists should not misrepresent their own views as speaking for all scientists. Contrary to atheist claims Shay shows that scientists who advocate the quantum view atheists can agree on the tenets that the world is both material and immaterial. Both atheists and monotheists, in contrast to idolaters, view nature as separate from God, which of course atheists do not believe in, so nature certainly must stand on its own. However contrary to what atheists may claim, monotheistic views of nature and God resemble quantum views that the world consists of information. The Bible describes the creation of the world through God s words. God s ideas about the world, as it were, are translated into words and formed into matter. While the Bible hardly provides details about the mechanism of translation from thought to word to matter, the parallel is hard to deny. More to the point, many kabbalistic texts describe the world as a concealed manifestation of the divine mind. We might find parallels to such a view in Max Planck s notion of matter. Shay also claims that monotheism advocates the tenet that the world has a purpose. Monotheistic texts present the view that humankind s purpose in this world is to create a better world through expanding consciousness. Progress is not a forward march in the Bible; it is more a Viennese waltz for beginners for we have free choice. This very tenet explains why the Bible cannot describe creation with obvious prevision though kabbalists claim it may hold secrets we have yet to discover. What tenets about the universe do you hold Have you met scientists who believe in God and did they change your views Do you believe the world has a purpose Do you believe the world is also immaterial and why do you have this belief, from the Torah or from experiences Do you believe that you personally have a purpose in it 47 PART FOUR: Does Science Make Belief in God Irrational