By William Berkson
In the first installment, I argued that Judaism shouldn't try to do without God, because then it will lack the power to inspire us.  That raises the question of whether modern science leaves open the door to God, to religion.

There is still a strong movement that says science has superseded religion. This movement, known as "positivism" started with Auguste Comte (1798-1857). Comte had the theory that there were historical three stages in the development of understanding of the world: religious, then metaphysical, then scientific or "positive." Science should sweep aside all religious and metaphysical explanations, and scientific theories of society, in particular, would advance humanity to an ideal condition.

Originally, the idea that the world consists only of "atoms and the void," and lacks any guiding purpose had been championed by the Epicurus (341-270 BCE). The Epicureans were unique in the ancient world in denying Providence--that God, or many gods, had a guiding influence on humanity. For that reason, the Jewish sages condemned them and said, "Know what to answer to an Epicurean." (Avot 2:19) Because there are leading scientists who still champion the idea that science has superseded religion, "knowing what to answer" is still a vital issue.

The problem with the modern Epicureans, or Positivists, is that they treat an aspiration as a fact. And their aspiration is in reality impossible to realize. The aspiration is that science will explain everything important about our world.  The great (Jewish) philosopher of science, Émil Meyerson (1859-1933) revealed why this aspiration will never be realized.

According to Meyerson, the great mysteries in the world are change--birth, death, growth, motion, the passage of time--and diversity--why you and I are different, the difference between living and the dead, the riotous diversity of nature. We feel emotionally satisfied when we find unity behind diversity, and what persists through change. This is why the atomic theory has such appeal--what seems to be incomprehensible change is actually the rearrangement of atoms according to strict laws. Both the atoms and the laws endure.  But the atomic theory still leaves us wondering about time and atoms. The only thing that can fully satisfy our hunger for unity is the mystic's vision of the world as one, unified timeless entity. However, science is required to explain diversity and change; it can't go the way of the mystic. It has to have some diversity and change in its premises, and these will appear to us as "irrational" and mysterious.

To put this another way, science has to have theories that make predictions which can be checked by observation and experiment. To make such predictions the theories have to be formulated in sentences, or equations, from which deductions of observations can be logically deduced. Thus Newton's famous theory that F=ma; force is equal to mass times acceleration. But we can always ask about the terms or units involved in a sentence. What is force? What is mass? And in 'acceleration' we have time and space. Why is there time and change? Why is one place different from another? Thus we are landed back with the mysteries of change and diversity after all.

Meyerson explained his point in a story. The great rationalist Leibnitz said that if an angel whispered in our ear the secret of the universe, we would say, "How logical, how obvious--why didn't I think of that?" Schopenhauer, the Pessimist, wrote that if such an angel whispered the secret of the universe in our ear, we would not understand it, "lacking the organ for understanding." According to Meyerson's analysis--and my follow up--Schopenhauer had the sounder view.

What is particularly important is the issue of purpose in the world. We know that at least we have purposes, and we are indeed part of nature. But purpose involves thinking about the future, and about time. Hence in thinking about purpose we immediately run into one of the mysteries that science, by its logical and empirical character, can never fully penetrate--the mysteries of time.

Since the Jewish concepts of God fundamentally involve the intuitions of unity and purpose, science by its nature can't shove these concepts of God aside. Those who claim that science will--or already has--superseded God is just not understanding the inherent limits of scientific explanation.

Given that science leaves the door open for some kind of God who gives unity and purpose to the universe, the question is: What idea of God does science allow for?  And is that strong enough a basis to build a vital, vibrant Judaism on? 

These questions I will address in the next post, next week.

Print

Email

Comment

Comments

Post a comment