From: emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout)
Subject: Re: Tanya and Secular Knowledge
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 01:13:00 GMT

In <1992Oct14.191622.1194@cs.tulane.edu> david@bourbon.ee.tulane.edu (David Kaufmann) writes:
>However, there is an erroneous assumption, that the sages were
>"necessarily ignorant of the physical world." In fact, the Alter Rebbe
>was quite knowledgeable of the science of his day. The current Rebbe
>has a degree in engineering and knows a great deal about the sciences.

It takes a little bit more than this to be knowledgeable in the
sciences.

>Many observant Jews are reputable scientists, like Herman Branover,
>for instance. The reasoning of the sages, if properly studied and
>understood, does not defy secular knowledge obtained later - it
>anticipates it.

In what way?  How is "secular" knowledge aticipated by religious 
knowledge?

>>In particular, I completely reject the idea that one can even hope to 
>>understand Judaism properly without taking into account secular knowledge.
>>Sanctity is no substitute for knowledge; as the American folk saying goes,
>>
>Well, I think the reverse is also true: one cannot hope to properly
>understand secular knowledge without taking into account Judaism. 

But all of the progress in science has shown just the opposite.  That
regardless of Judaism, "secular" knowledge is testable and verifiable
by all.  If you are talking about moral attitudes towards scientific
issues, than that is no longer secular knowledge.  The secular and
religious spheres are completely separate and cannot touch each other.
If for instance religious knowledge implied or said that a certain
type of secular knowledge was wrong, then immediately that can be verified
by everbody, of whatever belief, and can no longer be classed as
religious knowledge, which by definition is not known or believed by
everybody.

>The issue for Tanya - and Judaism - is one's perspective: the question is
>not the activity, but the purpose: is secular knowledge an end in
>itself or a means to serve G-d?

>>Instead of placing the reasoning of our sages above secular knowledge, our
>>religious leaders should learn about the physical world BEFORE they get
>>indoctrinated by those who do not know.  Even in interpreting both the
>>commandments and the narrative ofthe Torah, a great scholar like Hertz uses
>>many things learned about ancient civilizations to understand it.
>>
>So do all the sages. But they don't assume "secular knowledge"
>automatically knows best, a wise course as that bit of religion
>constantly changes.  And the point is that Hertz used "secular
>knowledge" as a tool, not an excuse. Too often we tend to use it as
>the latter. I think the issue is not interpretation, but observance,
>which derives from purpose: who does one serve?

Knowledge cannot "know" anything but is possessed by us to a larger
or greater degree.  If some new facts come to light, then the
knowledge known by us grow or changes.  If religious knowledge
is held with the assumption that it should never change, then it
becomes stagnant and bound to be swept up by ever increasing
knowledge in other spheres.

>David Kaufmann
>INTERNET:	david@bourbon.ee.tulane.edu
--
Eli Chiprout
Dept. of Electronics
Carleton University	
emc@doe.carleton.ca	
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.polish