From: emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout)
Subject: Re: Tanya and Secular Knowledge
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 12:33:04 GMT

In <2946@ceylon.gte.com> sg04@ploni.gte.com (Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund) writes:

>|> In article <Bvz0AF.Bp@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>|> 
>|> >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,

>1. I believe it is wrong to view science as being something opposed
>to Torah. G-d has created both, and both are channels for greater
>comprehension of G-d's will. I.e. they are mutually enhancing.
>A reductionist approach which tries to compartmentalize things
>will only lead to less understanding of what G-d's will is
>(since that is ultimately a holistic combination all of the above,
>the rational elements of the soul, the soul's intellect, and
>the non-rational elements of the soul).

Science is one thing.  Religious knowledge is another.  Never
shall the twain meet.
If religious knowledge claims an upper hand on scienfic knowledge
than it must make some testable verifiable statements.  
But you will rarely find such because it will fall straight into
the lap of science and might be tested false.  Therefore by
definition, religious knowledge is not testable and therefore
not falsifiable.  Which allows you to make points number 2 & 3.

>2. Student's of the history of science are well aware of the
>transitory nature of scientific theories. Science does not
>grow by a gradual linear accumulation of knowledge, and new theories
>do not neccessarily build on previous models. Science frequently
>undergoes paradigm shifts where the new model completely replaces
>the old. While one might still find the old theory in the textbooks,
>it will be only a shell of the old form, now re-defined and re-understood
>quite differently than it was originally.

>3. Those scientist working at the cutting edge of a field are quite
>aware of where the instability of scientific theory. What might
>appear as dogma from the outside is usually underdstood to be much
>less granite-solid from within. I can give you two examples:

This is the strength of the scientific method.  It bends when new
knowledge comes to light.
Scientific knowledge is by definition falsifiable.   So if new 
knowledge becomes available than it must be taken into consideration.
This cannot be said of religious knowledge.

>Evolution: It is well known within biological circles that a major
>problem is the lack of a mechanism for evolution
>and mutation is a major weakness in Darwin's theory. 

[Unstudied claims about evolutionary theory deleted]
That evolution happened is about as well established as the laws
of aerodynamics which you rely on to fly a plane.  (If you
think the knowledge of science is changing so fast and furiously,
I suggest you don't fly -- which is what many said when flying
was invented).  In fact evolution is the only explanation so far
set forward, that connects logically of all the different
branches of knowledge including Paleantology, Genetics, Embryology,
Linguistics, Biochemistry, and Anthropology.  It is the mechanism
of evolution that is still being debated about, not whether it
happened or not.  I suggest you read "The Blind Watchmaker" by
Dawkins.  Also tune in to talk.origins and post those same 
comments.

>For all of the above reasons, It should be quite clear that it
>is quite mistaken to the theories of science at any given time
>as dogma and use that to re-interpret Torah. The constant
>evolution of science means that at any given point in time
>science will be false with respect to (wrt) the science that
>follows it. 

Science cannot be used to reinterpret moral,religious knowledge
because the two spheres have nothing in common.  One is 
testable and falsifiable, the other is not.  All that science
can do is bring new issues for moral, ethical consideration,
such as "do I use a tape recorder to tape a person without
their knowledge".  Science bring new issues into the realm of
thought that are not specifically considered in Torah.

>However Torah,(which literally means to teach), on contains
>unchanging universal ethical teachings. It by definition is
>truth since the value of its Truth does not vary wrt to time.

Ethics is based on language and language is never refined enough
to cover all the situations.  So you may claim that it remains
the same, by the fact that it has to be applied to new
situations that never existed before means that it is newly
defined with more explanation and therefore it changes.  This
is the whole purpose of commentaries.  To address issues that
were never covered completely before.  After many generations
of interpretation and add-ons, one finds sometimes a quite
different result than when one first started.


>Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund		 		  sgutfreund@gte.com
>GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA			    harvard!bunny!sgutfreund
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
--
Eli Chiprout
Dept. of Electronics
Carleton University	
emc@doe.carleton.ca	
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish