About four years ago I met with our local Catholic priest to discuss starting an interfaith group for our area of North London. During our conversation the concept of biblical stories came up, “Do you believe that Noah really existed and that there was a flood?” I replied affirmatively. “Then you are a fundamentalist!” he exclaimed in contempt. Similarly, someone recently asked me whether I believed that God created the world in six days, again I answered that I did. “If it becomes known that you believe in the literal meaning of such primitive stories people will not take you seriously,” he replied.
Indeed this is a serious matter: how can modern day intellectuals give truth-value to and believe in stories that were popular during antiquity. Surely since the scientific revolution no rational, freethinking person can honestly believe in such outdated ideas about the creation of the universe. Indeed for this reason many religious apologetics have endeavored to show how the Bible is really entirely compatible with science. Many of these people however have found themselves obliged to change the traditional understanding of biblical stories so that they fit into scientific theories.
As a rabbi, theologian and student of philosophy I have a slightly different response to the question of faith versus intellectualism and science. It is my contention that real faith is never blind – it always leads to rationality. My friend Dr. Daniel Rynhold recently published a book entitled, “Two Models of Jewish Philosophy: Justifying One’s Practices” (Oxford University Press, 2005). The book endeavors to prove a similar contention. He proposes two models for rationalizing Jewish rituals and practices. The first model, termed in the book as the Priority of Theory, is the traditional method of rationalizing behaviors, where one comes up with a theory or principle which will then justify a particular practice. Thus, Maimonides would contend that Jewish religious practices are designed to bring about the perfection of man[1]. Based on that principle Maimonides will explain how individual practices actually help bring that perfection about. So first one has the theory and then one can use it to rationalize the practices themselves[2].
Amongst a number of problems inherent in this method of rationalizing religious practice Rynhold points out the following difficulty. If a practice is found not to fit into the proposed theory or principle one may be feel obliged to either revise the practice or change its traditional meaning. If this were to happen it would follow that not all religious practices, in their original state, adhere to the proposed rational principle or theory. This would disprove the original contention – that all practices fit into a particular theory of principle[3].
Based on this I contend that justifying religious beliefs based on an exterior set of principles, namely science is similarly problematic. If one finds that one is unable to fit the entire creation story in its literal state, into the theory of evolution, for example, one may feel obliged, as some have, to change the traditional meaning of the Biblical story. In doing this one would be admitting that the biblical creation story, in its literal sense, is not rational and negates scientific reality. This puts one in the absurd position of automatically canceling out the original goal, namely to prove that the biblical story is eminently scientifically plausible.
Rynhold thus comes up with a second modal of justifying religious practice which he terms the Priority of Practice. The concept is simple: practice itself engenders a rationality that is not reducible to principles or general theories. Based on Aristotelian philosophy which states that habitually acting in a virtuous manner, for example, produces reasoned and rational confidence in virtuous behavior, Rynhold concludes that: “As a matter of empirical fact habituation or practice does seem to create a reasoned confidence in our practices[4].” An example of this is the Shabbat: experiencing a Shabbat with all its richness brings about an understanding of the rational behind it. Thus, habitual religious practice yields a rational apprehension of the ritual that would not have been attainable without experiencing the practice itself.
According to this modal of justifying religious practices one’s starting point is faith. One believes that because the practices have a Divine origin they are worthwhile. However, only after practicing the rituals can one hope to gain a rational understanding of their purpose. This should come as no surprise, as Rynhold points out, this is exactly the method one employs when teaching a child the importance of study. According to Maimonides one should bribe a child with all type of material incentives until the child independently appreciates the intrinsic worth of studying.[5]
It seems to me that this modal can be used with regards faith in biblical and religious doctrines as well. Indeed if one believes that scientific theory is the key to truth, fitting the Bible’s story of creation into that perceived truth will be difficult. However if one begins from a standpoint of faith maintaining that the Bible is the word of God and therefore contains the true version of events, sooner or later one will comprehend the rational behind the stories[6]. One of the great Chassidic masters said: “For a believer there are no questions; for a unbeliever there are no answers[7].” This is not to say that the believer has blind faith. Although believers may begin from a standpoint of faith their journey does not end there, true believers are able to believe in religious doctrine whilst maintaining their intellectual integrity. This is similar to practice: before one has become practically acquainted with a ritual it is difficult to comprehend the rational behind it. Similarly, whereas an unbeliever will find it difficult to comprehend the intrinsic rational behind doctrines of faith, for a believer it is much easier.
Indeed the Kabbalists have already said that the key to proper comprehension of biblical and mystical concepts is faith[8]. Some would have us believe that faith and intellectualism create an unhappy marriage. This could not be further from the truth. When I was teaching Judaic Studies to 18-year-old High School students, they were often surprised to find that there was deep rational underpinning to religious concepts. Frequently, even subconsciously, a tremendous amount intellectual energy is expended to fully comprehend our deeply held beliefs and convictions. It is interesting to note that this fact crosses boundaries. In the academic world too people spend massive amounts of energy, both intellectual and physical, to prove that a theory they believe in is correct. If one really believes in a theory or doctrine most obstacles both intellectual and physical are surmountable.
So as we read the story of creation in the Torah portion this week let us not dismiss it as being fictional or as not having literal meaning. Let us realize instead that with a little faith one is able to achieve that which would otherwise seem virtually impossible.
[1] Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed III:27.
[2] For greater detail see Rynhold p18-47.
[3] Rynhold p121.
[4] Rynhold p187
[5] Rynhold p185.
[6] This does not mean the science is to be dismissed and nonsense, indeed science often helps us to understand concepts found in the Bible and in rabbinic literature. The stress here is that the believer sees the Biblical account as being absolute and science as subject to change, this way, eventually, the two can be married successfully.
[7] It is not clear which Chassidic leader this is attributed to.
[8] This concept is found often in the Chassidic discourses (on Kabbalistic themes) by the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Scheneershon of blessed memory.