DAS Blog

This past week marked the beginning of this year's Torah reading cycle with, appropriately, the reading of the Story of Creation and the Generations of Man. Many people take this story literally, or even if they do not, they seek to have physical and natural science validate the super-natural and meta-physical designing of the universe by God through a doctrine of "intelligent design". They feel anything less would represent an affront to their religious faith, as apparently, their so-called faith cannot admit doubt, even though it is through skeptical observation of nature, without any agenda to prove God's existence, that we obtain faith: faith the sun will rise again, etc. What kind of faith is it that requires scientific confirmation to know the sun will rise again tomorrow? That darkness is separated from light? What kind of faith can only proclaim God's unique existence when one has one's eyes open?

But doesn't Genesis itself place the physical origins of the universe and living organisms with God? Yes. But this story is an allegory. The Torah is notoriously spare with detail and filled with some rather puzzling turns of phrase, both of which defy literal interpretation and ask us to interpret the Torah as it would apply in our times. We are not told merely to follow the tradition given to our ancestors but rather that we were metaphorically at Sinai as well, so the Torah is given to us. So where the Torah alludes to myths and legends universally known to the its audience from 2500-3000 years ago but which we know not, we must fill in, via Midrash, our own myths and legends so we truly can understand the Torah at the same level as those who were closer in time to Sinai.

Where the Torah uses confusing phrasing, perhaps common at the time of its writing but now beyond our comprehension, it invites us and requires us to interpret its writings so that we may understand the Torah at the same level as those who were closer in time to Sinai. Jewish tradition presents us with two approaches here: Rabbi Ishmael argues that since the Torah is written in the language of its audience presumed to be literally at Sinai, we should not take the exact words of Torah so seriously but rather should understand fully the lessons Torah, our teacher from another time and place, is trying to teach us: a necessary challenge in any learning experience as our teachers, with wisdom we students have not, are necessarily as if they were from a foreign country -- that land of wisdom. On the other hand, Rabbi Akiva argues that as the word of God, we must read very carefully into the precise words of Torah. In either case, however, the presence of confusing phrasing is an invitation for us readers to either read the Torah less than literally or read the words of Torah very carefully and perhaps to have a meaning different than the literal meaning one obtains at a level of basic reading comprehension.

The creation story is one such place in Torah: e.g., the first word of Torah is b'reshith, which literally means, "in the beginning of [emphasis added]" ... in the beginning of what? Also, there is no first day, only "day one"; the light is created and separated from darkness before that which produces light is created, etc. The Torah invites us to take it at a different level than the literal level. Whether one uses the approach of Rabbi Ishmael which frees on to consider the creation story as an allegory attempting to explain important truths to an audience not ready to understand them literally or whether one uses the approach of Rabbi Akiva and focuses on the peculiar turns of phrase, one cannot limit oneself to a literal reading of the creation account and have a true understanding of Torah as if one was at Sinai (a similar argument can be made about the bizarrely phrased prohibitions in Leviticus taken by many to apply to homosexuality but which, in the spirit of either Rabbi Ishmael or Rabbi Akiva, beg us to understand them as prohibiting something else and perhaps even -- in the spirit of left-handers placing T'fillin on their right hand as they should read "right hand" as "left hand" as their right hand is to them as the left hands of us righties are to us --prohibiting gay men from having sex with women as much as we straights are prohibited from having sex with men -- bisexuals maybe even get a complete pass on this one -- making the ex-gay movement the abomination in the eyes of God, and the gay-rights movement holy).

Coincidently or perhaps not, the most recent Science Friday dealt with genetic evidence for evolution. Since, in a lesson to free-market-types who assume Darwinian processes result in some sort of magical efficiency and economy, DNA even when rendered useless only disappears or becomes meaningless so fast (if it ever does disappear or degenerate into a random sequence), each of our genomes bears fossil genes displaying our evolutionary origins. Why would an Intelligent Designer place such genes in our genome? The universe may be designed -- it may be fine-tuned for life, etc. -- but at a physical and natural level, the hypothesis of design is clearly disproved unless one believes in a malevolent or un-intelligent designer.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg on why "Intelligent Design" as a scientific hypothesis is bad theology. Assuming it were true (and the Designer's neither stupid nor entirely malevolent), why the creation of genetic fossils that might trick us into believing in evolution? Some would argue that these are tests of our faith much like Abraham's test with Isaac. But Abraham was "tempted" as some translation would have it, not tested (I'll go with an Akiva-esque like approach with that, for now): and Abraham failed the test, but he did not stumble, and God stopped the procedure before he stumbled. On the other hand, if we are spiritually blind not to accept "Intelligent Design", then the presence of genetic fossils is a stumbling block -- we have indeed stumbled and fell away from belief in "Intelligent Design" -- before we who are blind, the placing of which stumbling block is against God's commandments! Does God violate his own law?

This is a deep question, which is part of a larger line of questions separating Judaism and Christianity: when does God violate divine law and when does God not do so? What sins can God forgive and under what circumstances?

As to the latter question, Christianity tends to appear more lenient: even the most horrid of sins can be forgiven, according to certain strains of Christianity, so long as one accepts Jesus as the Christ and Son of God. But from a mechanistic soterological perspective, it is Judaism that is more lenient. The Christian, or at least either the fundamentalist or orthodox Christian, would say that God cannot forgive any sin as such forgiveness would violate an extra-legal (and shall I say rather Hellenistic and foreign to the Hebrew mindset) notion of God's perfection. Thus God requires a sacrifice (in the orthodox formulation, to purge the Original Sin ... which also relates back to differences in interpreting parts of this week's parsha, so I'm still on topic ;) ... for a very indirect Hassidic critique of the notions of "original sin" and vicarious atonement, see one of the readings in Machzor Hadash, which I mentioned in a post over a year ago: yep, this here blog thingy's now over a year old!), which, in His mercy, He's provided: His Son. Judaism, on the other hand, would say that since forgiveness after restitution is part of God's law, it would make no sense to have God sin by being un-just and un-forgiving. Thus, even though Judaism demands "T'shuva" (repentance, lit. return) to achieve divine forgiveness, which for grave sins becomes nearly impossible to achieve and thus makes Judaism seem strict, Judaism is really more lenient as it considers God to be forgiving of any sin, so long as the sinner truly demonstrates a return to the right path.

Looking back on the month that is about to end, full of festivals dealing in part with both the notion of repentance and the harvest as it was, we now have an interesting perspective in which to think of sin and repentance. On Rosh Hashanah in the ritual of Tashlicht, we cast bread, representing our sins, upon the waters. But on Sukkoth, we read in Ecclesiastes of casting our bread upon the waters meaning something quite different. Or does it? Perhaps it is through sharing the harvest, the real purpose of the sacrificial system, we repent for our sins and also ensure our own prosperity. Too many supposedly religious people nowadays have a bad attitude about wealth redistribution: but it's in the Bible as a means of both atoning for sin and assuring the general welfare and wealth of the nation!

And what are we to make of the contrasting in the Unesaneh Tokef prayer between rest, ease, tranquility, poverty and humbling with wandering, harassment, affliction, wealth and exaltation?

So many questions, so little time to think about them, nu? But to read the Torah carefully, one cannot and ought not to avoid asking questions: and one either has to confront the irregularities in the text with either a careful reading or a loose reading. One cannot avoid the problems of the text by being a literalist. Similarly, to expect hard and fast proof that a regular miracle will continue rather than to doubt it will continue and fear that it will not -- to have both the fear of God and the fear of the lack of God -- is not to have the highest faith, e.g. that science can and will establish the truth of religion, but to fundamentally lack the true faith which comes from doubt.