Ultimate Truth
We hear it every day. The latest fossil, the latest discovery. Everything points to a rational explanation, with religion tossed into the wastebasket of superstition. How to affirm our belief in a skeptical age? The Avner Institute presents a powerful letter where the Rebbe, drawing on his extensive background in physics and chemistry, acknowledges the achievements of our scientists while pointing out their flawed assumptions in the face of Torah thought.
Dedicated in memory of loving memory of Hadassah Lebovic A”h
“I trust that our views will be reconciled”
B.H.
17 Cheshvan 5723
Dr. H. Goldman
1721 Grand Avenue
New York 53, NY
Greeting and Blessing:
My secretary, Dr. Nissan Mindel, has brought your letter of October 23 to my attention. I am pleased to note that you took time out to review my letter of the 18th of Teveth 5722, and to put down in writing your observations thereon. Many thanks.
In reply, I can either follow the order of my letter in the light of your remarks, or take up your remarks as they appear in your letter. I will choose the latter method, in any case, I trust that our views will be reconciled, since, as you indicate in the introductory paragraph of your letter, you are in full sympathy with the aims of my said letter, namely, to resolve [science with] Torah.
I must begin with two prefatory remarks:
It should be self-evident that my letter did not imply a negation or rejection of science or the scientific method. In fact, I stated so explicitly towards the end of my said letter. I hope that I will not be suspected of trying to belittle the accomplishments of science. Especially as in certain areas the Torah view accords to science even more credit than science itself claims; hence many laws in Halachah are geared to scientific conclusions (e.g., in medicine), assigning them the validity of objective reality.
A remark has been attributed to you to the effect that just as Rabbinic problems should be dealt with by someone who studied Rabbinics so should scientific problems be left to those who studied science, I do not know how accurate this report is, but I feel I should not ignore it. Nevertheless, I studied science on the university level from 1928 to 1932 in Berlin, and from 1934 to t1938 in Paris, and follow up to scientific developments in certain areas ever since.
Ultimate Truths
Now to your letter.
I quite agree, of course, that scientific theories must be judged by the standards and criteria set up by the scientific method itself. This is precisely the principle I followed in my letter. Hence, I purposely omitted any references to Scripture or the Talmud, etc.
You write that you can heartily applaud my emphasis that scientific theories never pretend to give the ultimate truths. But I went further than that. The point was not that science is (now) not in a position to offer ultimate truths, but that modern science itself sets its own limits, declaring that its predictions are and will always be in every case merely “most probable” but not certain speaking only “in terms of theories.” Herein, as you know probably better than I, lies a basic difference of concept between science today and 19th century science. Where in the past scientific conclusions were considered as natural “laws” in the strict sense of the term—i.e., a must and certainty—modern science no longer holds this view.
Parenthetically, this view is at variance with the concept of nature and our knowledge of it = science as espoused by the Torah, since the idea of nissim [miracles] presupposes a change in a fixed order and not the occurrence of a least probable event.
Acknowledging the limitations of science, set by science itself, as above, is sufficient to resolve any doubt that science might present a challenge to Torah. The rest of the discussion in my said letter is mainly by way of further emphasis.
Questionable Motives
Next, you deplore what you consider a “gratuitous attack on the personal motives of scientists.” But no such general attack will be found in my letter. I specifically referred to a certain segment of scientists in a certain area of scientific research, namely those who produce hypotheses, [Hebrew] by what they actually call thousands and thousands of years before us, such as the evolutionary theory of the world, [Hebrew] of which there is no evidence considering this investigation, which are not only highly speculative, but not strictly scientific, and are indeed replete with internal weaknesses, [Hebrew] and on this foundation they decide to deny all other trains of thoughts. It is the motives of these scientists that I attempted to analyze, since their attitude cannot be squared with the desire to promote truth, or to promote technological advancement, scientific research, etc.
I did not want to accuse at least not all of them of anti-religious bias, but I attempted to explain their attitude by a common human trait, the quest for accomplishment and distinction. Incidentally, this natural trait has its positive aspects, and is also basic in our religion, since without the incentive of accomplishment nothing would be accomplished.
Your remark about the misuse of the terms “fission” and “fusion” in relation to chemical reactions is, of course, valid and well taken. I trust, however, that the meaning was not unduly affected thereby. Undoubtedly the terms “combination” and “decomposition” should [have] been used. Actually, I believe, the different usage of these terms in nuclear and chemical reactions is more conventional than basic. Nevertheless, I should have been mindful of the standard terminology.
Here a word of explanation regarding the terminology of my letter is in order. If the terms or expressions used are not always the standard ones, this is due to (a) the fact that I usually dictate my letters not in English, which is then translated, and (b) the fact that I received my scientific training, as already mentioned in German and French, and previously in Russian, which may also account for some of the variations.
Great Presumptions
You refer to my statement that scientists know very little about the interactions of isolated atoms or subatomic particles and question its relevance to the theories about the dating of the World. The relevance is this. The evolutionary theory as it applies to the origin of our solar system and planet earth, from which the dating is inferred, presumes (at least in the case of most of the hypotheses) that “in the beginning” there were atoms and subatomic particles in some pristine or gaseous state, which then condensed, combined together, etc.
I am aware of the fact that a major part of physics research in this century has been concerned with interactions of individual units ranging from atoms to the most elementary particles now known. But as late as 1931 from the subatomic particles only protons and electrons were known and “explored.” The bubble chamber was invented only in 1952, and a field ion microscope (by Dr. Muller of Penn State University) reaching into the realm of the atom and sub-atom particles only in 1962.
And it is safe to assume that all we have learned in the field of nucleonics in the last few decades is very little by comparison with what we can confidently expect to learn in the next few decades.
You object to my statement that conditions of pressure, temperature, radioactivity, etc., must have been “totally different” in the early stages supposed by some evolutionists from those existing today, and you assert that those environmental conditions have for the most part either been duplicated in the laboratory or observed in natural phenomena.
Here, with all due respect, I beg to differ. And I believe the study of the sources will confirm my assertion.
You state that there is no evidence that any radioactive element produces cataclysmic changes.
Weakest Link
Your observation about a lack of a clear distinction in my letter between cosmology and geochronology is correct, but no such distinction was intended.
In evaluating the evolutionary theory of the universe, as of our planet Earth, I have in mind that the strength of a chain is measured by its weakest link, and in my letter I attempted to point out some of the weakest links in both areas of cosmology and geochronology.
You state, finally, that the crucial point to consider in regard to geochronology is the existence of objects and geological formations in and on the crust of the Earth which serve as physically observable clocks, etc., but I have already pointed out in my said letter that such criteria are valid only as of now and for the future, but cannot be applied either scientifically or logically to a primordial state.
With honor and blessing,
[signature]
P.S. I have just been able to find and borrow your book The Attenuation of Gamma Rays and Neutrons in Reactor Shields, which impressed me considerably. Incidentally, I noted in it your observations about the discrepancies between theory and experiment which I found more than once in your work. Such a statement as “Not only is the simplest organism and incredibly complicated entity whose chemistry and physics are barely glimpsed at, but the classical scientific pattern of experimentation is necessarily not available in studying radiation effects” is very significant and has a direct bearing on the theory of evolution which involves an age of unimaginable radioactivity both in the universe and on our planet Earth.
To reactive to your inbox email: [email protected]
