Did Moses Exist?

The new Encyclopedia Judaica is not so sure, citing the work of historians, archeologists and others. YU’s Rabbi Shalom Carmy responds this way:

Orthodox Rabbi Shalom Carmy of New York’s Yeshiva University grants that historians have so far found no documentation on Moses apart from the biblical writings. He doesn’t find this gap surprising and says scholars who make that argument fail to acknowledge that evidence corroborating ancient texts is very spotty.

Summarizing the Jewish divide, Carmy observes that liberals hold the biblical text "doubted until independently proven true," while for fellow traditionalists "it is true unless conclusively disproved."

Really? A less-than-6000-year-old-universe has been conclusively disproven, yet most of Rabbi Carmy’s "fellow traditionalists" still posit a less-than-6000-year-old-universe. And, one should ask, what would Rabbi Carmy do if large parts of the Torah were proven false? You know the answer to that question. Rabbi Carmy will continue to believe, will continue to maintain even those parts of the Torah are true, and will continue living his Orthodox life.

In Rabbi Carmy’s mind, the Torah can never be wrong and can never be proven wrong. Therefore all proofs are not conclusive. Follow that reasoning? It should sound very familiar to you, especially if you were ever a Moonie or wore orange robes.

Rabbi Avi Shafran On Torah & Science

Agudah spokesman Rabbi Avi Shafran wrote a book on Judaism, Jewthink: A Guide To Real Judaism for the Thinking Individual, Hermon Press, 1977, which is a collection of apologetics meant to defend Judaism from, among other things, the challenges of rational thought and science. A friend send me this PDF of Rabbi Shafran’s take on the conflicts between Torah, which posits a world less than 6000 years old, and science, which has proved a much older world, billions of years old.

Rabbi Shafran insists the world is less than 6000 years old, claims science, all of it, is poorly intentioned and incapable of ascertaining the truth, and explains the world was created to look old. This is of course the famous Gosse theory, first advanced by a Protestant theologian in the first half of the 19th century. Gosse’s work was adopted by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, and apparently Shafran picked it up from him. Neither the Rebbe or Shafran bothered to attribute the theory to Gosse.

Here is an excerpt from Rabbi Shafran’s book:

Download avi_shafran_torah_science.pdf

For a Jewish view (not derived from Christian fundamentalist apologetics) on the age of the universe, read this.

Rabbi Avi Shafran On Torah & Science

Agudah spokesman Rabbi Avi Shafran wrote a book on Judaism, Jewthink: A Guide To Real Judaism for the Thinking Individual, Hermon Press, 1977, which is a collection of apologetics meant to defend Judaism from, among other things, the challenges of rational thought and science. A friend send me this PDF of Rabbi Shafran’s take on the conflicts between Torah, which posits a world less than 6000 years old, and science, which has proved a much older world, billions of years old.

Rabbi Shafran insists the world is less than 6000 years old, claims science, all of it, is poorly intentioned and incapable of ascertaining the truth, and explains the world was created to look old. This is of course the famous Gosse theory, first advanced by a Protestant theologian in the first half of the 19th century. Gosse’s work was adopted by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, and apparently Shafran picked it up from him. Neither the Rebbe or Shafran bothered to attribute the theory to Gosse.

Here is an excerpt from Rabbi Shafran’s book:

Download avi_shafran_torah_science.pdf

For a Jewish view (not derived from Christian fundamentalist apologetics) on the age of the universe, read this.

Why Orthodox Judaism Fails

Rabbi Without A Cause, the RCA-affiliated rabbi so loved by Rabbi Gil Student (and so ridiculed by many of Gil’s readers and by me) has this to say about the behavior of the ‘gedolim’ in the Rabbi Slifkin Ban:

[L]abelling books kefirah and someone a kofer is well-within halachah, as is refusing to meet,if the claims are well-grounded. Read the position of Rabbi Akiva in Perek Chelek.

In other words, a shomer Shabbat Jew with recognized smicha wrote a series of books that quoted Rishonim and later authorities. Gedolim labeled those positions heresy, and Rabbi Slifkin a heretic. They refused to meet with him or his representatives. And, when pushed by others to explain themselves, they were left with saying that what was permissible for Maimonides or Nachmanides or Rabbi Samson Rafael Hirsch to believe is not permissible for us.

These rabbinic fools tried to destroy Rabbi Slifkin. They did so with no due process granted to the man they condemned. And who defends their misbehavior? An RCA rabbi.

This is Orthodox Judaism. People, run away from it as fast as you can.

Paul Shaviv On Rabbi Slifkin, The Age of the Universe, Chabad and Haredim

Paul Shaviv writes:

Whether we read the tangled tales of our “founding family,” or the mystical account of the origins of morality in the Garden of Eden, Genesis has always been the most engaging and the most challenging of the Five Books of Moses. But no part of it has exercised more attention than the account of Creation described in its opening 34 verses.

Way back, I was comfortable in understanding Genesis – Bereshit – as a majestic, spiritual account of Creation, containing in its short texts infinite spiritual truths. It was not a literal account. In the mid-1960s I first encountered Lubavitch-Chabad Chassidim who argued that the world was exactly five-thousand-and-some years old, and that God created fossils. But no one I knew – including several Orthodox rabbis – took them seriously. It was an exotic sideshow to the Chabad “gig,” which we all loved, in its uncomplicated, pre-Messianic incarnation.

A little later on, I encountered the “Orthodox Jewish scientists,” who sought to demonstrate by elaborate interpretations that the text of the Bible did not contradict any scientific theory. It was noticeable that as the scientific theories changed, so did the explanations. While, again, the arguments were sometimes fascinating, I could never understand why they were necessary. But every year, I loved those few weeks in the fall when the New Year began with the reading of the powerful account of the beginnings of the world as we know it. I could listen to Bereshit being read from the Torah without being troubled.

I am still not troubled, but others are troubling me. For in today’s Orthodox community, there are strong and insistent voices saying that you have to believe the world is 5767 years old or you are a heretic, with all the exclusions that are implied. Whether you are meticulous in observing the commandments or not is no longer a sufficient yardstick.…

The Challenge of Creation is important for two reasons.

The first is that it powerfully and rationally argues that to be Orthodox need not – indeed, must not – mean abandoning reason, nor need it mean rejecting science. That is – as indicated – a courageous statement in an Orthodox world that has been hurtling in the opposite direction for the last 30 years or so.

Rabbi Slifkin’s courage brought a firestorm down on his head. But his book is a powerful injection of calm common sense into an increasingly eccentric community. The small group of Orthodox who yearn to hear voices in Orthodoxy to whom we can relate – we feel like one of Rabbi Slifkin’s ecologically endangered species – owe Rabbi Slifkin a huge thank you.

The second, less immediately apparent reason, is that it is a practical complement to recent, and important, books by Menachem Kellner and Marc Shapiro, demonstrating that the parameters of Jewish definition have always been fixed by tests of practice, not tests of belief. Being Jewish was always about what you did, not what you thought. That idea sharply distinguished Judaism from most branches of Christianity, whose test of faith was belief, and it can only be conjectured whether those who want to reverse those parameters actually understand what damage they are doing. (Given the equally strong movement against the study of Jewish history in the same circles, it is entirely possible that they don’t.)

…This civilized, respectful, erudite, well-argued, beautifully structured book is a revelation in a controversy that has been marked by crude and adversarial public mud-slinging. His opponents could learn major lessons from him in derech eretz, let alone in Torah.

BARUCH DYAN HAEMET: Rabbi Aryeh Carmel, ztz”l

Rabbi Aryeh Carmel, an exponent of rational Orthodox Judaism and a pioneer in Torah-science discussion, passed away yesterday. Rabbi Carmel was a strong backer of Rabbi Natan Slifkin and a pioneer of outreach to non-Orthodox Jews.

Dennis Prager’s Rabbi Slifkin Interview On Web

You can listen to Dennis Prager’s recent interview with Rabbi Natan Slifkin here.

[Hat tip: LA Yid.]

YU’s New Dean of Students On Torah and Science

The NY Jewish Week interviews YU’s new Dean of Students, Dr. David Srolovitz, who was appointed in June. Previously, Srolovitz, renowned for his scientific research in computational materials science, was chairman of Princeton University’s Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering:

…What do you make of the relationship between science and religion?



Science is about understanding nature, and that’s a goal every religious person needs to address. Science is religion’s natural compatriot — from a religious point of view, you must be prepared to ask any question that needs to be asked and see how it goes. For a Jewish person, science and religion have no inherent contradiction, it’s all related to the same thing. For an inquisitive mind, there’s a natural fit.

On a personal level, I haven’t felt I had to deal with the contradiction. One thing that scientists learn quickly is how little we understand, so there’s a natural connection and I never felt pulled in two directions, but rather there’s a unification. If I see something I don’t understand, I think that’s worth looking into more.

…Our country is currently in trouble. We do not produce enough engineers. We do not produce enough scientists. YU has a strong program in the sciences and engineering, but the number of students who plan careers in this area remains relatively low. My goal over the next few years is to entice more and more students to science and engineering by providing opportunities for research together with faculty during the academic year and during the summers.

YU is the perfect place to be asking the hard questions. YU will not provide the answer to the “apparent controversy over science and religion.” We will provide thinking, honest individuals who are prepared to address these issues.

Are you concerned about the recent rightward tilt of institutions like YU and the impact such a tilt will have on academic excellence and achievement?

I think it is a misrepresentation of the facts to characterize what is going on at YU as a “recent rightward tilt.” YU has been and continues to be an institution that strives for a balance in Torah learning and secular learning. … YU welcomes a wide range of orthodox Jewish students and is committed to continuing to do so, it is at the same time that we are striving to bring our academics to the very highest levels of this country.…

The Haredi Takeover and YU’s Cowardice

The Canadian Jewish News has published the first of a two part series on inter-Orthodox tension in Toronto. The article is stunning, both for its clarity and for the candidness of the interviewed subjects.

First, we have Rabbi Shlomo Miller, Toronto’s rosh kollel and a major opponent of Rabbi Natan Slifkin. He refuses to be interviewed because, he tells the CJN, the media misrepresents his views. Instead, Miller appoints a spokesman, Jonathan Ostroff (who’s brother, I believe, is Rabbi David Ostroff, a significant haredi figure in Israel). Here is what Ostroff has to say:

Rabbi Slifkin’s “misrepresentation” of the six days of creation, as described in the book of Genesis, compromises the core beliefs of Judaism, Ostroff said. Rabbi Miller, therefore, objects particularly to his work in kiruv (outreach). “Would you want your children to be taught by someone who misrepresents a core belief of Torah?” Ostroff asked.

Rabbi Miller, Ostroff said, is a follower of the Vilna Gaon, the 18th-century Talmudist, and thus is not opposed to science, as some have said, but is very interested in it. Ostroff said the rabbi, however, distinguishes between “operational science” and “origin science.” Operational science, which Rabbi Miller accepts, examines how things work in the universe, while origin science looks at what caused things to begin. “It’s the difference between building a bridge, and who came up with the original idea of a bridge,” Ostroff said, adding that Rabbi Miller “objects to origin science, because it can’t be studied empirically.”

He said that in the rabbi’s, and the Torah’s, view, the world was created by supernatural means, by God, in six days. By the seventh day, when He rested, everything, from light and darkness to land and the seas to plants and animals to man, was in place. That, Ostroff said, is when operational science came into play.

And all the empirical evidence pointing to a world far older than 6000 years? “Operational science” itself must be thrown out in order to believe this haredi line.

But Ostroff is not finished yet:

On the general subject of stringencies, Ostroff said that 80 years ago, Orthodoxy was moving to the left. Today, it’s moving to the right. As an example, he noted that religious Zionists, including some in the Modern Orthodox camp, are questioning whether they should say Hallel, the psalms of praise said on Jewish holy days, on Yom Ha’atzmaut. “They are moving closer to the opinion of the haredim. It’s all part of God’s plan.”



Stricter kashrut guidelines are part of this trend. Kashrut standards in the wider Orthodox community are moving closer to haredi views on questions such as the dangers of insect infestation in fruits and vegetables, Ostroff said. “This may appear to some to being a stringency. In fact, it is exactly what the Shulchan Aruch demands.”

Before light boxes, magnification and pesticides, Jews ate vegetables, including broccoli and brussels sprouts. How did they do this? How, when the average person had eyesight that was closer to 20/60 than 20/20, and when reading glasses did not exist, were vegetables checked for bugs? Does the Shulchan Aruch demand only those with good eyesight check for bugs? Does it even mention this as an opinion? No, it does not. But haredim do not care about this fact, any more than they care to note that before pesticide use, far more insects were on vegetables than are found today. Bugs must be identifiable as bugs using the human eye in order for them to be forbidden. That means bugs too small to be seen by less-than-perfect human eyes do not count. Magnification, light boxes, prescribed acts of soaking and the like are all stringencies added by haredim.

More Rabbi Miller-inspired foolishness is kindly noted by the CJN:

In Toronto, the controversial trend toward more stringent interpretations of halachah has been ongoing, with a decision this summer by the Toronto Vaad Hatzdokah, an independent board that certifies Jewish charity collectors, not to endorse any future female applicants, despite having done so before. The Vaad said the collection of tzadakah by women is halachically problematic for reasons having to do with modesty. In addition, moves by the Vaad Harabonim, Toronto’s Orthodox rabbinic umbrella organization – such as challenging the city’s longstanding eruv, a physically demarcated boundary around the city that allows Jews to carry things in public on Shabbat and Yom Tov – are being seen as an attempt to bring the community more in line with haredi ideals.

Rabbi Shlomo Miller is a coward and a thug, representing a community of thugs. (Don’t be a poor woman in Toronto!) But he is not the only rabbinic coward in Toronto:

Making the situation more volatile, many people in the Orthodox community are troubled by what appears to be a refusal of non-haredi rabbis and other Orthodox leaders to speak out against the situation.

Several people interviewed for this series expressed the view that many Orthodox rabbis and leaders are afraid of being censured by Rabbi Miller and the haredi community, and these sources contend this fear is behind the silence of Orthodox leaders.

As I have written many times, the silence of rabbis Hershal Schachter, Mordechai Willig and the other YU roshei yeshiva – a silence that is borne of both cowardice and a fawning need to have approval from haredi ‘gedolim’ like Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv – is the most destructive force in today’s Orthodox world.

When all this is over, when historians write about this period of Jewish history, the cowardice and abdication of responsibility of Hershal Schachter, Mordechai Willig & Co. will be the focus. Great leaders rise to meet difficult challenges. Great leaders act, often at significant personal risk, to fight for what is right and good. YU’s roshei yeshiva are not great men.

Rabbi Slifkin Live On Dennis Prager NOW

Rabbi Natan Slifkin is live on Dennis Prager’s radio show as I write this at 1:15 CDT.

You can listen (live streaming only – no archived content) on the web here.

GUEST POST: THESE ARE NOT THE BUILDERS BUT THE DESTROYERS (Talmud Yerushalmi Hagiga 76c) – An open response to the misuse of miracles in support of a Young Earth

By Shmuel Bergenfeld



Recently, there has been an argument presented by quite a few respected rabbis and their assistants in defense of the alleged Torah viewpoint of a <6000 year old universe. This argument, in a nutshell, states that all miracles, especially the Creation and the Flood, were irrational and beyond any human and scientific comprehension, and so they invalidate any scientific method of dating the age of the earth. Whether it be geological, radiocarbon, or starlight, each method is an illogical byproduct of the great miracles described in the Torah. Any attempt to use them as indicators of the world’s age, according to this claim, is arrogant “extrapolation” by rabid atheistic scientists, and is even “unscientific.”

Those well meaning Orthodox Jews, in making this claim, essentially have three goals:

A) To make a claim which is beyond any rational discussion, and is thereby irrefutable and even invincible, because what good is it to abide by my hashkafa if there are other valid hashkafas?

B) To show that one can fully disqualify valid scientific methods as illegitimate extrapolation and still be considered loyal to “real science” (whatever that means)

C) To affirm the existence of an Omnipresent Creator who can disrupt all of nature at His will, and so the more scientific evidence I snub, the more yiras shomayim I have.

I will now demonstrate that the aforementioned argument accomplishes NONE of those goals. Even worse, the argument completely undermines those goals. Instead of defending yiddishkeit from kefira, its claimants INADVERTENTLY SUPPORT KEFIRA AND PLAY RIGHT INTO THE HANDS OF ATHEISTS!

Claim A: Miracles are beyond rational discussion. Technically speaking, I cannot use science to argue against this claim. But I can use the same Torah that they derive this proof from as evidence that this “proof” is completely bogus and taken out of context.

Ostensibly, the source that the Flood disrupted nature is in Rosh Hashanah 11b-12a, which states that Hashem changed Maaseh Bereishis in response to a far away astronomical event. This proves, they claim, that such basic phenomenon as the Earth’s axis tilt was a result of the Flood, as is a whole slew of other phenomenon which this argument arbitrarily claims.

But what exactly was this disruption of nature? That very sugya, according to Rashi, states that all of the constellations appeared as they do today in their proper seasons, except that the Big Dipper appeared a bit too early, and so Hashem took away two stars from it and caused the Mabul. Well, how did the constellations appear as they did if the Earth’s axis didn’t tilt?

In fact, Tosafos even corrects an errant text that Rashi used BY CLAIMING THAT CURRENT ASTRONOMY CONTRADICTS THAT TEXT!!! So if anything, the Talmud verifies the fact that much of nature was the same before the flood as after. There is no license to start wildly stuffing all sort of scientific phenomenon into the realm of after-Flood effects.

And about miracles. Allegedly, miracles and their effects completely disrupt nature. Unfortunately for that claim, the texts indicate the exact opposite – that as soon as the miracle is over, everything goes back to normal!

For example, after the Flood subsided, Noach had to wait some time for the Earth to dry up. Certainly something which you would expect from perfectly ordinary water! In what way was this “irrational”?

Another example: After the Jews collected the Manna, did the leftover manna vanish in a fiery chariot? No – it simply melted like any other similar substance would and was drunk by the deer in the pasture. Once the miracle, no matter how great, is over, any effects revert completely back to normal.

And speaking about the mesora, the miracles and “science” (for lack of a better word) of the Torah are completely above contemporary science, not in place of it. Why has no one has raised any objection to the Periodic Table of Elements from the four elements (earth air fire water) of maaseh bereishis as described by the Rambam Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah (although with today’s klowns, you can never be sureL) See the Be’er HaGolah, Sixth Gate for an elaboration of this concept.

Come on, you guys! Do you really think that every Orthodox Jew who believes in miracles must subscribe to this pseudo-science babble? You are insulting your own intelligence, not that of the hundreds of Orthodox Jewish scientists who belief in both miracles AND an Old Earth.

I just read the book One People Two Worlds, which is a debate between an Orthodox (Yosef Reinman) and Reform rabbi (Ammiel Hirsch). As you would expect, every Talmudic source which Hirsch brings as “proof” of his position is shown by Reinman to be completely taken out of context.

Unfortunately, those on the opposite extreme do the exact same crime to the Talmud by distorting the very same mesora which they claim to be defending. If understanding statements in context is what differentiates the Orthodox from the Reform, according to Reinman, then I can’t help but wonder if the Young Earth creationists are somewhat closer to Reform Judaism than they are to Orthodox.

Claim B. Evolution is “extrapolation”. My dear friends, ALL of science is extrapolation. We see, with a telescope, stars trillions of miles away, and atoms, with a microscope, trillions of times smaller than ourselves. In fact, we are quite sure of many things such as black holes and certain subatomic particles which no one has actually seen but rather detected. And as relativity has shown, time is just another coordinate. From a scientific point of view, a billion years ago is almost as visible as a billion miles away.

To take the human senses as a benchmark for extrapolation shows not only an anti-scientific attitude but sheer insanity. Haven’t you ever seen a mirage or an illusion which you know does not exist? Tell me then, what is more reliable, human “testimony” or science?

Claim C. Invalidating scientific dating affirms belief in a Creator. This is the most dangerous and false claim, and even does the opposite, chas vesholom.

Why? Because each time a new method indicates an old age for the earth, one simply claims that the Creator interfered with that method. Is there a tree with more than 6000 rings? Hashem made it that way. Radiocarbon decay indicating billions of years old? No problem – Hashem changed the decay rate. Starlight billions of light years away? The heck with it – Hashem made those light rays on there own.

Gee wiz! These pathetic scientists are so important that G-D HIMSELF HAS TO INTERFERE WITH THEIR CALCULATIONS! Growing up in yeshiva, I always thought that explaining Hashem’s ways was the job of kabbalists and great rabbis. But no! Apparently, these heretical scientists see more of G-d’s handiwork than all of the gedolim combined!!!

Do we have a mesora for our pseudo-scientific explanations of the Flood and Creation? Of course not, but who cares?! Only Slifkin is a koifer for not following the “mesora” (whatever that means), but us ??!! Naaaa.

So in a sense, you are not helping Hashem, but reducing Him, keveyachol, to your PlayDough, to be retroactively interpreted at each whim of the scientists. This god who you are interpreting is not the real G-d, but a figment of your imagination. You demonstrate loud and clear, though inadvertently, that it is not G-d who controls you, but you who controls G-d, chas vesholom.

Indeed, the Talmud’s timeless statements ring true today as they did then – these are not the builders, but the destroyers.

Sincerely yours,

Shmuel Bergenfeld

BeliefNet Interview With Rabbi Natan Slifkin; Klinghoffer Politely Skewered

Rabbi Natan Slifkin, the now-banned author whose earlier books so traumatized haredi gedolim, is interviewed by Steven I. Weiss for BeliefNet:

I can’t speak for Yeshiva University or anyone else, but many rabbis believe, like me, that [the Discovery Institute Senior Fellow David] Klinghoffer‘s column [in the Forward] was profoundly problematic. He claimed that Darwinian evolution would render Judaism void and meaningless, which is simply not the case. The “randomness” of evolution that he found so objectionable is no more antithetical to Judaism than the “randomness” of history, in which Judaism perceives the creator as working within the laws of nature and the seemingly arbitrary forces of chance and circumstance.

Rabbi Slifkin’s newest book is a revised and expanded version of The Science of Torah called The Challenge of Creation. According to Rabbi Slifkin, this is what has been added:

I have elaborated upon many other topics, such as other cases in history where Torah scholars confronted challenges from science, the issue of literalism in interpreting Scripture, and questions posed by the existence of ancient civilization. There is also a lengthy discussion of intelligent design, which is a hot topic these days.

Of course Klinghoffer & Co. are profoundly wrong, and it is no coincidence their error mirrors Fundamentalist Christianity – it is who they work and shill for. That they have managed to influence haredim including Chabad to buy into Intelligent Design is no great surprise. One only needs to revisit the Slifkin Ban to see the vast ignorance of Jewish theology and the vapid reasoning so commonly found in today’s haredi gedolim.

The only Modern Orthodox inroad of note ID has made is YU’s Rabbi Dr. Moshe David Tendler, who after publicly supporting ID, refused to answer questions about ID posed to him, perhaps because he was unable to answer, or perhaps because he was preoccupied with the self destruction of his sons.

[By the way, SIW is getting married in three days.]

The Rabbi Slifkin Controversy Returns

Rabbi Gil Student has piece in this week’s Jewish Press summarizing the events of the Rabbi Slifkin Ban. Two points Student makes are especially important. Here’s one:

The ban, as it stands, raises many difficult questions for a large segment of the Orthodox community. Ironically, the ban – both in terms of procedures and content – has generated questions of faith that are perhaps greater than those it was supposed to prevent.

We can only hope that in the future the concerns of the greater community will be specifically addressed – along with an explanation of how such a devastating personal blow can be issued without the accused being allowed to defend himself. That’s certainly preferable to a proclamation issued from afar that leaves the public guessing about the rest of the story.

The other can be found throughout the piece in sentences like these:

“…a major rosh yeshiva in America phoned Rabbi Slifkin to offer him encouragement and tell him to keep a low profile and let the whole thing blow over.”

“Because of the controversy, we have had the book reviewed by a number of knowledgeable rabbis, including an expert on both Torah and science from whom my posek insisted we receive permission before commencing with publication.”

That’s right. Although Student mentions the rabbis who signed the ban by name, no supporter of Rabbi Slifkin is publicly named, except for the OU’s Rabbi Tzvi Hirsh Weinreb, who wrote the forward to the revised edition of The Science of Torah, now titled The Challenge of Creation.

Rabbi Slifkin’s rabbinic supporters are still cowering, still too afraid to stand up for truth. They are cowards, every last one of them.

Christopher Hitchens on God and Science

I agree with the faithful in one respect, and would myself say if I was a believer: We have no right to demand or to expect an explanation from the inventor, and our expectations of ever getting one, let alone of intuiting one, are quite vain. I propose a bargain: Let science get on with the job of explicating and elucidating evolution, and leave the godly to the task of justifying the supernatural. It is not a sign of progress that these days even the creationists are attempting to “evolve.”

The division of intellectual labor needs to be restored.

Christopher Hitchens

The American Enterprise

April 2005

The problem, of course, is the Torah itself which, if read literally, calls for a 6000 year old universe, a global flood, Hebrew as man’s first language, and many other scientifically untenable assertions. And haredi rabbinic leadership insists on this literal reading.

Can Torah and science be rectified? I don’t think so. What does this mean for Judaism? Intellectually, the end of it. But religion is not at its heart a rational or intellectual enterprise. Judaism will survive, with or without the veneer of rationalism it had successfully cultivated for two thousand years. It will survive as any other religious group survives – on blind faith and emotion.