What Might Have Been

When I was young I went to Hebrew School, like all good Jewish boys. After my Bar Mitzvah the rabbi called my mother into his office and told her that he thought I should go into the rabbinate. She was appalled. She was the daughter of a rabbi on the lower east side of Manhattan early in the early twentieth century and she, and many of her sibs, felt they were in a “fish bowl,” always under the eye of members of the community and unable to develop in their own way and at their own pace. She was happy to get out. And she didn't want her grandchildren under the same pressure.

I'm glad about her decision, however for entirely different reasons (some of which I hope to clarify in a future essay). Most notably because although I was raised in the Conservative movement, my practice now is Orthodox. I've moved a little to the right, and Conservatism has gone far to the left. The rabbinate toward which I would have been directed then would have been in the Conservative movement. I would have been a misfit, and I would have been very unhappy. That's not to say that I don't think I would have been good at it. I suspect I would have. But as time went by I would have lacked conviction. I would have been playing a part rather than practicing a profession. I would have had trouble following the call of my vocation.

Part of the problem is that I don't know what I believe. Having been reared in a secular setting and having attended public schools, I was steeped in rationality, and never oriented to believe in a transcendent deity. I wasn't taught that it was untrue, but it was never an issue of great concern. What has resulted is uncertainty about the existence of G-d.

I know that this doesn't correspond to my claim of orthodox observance. But observance doesn't necessarily reflect belief. The “rules” I observe were recorded by men, although they may have been dictated or inspired by G-d. They seem to be self-serving, elevating the status of the Rabbis – past and present. And the absence of a “proof” of G-d's existence in a world that bases everything on rational proof makes belief difficult.

But the same rationality that questions a deity also teaches that effects have causes. Notwithstanding Stephen Hawking, you can't get something from nothing. There's no “free lunch.” Even Hawking relies on laws of physics to account for existence, but he doesn't explain their origin. We're here, and there is a Universe. Where did we come from? And where did the Universe come from? Perhaps these are simply philosophical questions, but even the most educated and the most rational among us would have difficulty answering them.

If there is no rational explanation, then, I'm left with the conclusion that there must be an irrational one – or, better, a supra-rational one. And while I have no explanation for G-d, I can only conclude that some supra-rational force exists – whatever people choose to call it. I'll call it G-d, but I readily admit that I don't know what I'm talking about. As the saying goes, there are more questions than answers. Questions related to theodicy are, perhaps, the most difficult to answer, but long ago I accepted the idea that applying rational standards to a supra-rational process was irrational. The Book of Job makes it clear that we cannot understand G-d's ways. And I can accept that ignorance. I'm not G-d. I try to follow all the law and pray three times a day even when no one (human) is watching me, because I feel I've done wrong when I cut corners.  I guess that means I'm a believer. There are proofs of divinity all around us, but none that an atheist would accept. That's his loss.

But that doesn't deal with the question of the rules I follow. Are they G-d's, or are they the “creations” of men? Is it divine Law I try to follow, or is it “tradition?” Were humans authorized to speak in G-d's name? Should I believe that everything written by our sages has a divine origin? That's what we've been taught.

I don't know and I don't care. There's enough that I can't answer that is so much more profound than this that I don't have to focus on it. If it's only tradition that I follow, I can live with that. My heritage and my people have much to offer humanity – if only humanity would recognize it, rather than resent it and us.

Perhaps I'm a misfit similar to what I would have been had I entered the rabbinate. Pascal based his wager on the odds. After all he was a mathematician, and a scientist like him tried to be rational. But in a way I'm more rational, basing my acceptance of G-d on the logical belief in cause and effect. Still the rationalists of modern times cannot accept anything they cannot prove. So, from their perspective, I've been misled. And I'm following precepts that have no basis. Many of them – and I'm most aware of some of the scientific and medical precepts in Jewish religious teaching – are either not well thought out or are flat out wrong. Which, despite the apologetics, suggests to me that they were the ideas of humans rather than being divine precepts. Maybe they have value in the understanding of the eras in which they were written. But as we have been admonished to follow the teachings of the rabbis of our times – and their exposition of the words of their predecessors may differ from what was taught in the past – so, too, we are well advised to follow the explanations of modern medicine and science.

I'm a physician, not a rabbi. I might have been a rabbi – indeed, I have a son who is one – but things didn't work out that way for me. So be it. In a way I'm glad. I can accept my ignorance about religion without having to defend it and explain it to others. And without having to abandon it because I can't always understand it. I'm not a misfit. But I might have been one.

Rational, Irrational, Extra-rational, Or None Of The Above

The earth is flat.

For many millennia that was a perfectly rational statement – even if we reject it now. All you had to do was look and you'd see it for yourself. And anyone who claimed otherwise was irrational.

Religion is irrational.

That's certainly a rational statement. And anyone who claims otherwise is, himself, irrational. However that wasn't always the case.

The problem is that “irrational” has different meanings – denotations and connotations. It derives from the Latin, and means lacking reason, with “reason” having the sense of measurable “fact.” Nowadays its use is primarily pejorative, indicating that the irrational person or concept not only lacks the support of what is provable, but is inherently ridiculous. It's not only without reason – fact – but it is unreasonable. Religion is bunk.

That which is rational, on the other hand, is demonstrable, measurable, and provable. The earth is spherical. It was provable before the space age and demonstrable after. It isn't flat. That's a fact, and always has been. It's just that it took time for science to establish this reality and educate the rest of us.

Rationality is a human creation. And “facts” change with time. Something is true either because we can see it for ourselves, or someone we trust says it is. So if, several hundred years ago, you maintained that when flammable substances burned they became heavier because the source of flammability, phlogiston – which is lighter than air – was burned off, your claim was a fact. If you contend today, however, that for materials that have been heated there is no such thing as gravity, only phlogiston, your position would be viewed as irrational. Laughable. Even stupid. It is clearly contrary to demonstrable evidence, and in addition we have both physical and mathematical proof that gravity is real.

Facts, then, are what we believe at some point in time. And anyone with a contrary view is irrational. He may be right in the long run, but that is of no consequence. Those who are intelligent will consider his views to be irrational or, at best, unproven. If they, "those who are intelligent," respect the speaker, or choose to believe that the statements agree with their own views, they will state that the ideas, although not yet proven, are perfectly reasonable. If they don't, if they consider the ideas to be in conflict with their own beliefs,ⁱ they are prone to label them as mythology or superstition.

There was a time when the four elementsⁱⁱ and the humorsⁱⁱⁱ were established facts; when alchemy was a respected field; when the earth was the center of the Universe. Now we know better. Or, better, now we know more. And now we recognize that there is still a lot that we don't know. It's not unknowable, but we're not there yet. Some day it will be, for science is all about determining the facts of Life, the Universe and Everything. And, if it's real, whatever it is, sooner or later science will discover it.

However there are also things we don't know not because we haven't figured them out yet, but because they're nonsense. They're irrational. Religion is like that. If it doesn't agree with science, and we cannot imagine that it ever will, it is irrational. Of course we've changed our views of facts in the past, and we may do so again in the future, but that is only because science and wisdom can be trusted to help us work out the details. 

There are many things about which science and religion agree. Both will accept the idea that there are some things that are unknown and others that are unknowable. But while scientists will dismiss anything unknowable as irrational,^iv and while they'll accept anything that happens as fact – neither right or wrong, simply “what is” – those who believe in organized religion,^v whatever that religion is, accept the idea that there are moral absolutes and they have been established by an unknowable divinity. We are wrong when we blindly accept “reality” and ignore its implications. Man is not the measure of all things. There are some things we'll never understand because we're not intended to. It is only hubris that gives some the confidence that everything is knowable by Man.

Religious people make a mistake when they try to show that what they believe is compatible with scientific principles. That position gives credence to the view that for something to be true it must conform to those principles. It is a denial of the idea that there is more to our existence than what we consider “rational.” It is acquiescence to the belittling of religion by some scientists, and the blessing of the pejorative understanding of “irrational.”

Those who dismiss what they consider irrational because they cannot understand it, cannot understand the fact that what is provable is only a small part of reality, and it is inferior to that which cannot be known. It's their loss. Their world is flat.

Next episode: “Ice Breaker” – Oil and water don't mix.

i        Prejudices?

ii       Air, earth, fire, and water.

iii      Black bile, yellow bile, blood, and phlegm.

iv       Silly and superstitious. The crutch of the weak.

v        As contrasted with those who believe in the infallibility of science.

Six Of One

According to chaos theory, a small action may have large effects in this slavishly deterministic universe. One thing invariably leads into another. It's called the “butterfly effect.” The effects may not be desired, but they are predictable.

According to another scientific field – quantum physics – events can only be described in terms of probability. An individual occurrence is unpredictable, but as a whole you can predict events since you have statistics on your side. That's “randomness.”

If we follow the implications of Heisinger's view, however, we can't really know what is happening anyway, since observing or measuring something changes it. We know that truth as the “uncertainty principle.”

So what should we accept? Are things determined or random? Yes. Are they probable or unpredictable? Yes. Do we know what's happening or don't we? Yes. And you're right, too. Schrödinger's cat is alive and Schrödinger's cat is dead.

That's the beauty of science. Everything can be proved. Even if the things it proves contradict each other. Both must be true.

In addition there's no need to decide what is morally or ethically right, and what is wrong. Consequently societal biases are irrelevant. There can be no such thing as a cultural norm in such a system. “Belief” is not an issue in it. There are only absolutes. All that science does is to tell us what is. So now we know. Science is rational, and all rational beings should accept it.

While there are differences – and oft times violent disagreements and arguments – science is very much like religion. Religion, too, rejects the idea of cultural norms in favor of absolutes. Perhaps they are not the same absolutes that scientists promote, but the principle is the same. As is the view of Heisenberg. He maintained that we could neither know nor measure everything. Once again, while the reasons for the idea differ, both science and religion recognize that some things are unknowable.ⁱ

And notwithstanding the claim that belief is not an issue, many of those who reject religion in favor of science – who deem religion “irrational” – accept science with a zeal well beyond that of many who follow religious precepts. But the ideas they accept are also counter-intuitive. From their perspective, creatio ex nihilo isn't rational, but the “Big Bang,” a “singularity,” is perfectly reasonable as an explanation for the Universe; an eternal deity is mythology, but eternal laws of physics make complete sense; and the creation of time and space by G-d should be replaced by the concept of an eternal cosmos.

Another problem of science – at least for amateurs like me – is the idea that the fastest possible speed is the speed of light. Estimates of the size of the universe far exceed what would be expected if expansion were at light speed. It has been hypothesized that there was a period of “inflation” of the universe very early in the first second that followed the Big Bang. In that extraordinarily short period of time the speed limitation obviously didn't exist. Which means that the laws of physics are not immutable.

The contention that science is rational and religion irrational is difficult for me to credit. That, of course, is my problem, but understanding “rational” to mean logical, reasonable, and consistent, while “irrational” means the opposite, itself seems inconsistent with the arguments presented. From my perspective – and I accept the idea that I lack information and do not understand all the issues involved – both concepts are extra-rational. And both those who believe in science and religion will admit that there are many things they don't understand.

But there is a difference. For those who accept religious doctrine, there is much that is unknowable, except to G-d, and it is our function to follow what He teaches us. For those who believe in the religion of science, there is only that which is not yet known. It will eventually be explained by them or their descendants. There will be a time when they know everything. A general theory of everything will be proposed and found to be correct, and there will be nothing we don't know.ⁱⁱ But I don't expect that to happen. Science will absorb a significant portion of the taxes we pay in the search for answers, answers they are certain exist.

In the meantime however – and I believe that will be forever (whatever that means) – the idea of a Creator makes at least as much sense as anything the scientists have to offer. It's as rational as anything they have to offer.

Or as irrational.

Next episode: “Rational, Irrational, Extra-rational, Or None Of The Above” – Or maybe something else.

I        Actually, that's probably an overstatement. Science would maintain that there is nothing that is unknowable, even if there are many things that are unknown. The problem, however, is that since we don't know what we don't know, it is, at least for now, unknowable. Of course we don't know if that's true. (Only the Shadow knows – even if it's not evil.)

ii       See note #i. In truth, I already know everything. But I'm not telling.