“Science vs. Religion: Mayim Bialik and the OTHER Big Bang Theory” Ep. 4, Season 2

Pinterest

Actress Mayim Bialik asks Jew in the City how she can reconcile the science she’s studied with the Jewish beliefs she holds dear.

Pinterest

You May Also Like

Allison About Allison

Allison is the Founder and Director of Jew in the City. Please find her full bio here.

Comments

  1. There is no substantive challenge to Biblical concepts of Creation in NOT positing a Big Bang/ or suggest “Fine Tuning”. Rambam and Aquinas (by abstraction), would agree with this, given both of them stated that evidence against Creation ex Nihilo would be reconcilable with faith – but neither of them subscribed to it, based on reason of their day and their estimation of their respective religious revelation’s authority on the matter of matter. See; Moreh Nevukhim II: 25 (for Rambam), and Carroll’s “Stephen Hawking’s Creation Confusion” (for Aquinas, available online). [moderator; you can lop off the Carroll citation, but it is not Christological – and also it puts it in a contemporary context with Hawking’s recent media coverage).

  2. Kol Hakavod!!!

    All the respct!!!

    Good job…

    GOD job…

  3. Where do the clones come into the picture?

  4. alot of people don’t know but science is the only secular subject permitted to be srtudied on the shabbos because science REVEALS the handiwork of hashem, rather than disputing it.

  5. Very enjoyable video – the special effects are great! One point in your video suggests that science does not even attempt to explain our feeling of awe at the wonder of the world as religion does.

    That’s a nice idea, but I fear it isn’t giving science the respect it deserves! Science definitely attempts to explain emotional states, including “awe” and “wonder”.

    For example, some scientists theorize that “awe” causes us to positively ponder things greater than our selves or immediate surroundings, thereby promoting collective and communal emotions which are adaptive to the societal stability of a human community.

    In essence, societies with individuals who feel awe are likely to form stronger communities than those that don’t, and therefore have an advantage in the evolutionary sorting of emotional characteristics.

    Also, I believe we can use our beautiful traditions to guide our lives, but if we must simply “search for other meanings” when the meanings within the Torah do not make sense, that is an acknowledgement that Torah can live in harmony with science only when it’s interpreted “loosely”.

    I’m searching for the truth of the Torah, but why would Hashem give us the words of the Torah if we are to resign to our own interpretations rather than those of Hashem?

    Our faith and history as Jewish people is beautiful, but I fear the tendency of many faithful people who have great minds to make special exceptions for the logical inconsistencies in the facts of their faith.

    If the literal interpretation of something does not make sense given our factual evidence based knowledge, how do we KNOW that it is the truth on the whole? And if faith is based on feeling without the necessity of a few irrefutable supporting points, is it a safe thing for us to embrace?

    Faith in the loyalty of our spouses, for example, is largely based on believing on things that are factual such as that our spouse has chosen to marry us and live with us. Of course, when our spouse is away from our eyes, it is “faith” that they are loyal, but also a faith supported by the aforementioned facts.

    One could argue that the same sort of fact based evidence exists to support the “faith” of believing Torah is truth, but I have yet to find a reason to believe it to be anything more than my traditional heritage from a rich culture I am proud to be a part of.

    However, I am forced to admit that the Torah is imperfect, and therefore, if it indeed is the word of G-d, much was lost in the transfer of this information to our ancestors and we must view it as a guide to be taken very loosely, and sometimes when stories of the Torah do not match science, it is okay to say that those are errors in the Torah, and not somehow a manifestation of our imperfect understanding of it.

    • Allison Allison says:

      Thanks for your comment, Yaniv. Of course science understands the how’s of our brains – what I was trying to get at was actually a quote from Kant: “Two things fill the mind with ever-increasing wonder and awe, the more often and the more intensely the mind of thought is drawn to them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.” It’s the “why” of the world that science doesn’t get. The feeling that overcomes man to search for purpose, to behave in a moral way.

      In terms of why not take the Torah literally and use other interpretations – there’s an idea that the Torah was given with a written tradition and an oral tradition, so when I quote Maimonides for instance – I believe his non-literal understanding of the creation account comes from a tradition that dates back to Mt. Sinai. He’s not the only one who had such a tradition. If you read Aryeh Kaplan’s “Age of the Universe” (which you can see online here http://www.simpletoremember.com/faqs/Kaplan-SimpleToRemember.com.pdf) you’ll see that there was another rabbi from over 700 years ago that calculated (based on Torah sources) that the universe is 15 billion years old!

      So why was the language in Genesis written as it was? One explanation is that it was meant to be understood by the people of that time and all future times, so it had to be symbolic and be true on many levels. I completely reject the idea that the Torah was “lost” along the way. It makes no sense for God to have done that. If it couldn’t be transmitted in a way that would be useful and meaningful, it doesn’t make sense that God (who knows the future!) would have bothered to get the process started at all.

Speak Your Mind

*

More on Jew in the City