Prof. Raphael Fleck comments on an article by MK Shaki/ To know, 1985

Prof. Shaki's response to the question regarding the gap between the Halacha's determination that the age of the universe is 5745 (9,000) years, and the claim that archaeological finds discovered in the Judean Desert and displayed in the Israel Museum are XNUMX years old

We will quote Shaki's article first:

"There are many hypotheses about the age of the world. I firmly defend the Jewish approach like a rock. The word "science" does not impress me. I'm a scientist myself, and I know that everything scientists present is just speculation. They change their minds every day, and they are miserable even in their own eyes. Even in economics, all the professors know how to give advice, then they crawl on all fours to apologize. In Judaism, on the other hand, things are clear. I know exactly what has been in the world every day since it was created.

My late father, my grandfather and my grandfather, they all believed in the Jewish approach, and that is what is right. These scientists who say otherwise, do so because they received an education aimed at fighting religion, and that's what their salary depends on. But all this is null and void compared to the repentance movement which is stunning in its scope. Even our Einstein became religious in the full sense of the word at the end of his days.

A few months ago, the words of Knesset member Prof. Avner Shaki appeared in one of the newspapers (see above). This was Prof. Shaki's response to the question regarding the gap between the determination of the Halacha, according to which the age of the universe is 5745 (9,000) years, and the claim that archaeological finds discovered in the Judean Desert and displayed in the Israel Museum are XNUMX years old. Raphael Fleck, who is a professor of genetics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (and the former editor of Ladaat) is required here regarding Prof. Shaki's response. There will be those who will disagree with Prof. Fleck's opinion and there will perhaps be those who will comment on his wording. As for the experiments - we cannot ignore the humiliating adjectives ("they are wretched" "crawling on all fours") and misleading ("I am a scientist") used by Prof. Shaki. At the end we will allow ourselves to make our own comments, and we look forward to your responses, the readers.

Prof. Raphael Fleck's response

A few months ago, the above excerpt appeared in one of the newspapers, MK Prof. Avner Shaki's response to a question he was asked regarding archaeological discoveries that are about ten thousand years old, discovered in the Judean Desert and displayed in a spectacular exhibition at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. I shrugged my shoulders and tried to dismiss them as another one of the many oddities of our cultural life. Revelations of the lack of debate culture and lack of manners on the part of public figures have long been no news in our places. However, since things that are repeated and published from time to time may be absorbed and take root, it is appropriate to say a few words about the age of the world and about science and scientists.
'Religion and tradition are built on faith; This is their strength and their uniqueness. Science, on the other hand, is based on imposing sufficiency, on not taking anything for granted, on repeated examination of every theory and every hypothesis, no matter how respectable and accepted their authority may be. This is the source of science's power and the basis for its development. Religion is something that is given as one perfection: if only you manage to understand what is said, you will be able to live in a world where there are no doubts. In life, the confrontation with reality is difficult and frustrating, and often unbearable. The solution offered by religion is probably an important and comfortable refuge. However, some prefer to keep asking questions and examine the answers in the light of facts and observations. In doing so they actually become scientists. Because what a real scientist does in his field of expertise is testing hypotheses by conducting experiments and collecting observations. A real scientist knows that the hypotheses he is testing are not absolute truths. They are influenced by the results of his observations and experiments, and those of those who preceded him, just as they are influenced by the opinions and beliefs of the various scientists.
Refining the hypotheses and replacing them with others, he hopes, will adapt better to reality than their predecessors. In other words, the scientist tries his best to predict the results of the experiments he is about to perform or the events he may observe. The test of a scientific hypothesis is solely how well it explains observations and predicts outcomes. And never the degree of compatibility of the "hypothesis" with the beliefs of the scientist's father, grandfather and great-grandfather or with the opinions of another scientist, be it Newton or Einstein, a true scientist will never claim that he knows that "this is what is true".

Real scientists will be the first to warn against the folly of reverential treatment of theories formulated by themselves, and against mixing matters that are in the realm of values ​​and beliefs with matters that are in the realm of hypotheses and experimental criticism. The great achievements of scientific research and the amazing applications of scientific teachings in the fields of health, transportation and space, communications, agriculture, industry and other areas of our lives. They are the best witnesses to the wisdom that lies in the scientific approach and the constant examination of conventions and conventions. MK Prof. Shaki is perhaps a man whose faith is firm in his heart. "Perhaps he deserves envy for his firm and unquestioning faith., "for knowing exactly what was in the world every day since creation" but he is not a scientist.

Even the scientists who deal with determining the age of objects found in archaeological or geological excavations raise hypotheses and offer ways to test and test them. Every now and then a new discovery falls into their hands, which allows them to put their hypotheses to a renewed test. One of the great feelings of satisfaction that sometimes falls on the part of a scientist is the one obtained upon discovering an excellent match between the new results obtained and the hypothesis he assumed. The greater the degree of this correspondence, we tend to feel that the assumptions that formed the basis of the discussed scientific hypotheses are more well-founded. In the last hundred years, a great deal of data has been accumulated, using astrophysical, geological, and chemical-physical methods, indicating that our world is "older" than 5745. Today, there is no serious scientist Doubting that the age of our earth exceeds three billion years, of course many open questions remain in this area. If for an event that is about 9,000 years old we may be wrong by tens or hundreds of years, then for events further back in time, the range of error may even be millions of years. Of course, this does not dispute the very claim of the earth's antiquity, although there is room for further research that will answer additional questions, confirm and refine the conclusions and increase their accuracy. Those who "know" that the age of the world is 5745 years simply have nothing to do among the scientists, since for him the need for scientific investigation is null and void. Everyone has their own traditions and beliefs - whether they are religious or secular - but this is not the case, when a scientific question is up for discussion that began with casting doubt and continued with an investigation and examination of facts and findings.

Raphael Fleck. The Hebrew University

Editor's opinion: "Ladat" is a science-related newspaper. It seeks to present the achievements of science and its methods, the figure of the person engaged in science - the scientist, and to arouse interest in science. I testify about myself because I had the great privilege of knowing excellent scientists who are people imbued with religious faith. In my opinion, there should not be a conflict between science and religion at all - they are two completely separate fields, with no conflict between them, and the evidence - those religious scientists, in whose mind both fields overlap. This is possible provided there is mutual respect:

As for science - for science, and as for faith - for faith. Just as we treat with ridicule and rejection a scientist who proposes a "scientific experiment" that will apparently prove that there is no creator of the world, so we completely reject the denial of a scientific finding (the age of the universe, the age of fossils) based on religious belief, and it does not matter at all if a short time passes and it is proven by scientific methods Because the previous finding was wrong. After all, out of faith in the existence of the Creator of the world, the scientist and all his research are themselves an expression of the existence of the Creator. But she is the giver - if the creator of the world gave us senses and reason, and gave us common sense and the ability to create an amazing and vast structure like science, and the ability to use his achievements (airplane, television, telephone, Sabbath clock, vaccine components, skin and heart transplants, spacecraft to the moon) We must not deny that!

Let's say that I use a device to check the age of a holy book, which is written, documented and accepted by every believer, and my eyes see that the age determination according to the device is 800 years, exactly as it is written and accepted. Now, with the help of the same equipment and my own eyes, I: discover that a certain archaeological find is 9,000 years old - why should I deny what I see with my eyes and the conclusions I reached with the help of the logic given to me by the creator of the world? How to reconcile the "contradiction"? There are several ways for this, and we are not authorized to detail here, but to point out.
One simple way that a believer can take is to tell himself that the world and science were created so that these are the results that will be obtained. A true scientist will never pretend to claim that his theory goes beyond what can be achieved based on senses, logic and instruments, and that is enough for a scientist. Not so religious faith - it is on a level (counting) separate from senses and devices, separate from science.

A second way requires more courage and flexibility of thought. For the true believer, faith is incomparably more valuable and important than science, so much so that to him the pursuits of science are secondary in importance. Faith and religion deal with the essential things, while science deals with trifles. Since it concerns essences, then in all the technical things, quantities, times, and detailed mechanisms, "the Torah spoke in the language of men" (the language of science is not "the language of men"), and the seeming contradiction was resolved.
And a final note - MK Prof. Avner Shaki is a professor of law, a respectable title that only a few are awarded, which undoubtedly requires many talents. However, you can be a law professor even if you have not performed a single scientific experiment, even the simplest one, and without knowing Ohm's law, the composition of cooking gas, the principle of airplane flight, the number of chromosomes in each of your body cells and where and why the bread breaks down in your gut. And this is a proven fact! The opposite is also true - you can be a professor of physics, for example, that is - a scientist, without having read a single section of the law book. But it is doubtful whether a professor of physics, even a Nobel laureate, will take on the role of a lawyer, and even if he holds the title of doctor (in physics) he will not pretend to heal patients. The Hebrew does fail a little in this regard. SCIENCE in English means natural science and scientist is one who deals with natural sciences. The accepted usage in Hebrew of the word "Mazaen" refers to a person engaged in the natural sciences, and a humanities professor (a concept that exists in Hebrew, in English Humanities) will not call himself a "scientist", but a "literature researcher" for example, unless he wants to mislead the public!

Editor's Note: The argument that Einstein repented at the end of his days is far from reality, but is common among ultra-Orthodox people who like to think this way to strengthen their argument. They believe that if they tell a secularist that Einstein has repented then he will be bound by Mount Streimel. A little about Einstein's views on religious matters in the article "A.A. will not be carried there. in vain"