So, Who Needs Revelation?
Stuart Fickler, Ph.D.
Knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. If one asks whence derives the authority of fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly.
-- Einstein
At times the truth shines so brilliantly that we perceive it as clear as day. Our nature and habit then draw a veil over our perception, and we return to a darkness almost as dense as before. We are like those who, though beholding frequent flashes of lightning, still find themselves in the thickest darkness of the night. On some the lightning flashes in rapid succession, and they seem to be in continuous light, and their night is as clear as the day. – Maimonides
In the post- enlightenment age, “Revelation” has come to be viewed as a quaint artifact of a more primitive age. After all, with the magnificent successes of the “Scientific Method”, who needs revelation?
I used to teach my students that finding the right solution to a problem was relatively easy. The really difficult work was in coming up with the right question. Getting to the right question, in this case, requires that we start by recognizing that there are two types of “revelation”.
I remember a conversation that I had with Julian Schwinger, Nobel Prize winner, when I was still a student. I commented that when I read his papers, I felt that I was reading them backwards. Although he followed the proper form of stating premises, performing calculations and ending with the conclusions, I felt that, in doing the actual research, he had started with the conclusions. He smiled, and said that I was right.
Some of the greatest advances of science, started with a flash, such as Newton’s Universal Law of Gravity and Einstein’s Theories of Relativity. At that moment you know that the world you thought you knew is no more, and that you have set off on a new path. Then comes the very difficult work of examining all of the details and demonstrating that you have chosen the right path.
However, this type of “Scientific Revelation” is not the same as the “Revelation at Mount Sinai”. Scientific revelation is like Rambam’s “frequent flashes of lightning”. As we seek to find our way in the darkness, the individual flashes give us a sense of where we are going, but do not reveal the destination. To those who are familiar with contemporary scientific discourse, the “Theory of Everything” would be the equivalent of Maimonides’ “continuous light”. The “Theory of Everything” would be the scientific equivalent of the “Sinai Revelation”.
In the previous article, I asserted that the essential problem of both Judaism and science is that of “decoding” the “messages “ of HaShem’s creation. The next step in resolving our “Mystery of Observation vs. Revelation” is to examine the nature of those messages. Consider the following message.
DO YOU THINK THAT ONE WILL DO
It consists of seven simple, one-syllable words. Each word is well defined. How many different ways can you read this message? You might say that you need punctuation. Okay, put in punctuation. All that does is tell you something about the number of different ways that you can read the message. It does not tell you which reading is correct. Something is still missing. The context of the message is missing. What if I told you that two friends were shopping for a wedding dress and the bride-to-be was pointing at one dress on a rack of many dresses? Bingo! Every message consists of two parts context and content.
In terms of our example, the words are observations. When they are strung together and given some punctuation, they form sentences. The “flashes” provide some information about the context, which can be tested for applicability. The “continuous light” of revelation gives us the specific context that makes it possible to read all of the messages in a coherent manner, be it the “Theory of Everything” or the “Sinai Revelation”.
So, who needs revelation? Revelation provides context for both Judaism and science. But, as is always the case in the quest for knowledge, the answer to one question leads to more questions.
The Big Bang Theory is a statement about the context of the universe. But, as new data comes in, confidence in the Big Bang is receding. Is our vision still limited? The Sinai Revelation is certainly a contextual statement concerning HaShem’s creation. But, after thirty four hundred years, we still have not seen the fruition of that Prophetic Vision. Are we missing some critical data?
Revelation provides that continuous light of flashes in rapid succession that illuminates the vast reaches of knowledge. But revelation is a onetime event. Like witnesses of an automobile accident, the Torah tells us that those who were there were arguing about what they saw and heard within a very short time. The debate continues today. On the other hand, science sees only intermittent flashes that reveal only limited knowledge, but they persist over time and can be repeatedly tested.
In the search for knowledge of HaShem and HaShem’s creation, Maimonides saw the limits of both reason and revelation. He recognized that the two formed a complementary pair. He asserted that true knowledge requires the combination of both reason and revelation.
If we accept Rambam’s vision of the path to truth, both science and Judaism need reason and revelation. The reason for the need for this complementary relationship lies in the very nature of the Universe.
Click to continue the conversation with Revelation in Context
Join the conversation! Send an e-mail to us at [email protected].
--Article may be copied freely but not sold. Copyright maintained by author--
