Intellectual Honesty - Rambam's way.

At the end of the first part of the Moreh Rambam lays the ground for his discussion of proofs for the existence of God. He refuses to argue for the existence of a God based on who created the universe. The fact that the universe was created from nothingness or created at all is not necessarily provable. It is at most the best of three possibilities. Although Rambam personally believes that it was created from nothingness (at least that is my read of his position though some, both classic and modern interpreters of Rambam, disagree), he admits that Plato’s position that God created it from a basic matter that is eternal could well work with Judaism. If pressed he could live, if only with difficulties, with Aristotle’s position that a First Cause and the universe are co-existent eternally. Therefore Rambam cannot accept the proofs his predecessors and contemporary philosophers used to demonstrate God’s existence based on there necessarily being a Creator.

In MN 1:76 he states:

“If you wish to go in search of truth, to cast aside your passions, blind following of authority, and your fondness of things you have been accustomed to cherish, if you wish to guard yourself against error: then consider the fate of these speculators and the result of their labors: observe how they rushed, as it were, from the ashes into the fire. They denied the nature of the existing things, misrepresented the properties of heaven and earth, and thought that they were able, by their propositions, to prove the creation of the world, but in fact they were far from proving creation ex nihilo, and have weakened the arguments for the existence, the unity, and the incorporeality of God. The proofs of all these doctrines must be based on the permanent nature of the existing things, as perceived by the senses and the intellect.”

In his introduction to the third part of the Moreh, where he discusses the “Secrets of the Chariots”, the Ma’aseh Merkavah in Yechezkel, Rambam forewarns us that he is only showing us how to read and interpret the verses so that they should conform to the science of his times. He also tells us that he is aware that the sciences he bases his interpretation may be proven wrong. It is just a guide to how such matters need to be understood.

“To give a full explanation of the mystic passages of the Bible is contrary to the Law and to reason; besides, my knowledge of them is based on reasoning, not on divine inspiration [and is therefore not infallible]. I have not received my belief in this respect from any teacher, but it has been formed by what I learnt from Scripture and the utterances of our Sages, and by the philosophical principles which I have adopted. It is therefore possible that my view is wrong, and that I misunderstood the passages. Correct thought and divine help have suggested to me the proper method, to explain the words of the prophet Yechezkel.”

I am appending here R. Kafih’s translation and note. It is worthwhile and important to understand how we need to deal with our theology. It is wrong to become stultified and stubbornly stick to untenable positions.

נוסף לכך, שמה שנתברר לי ממנו הוא על דרך ההשערה והמחשבה
ולא נראה לי בו חזון אלוהי שילמדני שכך היא הכוונה בדבר
ולא קבלתי את דעותי בכך ממורה
אלא הורוני המקראות שבספרי הנבואה ודברי חכמים
עם מה שיש בידי מן ההקדמות העיוניות
שהדבר כך בלי ספק
ואפשר שיהיה הדבר בהפכו ותהיה הכוונה עניין אחר

And here is R. Kafih’s note:

כוונת רבנו למה שביאר במרכבות שבמראות יחזקאל. ואין ספק שברוח הקודש אמר רבנו דברים
הללו
הייתה לו תחושה עליונה שכל מה שהוא בונה ורומז במרכבות לפי מבנה מערכת השמים
ומערכות הארץ אשר הגיע אליהן המדע בימים ההם, שמא אין הדברים כך
כפי ש"הוכח" בימינו
ובכל אופן מבחינתנו אנו דבר גדול דבר אלינו רבנו
וחשוב יותר ממה שאמר, מה שלא אמר, כלומר
דיינו במה שרמז לנו לאן מופנים הדברים,
והפרטים כבר נתאם בעצמנו בכל-דור כפי מושגיו, אם הדברים הם באמת כך
על כולן לימדנו רבנו באיזה סוג של מחשבה לגשת לאותן המיקראות, ודיינו בכך

The common thread between the two quotes is that truth is the ultimate goal. We cannot deny reality to support a belief no matter how important the belief is. Both quotes and R. Kafih’s comment make it clear that the argument that the Torah knows better than science, science changes while the Torah is immutable, is not a viable argument. This nonsensical argument is adopted by many of contemporary “theologians” and has caused more harm than admitting that one does not have the answers though they probably are out there. Humility goes farther than lies.