NICE PARTS OF LETTER
Excerpts of a Foreword by Rabbi Aryeh Carmell
Dr. Avi Rabinowitz is a brilliant physicist and mathematician who has lectured on quantum theory in universities in the United States and Israel. He is also a ben Torah and ben Yeshiva. ............
............. reader of this book will be treated to a guided tour of the mysteries and intricacies of quantum theory, including complementarity, Schroedinger's "collapsing wave packets", Bell's inequality theorem and the retreat from local realistic theories, and many other recondite topics, all well explained in terms understandable by the "am ha-aretz" in science.
The reader is also introduced to the "big bang" cosmology and current views on the emergence of life, genetics and biological evolution, including human evolution. In addition there is a discussion of the "anthropic principle" propounded by some prominent scientists, according to which the fundamental constants of matter and the universe have the precise values which they have because only these values would ensure the ultimate emergence of thinking beings on at least one planet. This fascinating idea at last enables us to make scientific sense of the statement in the Talmud (Berachot 32b ) to the effect that all the trillions of stars in the universe were created for man, or rather for perfected man, i.e. Israel.
Parallel to all this Dr. Rabinowitz also gives us a most interesting survey of Torah commentaries on the enigmatic chapters concerning creation and the early history of man with which the Chumash begins - what Benno Jakob called "Urgeschichte" . The author's wide-ranging survey describes some of the attempts which have been made in recent times to reconcile the Torah's account with the findings of modern science.
. .......................In the last couple of years three books have appeared dealing in one way or another with this subject, each pursuing a completely different approach but each solidly based on the Orthodox tradition. One is "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Dr. Gerald Schroeder (Bantam Books).......... Then there is Professor Natan Aviezer's "In the Beginning" (Ktav) ..........The third (published by Feldheim) is "Reality Revisited" by the late Rabbi S. D. Sassoon ......
...........The present volume is distinguished from all these both by the wealth of scientific material it explores and the in-depth analysis of Torah sources it presents. ..........We owe the author a debt of gratitude for his painstaking presentation of all facets of the topic and for demonstrating so ably the wealth of divergent views that can be accomodated within Torah Judaism on these fundamental issues.
...
How to convert the B;Or haTorah "Free Will" article into a big bang evolution instant Unverse article
Editing "Free Will" BH article:
Introduction: Leave it out.
Part I: give it new heading: eg: Is 'Mind' Subject to Natural Law? Then the next heading immediately following makes sense: The Concept of natural Law.
Keep section "The Concept of natural Law" and the next: "Natural Law vs FW" (except change last sentence, see below)
Put the section "Causality and Determinism" as an Appendix for advanced readers, and change the reference to it in the last sentence of the preceding section.
Keep the next sections, but in section "Explanation of QP" put the paragraph "For example" as advanced Appendix.
Part II: Keep
Part III: Contentious. Whitehead quote is good for this, but maybe just leave it all out. But keep last paragraph, just delete But delete the first phrase of the second (=last) sentence.
Part IV: Keep, but something is missing, need to change order. I don’t present the idea of consciousness collapsing the wave function but I refer to it! And there's a heading "FW & Collapse" before the heading "The Measurement Problem". So I need to insert material re QP/Collapse, and then re consiousness and then re FW. Eg the last sentence of "FW & Collapse" should be part of an intro or conclusion of a section re the measurement problem.
Need to explain that perhaps consciousness is governed by naturallaw and ultimately by qp, the type of FW we are referring to is by definition not.
Part V: Make Option C less dogmatic.'We must" "all people" etc.
With this configuration the BH free will article becomes a big bang article.
Free Will & Cosmology, the Bang and Adam
We propose that it is a truly free-willed consciousness rather than just a generic consciousness which would be required to 'collapse the universal quantum wave function'. We discuss the implications of this for cosmology, and also the relevance to Bible-science issues
Insert diagram and caption from Wheeler [It is referred to in a footnote in the article so it is not a totally new addition – but insert it as a part of the text not into the footnote].
(quantum metaphysics indicates the possibility that the universe emerged into true physical existence only when there was a conscious observer in it).
We claim that the type pf purpose which the Bible imputes to the universe could not commence until a free-willed being emerges, and so both quantum metaphysics and biblical religion require the beginning of the universe to be tied up with the emergence of a free-willed being, which in biblical terms is the Adam of the Eden account (Adam after eating from the 'Tree of Knowledge'). Thus it is reasonable both from the biblical and our quantum metaphysical perspective that the bible presents the creation of the universe juxtaposed to the emergence of Adam.
Outline: The first part of the article below discusses the issue of free will from the philosophical and logical perspective. We then introduce concepts of quantum physics and the possible relevance of human consciousness. We then explain our reasons for supposing that for this purpose it is free will which is the essential ingredient of consciousness. We then proceed to a discussion of universal purpose from an anthropomorphic 'divine perspective'. In the last section we analyze the cosmological significance of free will.
INSERT LINK TO FREE WILL ARTICLE HERE
Conclusion: The creation/Eden accounts imply that the universe emerged into existence as part of a process in which the first free-willed beings emerge. This meshes well with both Wheeler's quantum metaphysical idea of the universal conscious observer, which we interpret as a free-willed observer, and also with the idea that from the divine perspective the onset of universal purpose, and therefore the most reasonable creation point, is at the emergence of free-willed beings.
Further Reading: The bible-science aspect of the above article is fleshed out in more detail in the author's article "The Instant Retroactive Universe: And God Said: "Let there have been a big bang".
......
Last Section of Free Will article
Einstein, Purposive Creation and Morality: Quantum Physics and Free Will
Einstein, Moral Responsibility, and Genesis: As Einstein stated, created beings cannot be held meaningfully responsible for their actions by the creator of the universe and the laws of nature if their actions follow fully from the operation of these laws. In his conception, human, animal, vegetable and mineral follow identical physical law, and human mental activity is no exception - just as a stone rolling down-hill does not choose to do so, neither can a person choose their thoughts and decisions – we can only 'feel' that we so choose. Einstein wrote:
…the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficient personal God....[has] decisive weaknesses... …if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishments and rewards he would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?
According to the view, a person’s actions are the result of ‘nature and nurture’, or ‘genes and environment’. Since the genes are from nature, if God created nature then they are from God. Similarly, nurture is the environment created by other people, but the actions of these other people are the result of their own nature and nurture, and so on backwards to the first people. In this sense ‘nurture’ is also indirectly ‘nature’. The fact that people are not simple mechanisms does not mean that they are not mechanisms, just that they are very complex mechanisms. Einstein felt that although much is not yet known about their brains, nevertheless if there is a God, their actions are the inevitable result of God’s laws of nature1, just as is the case for much simpler mechanisms. He wrote:
We have penetrated far less deeply into the regularities obtaining within the realm of living things, but deeply enough to nevertheless sense at least the rule of fixed necessity....
The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature.
2.... the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary as the past.
3[For t]he man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation......a God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable......for the simple reason that a man’s actions are determined by necessity, external or internal, so that in God’s eyes he cannot be responsible any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes.
What type of free will is inherent in the Bible? Einstein did not believe in the existence of free will, and felt that if there is a God, this God could not be so capricious as to hold people responsible for actions that they could not prevent, and therefore he could not believe in the Biblical God (and the Biblical stories). Clearly Einstein felt that it was obvious that the creation and Eden accounts present the type of free will and moral responsibility which would be meaningful to a transcendent being.
Believers in the Bible can agree with Einstein that in the Biblical conception, the type of choices possible to humans could not be the results of determined or random processes if the created beings are to be held meaningfully responsible for their actions by the creator of the universe and the laws of nature. Whether or not one accepts the truth of the Biblical accounts, clearly the implication that human actions are of interest to God, and humans bear responsibility for their actions in God's eyes make sense only from within the perspective that humans posses a 'true free will'. 4
'True Free Will' is Unique, and Controversial: In order that a true free will exist:
1) more than one option exists at a decision point, as in quantum physics as opposed to determinism;
2) an option can be selected "freely", ie
a) not randomly, as in quantum physics;
b) not deterministically as implied by the rationality of a truly free choice.
The conundrum is: On the one hand, requirement #1 has been shown possible by quantum physics, while on the other hand #2 is contradicted by quantum physics which states that options are ‘selected’ at random. Furthermore, choice must be rational to be free, and rational implies deterministic (The idea of a truly free non-random choice implies a choice made after careful deliberation rather than by caprice. To be rational, a choice must be based on reasoning, which is a chain of logic, or at least a deterministic chain of thought. This deterministic chain leads eventually to one's genetic complement and environment and so forth.) Therefore free choice is self-contradictory.
Physics, Free Will and Intuition: True free will is necessarily built upon an interaction "transcending" both the determinism of classical physics and the probabilistically-determined randomness (PDR) of quantum physics. Unless there would be some experimental proof that true free will exists, physics would rightly exclude it5. Our deepest intuitions however point to its existence. And of course most religious beliefs assume it does exist, and base the concept of moral responsibility on the assumption that our free will is real. Nevertheless our intuitions about what is logical make true free will counterintuitive. Thus our intuition is in favor of the idea of true free will, but our conception of logic makes the same true free will counterintuitive.
The Acausality of Free Will: a Rationale and Ramifications: Beyond our intuition there are other justifications for assuming the possibility of non-causal, or 'acausal' processes, and these perhaps point the way to the physical origin of the type of radically-acausal phenomenon such as free will.
a) The greatest mystery of all is the origin of the universe. A universe which exists is in itself an indication of acausality for it exists without real cause: cause implies temporal order, yet time originated with the universe and thus no cause could "precede" the existence of the universe. Thus in some sense, at its most fundamental level, even the scientific conception of existence implies acausality.
It is perhaps not so out-of-character for a universe whose very existence implies acausality to exhibit free will-type acausality. [We will elsewhere argue that if such processes exist, a likely place for them to manifest is where consciousness is involved.]
b) Another question arises as to the origin of consciousness: if humans evolved, then we must suppose that consciousness evolved. However, how could one type of phenomenon, matter ruled by probabilistic determined randomness (PDR), give rise via a physical mechanism such as evolution to a qualitatively different phenomenon6? One answer would be that consciousness was inherent in the universe at its origin and this enabled the human brain to attain consciousness at some point in its evolution (for example, perhaps when the brain achieved a certain complexity it connected to the consciousness inherent in the universe). Another answer would suppose that consciouness was not present always, but rather it somehow 'emerged', somehow arose without precedent, basically in a non-causal manner, just as the universe itself exists acausally. It is perhaps not so out-of-character for a universe in which consciousness is present from the beginning to exhibit mind-like properties such as free will, and even more-so for a universe in which consciousness 'emerges' acausally.
The Relationship of Free Will and Consciousness: Free will is possible only as a property of a consciousness - an "I" that wills. (This can be seen upon some reflection.) On the other hand, consciousness is possible without an accompanying free will. However, consciousness alone would be powerless to affect events in the absence of free will – it would be a prisoner of its ‘host body’- and everything occurs as it would without the existence of consciousness.
Thus if by human consciousness we mean a phenomenon which can interact with the universe and affect it, then we must consider consciousness to be free-willed, and so we can for this purpose consider free will and human consciousness as inseparable.
A question arises as to the origin of free-will[ed consciousness]: if humans evolved, then we must suppose that free-will evolved. However, how could one type of phenomenon, matter ruled by probabilistic determined randomness (PDR), give rise via evolution to a qualitatively different phenomenon, free will processes?
One answer would be that free will was inherent in the universe and at a certain point in the evolution of the human brain, free will existed where it had "previously" not existed. When the brain achieved a
certain complexity it connected to the free will inherent in the universe. Or, as an acausal phenomenon, free will needed no direct preceding "cause" and could thus arise even as the product of PDR processes.
Free will is the only phenomenon which involves processes not bound to the probabilistic constraints of quantum physics. Free will can even be considered as the general phenomenon, and quantum probabilism merely a special limited case of it – ie the case where many options exist for how an event will occur but it occurs in a probabilistic way rather than freely.
Thus it can almost be expected that free will "transcend" quantum processes in some way. Since consciousness is our only means of knowing of all physical events - they exist (to us) only inasmuch as they are reported by our consciousness - it can almost be expected that consciousness might play an important physical role in the actualization of events.
The Measurement Problem of Quantum Physics (the Collapse of the Wave Function)
Every event is "recorded" automatically as it occurs by virtue of its effect on the universe-however, this type of recording is not sufficient to "collapse the wave function". All measuring devices including the human brain are natural products of the natural universe. If their actions result from random/determined processes, then these actions are likewise random/determined, and thus their actions are natural events qualitatively no different than any other natural event in the physical universe. How then can it be that measurement can “collapse the wave function”? One could postulate that it is only human measurement which can cause this 'collapse', however why would human measurement be qualitatively different from the automatic recording of an event by machine or by other events?
Free Will and QuantumPhysics: The difference has be attributed by some to human consciousness, however from the perspective developed here this is useless because if consciousness is governed at its most fundamental level by quantum processes then the argument is circular. Instead we propose that the operative element is free will, and as a result we can understand why the measurement of a free-willed consciousness is qualitatively different. And different in precisely the required way. Free will can cause events which would not have occurred in a purely determined or quantum universe. It transcends quantum physics. It is in its essence a choice-making phenomenon, choosing which reality it wishes to create. Thus a free-willed consciousness is a unique phenomenon and perhaps is uniquely qualified to "collapse the quantum wave function".
In addition, based on the idea postulated by Wheeler, perhaps only a free-willed consciousness can bring reality-retroactively-to the universe, (See Wheeler.) 7
Quantum Physics, Free Will, Moral Responsibility and the Origin of the Universe
The belief that humans are purely physical beings and that consciousness is as physical a phenomenon as any other is incompatible with our most deeply held beliefs about moral responsibility. Indeed, if one had to choose between deterministic/materialistic science and moral responsibility, most thinking people would, as a result of intuition and feeling (rather than logic) choose the latter. This belief in human moral responsibility implies not rejection of quantum physics but of its universality (it rejects the assumption that mental activity in the human mind are restricted to PDR processes), and assumes that mental events can over-ride the seemingly logical demands of causality. However, here is no scientific evidence that true free will exists.
The mechanistic assumption that humans are purely physical is not only unproven but is also logically incompatible with those beliefs we are most sure of. These assumptions are not science but rather are part of a philosophy, and the Biblical creation and Eden accounts present a diametrically opposite view: a created universe in which humans possess a true free will, so free that they can be held responsible for their actions even by the creator of the laws of nature, the Designer of the universe; so free that they give meaning to the universe even from the creator's perspective. Neither perspective can be 'scientifically proven': on the one hand the mechanistic perspective does not assume the existence of processes beyond what science can prove, on the other hand it is counter to some of our deepest intuitions; the religious perspective on free will assumes the existence of processes for which there is no physical experimental evidence, and is counter to logic, but is in tune with some of our deepest intuitions.
We present three scenarios8:
Option A (mechanism): The universe arose by itself, via chance. Life emerged from non-life and humans evolved from ‘lower’ life forms. Qualitatively human, animal, vegetable and mineral follow identical physical law, and human mental activity is no exception.
All events including mental events occur in a PDR way, and thus free will is physically impossible. In addition, causality is valid, and so free will is logically impossible. Therefore, man has no control over his actions and thought and cannot logically be held responsible for them. Of course many people are neurologically wired to feel that they are responsible for their actions, and have invented the words "moral responsibility" to describe this emotion.
Our feeling that we have free will is real - it is a real feeling - but free will itself does not exist. Free will is a chimera, and our belief in moral responsibility our wiring rather than a transcendent truth.
Option B: "Deistic (PDR) mechanism": God created the universe and instituted a system of "natural law" to run it. All events occur in accordance with this natural law, except when God intervenes in nature. Quantum physics describes the universe, and its states at any time follow in a probabilistically determined random way from the initial created state of the universe. Therefore, everything that occurs does so as a direct result of some combination of God's choice of initial state, God's choice of system of natural laws, and randomness. Clearly, God cannot expect humans to act differently than they do since all follows determinedly from God’s initial creation, and so humanity cannot be held responsible by God for its actions. Those who do not realize that they really do not have free will and believe that they can be logically held responsible by God are wrong. [However, it would be God who caused this feeling, due to the neurological wiring which evolved according to God's design].
Option C: Biblical Free Will: God created the universe in such a way that except for consciousness it follows the PDR laws of quantum physics. Humans are conscious and have free will. [Quantum physics (PDR) does not hold in the realm of human mental processes, and a causality-defying process allows one to freely choose actions in a rational way without this choice being determined due to its rationale] As a result humans are responsible for their actions, even from the perspective of the creator.
The Acausality of Free Will: a Prescription for Further Research: Quantum physics implies the existence of a new type of logical structure: quantum logic. However even the causality of quantum logic could not encompass true free will. Nevertheless, if we take seriously our intuition regarding the existence of true free will then one must find a new approach to the logic of causality and the causality of logic.
Perhaps one could also benefit by trying to extend quantum physics in such a way that we can incorporate the requirement of free will that choices be not random but deliberate. Although this seems counterintuitive and counter-logical, perhaps using quantum transcendent free will one can construct a new "free logic". Of course this seems intuitively impossible and/or absurd to us now, but so would the probabilistic determinism of quantum physics have appeared to the pre-quantum physics community.
All this would have important ramifications for the issue of contrafactual definiteness, Bell's inequality and so forth. (See d'Espagnat.)
Partial Bibliography
Burtt, E.A. The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science (revised edition). N.Y.: Doubleday, 1954, See especially pp. 64-67, 75, 94,
d'Espagnat, Bernard. "Quantum Theory and Reality," Scientific American, Nov, 1979, pp. 128-140.
Wheeler, J.A. "Beyond the Black Hole," Some Strangeness In the Proportion. N.Y.: Addison-Wesley, 1980.
1p47 bottom,p48 top, "Ideas & Opinions"; p28 "Out of My Later Years"
2 "My Worldview", (on p40 of "Ideas & Opinions").
3Essay: "Religion and Science". p39, line 5:
4 See the author's article "The Instant Universe" which develops an understanding of the creation and Eden accounts and their relation to the big bang and evolution theory based on this perspective.
5 Not that physics would necessarily assume it does not or cannot exist, just that within physics, 'intuition' is not sufficient reason to assume its existence until there is some sort of experimental evidence for it.
6 All this is from the 'incompatibilist' perspective which sees mind and matter as essentially different from each other..
7 Indeed, there is perhaps a very close connection between the onset of free-willed consciousness and the origin of the universe. See Wheeler. See also my article “And God Said: ‘Let There Have Been a Big Bang’ ” and “Halacha and Quantum Physics”.
8 Of course there are others than these three, but these represent clear & distinct scenarios pertinent to the discussion here.
....
MATERIAL FROM "Quantum Physics and Halacha" article in B'Or HaTorah, can be used for "Instant Universe"
NEED TO INSERT FOOTNOTES
……………
I Eliminated:
use of 'He' for God,
use of term 'man', substitute 'Humanity'.
dogmatic statements, insert more neutral terminology, and caveats like 'according to religious philosophy'..
Indented sections were incorporated into evo article on my website.
……….
Universal and Human Emergence and Quantum Physics
Free-willed-consciousness in quantum physics and biblical belief
In my view, human free-willed consciousness is essential to the purpose of the universe from two very different perspectives – those of quantum metaphysics and of biblical religion. According to the philosophy of quantum physics, actual physical reality can exist (in the scientific meaning of the term existence) only as a result of measurement. When not being measured, any system –an atom or a rock or the universe as a whole - is in a quasi-real state amenable to description only in terms of probabilities and not unequivocal facts. Some eminent physicists have proposed that it is only measurement performed by a conscious being which can transform the quasi-real state into a fully physical real state, and that stipulation applies just as well to the universe as a whole. I feel that it is free will which underlies this property of consciousness.
There are various perspectives in Jewish philosophy that reveal parallels to this quantum world-view, and here too I feel that it is free will which underlies it all.
[The parallels between the two perspectives pertain to ontology, which addresses the essence of existence, as well as to epistemology, which deals with criteria for knowledge.]
Complementarity vs Contradiction
The perspectives of science and biblical religion are very different, and lead to different conclusions regarding the emergence of the universe and of humanity. However, besides the parallels between then drawn as indicated above, quantum physics indicates as well how two perspectives and their respective conclusion are not necessarily contradictory even though they differ greatly.
And as we shall see, so too in Jewish philosophy.
Section I: brief summary of some ideas of quantum physics
Section II: some relevant aspects of Jewish philosophy, including the Jewish view of the Creation, humanity’s purpose and unique characteristics - all related by the common theme of determination of reality via observation performed by a consciousness.
SECTION ONE: QUANTUM PHYSICS
For many years there was a debate among scientists regarding the nature of light. Certain phenomena seemed to indicate that light is a wave, while others pointed to its having a particle-like nature. The debate was stilled early this century when it was realized that all entities can be considered to be both waves and particles—some physical conditions cause a manifestation of the wave-like properties of these entities, and some cause a manifestation of their particle-like properties. This duality became one of the fundamental concepts of the newly-developed quantum physics.
Optional technical explanation: The duality concept arises as follows. If one were to eject an electron from an electron gun and run it through a slit of some sort, one would expect that since an electron is a particle, it would continue straight in a flat trajectory and reach a screen or a detector directly opposite to where it emerged. On the other hand, if one has a water or light wave, the waves bend as they traverse an opening, and form a complex pattern on the other side. When water or light waves are passed through a double slit, it has been shown that the resulting pattern can be attributed to the fact that each wave passes through both slits. It was shown experimentally, however, that even particles, such as electrons, form the same patterns as do waves, as though each particle passed through both slits—which seems impossible to our intuition. This led to the understanding that all entities in the universe are both waves and particles.
PROBABILISTIC DETERMINISM
Prior to the advent of quantum physics, scientists and philosophers believed that every event in the universe occurred as an inevitable and necessary result of previous events. The state of the universe at any one instant was believed to be totally determined by the states of the universe in the past, and in turn the present state totally determined what all future states of the universe would be.
Quantum physics, introduced at the beginning of the twentieth century, brought with it a drastic change in this viewpoint. Each event was now understood to be able to occur in a number of ways, with the actual way that it does occur left to “chance.” Despite the fact that chance “ruled” each individual event, however, when numerous similar events occurred, the pattern that emerged resembled the results one would have expected using pre-quantum physics.
That is, each individual event, though occurring “at random,” nevertheless contributes somehow to a pattern, in the aggregate, which can be determined beforehand. This combination of random and determined behavior is called here probabilistic determinism or probabilistically determined randomness.
Physicists were troubled, however, for this “random” aspect seemed to be contrary to the “spirit of physics.”
Much inquiry was directed to the question of whether the chance aspect was only apparent—i.e. due to our lack of sufficient scientific knowledge and adequate instrumentation—or if it was an actual physical requirement. With the accumulation of more experimental evidence it was shown that, indeed, the nature of the physical universe appears to be such that intrinsically, at the most fundamental level, events are probabilistic and not deterministic.
REALITY AND MEASUREMENT
The mathematical description of a quantum system is that of a wave which corresponds to the system being in all possible states simultaneously—a “superposition of states.” (The physical interpretation of this wave is that of a probability distribution for the result of an individual event in an ensemble of cases or particles.) For example, in the case of the slit, each particle is represented by a wave function that corresponds to its going through both slits at all possible angles. However, when we look about us we always see unique states—for example, the unique impact point of the electron on the screen behind the slits.
Even the most subtle measurements on the particle while it is in flight, to determine its exact path have been shown experimentally and theoretically to so disturb the path that the pattern is lost. Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment has shown that one can even perform the measurements after passage through the slit, and retroactively affect the outcome. Therefore one cannot attribute a unique “physically real” path to the particle, even in theory—it is in a superposition state..
Thus, if we take very seriously the correspondence of the mathematical description of the physical state and the physical state itself, since the mathematical description changes abruptly from before the measurement to after, we conclude that there is a vast difference between the physical system prior to measurement—it is in a superposition of all possible states—and after measurement, when it is in a unique state.
The equations in physics map mathematically the events in the physical world, and the math in quantum physics is very capable of handling this mapping all the time until the system is measured and all the time after the measurement, the mapping gives rise to correct predictions, but there is no apparent physical reason to insert something into the math which would transform one set of equations (the pre-measurement ones) into the other (the post-measurement ones), except the act of measurement itself, and so one is forced to conclude that for some reason the act of measurement itself causes this drastic change. Since the pre-measurement superposition is described by a mathematical wave function of probabilities of values and the post-measurement description is not a wave function, nor any collection of values but a specific value, this transformation is sometimes called “the collapse of the wave function", in some sense it 'collapses' from probabilities into unique reality.
The probability aspect is not a matter of ignorance, but is ontological. Prior to its measurement, an event can occur in a number of ways and actually does so in some sense. Without measuring the state of a particle, we cannot say, “It is in some particular state, which is, however, as yet unknown to us.” It is not in some particular state. Instead, it is (in some sense) simultaneously in all the possible states in which it can be. Indeed, even after measurement is made, and the particle is found to be in a particular state, experiments have indicated (that given certain reasonable-seeming assumptions about the universe) that it is physically untrue that the particle was in that state all the time - it had no definite state until one measured it.
Our observations of the universe about us are measurements, and we therefore always see only unique states, not superpositions. The universe as a whole is also a system of physical entities, and its state is also a superposition until measured. Our measurement forces the universe to assume one definite state from among all the possibility-states it is in prior to the measurement.
This surprising, even bewildering, property can be interpreted as saying that the universe can emerge into reality only as a result of its measurement. In a way this is trite and in a way it’s radical. It is trite in the sense that for a at least two centuries philosophers such as Berkeley and the positivists have explored the idea that reality is only set by our consciousness of it, because we can perceive things through the senses. It is radical, however, in that this result has now been achieved by physics. Therefore, what is true in the realm of words and ideas has been shown by physics to be true of physical reality as well: the actual thing itself is not set until it is measured.
Summary
From the preceding discussion, we can make the following summary: All entities in the universe have a dual nature, one material and localized (particulate) and one nonmaterial and non-localized (wavelike). The universe, or any subsystem of it, is capable of being in two (or more) mutually contradictory states simultaneously. Saying that the universe is uniquely in one state is just as invalid as saying that it is in the other state. However, a decision can be made between the two by having a measurement made of the situation. Both views are partially correct, but only until the measurement is made. After that, only one becomes correct. However, this does not imply that it was always the correct one; there was no “correct” state until the measurement was made.
THE ROLE OF CONSCIOUSNESS
What is the active factor in a measurement which causes this emergence into reality? According to some leading physicists, this factor is consciousness. The great mathematician John Von Neumann, who provided a rigorous mathematical foundation for quantum mechanics, believed that only a human consciousness can collapse the wave function.
The eminent Nobel prize-winning physicist Eugene Wigner writes:
It follows that the quantum description of objects is influenced by impressions entering my consciousness….It follows that the being with a consciousness must have a different role in quantum mechanics than the inanimate measuring device.
The famous physicist John Wheeler has taken this one step further. According to him the entire universe can emerge into true physical existence only via the observation of a consciousness!
[Perhaps] no universe at all could come into being unless it were guaranteed to produce life, consciousness and observership somewhere and for some little length of time in its history-to-be?…
[T]he observer is as essential to the creation of the universe as the universe is to the creation of the observer….
[T]he universe would be nothing without observership, as surely as a motor would be dead without electricity….
[I]s observership the “electricity” that powers genesis?…
“[O]bservership” allows and enforces a transcendence of the usual order in time….
Thus, according to “quantum metaphysics,” a consciousness is indispensable to the universe if it is to emerge into reality. Physical reality can be said to exist only as a result of our presence within it or, more precisely, as a result of our perception of it.
Wheeler has constructed a fascinating diagram to illustrate this concept (see Figure 7-1). Explaining the diagram, he writes: “Beginning with the big bang, the universe expands and cools. After eons of dynamic development it gives rise to observership. Acts of observer-participancy in turn give tangible reality to the universe not only now but back to the beginning.”
FREE WILL, QUANTUM PHYSICS, AND THE COLLAPSE OF THE WAVE FUNCTION
A free-willed decision, in order to be truly free, has to be unconstrained by the laws of nature and not determined by any physical phenomena. Hence free will must be neither the result of deterministic processes, nor the result of random processes occurring in accordance with the natural order of phenomena. Hence if the universe contains a free will, this free will must operate via interactions which transcend both the determinism of classical physics and the randomness of quantum physics. Free will is then unique in this respect.
If some entity exists which can collapse the quantum wave function, then it is reasonable to postulate that this entity has to be a free will, since, as we just discussed, only free will transcends quantum randomness, as it transcends nature in general.
Since a consciousness can affect the universe only if it has a free will, and a free will is by definition unthinkable without a consciousness, we will assume in the course of further discussion that free will subsumes within itself the concept of consciousness.
EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE ROLE OF FREE-WILLED CONSCIOUS BEINGS
We will now try to apply the conclusions we reached above to the question of the existence of the universe. As we saw, according to quantum metaphysics, the universe can emerge into reality only when it is observed by a consciousness. This consciousness possibly must function in a nonquantum fashion in order to “collapse the wave function.” The only such nonquantum factor in the universe is free will. Thus, we postulate that it is the presence of a free-willed, conscious being which enables the universe to emerge into reality.
SECTION TWO: Spiritual and Physical Reality
According to Jewish thought, the true reality is the spiritual realm, the physical cosmos being God’s precision-crafted instrument for achieving spiritual goals. Indeed, the physical universe is a shadow of the spiritual world, the illusion perceived by limited beings who are in contact with the spiritual cosmos but can directly sense and perceive only its shadow. Human free-willed moral choice connects the two realms, and this moral activity gives meaning to the existence of the universe.
Thus, since the true reality of the universe is the spiritually meaningful aspect, it should not be surprising that the emergence of the universe into reality is so intimately bound up with the emergence of those beings who endow physicality of meaning. Furthermore, once this connection is understood, it is most appropriate that the very characteristics of humans which allow the emergence of the universe into reality (i.e., his free-willed consciousness) are the very same characteristics which endow it with meaning. We can thus see the fundamental interrelationship between meaning, purpose, free will, consciousness, and the very nature of reality (and how this is reflected in Creation).
Summary
We have seen that according to quantum (meta)physics, reality is established via the observation of a (free-willed) consciousness. In addition, we have shown that according to Jewish thought, free-willed choice gives the universe meaning and is thus the “motivation” for the very existence of the universe.
HUMANITY, TORAH, AND REALITY
According to Jewish tradition, the Torah is the “blueprint” which was used by God in creating the universe. Moreover, God is continually renewing Creation—re-creating the universe at every moment—by interpreting the blueprint for the re-creation of the universe at that instant. These statements pertain to a more abstract form of Torah, to a Torah that exists spiritually in the form of “black fire on white fire.” However, once this Torah was translated into human terms and given over at Sinai, the prerogative of its interpretation and application rested solely with Humanity; it is Humanity’s responsibility and his alone. And through involvement with Torah, Humanity actually becomes a partner in the continuous renewal of the cosmos.
In our universe, the operative concepts are “free-willed conscious choice,” not “nature,” i.e. objective scientific fact. It is the former which causes the latter to emerge into existence (collapse of a probability wave). Thus, it will not come a surprise that, in Jewish law, free-willed conscious moral choice rules over the “laws of nature,” rather than vice versa.
The true reality is the spiritual one. The physical is in existence only to serve the spiritual. The entire physical universe is an artifact created by God. Humans are precisely crafted instruments designed to interact with the physical universe in ways which have the potential to achieve spiritual goals unattainable without the vehicle of the physical. Thus, the physical is of central importance, but only as a means: It can have sublime beauty and dignity, but only by virtue of its ability to achieve in the spiritual realm. Thus the human body, rather than being a hindrance to spirituality, is a potentially holy physical tool which can control the spiritual.
Indeed, every action/thought/word affects the spiritual cosmos, and the Jewish way of life as prescribed by the Torah is designed to resonate with the spiritual and to correctly utilizthe physic order to elicit the fusion of ultimate spirituality with the physical. God is the Creator of the universe and of Humanity and designed the universe, humans and the way to complete each other, to complement one another, in a self-consistent optimum system. God communicated the method to humankind in the form of the Torah (Written and Oral), and then in capacity as Designer and Creator of this system, promised us that we are superbly qualified to successfully perform our role and attain our goal. More than this, we are told that since we are designed to be the best instrument to achieve this goal within the context of a physical universe, when we perform at optimum, we are a crucial element in the scheme of things and particularly-well suited to physical/spiritual interaction.
Multiplicity of Facets vs Contradiction
Normally, one would assume that of two conflicting viewpoints regarding legal matters in a Divinely mandated code of life, one must be incorrect. However, the human power of determining spiritual reality is reflected very clearly in halakhic philosophy, and in halakhah itself. According to the Talmud, when two qualified rabbis arrive at conflicting and mutually exclusive conclusions, if both have researched the matter as required, and both are sincere and interested only in the truth, then both are right. This attitude is recorded in the Talmud and is given here in rough translation: “For two-and-a-half years the schools of Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Shammai were in dispute regarding a certain ruling. Finally, a voice came from Heaven and declared: ‘Verily, both views are the words of the living God, but the ruling is according to Rabbi Hillel.’”
Since the spiritual reality is humanly-determined, there is no paradox involved in two mutually contradictory results being both right, as long as they represent two human opinions arrived at through religiously legitimate means. The Torah also gives us rules for deciding the actual path to take when we are presented with two or more valid opinions, for example, the principle of decision by majority. Once one of the paths has been accepted by rabbinical authority, it alone becomes the only viable path of action. Even though the other path is still theoretically correct, it becomes absolutely unacceptable as an actual path as soon as the religious reality is decided in favor of the other.
biblical sources: passages in Psalms and Isaiah, whose hidden meanings had been passed down along with the text from generation to generation. For example, in Isaiah 44:24-26, we read: “I am the Lord that makes all things; that stretches the heavens, alone; that spreads abroad the earth by Myself; that frustrates the omens of impostors, and makes diviners mad; that turns wise men backward, and makes their knowledge foolish; that confirms the word of His servant, and performs the counsel of His messengers.
God created the universe ex nihilo, but has left to humanity the fashioning of this raw material, as indicated in the traditional interpretation of the passage: “For then God rested from all the work, which God created to be fashioned.” (Genesis 2:3): The Sages interpreted the apparently superfluous term “to be fashioned” as indication: “All that was created in the six days of Creation requires ‘fashioning’ (by humans)” (Bereshit Rabbah 11:7)
We can now compare the halakhic view of reality with that of quantum physics. According to the Talmud, two or more logically valid halakhic rulings may be consistent with the available facts. Indeed, two independent valid viewpoints can be diametrically opposed and mutually contradictory. halakhah allows either one to determine the reality in principle but will accept only one of the possibilities in actuality.
The analogy between this conception and the idea of the multiple possibilities for reality prior to a “measurement” in quantum physics is now obvious. Although both are the (living) words/realities of (the living) God, only one can determine reality. Also, even though all entities can be measured to produce the characteristics of either waves or particles—both are living reality—only one aspect by itself can be seen “statistically” as the result of an actual measurement.
Furthermore, just as according to quantum physics (or metaphysics) nature has delegated to humanity the ability to determine the nature of physical reality within the limitations of natural law, similarly, according to Torah, God, the Creator of nature, has delegated to humanity the ability to determine the nature of spiritual reality, within the limitations of halakhah. Spiritual reality then influences the physical. Of the two levels, the physical is merely the means to the spiritual end. Thus the human determination of spiritual reality is even more fundamental than is his determination of physical reality. So, too, it is humanity’s spiritual qualities (free-willed consciousness) which are more fundamental than these physical qualities.
As illustrated in the previously cited instances, it is up to people to ustheir own limited sense of right and wrong, guided by Torah criteria, to determine truths and thus to determine reality.
Since it is Humanity’s consciousness and free will which invest their choices with the possibility of meaning, it is therefore only free-willed consciousness which has the possibility of conducting reality-determining observation and measurement.
Nature by itself is powerless to achieve self-realization; humanity is required to bring both self and the universe into reality. Humans, alive and physical and yet spiritual as well, albeit limited and fallible—or perhaps because limited and fallible— are uniquely qualified, by virtue of possessing a free-willed consciousness, to determine the nature of physical and spiritual reality.
Complementary but not Contradictory Perspectives on Human Emergence
As we have seen, quantum physics connects ontology (being) with epistemology (knowing), and quantum metaphysics postulates that the universe can emerge into true physical existence only when there are (free-willed) conscious beings in it. According to this scenario, Humanity is not a random product of the universe but is rather a necessary condition for the very existence of the universe. In addition, since the universe can emerge into true physical existence only when free-willed consciousness is present within it, there is no true physical reality to any time prior to its emergence. In the Torah, this first such free-willed conscious being (at least on Earth) is referred to as 'Adam', meaning 'human'.
Of course, other perspectives exist regarding the emergence of Humanity. However, these by definition relate to a time prior to the emergence of free-willed conscious individuals. According to the approach of quantum metaphysics explored here, this emergence takes place in a less-than-fully real superposition –of-quantum states-universe. And this perspective is not a contradiction to the Biblical one, it is complementary..
Given the differing fundamental assumptions underlying the two perspectives it is only to be expected that there will be differences between the descriptions each arrives at regarding the emergence of this first free-willed conscious, especially as one arises from human sources, limited by quantum physics—and another claims to originate with an infinite source outside of physicality.
END
There was an entire book, more fundamentalist, was distributed as ms, then came out as an article in BH.
The book ms was initially edited by Ilana coven (now attityah) of shamir, which ‘published\ it as a ms. Later the ms was edited by Vivienne privately, but the editing was not completed; thenit appeared as an article in the book/journal “The heart of the matter” published by machon lev.
. …
It is unabashedly jewish torah-accepting, trying to show what cannot be disproven about the creation story etc. Accepting the potential validity of Russel solipsism of the moment, brain in a vat etc as logic, not necessarily as “what actually happened”, which is a sort of meaningless phrase since nothing can be verified as having actually happened.
…
File:The Instant Universe and the Brain in a Jar
Tracing the history and evolution of an idea (two ideas?) ....(inst un, and solipsism: they are related[?])
Instant Universe
Gosse stuff
discussion in GodelEscherBach etc
Solipsism:
Descartes: I now I exist, that is the most basic, and that only do I truly know
The problem of other minds
idealism: Berkely etc
brain in a jar
solipsism: my stuff
solipsism: bridgman, russel etc
If a tree falls...
significance (new stuff)
“chayav adam lir’ot atzmo ke’ilu nivra ha’olam avuro: bishvili nivra ha’olam”.
Adam = solipsistic view of emergence of humanity.
….
Is Evolutionary Theory Correct?
Was there sufficient time etc?
In an infinite universe with the appropriate initial ingredients and laws, the evolution of the purely physical aspect of humanity is inevitable.
However in order to determine whether or not evolutionary theory is the correct explanation for the emergence of humanity here in our universe, with our laws of nature, we need to examine the following:
Do the known laws of nature and the conditions as they were on Earth really permit a process of evolution of progressively more complex entities?
Is there something about what we call life that is not purely physical, and therefore no natural system could produce life?
Was there really sufficient time to allow for the evolution of life?
Is there something unique about humanity so that even if some natural system could produce life, it could not produce humanity
If there was sufficient time, and the laws allow the evolution of humanity as outlined by the theory of evolution, did humans actually emerge that way?
Some people - particularly religious critics of evolutionary theory - somehow expect that science should already have all the answers. It does not. Evolutionary theory is still very young. In a few hundred years science will presumably know a lot more about how life emerged.
We do not yet know everything we need to know about cells, and about the mechanisms whereby evolution takes place, etc, and so we do not know how to compute the relevant probabilities of for example cellular life emerging from the inanimate mineral world. We also do not yet know how many planets there are and what conditions are necessary in order to allow for the emergence of life on a planet, and therefore we do not know whether or not it is reasonable that somewhere in the universe – specifically, here on Earth - life should evolve. We do not know whether there are mutiple-universes, or areas of the universe with different laws of nature some of which will inevitably permit life to evolve etc.
We also do not know yet enough about chaos theory and attractors, complexity, quantum gravity etc and their possible role in guiding evolutionary processes, and other possible natural mechanisms which would do so We know virtually nothing about consciousness, let alone about the possible role of (a primordial) consciousness [see below] in the emergence of life and of humanity.
Evolutionary theory is a MODEL, an ATTEMPT to find a naturalistic answer, a mechanism which perhaps could have given rise to what we see about us. It is simply too early to determine whether or not the laws of nature actually permit the emergence of life, and of humanity; and it is certainly premature to discuss whether or not there is some way we could determine if it actually happened in that way. For the moment, according to the scientific establishment it is so far the best naturalistic theory of the emergence of humanity. As such, we are interested in analyzing the interrelationship of the biblical creation account, the big bang theory, and the theory of evolution.
The most complex entity we know is the human brain, and the highest-level interaction/phenomenon is consciousness. To many people it seems unlikely that consciousness can arise at some late stage in the universe’s existence without it having been present at its inception. All the more so regarding free-willed consciousness; it seems to many of those who believe in the existence of this phenomenon that it cannot have evolved from any non-free-willed-conscious prior state. And so that there must have been some aspect of free-willed consciousness existent at the outset: indeed the very emergence into existence of the universe is itself a non-causal event of the same type as are free-willed choices.
Free willed consciousness by its very nature is inherent “intelligent” and motivated, a higher-level proces. As such, if it was present at the inception of the universe, it is likely that it played some role in the future development of that universe. Therefore, the directedness that lies at the root of free-willed conscious choice should be factored in to the equation of evolution as a teleological agent. An evolutionary process involving such an agent in some way would likely show a greater tendency to the emergence of complexity, life, intelligence, and consciousness than would a purely random process driven by a universe devoid of all consciousness.
The present theory of evolution/big bang is a very convincing one under the assumption that there is neither a God, nor directedness to evolution. The Biblical creation account is on the other hand a fitting one for a universe created by a creator desiring the operation of free-willed moral choice.
The two perspectives do not conflict, they supplement each other, and there are also major points of overlap. When consciousness - and more so, free will - is finally scientifically understood, the resulting future scientific theory of origins and the religious/biblical view of origins will possibly merge even more.
The point is that in an infinite universe with the correct initial ingredients and laws the evolution of the purely physical aspect of humanity is inevitable. The question is:
Was there really sufficient time
Do the laws really permit it
Is there something about what we call life that is not purley physical
Etc
People somehow expect that science should already have all the answers. It does not. Evolutionary theory is still very young. In a few hundred years science will presumably know a lot more about it. We do not yet know the mechanisms whereby evolution takes place etc, and so we do not know how to compute the probabilities, we also do not yet know how many planets there are rtc and therefore we do not know whether or not it is reasonable that somewhere in the univers elife should evolve.. We also do not know yet enough about chaos and attractors and their possible role in guiding evolutionary processes, and other possible mechanisms which would do so, let alone re consciousness etc.
Evolutionary theory is a MODEL, an ATTEMPT to find a naturalistic answer, a mechanism which perhaps could have given rise to what we see about us. Whether or not it actually happened in that way it is too early to tell.
………………
..
Quantum Kabbalah and the Instant Universe:
"And God Said, 'Let there have been a Big Bang' ” [1]
Avi Rabinowitz
Preface: This article looks at some of the essential content of the creation and Eden accounts from within the Biblical perspective, discussing two types of consistency. One is an internal type of consistency, namely the consistency of these Biblical accounts with various issues related to religion and metaphysics, specifically, with the problem of evil, existential angst and the unfairness of the burden of moral responsibility. Another is the consistency - still from within the Biblical perspective - of the Biblical and scientific creation accounts.
Part I: Introduction
The position taken here is that to a large degree both the scientific and Biblical origin accounts follow logically from their fundamental assumptions and that given the difference between their assumptions about the nature of things, it is only to be expected that they arrive at different conclusions regarding the origin of the universe.
Science is a programmatic attempt to find naturalistic explanations based on cause and effect for all objectively observable phenomena. Science - as opposed to atheism - does not claim there is no God, nor does it assume there is no God directing events, it is merely an attempt to arrive at non-supernatural explanations – 'laws' - for everything, and to find mathematical formulations of these explanations. Specifically, regarding the origin of the universe: even from the scientific perspective the question of whether or not there is a God who designed the laws of nature and created the universe is one for people to address individually - the issue has nothing to do with science. Science simply presents an origin theory based on its attempt to find naturalistic explanations for the existence and development of the universe and of humanity. Obviously if one seeks naturalistic explanations one will not suddenly find God popping up in the equations. The fact that one can arrive at convincing scientific theories is very impressive, but it does not prove that there is no God, nor does science claim that it does, it only proves that the scientific endeavor has succeeded in its task of finding convincing naturalistic explanations for many phenomena. Science does not claim or assume there is or is no God, it only seeks to find explanations which do not require invoking God.
In contrast, religion assumes the existence of a God, and seeks explanations which derive from this assumption. In particular, the Bible sets out a picture of a universe designed and created by an all-powerful being, created for a purpose, and where that purpose includes the existence of humanity, and humanity's moral activity. The Bible (at least in the Jewish Traditional understanding of it) does not claim there are no other types of explanations for things, and does not assume or teach that scientific inquiries will lead no where, it simply tells of a special creation of the universe and of humanity, and tells of various revelations and miracles which occur outside the realm of ordinary cause and effect.
The great majority of philosophers and scientists would likely agree that neither atheism nor religion can be proved and therefore that one can conclude that the fundamental assumptions each makes are equally 'valid'. Our point of view is therefore that, regarding the origin accounts of science and the Bible, as the assumptions of one system are not provable within the realm of the other, and the programs of each are totally different, the validity of one of these accounts should not be considered as negating the validity of the other; they can both be valid, in the sense that both follow logically from fundamental assumptions which are themselves equally unimpeachable.
Whether or not the scientific origin theory is considered true by a religious person, it can be appreciated as a theory which logically follows from its axioms, and so too we wish to indicate why even to someone who does not believe in the Bible the picture of creation it offers can be appreciated as one which (at least to some degree) follows 'logically' from its assumptions.
That the scientific origin theory indeed follows from its assumptions and method can be readily seen by those who study it. Here we will attempt to see how central elements of the traditional understanding of the origins of existence can be seen to follow from its fundamental assumptions, namely the Biblical conception of the purposive creation of a universe containing a free-willed moral consciousness.
In addition, from our understanding of the Traditional Jewish perspective not only is there no logical dissonance in accepting the validity of both approaches, but the scientific origin theory could be considered as one of the ways of describing God’s creation of the universe and therefore as one of the traditional "70 facets" of the Creation account.
Everything in a system follows from its axioms: Einstein, who used the term 'God' somewhat differently than Biblical religion would, wrote: “I want to know how God created the universe. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon…I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.”[1] This is not to mean that Einstein believed in a conscious being – God – who created the universe as an act of will, as laid out in Genesis. What it does mean is that Einstein believed that given the fundamentals about the universe one could deduce the details, and it is these fundamentals which are the essential. Below we apply this concept also to the religious view of creation.
Specifically, we wish to show that to some degree the details of creation as recounted in Genesis follow from the underlying principles about the universe related there. Tradition - comprising not only the Genesis creation account but also its interpretation in the Talmud, the Kabbalah, and other sources - teaches us about the method and procedure of the creation of the universe, as well as about God’s program or purpose for creation. Combining various traditional sources we can suggest the following as "the Torah’s creation axiom": In a free-willed act an all-powerful being designed and created a natural universe containing entities morally responsible for their choices.
What follows if one accepts this ‘axiom’? Can we intuit[2] a model for the design and creation of the universe? How would this model relate to the traditional account of creation and to the origin theories of science? To paraphrase Einstein, if we know why God created the universe, God's fundamental thoughts, does the rest, the details, follow from them?
Part II: The Biblical Creation Account and Metaphysical/Religious Concerns
The Common Ground of Science and Genesis: Charles Darwin wrote: “Another source of conviction in the existence of God….follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man …as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man…. [3]
Humans exist now, but scientific research indicates they, and life in general, did not always exist on this planet. The scientific quest for human origins therefore seeks a model which allows for life arising where there previously had been none, basically to account for the emergence of humans from the inorganic (“the dust of the earth”) solely via the laws of nature. The theory of the big bang[4] coupled with that of evolution provides a scientifically satisfying hypothetical model for this.[5] Science does not deal with that which cannot be objectively and universally observed by scientists, and so does not deal with the soul. Consequently, the inability of the present-day scientific theories to account for the soul is not necessarily scientifically relevant.[6] Analogously, since science does not concern itself with whether or not the origin of existence and of the laws of nature lies in a creator or not, the thesis of Divine Creation does not compete with it.[7]
From both the scientific and biblical points of view, Genesis can in the above context be read as describing God’s infusion of a soul—and perhaps a mind as well—into a humanoid emerging from “the dust of the earth,” as detailed by evolutionary theory, in a universe which developed from a big bang created by God.
What is the Intent of the Creation Accounts in Genesis?
To some people the essence of the creation accounts is the 7 days of creation, or the order in which specific entities were created, or the amount of time that seemingly lapsed between the creation of the universe and the emergence of humanity (5 days) or the fact that Adam ate forbidden fruit from a tree in Eden which gave him the ability to distinguish good from evil. To this writer in contrast, the essence is a totally different set of teachings: the fundamental teachings being that the universe originated in a purposive creation by an all-powerful Being; that the universe is the product of very careful design, with 'quality control' at every step; the idea of humanity as a culmination of the creation process; and the concept of the emergence of free-willed choice and moral responsibility in a universe which up until that point lacked beings capable of comprehending the difference between good and evil and acting freely to choose one over the other. In addition, there is the theme of existential loneliness, the relationship of men and women, of humans and God and other aspects fundamental to our existence such as the burden of moral responsibility. On the other hand much of the details are allegories, pointing to deep and hidden mysteries but not meant literally – including the idea of the 7 days and the alleged implied age of the universe (it is not specified ever) and the idea of a Tree of Knowledge and a talking snake and so on.
We wish to show in what way some of these essential aspects of the creation accounts make sense within their context, and how they follow from the fundamental assumptions inherent in the accounts. To a large degree the key concept will be free will.
Free Will: In order for the created entities to be morally responsible for their actions they must possess a certain order of intelligence, an intrinsically free-willed consciousness, and a moral sense. Charles Darwin wrote in The Descent of Man:[8] "I fully subscribe to the judgment of those writers who maintain that of all the differences between men and the lower animals, the moral sense or conscience is the most important."
Free-willed consciousness and the moral sense distinguish humanity from the animals. However, according to the scientific view, mind is no less subject to natural law than is for example a software program, and therefore all our thoughts and emotion, beliefs and decisions derive from deterministic or random processes. Only a free will which is somehow above the ordinary laws of nature can make human free-willed decisions significant from the perspective of the creator: from the perspective of Genesis, in this sense humans were created 'in the image of God'.[9]
Free Will and Kabbalah: The traditional understanding of the metaphysical/spiritual aspects of the creation process may be seen (ex post facto) as following from the traditional conception of its purpose, i.e., the creation of free-willed moral beings. In order to make the free-willed actions of these ‘moral beings’ truly independent of the will of their designer-and-creator, we intuit a sacrifice of the sovereignty of the Creator’s Will, a withdrawal and narrowing of its exclusivity.
This parallels God’s tsimtsum (contraction) before Creation, as described by the Kabbalah.
We can intuit[2] that in order for the Creator to bring an additional independent consciousness into existence, the pre-existent unity had to be shattered. This parallels the traditional mystical concept of shvirat ha’kelim, the breaking of the vessels.
Free Will & Morality, Fairness & the Burden of Existence: So that it will be morally responsible for its actions, the created being is given a share of the Creator’s free will - the attribute that underlies Creation itself.[10] In biblical terms, humans were created “in the image of God”[11] with some infusion of the Divine during the Creation process: “And God breathed into man the spirit of life”[12].
As it is not fair to create an entity burdened by existence, and plagued by suffering, it makes sense to create the being in an idyllic environment (the Garden of Eden) to gain its retroactive acquiescence to having been created. It is similarly unfair to impose the obligation of moral responsibility on a being that did not choose it. The being could reject its moral responsibility by claiming that it had not chosen to be faced with moral dilemmas.
A situation can therefore be arranged whereby the being itself chooses whether or not to bear the burden of moral responsibility. The Creator forbids the assumption of this burden, so that the responsibility of the choice becomes that of the chooser alone.[13]
With the assumption of moral responsibility and the acquisition of free-willed consciousness, purposive history can begin.
Part III: The Scientific and Biblical Origin Accounts
In the above, we were concerned more with the internal consistency of the creation accounts – relating their essential content to the religious and spiritual issues which arise in the context of a created universe. In the below we will address some issues related to the different pictures of the universe presented in the scientific and Biblical creation accounts. We'll assume the essentials of both, namely that the universe emerged from a big bang as described by science, but that it was designed and created by God.
Designing the Big Bang: God’s Choice: Which parameters of the universe were chosen to allow for the fulfillment of the Divine purpose in Creation? Is ours the only type of universe and laws of nature that could exist?
Albert Einstein, though he didn’t really believe in a Creator, wrote: “What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world” —.[14]
According to scientific origin theory, our universe emerged from a big bang, but it could not be just any big bang, since only a very specific type of big bang would lead to our universe, for example one with human beings. This is what Einstein meant, since the universe is of a very specific type, could it have been produced by only one very specific set of natural laws and initial conditions at the big bang, or could several different sets of laws and conditions produced it.
Similarly, from the Biblical perspective, since a central purpose of the created being is its exercise of free-willed moral choice, the universe would have to be designed to contain morally meaningful situations and dilemmas. If God created the universe via a big bang, the design for the big bang would have to be carefully worked out in advance [15] and must be based on the opportunities of moral choice that the Creator desires the being to eventually face.[16][2]
Creating the blueprint of the universe: We can match aspects of the traditional conception of the universe’s purpose to resulting elements of the physical creation procedure.
If, as stated above, it is the eventual human moral challenges that prescribe the universal blueprint, and if it is the Torah that prescribes these moral challenges, then it is the Torah that sets the parameters for the design of the universe and humanity. As the Midrash says, “God looked into the Torah and created the universe.”[17]
Only after assembling a complete picture of a moral being and an appropriate universe could there begin the design of the big bang and laws of nature leading to their emergence.
According to this scenario, the process of Creation began not with the big bang but rather with the prior idea to create a being with moral responsibility, and a mental conception of this moral being and of the universe it would inhabit. Prior to physical creation it would be necessary to mentally assemble the desired main ingredients of the universe until everything necessary to produce a moral being has been obtained. The blueprint of the universe is created one stage at a time. A new stage is initiated after the previous stage is seen to fit into the whole—“God saw … that it was good”[18]—until the end product is reached. A being is created in the Divine image and is integrated into the rest of the Creation—“God saw … that all … was very good.”[19]
A description of this creation could then consist of an account of the creation either of the universe itself or of the blueprint of the universe, which is completed with the design of humanity.[20] Given the entire functioning integrated blueprint of a universe containing moral beings, a big bang could then be designed and programmed to teleologically produce them.[21]
The First Moment, from the Teleological Perspective: With the design of the big bang ready, its creation can be initiated. Until the emergence of a free-willed intelligent being from this teleological designed big bang, however, everything that occurs is preprogrammed, an acting out of the mechanistic laws of nature. To a designer of the universe and its laws this would be as interesting as a watchmaker watching the hands of a clock for a few billion years, albeit with some quantum randomness thrown in ; perhaps more interesting than watching a clock - it's as interesting as watching the wash cycle of a washing machine with a cycle incorporating some random jumps and jerks, for billions of years. The activity which would be (in an admittedly anthropomorphic view) truly “interesting” even to God, the events which are neither determined nor random, begins only with the onset of moral choice. Only then the purpose of the universe can begin to unfold.[22] In the teleological sense, Creation is completed not with the emergence of the big bang but rather fifteen billion years later when the first intelligent moral being emerges and decides to accept the burden of moral responsibility for its actions.
The Instant Retroactive Universe: Assuming that as related in the Bible the universe is created by a being for a purpose. Would the creation of a big bang be the most reasonable method of creation of such a purposive universe? Creation of a big bang involves a delay of billions of years until the free-willed being evolves and the desired moral activity begins. It would seem that the more reasonable [2] procedure would be the creation of the universe at the stage of the emergence of a free-willed human being. This would juxtapose the creation of the universe with the choice of the burden of the knowledge of good and evil.
This could be accomplished, for example, by a Divine mental extrapolation of the big bang conditions (mental “fast-forwarding”) up to the moral stage of the universe, followed by actual creation at that point. In this sense the reasonable creation method is the creation of an “instant universe” at the moral stage. Thus, paradoxically, the physical creation of the big-bang-emergent universe actually occurs not at the big bang but with the emergence of the first moral being.[23]
This radical idea that the universe begins its physical existence only with the emergence of a moral being interestingly finds support and parallel in a suggestion of quantum metaphysics that at any given instant a physical event can emerge from a quantum non-fully-real state into true physical reality only upon the observation of a conscious being. By extension the entire universe, composed as it is of individual events, can also only emerge from a quantum non-fully-real state into true physical reality only upon the observation emergence within it of a conscious being. Indeed, as eminent physicist John A. Wheeler states, the emergence of a conscious being retroactively causes the emergence into reality of the big bang itself![24] [LINK TO: Further detail about this topic]
According to our thesis, it is only a free-willed moral consciousness rather than consciousness alone which can accomplish all this, and thus by application of Wheeler's idea, we could say that the emergence of a conscious being retroactively causes the emergence into reality of the big bang itself [LINK TO: Further detail about this topic]. Thus in Genesis, the universe is designed as detailed in the '6 days of creation' account, and emerges into existence with the emergence of the first free-willed activity, detailed in the Garden of Eden account.
What Is the First Stage of Creation: the Big Bang or the Emergence of Adam?: As stated previously, for a purposive universe created as an “instant universe” the first stage of real existence is when purposive activity begins, so that the initial point is not the big bang but rather the emergence of free-willed consciousness capable of moral choice. There is another reason why a purposive universe of this sort would be considered as beginning at the moral stage rather than at the big bang. Since there are many quantum paths along which the universe could develop, including many paths not leading to the emergence of life or to moral beings, in order to have the universe fulfill its design it is necessary to guide the development of the big bang along a path leading to the emergence of the desired free-willed being. In this case the emergence of a moral being is the last stage of direct Divine intervention in developing the universe and hence the last stage of Creation and the first stage of the ‘natural’ existence of the universe. Thus, even in a universe physically starting with a big bang, it is the emergence of the moral being rather than the big bang that is the first stage of independent existence.
From the point of view of the Creator, and in the context of a teleological oriented creation account, the emergence of a moral being crowns creation. Thus, from the points of view of quantum randomness, quantum metaphysics, and teleology, the emergence of a conscious being—not the emergence of the big bang—is the first stage of the universe.
The age of the universe may be considered from various perspectives:
The non-physical teleological perspective: The universe originates with God’s decision to create or to plan its blueprint, when time did not exist, and so the age of the universe is not defined.
The physical teleological perspective: The universe begins with the emergence of a newly created instant universe containing a moral being; evolutionary anthropology places the emergence of such a being probably not more than 100,000 years ago, and this is therefore also the maximal physical age of the universe.
The quantum metaphysical perspective: The universe emerges at the moral stage, but retroactively from the big bang, so that at the moral stage the universe has no clearly defined age.
The conventional scientific perspective: The universe begins with the big bang. At the stage of containing moral beings it is approximately fifteen billion years old.
In describing the creation of a complete universe at the moral stage, a creation account written from the teleological or quantum metaphysical perspective might imply simultaneity of the emergence of human free-willed consciousness with the completion of the creation of the universe or of its blueprint. This provides a motivation for the juxtaposition of the creation and Eden accounts in Genesis [25].
The Instant Evolutionary Universe: Neither Wasteful nor Cruel: Evolutionary advance is achieved by competition for survival, selection of the fittest via predatory and environmental extinction, fatal biological defects, and so on. The evolutionary path is littered with corpses and suffused with suffering. The emergence of humanity is achieved at the very heavy price of the sufferings of untold numbers of creatures losing their struggle to survive to those more fit than they. Billions of “unsuccessful” mutations, many of them horribly deformed animals unable to survive; billions and billions and billions of small organisms, insects, animals, and even primitive humanoids devoured by predators, killed by natural disasters or birth defects strew the evolutionary path. It is not comfortable to contemplate the total genocide of our ancestors’ competitors, the Neanderthalers. The path of “nature red in tooth and claw” (in the words of Alfred, Lord Tennyson) leading to the emergence of humans strongly disturbed Darwin. Furthermore, the horrible evolutionary scenario of millions of years of catastrophic changes and evolutionary struggle was considered by many too clumsy to have been the creation of an all-powerful God and too evil to be the creation of a compassionate God.
In the instant universe scenario, however, these two objectionable features of evolution—that it is too clumsy and evil—disappear, at least in the period leading up to the emergence of humanity. Evolution in the context of an instant universe is not a violence-drenched process. The entire process leading up to the emergence of moral man takes place only in potentiality, in the ‘mind’ of God, as the working out of a process implied by the laws of nature and the initial conditions. Actual reality begins only with the emergence of moral man.
The evolutionary process according to this scenario is certainly not a clumsy method of producing human beings. Instead, the pre-moral stage ‘evolutionary process’ is merely the logically-consistent theory which underlies the emergence of man in a ‘natural’ physical universe. In actuality, however, the emergence of humans took place in a most elegant, clever, and direct manner—as the initial stage of an instant universe.
Laws of Nature: “And God Rested”: Why create a big bang universe, with its billions of galaxies and myriad plant and animal species? Why not create moral beings in a small universe centered on them?
Many people have speculated on the seeming hiddeness of God. Explanations include the necessity to protect the freedom of, and give meaning to, moral choice. Why bother creating a small human-centered universe for the purpose of moral confrontation if free will is compromised by the obviousness of God’s presence? There are also aesthetic reasons for the creation of a complete big-bang emergent ‘natural’ universe rather than a small ‘special’ universe. Constant intervention can be reduced by designing ‘laws of nature’ to allow the universe to be self-operating.[26] For self-operation and regularity there must be consistency and coordination within the entire universe. For this to be the case, there has to be a unifying factor. An elegant method of finding this common denominator is to find an entity which, unified in itself, could give rise to the desired universe. The big bang together with the laws of nature is such an entity.
MESH:
In addition, when the evolutionary process is seen as the “computational device,” which it is in the instant universe scenario, it can be seen in all its elegance. Evolution by random mutation in this sense is a self-improving program. It is a very simple yet efficient algorithm, used to run the ‘computer simulation’ leading up to the evolution of ever more complex creatures.
Similarly, the big bang theory is a beautifully simple algorithm for generating the blueprint of an extremely complex universe. Given the design of the intended moral being, the big bang generates a complex universe of billions of galaxies containing billions of stars, with billions of life forms containing billions of cells. All that is created is a singularity or big bang, operating according to one unified universal law in a four-(or perhaps higher) dimensional space-time, and the rest takes care of itself. By ‘mentally extrapolating’ this ‘algorithm,’ God obtains very simply a complete description of a totally self-consistent complex universe and uses this description to create an actual universe at the moral stage without any “red in tooth and claw” physical evolution.
When this big bang evolves or is extrapolated forward to produce later stages of the universe, all these eventual states are inherently regular and synchronized since all is derived from one entity. Everything within the resulting universe operates according to the laws of nature, and the desired moral stage of the universe eventually emerges, this time as a unified self-consistently-operating state of a ‘natural’ universe. It is a universe where humanity seems to arise as the result of natural selection, but where the evolution and selection is part of the Divine plan. As stated in the closing paragraph of Darwin’s The Origin of Species:[27]
Thus from the war of Nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Conclusion: As we have seen, in some sense our axiom suggested at the outset intuitively implies the central features of the traditional model of Creation. In this model Creation proceeds as described by tradition, and its physical development occurs as outlined by science.
From the teleological perspective, the first stage in Creation is to draw up the blueprint of both the desired type of moral being and the desired type of universe at the stage of the emergence of moral beings. Then comes a backwards extrapolation of the moral stage universe blueprint to find the right type of big bang to lead up to this stage.
After the design of the big bang from the specifications of the moral being and a universe that can support moral choice, the resultant ‘teleo-derived big bang’ is mentally extrapolated to the future along all quantumly-possible paths of future development. Each possible path ends either in the emergence of a moral being, whose exercise of free will introduces non-predictability and therefore stops the extrapolation—or results in the end of the universe without the emergence of a moral being.
After extrapolation to the moral stage, the universe is ‘created in potential.’ In the quantum metaphysical sense this might be through a collapse of the wave function caused by the Creator’s consciousness observing the universe. “God saw it was all very good.” From the human perspective, the universe is brought into physical (human) reality by the created moral being’s exercise of free-willed consciousness and its existential awareness of the external universe, and of itself, as separate entities.
From among all the possible (potential) moral universes at the pre-moral stage, one is selected—the best one for fulfilling the purpose of Creation. “God saw all that He had created, and it was very good.”
In the instant retroactive universe everything proceeds in the most direct, logical, and aesthetic way. The Creator can withhold direct intervention after the ‘laws of nature’ take over upon the emergence of a moral being. “And [all] the Heavens and the Earth were complete….and God…rested”[28]
Consequently, a natural-law-obeying fifteen-billion-year-old instant universe emerges into physical reality unfolded from a moral-stage-teleoderived big bang. To paraphrase Genesis: And God said, “Let there have been a big bang.” And it was so.
………………
For Further Reading: The above paper is a much-condensed excerpt from the author’s book The Instant Universe,*[see related material on website] written while the author was in graduate school in the mid-80s, and which circulated widely in manuscript form since that time.
………………
More Detail regarding Quantum Physics, Measurement, Consciousness and Free Will
For the interested reader
Probabilistic Determinism
Prior to the advent of quantum physics, scientists and philosophers believed that every event in the universe occurred as an inevitable and necessary result of previous events.
Quantum physics, introduced at the beginning of the twentieth century, brought with it a drastic change in this viewpoint. Each event was now understood to be able to occur in a number of ways, with the actual way that it does occur left to “chance.” Despite the fact that chance “ruled” each individual event, however, when numerous similar events occurred, the pattern that emerged resembled the results one would have expected using pre-quantum physics. One could say that "determinism" was replaced by "probabilistically determined randomness" (we'll abbreviate this as: PDR).
Reality and measurement
The mathematical description of a quantum system has it being in all possible states simultaneously—a “superposition of states.” However, of course when we look about us we always see unique states
There is somehow a significant difference between the supposed mathematical description of what we see and what we actually see.
Whether the event we are seeing is via our visual system directly, or is what we see when we look at a machine measuring the state of some event, we will call this 'measurement'. Either way, what we see (a specific state) is very different from what the mathematics tells us (a superposition of many states).
Prior to measurement one truly cannot attribute a unique “physically real” state to a system (for example a particle) even in theory—it is in a superposition state..
Thus, if we take very seriously the correspondence of the mathematical description of the physical state and the physical state itself, since the mathematical description changes abruptly from before the measurement to after, we conclude that there is a vast difference between the physical system prior to measurement—it is in a superposition of all possible states—and after measurement, when it is in a unique state.
The equations in physics map mathematically the events in the physical world, and the math in quantum physics is very capable of handling this mapping all the time until the system is measured and all the time after the measurement, the mapping gives rise to correct predictions, but there is no apparent physical reason to insert something into the math which would transform one set of equations (the pre-measurement ones) into the other (the post-measurement ones), except the act of measurement itself, and so one is forced to conclude that for some reason the act of measurement itself causes this drastic change. Since the pre-measurement superposition is described by a mathematical wave function of probabilities of values and the post-measurement description is not a wave function, nor any collection of values but a specific value, this transformation is sometimes called “the collapse of the wave function", in some sense it 'collapses' from probabilities into unique reality.
The probability aspect is not a matter of ignorance, but is ontological. Prior to its measurement, an event can occur in a number of ways and actually does so in some sense. Without measuring the state of a particle, we cannot say, “It is in some particular state, which is, however, as yet unknown to us.” It is not in some particular state. Instead, it is (in some sense) simultaneously in all the possible states in which it can be. Our observations about us are measurements, and we therefore always see unique states, not superpositions. However after measurement is made, and the particle is found to be in a particular state, experiments have indicated (that given certain reasonable-seeming assumptions about the universe) that it is physically untrue that the particle was in that state all the time - it had no definite state until one measured it.
[According to the philosophy of quantum physics, actual physical reality can exist (in the scientific meaning of the term existence) only as a result of measurement. When not being measured, any system –an atom or a rock or the universe as a whole - is in a quasi-real state amenable to description only in terms of probabilities and not unequivocal facts.]
This surprising - even bewildering - idea that events can emerge into reality only as a result of its measurement is in a way trite and in a way radical. It is trite in the sense that for a at least two centuries philosophers such as Berkeley and the positivists have explored the idea that reality is only set by our consciousness of it, because we can perceive things through the senses. It is radical, however, in that this result has now been achieved by physics. Therefore, what is true in the realm of words and ideas has been shown by physics to be true of physical reality as well: the actual thing itself is not set until it is measured.
Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment has shown that measurement can even in some sense retroactively affect an outcome.
The Role of Consciousness
What is the active factor in a measurement which causes this emergence into reality?
Some eminent physicists have proposed that it is only measurement performed by a conscious being which can transform the quasi-real state into a fully physical real state. The great mathematician and theoretical physicist John Von Neumann, who provided a rigorous mathematical foundation for quantum mechanics, believed that only a human consciousness can collapse the wave function. The eminent Nobel prize-winning physicist Eugene Wigner writes: It follows that the quantum description of objects is influenced by impressions entering my consciousness….It follows that the being with a consciousness must have a different role in quantum mechanics than the inanimate measuring device.
The Universe as a Whole.
The state of the universe at any one instant was believed to be totally determined by the states of the universe in the past, and in turn the present state totally determined what all future states of the universe would be. However, the universe as a whole is also a system of physical entities, and therefore quantum physics teaches that its state is also a superposition until measured. Our measurement forces the universe to assume one definite state from among all the possibility-states it is in prior to the measurement.
The universe, or any subsystem of it, is capable of being in two (or more) mutually contradictory states simultaneously. Saying that the universe is uniquely in one state is just as invalid as saying that it is in the other state. A measurement forces the universe into an unambiguous state. After that, only one becomes correct. However, this does not imply that it was always the correct one; there was no “correct” state until the measurement was made.
The Role of conscious observers in the universe's emergence into existence
One can apply the conclusions about events in the universe to the entirety of the universe as a whole. The famous physicist John Wheeler once speculated that the entire universe can emerge into true physical existence only via the observation of a consciousness. He wrote:
[Perhaps] no universe at all could come into being unless it were guaranteed to produce life, consciousness and observership somewhere and for some little length of time in its history-to-be?…
..the observer is as essential to the creation of the universe as the universe is to the creation of the observer….
…the universe would be nothing without observership, as surely as a motor would be dead without electricity….
…is observership the “electricity” that powers genesis?…
“….observership” allows and enforces a transcendence of the usual order in time….
Thus, according to this “quantum metaphysics,” a consciousness is indispensable to the universe if it is to emerge into reality. Physical reality can be said to exist only as a result of our presence within it or, more precisely, as a result of our perception of it.
Wheeler has constructed a fascinating diagram to illustrate this concept (see Figure 7-1). Explaining the diagram, he writes: “Beginning with the big bang, the universe expands and cools. After eons of dynamic development it gives rise to observership. Acts of observer-participancy in turn give tangible reality to the universe not only now but back to the beginning.”
Free-willed-consciousness and the Collapse: We propose that it is free will which underlies this property of consciousness, and so only a truly free-willed consciousness rather than just a generic consciousness could 'collapse the universal quantum wave function'.
A free-willed decision, in order to be truly free, has to be unconstrained by the laws of nature and not determined by any physical phenomena. Hence free will must be neither the result of deterministic processes, nor the result of random processes occurring in accordance with the natural order of phenomena. Hence if the universe contains a free will, this free will must operate via interactions which transcend both the determinism of classical physics and the randomness of quantum physics. Free will is then unique in this respect.
[If some entity exists which can collapse the quantum wave function, then this author proposes that it is reasonable to postulate that this entity has to be a free will, since, as we just discussed, only free will transcends quantum randomness, as it transcends nature in general.]
Since a consciousness can affect physicality only if it has a free will, and a free will is by definition unthinkable without a consciousness, we will assume in the course of further discussion that free will subsumes within itself the concept of consciousness.
The role of free willed conscious observers in the universe's emergence into existence
According to our speculation, the consciousness which 'collapses the quantum wave function' possibly must operate in a non-quantum fashion, or a quantum-transcendent manner, in order to do so. If there is such non-quantum factor in the universe, the best candidate is true free will. Thus, combining Wheeler's speculations about consciousness collapsing the universal wave function with our own speculation that free will is the active ingredient, and, we postulate that it is the presence of a free-willed, conscious being which enables the universe to emerge into reality.
The Spiritual and the Physical: From the Biblical perspective, the true reality is the spiritual one. The physical is in existence only to serve the spiritual. The entire physical universe is an artifact created by God. Humans are precisely crafted instruments designed to interact with the physical universe in ways which have the potential to achieve spiritual goals unattainable without the vehicle of the physical. Thus, the physical is of central importance, but only as a means: It can have sublime beauty and dignity, but only by virtue of its ability to achieve in the spiritual realm. Thus the human body, rather than being a hindrance to spirituality, is a potentially holy physical tool which can control the spiritual.
Indeed, every action/thought/word affects the spiritual cosmos, and the Jewish way of life as prescribed by the Torah is designed to resonate with the spiritual and to correctly utilize the physical order to elicit the fusion of ultimate spirituality with the physical. God is the Creator of the universe and of Humanity and designed the universe, humans and the way to complete each other, to complement one another, in a self-consistent optimum system. God communicated the method to humankind in the form of the Torah (Written and Oral), and then in capacity as Designer and Creator of this system, promised us that we are superbly qualified to successfully perform our role and attain our goal. More than this, we are told that since we are designed to be the best instrument to achieve this goal within the context of a physical universe, when we perform at optimum, we are a crucial element in the scheme of things and particularly-well suited to physical/spiritual interaction.
Since it is Humanity’s consciousness and free will which invest their choices with the possibility of meaning, it is therefore only free-willed consciousness which has the possibility of conducting reality-determining observation and measurement.
Applying the above ideas regarding qunatum metaphysics to the creation and Eden account in Genesis leads us to our central idea: the creation and Eden accounts are juxtaposed to underscore the relationship between the emergence of the universe (the creation account) and the emergence of free will (the Eden account) .
APPENDIX: Spiritual and Physical Reality.
According to Jewish thought, the true reality is the spiritual realm, the physical cosmos being God’s precision-crafted instrument for achieving spiritual goals. Indeed, the physical universe is a shadow of the spiritual world, the illusion perceived by limited beings in contact with the spiritual cosmos, but directly sensing and perceiving only its shadow. Human free-willed moral choice connects the two realms, and this moral activity gives meaning to the existence of the universe.
Thus, since the true reality of the universe is the spiritually meaningful aspect, it should not be surprising that the emergence of the universe into reality is so intimately bound up with the emergence of those beings who endow physicality of meaning. Furthermore, once this connection is understood, it is most appropriate that the very characteristics of humans which allow the emergence of the universe into reality (i.e., his free-willed consciousness) are the very same characteristics which endow it with meaning. We can thus see the fundamental interrelationship between meaning, purpose, free will, consciousness, and the very nature of reality (and how this is reflected in Creation).
Summary: We have seen that according to quantum (meta)physics, reality is established via the observation of a (free-willed) consciousness. In addition, we have shown that according to Jewish thought, free-willed choice gives the universe meaning and is thus the “motivation” for the very existence of the universe.
Nature by itself is powerless to achieve self-realization; humanity is required to bring both self and the universe into reality. Humans, alive and physical and yet spiritual as well, albeit limited and fallible—or perhaps because limited and fallible— are uniquely qualified, by virtue of possessing a free-willed consciousness, to determine the nature of physical and spiritual reality.
Complementary but not Contradictory Perspectives on Human Emergence.
As we have seen, quantum physics connects ontology (being) with epistemology (knowing), and quantum metaphysics postulates that the universe can emerge into true physical existence only when there are (free-willed) conscious beings in it. According to this scenario, Humanity is not a random product of the universe but is rather a necessary condition for the very existence of the universe. In addition, since the universe can emerge into true physical existence only when free-willed consciousness is present within it, there is no true physical reality to any time prior to its emergence. In the Torah, this first such free-willed conscious being (at least on Earth) is referred to as 'Adam', meaning 'human'.
Of course, other perspectives exist regarding the emergence of Humanity. However, these by definition relate to a time prior to the emergence of free-willed conscious individuals. According to the approach of quantum metaphysics explored here, this emergence takes place in a less-than-fully real superposition –of-quantum states-universe. And this perspective is not a contradiction to the Biblical one, it is complementary.
Given the differing fundamental assumptions underlying the two perspectives it is only to be expected that there will be differences between the descriptions each arrives at regarding the emergence of the first free-willed conscious being.
It is also inevitable that there will be stylistic differences in the type of description of the emergence of the universe which humans attribute to themselves and their own rational inquiry – for example the scientific origin theory - and an account of this emergence which they attribute to a prophetic revelation. In any case, whether or not creation and the emergence of human (or other)free willed moral choosing were indeed juxtaposed chronologically, there is some thematic justification for a creation account presented from the divine perspective of purposeful creation to describe creation in this way.
Complementarity vs Contradiction: The perspectives of science and biblical religion are very different, and lead to different conclusions regarding the emergence of the universe and of humanity. However, besides the parallels between then drawn as indicated above, quantum physics on its own indicates as well how two perspectives and their respective conclusion are not necessarily contradictory even though they differ greatly.
………………
Related works from the author available on this website:
1) A Garden of Edens, which presents a compendium of the methods employed over the past two thousand years to ‘reconcile’ Genesis with contemporary origin theories.
2) The Retroactive Universe, which investigates the emergence of free-willed consciousness from the biblical and scientific perspectives, and explores the philosophical and cosmological implications of the existence of true moral responsibility.
3) *soon-to-be-available: Einstein’s Blunder and the God Who Plays Dice, the author explores the moral philosophy of Albert Einstein, and the connection between moral responsibility and free will.
4) Miday Abir,* in English and Hebrew: a collection of the author's comments on biblical passages and narratives. The sections on Genesis contain material relevant to the subject of this article.
5) *soon-to-be-available: Excerpts from Warped Spacetime, Wormholes and the Big Bang. A textbook, essentially an introduction to general relativity and cosmology, which uniquely presents heuristic derivations and solutions of the Einstein equations at a level accessible to those who have taken the standard calculus-based college physics course. Applications are given to cosmology, which allow for a deeper appreciation of the big bang theory discussed in the article above.
Publishing history of this article: The original version of this paper was submitted to B’Or Ha’Torah in 1986, and the manuscript is referred to in several of Dr. Rabinowitz’s publications from that period: “Geocentrism” in B’Or Ha’Torah 6E (1987); “The Role of the Observer in Halakhah and Quantum Physics” in B’Or Ha’Torah 6H (1988), which is the Hebrew version of the English paper that appeared in Science in the Light of the Torah H. Branover and I. Attia, eds. (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1994).
The essential ideas underlying this book were presented by the author in various forums over the years; in lectures, at conferences, in correspondence, and private conversations; starting in the mid to late 1980’s several versions of the manuscripts were read by scholars as reviewers, some of whom also made useful comments, and copies were donated to the libraries of various Yeshivot for English-speakers in Jerusalem.
…………........
[1] Cited in Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times (World Publishing Company, 1971) p. 19. Clark quotes
Esther Salaman in “A Talk with Einstein” in The Listener (8 Sep 1955).
[2] Intuition, tainted by anthropomorphic reasoning and guided by hindsight, and therefore admittedly a post-hoc argument.
[3] Cited in Neal C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1979) p. 141. According to Gillespie, this citation is from Darwin’s autobiography (Francis Darwin, ed.),
Autobiography of Charles Darwin and Selected Letters. This book was issued by W.W. Norton in 1993 as The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882 (Nora Barlow, ed.).
[4] Cosmology and astrophysics are required for theories of the emergence of life, e.g., the atoms in our bodies originate in the hearts of stars which later exploded.
[5] For excellent presentations of the logic behind evolutionary theory see, e.g., The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable and other books by Richard Dawkins. Cf the writings of Stephen J. Gould.
[6] Science also does not as yet deal even with mind (as opposed to brain, which is heavily studied).
[7] occasional interventions by God into the physical universe such as miracles, or subtle (but far-reaching in effect) divine interventions in the path of evolution. are not the concern of science.
[8] Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (Prometheus Books, 1997) p. 70. Available online at http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man
[9] See for example Sforno on “kidmusenu” (“after our likeness”).
[10] For discussions of the interrelationships between free will, creativity, quantum physics, complexity, consciousness, Creation, and scientific cosmology, see my manuscript The Retroactive Universe.
[11] Genesis 1:27.
[12] Genesis 2:7.
[13] Genesis 2:16-17.
[14] According to Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler’s Gravitation, Einstein said, “What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world” to an assistant. The reference they provide is a book review by G. Holton of Ronald W. Clark’s Einstein: The Life and Times that appeared in the New York Times, 5 Sep 1971. p.20. (DELETE??!: Holton wrote a lot about Einstein and presumably inserted this quote into his review.) Note that Einstein meant by "God" something rather different than what Biblical religionists mean by the term.
[15] See Paul Davies, The Mind of God (Simon & Schuster Touchstone, 1992) for interesting discussions on related topics.
[16] This may be seen as a version of the Anthropic Principle in cosmology.
[17] Genesis Rabba 1:1. The midrash says that we know this because the first word of Genesis, breisheet = with reisheet = with the Torah, which is called “reisheet.”
[18] Genesis 1:3, 10, 12, 17, 21, 25.
[19] Genesis 1:31.
[20] According to tradition, the Creation account contains the whole Torah; and, “God looked into the [Creation account of] the Torah and created the universe.” The Creation account is paradoxically both the blueprint of Creation and the description of the Creation from that blueprint. Fittingly, it ends with the onset of Shabbat, which paradoxically, while it is part of the purpose of Creation and therefore ‘logically prior’ to the onset of Creation, is also the commemoration of the completion of Creation, and therefore ‘chronologically after’ the cessation of Creation.
[21] Moral beings seem a late development of the big bang, but the true order is reversed: They are the first stage of the big bang’s design. As in Alkabetz’s Shabbat hymn “Lkha Dodi” in which Shabbat, which is seemingly the final act of Creation, is teleologically primary to it: “That which was last in execution [of Creation, i.e., the Shabbat] was first in intention.”
See also Genesis Rabba 10:9 and the commentary of Radal. By resting on Shabbat, God places the universe in its natural-law operating mode. This is simultaneous with and caused or allowed by the emergence of moral consciousness.
[22] See my book The Retroactive Universe for a more thorough discussion.
[23] Both science and a literal reading of Genesis would place this event as occurring very recently, between five and one-hundred thousand years ago, rather than millions or billions of years ago.
[24] For an explanation of these points, see my book The Instant Universe or my papers “Free Will” in B’Or Ha’Torah 6E (1987) pp. 141-157; and with Herman Branover, “The Role of the Universe in Halakhah and Quantum Physics” in H. Branover and I. Attia, eds., Science in the Light of the Torah (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1994), especially Wheeler’s diagram on p. 79.
[25] Furthermore the OFTEN OVERLOOKED SECONDARY “CREATION ACCOUNT” of Genesis 2:4-9
“… on the day God made Earth and Heaven…… God formed man”
(—emphasis and ellipsis mine) imply Creation simultaneous with the emergence of Adam.
[26] A universe without natural law would dissolve into chaos. Stars and human bodies alike would lose their structural integrity. Natural law also allows regularity of operation so that moral beings could know the results of their actions and therefore be morally responsible for them.
[27] Charles Darwin, “The Origin of Species” chap. 15, last paragraph of the book. Available online at:
http://www.literature-web.net/book.php3/originofspecies
[28] Genesis 2:1-2.
:
See the related articlesThe Retroactive Universe: How the Emergence of "Moral Beings" (in other words Humans)Catalyzed the Emergence into Existence of the Universe Itself!Quantum Metaphysics and Adam
Einstein, Free Will, and Quantum Physics
Back to Science & Religion homepage
………………..
Notes to incorporate
Free-willed-consciousness in quantum physics and biblical belief: Human free-willed consciousness is essential to the purpose of the universe from two very different perspectives – those of quantum metaphysics and of biblical religion.
……
Free Will & Cosmology, the Bang and Adam
Insert diagram and caption from Wheeler
(quantum metaphysics indicates the possibility that the universe emerged into true physical existence only when there was a conscious observer in it).
We claim that the type of purpose which the Bible imputes to the universe could not commence until a free-willed being emerges, and so both quantum metaphysics and biblical religion require the beginning of the universe to be tied up with the emergence of a free-willed being, which in biblical terms is the Adam of the Eden account (Adam after eating from the 'Tree of Knowledge'). Thus it is reasonable both from the biblical and our quantum metaphysical perspective that the bible presents the creation of the universe juxtaposed to the emergence of Adam.
our reasons for supposing that for this purpose it is free will which is the essential ingredient of consciousness.
discussion of universal purpose from an anthropomorphic 'divine perspective'.
the cosmological significance of free will.
Conclusion: The creation/Eden accounts imply that the universe emerged into existence as part of a process in which the first free-willed beings emerge. This meshes well with both Wheeler's quantum metaphysical idea of the universal conscious observer, which we interpret as a free-willed observer, and also with the idea that from the divine perspective the onset of universal purpose, and therefore the most reasonable creation point, is at the emergence of free-willed beings.
…..
[1][1] This article is an abridged version of the author’s book The Instant Universe. And is an edited version of the article in B’OR HA’TORAH 13E (2002) pp.7-17
[2] There is no inherent conflict between the scientific origin theory, of the universe emerging from a big bang, and the Biblical idea of a God designing the big bang to produce free-willed beings. Atheistic philosophical conclusions often associated with scientific origin theory are a belief, and therefore are a form of religion rather than science, they are not truly part of the theory and should not be allowed to detract from an appreciation of the scientific theory itself.
…………….
AGAIN, similar version?
The Instant Universe:
And God Said, “Let there have been a Big Bang”1[1]
Avi Rabinowitz
from B’OR HA’TORAH 13E (2002) pp.7-17 [Lightly edited version]
We show how the scientific origin theory and the traditional origin accounts both follow from their respective implicit fundamental assumptions. We conclude that it is only to be expected that science and tradition arrive different conclusions regarding the origin of the universe.
As the assumptions of one system are not provable within the realm of the other, the validity of one of these accounts should not be considered as negating the validity of the other. Not only is there no logical dissonance in accepting the validity of both, but the scientific origin theory could be considered as one of the ways of describing God’s creation of the universe and therefore as one of the traditional 70 facets of the Creation account.
The atheistic philosophical conclusions associated with scientific origin theory are themselves a form of ‘religion’ rather than science; they are not truly part of the theory and should not be allowed to detract from an appreciation of the scientific theory itself.
Introduction
“I want to know how God created the universe. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon…I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” — Albert Einstein [see footnote 1]
Do the details of creation follow from the underlying thoughts of God? Tradition—comprising the Genesis Creation account, the Talmud, Kabbalah, and other sources—teaches us about the method and procedure of the creation of the universe, as well as about God’s program or purpose for creation. Combining various traditional sources we can suggest the following as the Torah’s creation axiom:
In a free-willed act an all-powerful being designed and created a natural universe containing entities morally responsible for their choices.
What follows if one accepts this ‘axiom’: can we intuit [footnote 2] a model for the design and creation of the universe? How would this model relate to the traditional account of creation and to the origin theories of science?
We will attempt to show how central elements of the traditional understanding of the origins of existence can be seen to follow from its conception of the purposive creation of a universe containing a free-willed moral consciousness.
The Common Ground of Science and Genesis
“Another source of conviction in the existence of God…follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man…as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man…” — Charles Darwin [3]
Humans exist now, but scientific research indicates they, and life in general, did not always exist on this planet. The scientific quest for human origins therefore seeks a model which allows for life arising where there previously had been none, basically to account for the emergence of humans from the inorganic (“the dust of the earth”) solely via the laws of nature. The theory of the big bang[4] coupled with that of evolution provides a scientifically satisfying hypothetical model for this.[5] Science does not deal with that which cannot be objectively and universally observed by scientists, and so does not deal with the soul. Consequently, the inability of the present-day scientific theories to account for the soul is not necessarily scientifically relevant.[6] Analogously, since science does not concern itself with whether or not the origin of existence and of the laws of nature lies in a creator or not, the thesis of Divine Creation does not compete with it.[7]
From both the scientific and biblical points of view, Genesis can in the above context be read as describing God’s infusion of a soul—and perhaps a mind as well—into a humanoid emerging from “the dust of the earth,” as detailed by evolutionary theory, in a universe which developed from a big bang created by God.
Free Will
In order for the created entities to be morally responsible for their actions they must possess a certain order of intelligence, an intrinsically free-willed consciousness, and a moral sense. Charles Darwin wrote in The Descent of Man:[8]
I fully subscribe to the judgment of those writers who maintain that of all the differences between men and the lower animals, the moral sense or conscience is the most important.
Free-willed consciousness and the moral sense distinguish humanity from the animals. In this sense humans were created in the image of God [9].
Designing the Cosmos
The traditional understanding of the metaphysical/spiritual aspects of the creation process may be seen (ex post facto) as following from the traditional conception of its purpose, i.e., the creation of free-willed moral beings. In order to make the free-willed actions of these ‘moral beings’ truly independent of the will of their designer-and-creator, we intuit a sacrifice of the sovereignty of the Creator’s Will, a withdrawal and narrowing of its exclusivity.
This parallels God’s tsimtsum (contraction) before Creation, as described by the Kabbala.
We can intuit [2] that in order for the Creator to bring an additional independent consciousness into existence, the pre-existent unity had to be shattered. This parallels the traditional mystical concept of shvirat ha’kelim, the breaking of the vessels.
So that it will be morally responsible for its actions, the created being is given a share of the Creator’s free will—the attribute that underlies Creation itself [10]. In biblical terms, humans were created “in the image of God”[11] with some infusion of the Divine during the Creation process: “And God breathed into man the spirit of life”[12].
As it is not fair to create an entity burdened by existence, it makes sense to create the being in an idyllic environment (the Garden of Eden) to gain its retroactive acquiescence to having been created. It is similarly unfair to impose the obligation of moral responsibility on a being that did not choose it. The being could reject its moral responsibility by claiming that it had not chosen to be faced with moral dilemmas.
A situation can therefore be arranged whereby the being itself chooses whether or not to bear the burden of moral responsibility. The Creator forbids the assumption of this burden, so that the responsibility of the choice becomes that of the chooser alone [13].
With the assumption of moral responsibility and the acquisition of free-willed consciousness, purposive history can begin.
Designing the Big Bang: God’s Choice
Which parameters of the universe were chosen to allow for the fulfillment of the Divine purpose in Creation? Is ours the only type of universe and laws of nature that could exist?
“What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world” — Albert Einstein.[14]
According to scientific origin theory, in order to produce our universe, at some point a big bang would have to exist. It could not be just any big bang, since only a very specific type of big bang would lead to our universe, eg with human beings.
From the traditional perspective, if God created the universe via a big bang, the design for the big bang would therefore have to be carefully worked out in advance. [15] Since a central purpose of the created being is its exercise of free-willed moral choice, the universe would have to be designed to contain morally meaningful situations and dilemmas. The design of the universe must therefore be based on the opportunities of moral choice that the Creator desires the being to eventually face.[16]
Creation and its Description
We can match aspects of the traditional conception of the universe’s purpose to resulting elements of the physical creation procedure.
If, as stated above, it is the eventual human moral challenges that prescribe the universal blueprint, and if it is the Torah that prescribes these moral challenges, then it is the Torah that sets the parameters for the design of the universe and humanity. As the Midrash says, “God looked into the Torah and created the universe.”[17]
Only after assembling a complete picture of a moral being and an appropriate universe could there begin the design of the big bang and laws of nature leading to their emergence.
According to this scenario, the process of Creation began not with the big bang but rather with the prior idea to create a being with moral responsibility, and a mental conception of this moral being and of the universe it would inhabit. Prior to physical creation it would be necessary to mentally assemble the desired main ingredients of the universe until everything necessary to produce a moral being has been obtained. The blueprint of the universe is created one stage at a time. A new stage is initiated after the previous stage is seen to fit into the whole—“God saw … that it was good”[18]—until the end product is reached. A being is created in the Divine image and is integrated into the rest of the Creation—“God saw … that all … was very good.”[19]
A description of this creation could then consist of an account of the creation either of the universe itself or of the blueprint of the universe, which is completed with the design of humanity.[20] Given the entire functioning integrated blueprint of a universe containing moral beings, a big bang could then be designed and programmed to teleologically produce them.[21]
The First Moment—from the Teleological Perspective
With the design of the big bang ready, its creation can be initiated. Until the emergence of a free-willed intelligent being from this teleological designed big bang, however, everything that occurs is preprogrammed, an acting out of the mechanistic laws of nature (as interesting as watching the hands of a clock for a few billion years) with some quantum randomness thrown in (more interesting than watching a clock - it's as interesting as watching the wash cycle of a washing machine, for billions of years). The truly “interesting” activity begins only with the onset of moral choice. Only then the purpose of the universe can begin to unfold.[22] In the teleological sense, Creation is completed not with the emergence of the big bang but rather fifteen billion years later when the first intelligent moral being emerges and decides to accept the burden of moral responsibility for its actions.
The Instant Retroactive Universe
Would the creation of a big bang be the most reasonable method of creation of such a purposive universe? Creation of a big bang involves a delay of billions of years until the free-willed being evolves and the desired moral activity begins. It would seem that the more reasonable [2] procedure would be the creation of the universe at the stage of the emergence of a free-willed human being. This would juxtapose the creation of the universe with the choice of the burden of the knowledge of good and evil.
This could be accomplished, for example, by a Divine mental extrapolation of the big bang conditions (mental “fast-forwarding”) up to the moral stage of the universe, followed by actual creation at that point. In this sense the reasonable creation method is the creation of an “instant universe” at the moral stage. Thus, paradoxically, the physical creation of the big-bang-emergent universe actually occurs not at the big bang but with the emergence of the first moral being.[23]
This radical idea that the universe begins its physical existence only with the emergence of a moral being interestingly finds support and parallel in the suggestion of quantum metaphysics that the universe can emerge into true physical reality only upon emergence within it of a conscious being, who, according to our thesis, is a free-willed moral consciousness. As eminent physicist John A. Wheeler states, the emergence of a conscious being retroactively causes the emergence into reality of the big bang itself![24]
The Instant Evolutionary Universe: Neither Wasteful nor Cruel
Evolutionary advance is achieved by competition for survival, selection of the fittest via predatory and environmental extinction, fatal biological defects, and so on. The evolutionary path is littered with corpses and suffused with suffering. The emergence of humanity is achieved at the very heavy price of the sufferings of untold numbers of creatures losing their struggle to survive to those more fit than they. Billions of “unsuccessful” mutations, many of them horribly deformed animals unable to survive; billions and billions and billions of small organisms, insects, animals, and even primitive humanoids devoured by predators, killed by natural disasters or birth defects strew the evolutionary path. It is not comfortable to contemplate the total genocide of our ancestors’ competitors, the Neanderthalers. The path of “nature red in tooth and claw” (in the words of Alfred, Lord Tennyson) leading to the emergence of humans strongly disturbed Darwin. Furthermore, the horrible evolutionary scenario of millions of years of catastrophic changes and evolutionary struggle was considered by many too clumsy to have been the creation of an all-powerful God and too evil to be the creation of a compassionate God.
In the instant universe scenario, however, these two objectionable features of evolution—that it is too clumsy and evil—disappear, at least in the period leading up to the emergence of humanity. Evolution in the context of an instant universe is not a violence-drenched process. The entire process leading up to the emergence of moral man takes place only in potentiality, in the ‘mind’ of God, as the working out of a process implied by the laws of nature and the initial conditions. Actual reality begins only with the emergence of moral man.
The evolutionary process according to this scenario is certainly not a clumsy method of producing human beings. Instead, the pre-moral stage ‘evolutionary process’ is merely the logically-consistent theory which underlies the emergence of man in a ‘natural’ physical universe. In actuality, however, the emergence of humans took place in a most elegant, clever, and direct manner—as the initial stage of an instant universe.
In addition, when the evolutionary process is seen as the “computational device,” which it is in the instant universe scenario, it can be seen in all its elegance. Evolution by random mutation in this sense is a self-improving program. It is a very simple yet efficient algorithm, used to run the ‘computer simulation’ leading up to the evolution of ever more complex creatures.
Similarly, the big bang theory is a beautifully simple algorithm for generating the blueprint of an extremely complex universe. Given the design of the intended moral being, the big bang generates a complex universe of billions of galaxies containing billions of stars, with billions of life forms containing billions of cells. All that is created is a singularity or big bang, operating according to one unified universal law in a four-(or perhaps higher) dimensional space-time, and the rest takes care of itself. By ‘mentally extrapolating’ this ‘algorithm,’ God obtains very simply a complete description of a totally self-consistent complex universe and uses this description to create an actual universe at the moral stage without any “red in tooth and claw” physical evolution.
What Is the First Stage of Creation: the Big Bang or the Emergence of Adam?
As stated previously, for a purposive universe created as an “instant universe” the first stage of real existence is when purposive activity begins, so that the initial point is not the big bang but rather the emergence of free-willed consciousness capable of moral choice. There is another reason why a purposive universe of this sort would be considered as beginning at the moral stage rather than at the big bang. Since there are many quantum paths along which the universe could develop, including many paths not leading to the emergence of life or to moral beings, in order to have the universe fulfill its design it is necessary to guide the development of the big bang along a path leading to the emergence of the desired free-willed being. In this case the emergence of a moral being is the last stage of direct Divine intervention in developing the universe and hence the last stage of Creation and the first stage of the ‘natural’ existence of the universe. Thus, even in a universe physically starting with a big bang, it is the emergence of the moral being rather than the big bang that is the first stage of independent existence.
From the point of view of the Creator, and in the context of a teleological oriented creation account, the emergence of a moral being crowns creation. Thus, from the points of view of quantum randomness, quantum metaphysics, and teleology, the emergence of a conscious being—not the emergence of the big bang—is the first stage of the universe.
Perspectives on the Age of the Universe
The age of the universe may be considered from various perspectives:
The non-physical teleological perspective
The universe originates with God’s decision to create or to plan its blueprint, when time did not exist, and so the age of the universe is not defined.
The physical teleological perspective
The universe begins with the emergence of a newly created instant universe containing a moral being; evolutionary anthropology places the emergence of such a being probably not more than 100,000 years ago, and this is therefore also the maximal physical age of the universe.
The quantum metaphysical perspective
The universe emerges at the moral stage, but retroactively from the big bang, so that at the moral stage the universe has no clearly defined age.
The conventional scientific perspective
The universe begins with the big bang. At the stage of containing moral beings it is approximately fifteen billion years old.
In describing the creation of a complete universe at the moral stage, a creation account written from the teleological or quantum metaphysical perspective might imply simultaneity of the emergence of human free-willed consciousness with the completion of the creation of the universe or of its blueprint. This provides a motivation for the juxtaposition of the creation and Eden accounts in Genesis [25]
.
Laws of Nature: “And God Rested”
Why create a big bang universe, with its billions of galaxies and myriad plant and animal species? Why not create moral beings in a small universe centered on them?
Many people have speculated on the seeming hiddeness of God. Explanations include the necessity to protect the freedom of, and give meaning to, moral choice. Why bother creating a small human-centered universe for the purpose of moral confrontation if free will is compromised by the obviousness of God’s presence? There are also aesthetic reasons for the creation of a complete big-bang emergent ‘natural’ universe rather than a small ‘special’ universe. Constant intervention can be reduced by designing ‘laws of nature’ to allow the universe to be self-operating.[26] For self-operation and regularity there must be consistency and coordination within the entire universe. For this to be the case, there has to be a unifying factor. An elegant method of finding this common denominator is to find an entity which, unified in itself, could give rise to the desired universe. The big bang together with the laws of nature is such an entity.
When this big bang evolves or is extrapolated forward to produce later stages of the universe, all these eventual states are inherently regular and synchronized since all is derived from one entity. Everything within the resulting universe operates according to the laws of nature, and the desired moral stage of the universe eventually emerges, this time as a unified self-consistently-operating state of a ‘natural’ universe. It is a universe where humanity seems to arise as the result of natural selection, but where this selection is part of the Divine plan. As stated in the closing paragraph of Darwin’s The Origin of Species:[27]
Thus from the war of Nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Conclusion
As we have seen, in some sense our axiom suggested at the outset intuitively implies the central features of the traditional model of Creation. In this model Creation proceeds as described by tradition, and its physical development occurs as outlined by science.
From the teleological perspective, the first stage in Creation is to draw up the blueprint of both the desired type of moral being and the desired type of universe at the stage of the emergence of moral beings. Then comes a backwards extrapolation of the moral stage universe blueprint to find the right type of big bang to lead up to this stage.
After the design of the big bang from the specifications of the moral being and a universe that can support moral choice, the resultant ‘teleo-derived big bang’ is mentally extrapolated to the future along all quantumly possible paths of future development. Each possible path ends either in the emergence of a moral being, whose exercise of free will introduces non-predictability and therefore stops the extrapolation—or results in the end of the universe without the emergence of a moral being.
After extrapolation to the moral stage, the universe is ‘created in potential.’ In the quantum metaphysical sense this might be through a collapse of the wave function caused by the Creator’s consciousness observing the universe. “God saw it was all very good.” From the human perspective, the universe is brought into physical (human) reality by the created moral being’s exercise of free-willed consciousness and its existential awareness of the external universe, and of itself, as separate entities.
From among all the possible (potential) moral universes at the pre-moral stage, one is selected—the best one for fulfilling the purpose of Creation. “God saw all that He had created, and it was very good.”
In the instant retroactive universe everything proceeds in the most direct, logical, and aesthetic way. The Creator can withhold direct intervention after the ‘laws of nature’ take over upon the emergence of a moral being. “And [all] the Heavens and the Earth were complete….and God…rested”[28]
Consequently, a natural-law-obeying fifteen-billion-year-old instant universe emerges into physical reality unfolded from a moral-stage-teleoderived big bang. To paraphrase Genesis: And God said, “Let there have been a big bang.” And it was so.
For Further Reading
The Instant Universe* (the book from which this is an excerpt), written while the author was in graduate school in the mid-80s, circulated widely in manuscript form since that time. The book covers a broader subject range of topics than this article, and presents the central theme in greater detail
A related work from the author is A Garden of Edens,* which presents a compendium of the methods employed over the past two thousand years to ‘reconcile’ Genesis with contemporary origin theories.
Also available from the author is The Retroactive Universe,* which investigates the emergence of free-willed consciousness from the biblical and scientific perspectives, and explores the philosophical and cosmological implications of the existence of true moral responsibility. In a soon-to-be-available book, Einstein’s Blunder and the God Who Plays Dice,* the author explores the moral philosophy of Albert Einstein, and the connection between moral responsibility and free will.
The author’s Miday Abir,* in Hebrew, is a collection of his comments on biblical passages and narratives.
Also available is the author’s Warped Spacetime, Wormholes and the Big Bang.* This textbook, essentially an introduction to general relativity and cosmology, uniquely presents heuristic derivations and solutions of the Einstein equations at a level accessible to those who have taken the standard calculus-based college physics course.
Publishing history of this article: Although the article was published in B’Or Ha’Torah and placed on the web only in 2002 , the original version of this paper was submitted in 1986, and the book is referred to in several of Dr. Rabinowitz’s publications from that period: [“Geocentrism” in B’Or Ha’Torah 6E (1987); “The Role of the Observer in Halakhah and Quantum Physics” in B’Or Ha’Torah 6H (1988), which is the Hebrew version of the English paper that appeared in H. Branover and I. Attia, eds., Science in the Light of the Torah (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1994).] The essential ideas underlying this book were presented by the author in various forums over the years; in lectures, at conferences, in correspondence, and private conversations; starting in the mid to late 1980’s several versions of the manuscripts were read by scholars as reviewers, some of whom also made useful comments, and copies were donated to the libraries of various Yeshivot.
The article is now available at: http://www.pages.nyu.edu/%7Eair1/The%20Instant%20UniverseBH%20EJ6.htm
Footnotes:
[1] Cited in Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times (World Publishing Company, 1971) p. 19. Clark quotes
Esther Salaman in “A Talk with Einstein” in The Listener (8 Sep 1955).
[2] Intuition, tainted by anthropomorphic reasoning and guided by hindsight, and therefore admittedly a post-hoc argument.
[3] Cited in Neal C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1979) p. 141. According to Gillespie, this citation is from Darwin’s autobiography (Francis Darwin, ed.),
Autobiography of Charles Darwin and Selected Letters. This book was issued by W.W. Norton in 1993 as The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882 (Nora Barlow, ed.).
[4] Cosmology and astrophysics are required for theories of the emergence of life, e.g., the atoms in our bodies originate in the hearts of stars which later exploded.
[5] For excellent presentations of the logic behind evolutionary theory see, e.g., The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable and other books by Richard Dawkins. Cf the writings of Stephen J. Gould.
[6] Science also does not as yet deal even with mind (as opposed to brain, which is heavily studied).
[7] occasional interventions by God into the physical universe such as miracles, or subtle (but far-reaching in effect) divine interventions in the path of evolution. are not the concern of science.
[8] Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (Prometheus Books, 1997) p. 70. Available online at http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man
[9] See for example Sforno on “kidmusenu” (“after our likeness”).
[10] For discussions of the interrelationships between free will, creativity, quantum physics, complexity, consciousness, Creation, and scientific cosmology, see my manuscript The Retroactive Universe.
[11] Genesis 1:27.
[12] Genesis 2:7.
[13] Genesis 2:16-17.
[14] According to Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler’s Gravitation, Einstein said, “What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world” to an assistant. The reference they provide is a book review by G. Holton of Ronald W. Clark’s Einstein: The Life and Times that appeared in the New York Times, 5 Sep 1971. p.20. (AR: Holton wrote a lot about Einstein and presumably inserted this quote into his review.)
[15] See Paul Davies, The Mind of God (Simon & Schuster Touchstone, 1992) for interesting discussions on related topics.
[16] This may be seen as a version of the Anthropic Principle in cosmology.
[17] Genesis Rabba 1:1. The midrash says that we know this because the first word of Genesis, breisheet = with reisheet = with the Torah, which is called “reisheet.”
[18] Genesis 1:3, 10, 12, 17, 21, 25.
[19] Genesis 1:31.
[20] According to tradition, the Creation account contains the whole Torah; and, “God looked into the [Creation account of] the Torah and created the universe.” The Creation account is paradoxically both the blueprint of Creation and the description of the Creation from that blueprint. Fittingly, it ends with the onset of Shabbat, which paradoxically, while it is part of the purpose of Creation and therefore ‘logically prior’ to the onset of Creation, is also the commemoration of the completion of Creation, and therefore ‘chronologically after’ the cessation of Creation.
[21] Moral beings seem a late development of the big bang, but the true order is reversed: They are the first stage of the big bang’s design. As in Alkabetz’s Shabbat hymn “Lkha Dodi” in which Shabbat, which is seemingly the final act of Creation, is teleologically primary to it: “That which was last in execution [of Creation, i.e., the Shabbat] was first in intention.”
See also Genesis Rabba 10:9 and the commentary of Radal. By resting on Shabbat, God places the universe in its natural-law operating mode. This is simultaneous with and caused or allowed by the emergence of moral consciousness.
[22] See my book The Retroactive Universe for a more thorough discussion.
[23] Both science and a literal reading of Genesis would place this event as occurring very recently, between five and one-hundred thousand years ago, rather than millions or billions of years ago.
[24] For an explanation of these points, see my book The Instant Universe or my papers “Free Will” in B’Or Ha’Torah 6E (1987) pp. 141-157; and with Herman Branover, “The Role of the Universe in Halakhah and Quantum Physics” in H. Branover and I. Attia, eds., Science in the Light of the Torah (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1994), especially Wheeler’s diagram on p. 79.
[25] Furthermore the OFTEN OVERLOOKED SECONDARY “CREATION ACCOUNT” of Genesis 2:4-9
“… on the day God made Earth and Heaven…… God formed man”
(—emphasis and ellipsis mine) imply Creation simultaneous with the emergence of Adam.
[26] A universe without natural law would dissolve into chaos. Stars and human bodies alike would lose their structural integrity. Natural law also allows regularity of operation so that moral beings could know the results of their actions and therefore be morally responsible for them.
[27] Charles Darwin, “The Origin of Species” chap. 15, last paragraph of the book. Available online at:
http://www.literature-web.net/book.php3/originofspecies
[28] Genesis 2:1-2.
1[1] This article is an abridged version of the author’s book The Instant Universe.
..
The ms is intended to be published in several versions for different audiences, and there are also several editions of the same chapter written at different times. What I would seek from you are recommendations re:
Overall direction/theme of the different versions, and the appropriate target audience
the preferred order of the chapters within a given version.
which edition of a chapter to use in the book;
improving sections which are poorly explained;
which supplementary material to put in an appendix, which to leave out;
which sections/paragraphs to delete as duplication
which text to move elsewhere from its present location;
eliminating wordy phrasing from specific paragraphs
most of the material below is meant to explain the difference between various interrelated works, to help you understand what the focus of the intended book will be, and how it differs from material you’ve already read. Some was for the editor, to help her in sorting the actual computer files.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
The Instant Universe (IU): “And God said: “Let There Have Been a Big Bang””:
book: version 1 and 2
article: in B’ohr Hatorah (BH): http://www.borhatorah.org/home/article1/article1.html
The Retroactive Universe (RU): book: (
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Re files on disk: the 1991 material is geared to the original instant universe version of the ms, with a quick entry into the instant universe issue, and the following chapters posing and resolving issues.
[The ms went through changes that are reflected in the files dated March or July/Aug 1991, January 1992, 1993,1994 (and perhaps other versions as well).]
By 1994 the IU material morphed into the RU ms, with the stress on free-willed-consciousness, and showing why for God meaning etc begins with the emergence of on free-willed-consciousness.
In the RU book the point is to show the link between free-willed-consciousness and Genesis/Eden etc, without necessarily dealing with the age of the earth or the question of how man evolved or when. In contradistinction to this, these three questions are the central issue of the IU book.
The Instant Universe: And God Said: “Let there be a big bang”: a fundamentalist discussion of the Solipsistic Instant Universe idea, i.e. the un was created at a late stage = “classic inst un book”, most chapters are defenses of the idea against various criticisms. (fundamentalist type religious audience)
The IU book as it is intended to be published will be fundamentalist in its approach, and will consider the IU scenario as meaningful, but some editions of it will have a preface that indicates that I myself no longer take this approach.
No attempt at sophistication will be made in the new editing of this book, since this will inevitably lead the book to evolve into the Retroactive Universe book etc. It will be a book on a fundamentalist view of a reconciliation of evolution and Bible, but liberal fundamentalist in that it accepts the validity of the origin theory, just not the dates, and assumes infusion of a soul etc.
(I can even insert a letter from the creation research institute rejecting it as too liberal!)
In the older versions of the IU I present the contradiction between origin theory and Genesis, the instant universe idea at the outset (as a resolution of the and then list the problems involved and set out to answer each one systematically.
For example: it seems odd to create the universe in this way; why would God use this specific date/age for the universe; etc. Each chapter then deals with one of these questions.
The second version of the IU: not that un is an inst un, or that it originated 6000 YA, but rather that since logic would dictate that it was, and there is no observable difference, Genesis presents it as such (but nevertheless ambiguously, in that no dates are given, only implied)
As per Rashi etc the intent of the word bereishis, and the account as a whole, is not chronology - it is about the meaning level etc so present my view, re not fair to impose moral burden on beings, therefore was a choice scenario etc - but this was on a different level than the physical, it was at the level of soul, of physically-transcendent free will.
In the even newer versions, basically much of the way towards becoming the “RU”, the stress is not on alleged contradictions between origin theory and Genesis, and so the book does not begin with this; furthermore, the book is not about the instant universe per se.
Instead the book begins with a discussion of free willed consciousness (fwc) as the necessary prerequisite for meaning and purpose from the perspective of God the creator. After this point is made clear, that fwc is necessary, it then makes the point that according to the origin theory, mind arose late in the un, and therefore purposeful activity began only late in the development of the universe.
The point is then made that the most reasonable method of creation is of a universe at the moral stage (the emergence of the first moral being). This is effectively an instant universe. But if it is created as a big bang with the design being according to the specifications of the moral being, it is in some sense a retroactive universe.
Then with quantum metaphysics the point is made that in any case our universe is actually a retroactive universe. Thus from the perspective of the divine, from which Genesis is presented, the universe begins with the creation of humanity, as in the creation account, and with the emergence of fwc, as in the Eden account. The book does not deal with issues such as the actual date of creation, the actual age of the universe, questions about the instant universe, the seeming contradictions with origin theory etc; all these are not relevant to the central discussion of the book.
The IU book will have all the material relating to traditional Jewish sources which seem to speak of the IU and related matters; the RU book will not have these since the IU is not its focus. Instead it will have much material about fwc and related topics.
The Instant Universe article for B’Ohr Hatorah
The IU article for B’ohr Hatorah has a different approach. Part I shows that the origin theory is the most reasonable theory that one arrives at under the assumption that that the origin of the universe, of life and of humanity can be explained according to the operation of natural law. This takes about 15 pages, and is not in the IU ms.
Part II then asks what would be the way that a purposeful universe could be expected to emerge, and arrives at the IU scenario: this section is a very brief statement of what is a few chapters in the IU book.
Part III then discusses several general topics related to the IU model. These are discussed in the IU book as well.
The IU BH article was written in 1995 and edited in 1998. It is useful to look at Parts II and III because these are effectively sections of the IU book that were edited in 1998, and so are the most recent versions of that IU material, and although it is recent, it is nevertheless still more IU rather than RU. The article is very condensed due to space considerations as an article; in the IU book they should be in the original more expanded version, but nevertheless there might be something about the newer version of this condensed IU material which it would be useful to incorporate into the IU book. In addition, in condensing and editing the material, perhaps the presentation was made more comprehensible, less repetitive etc.
Part I of the IU article does not speak about the IU at all, and was not in the book. It can serve as an opening section of the book, before mention of the IU, just as it serves as the opening of the IU article; and then in place of Part II of the article will come several chapters as in the IU ms.
Alternately, Part I can be inserted later on in the IU book; it is only 15 pages and can be a nice chapter..
The Central Theme : material can be organized around various related themes:
Theme: The meaning of the accounts in Breishis & the role of the oral torah in interpreting the accounts.
Much of the meaning of the accounts revolves about the theme of free-willed consciousness and morality.
Among other elements of the accounts and their meanings one would discuss the alleged conflict between them and scientific origin theory, using the points made about free-willed consciousness and morality.
See the outline “New Genesis Book” (in response to request by Jason Aronson to excerpt a book about Genesis) which provides a sketch of this version of the book. g
Theme: Science vs Torah (origin theory vs Breishis).
The oral interpretation does not conflict with scientific origin theory, and free-willed consciousness and morality show the way to a resolution.
This is essentially the “Retroactive Universe” book with the introduction presenting the science Torah conflict as the central theme.
It differs from the “instant universe” book in that the instant universe is fundamentalist, stating that the universe began only 6,000 years ago when God put the universe into a big-bang-emergent state.
The Retroactive Universe version of that is that the universe began 6,000 years ago but derived from a big bang.
The more progressive version of it is that the universe emerged from a big bang exactly as in the scientific origin theory, just that since meaning/purpose began with the emergence of a moral being, the Torah implies that creation began at that stage.
.........
Inst Un vs Retro Un
The “Instant Universe” book will be fundamentalist in its approach, and will consider the IU scenario as meaningful, but some editions of it will have a preface that indicates that I myself no longer take this approach. No attempt at sophistication will be made, since this will inevitably lead the book to evolve into the Retroactive Universe book etc. It will be a book on a fundamentalist view of a reconciliation of evo and Bible, but liberal fundamentalist in that it accepts the validity of the origin theory, just not the dates, and assumes infusion of a soul etc. (Can insert a letter from the creation research institute rejecting it as too liberal!)
The Instant Universe: And God Said: “Let there be a big bang”: a fundamentalist discussion of the Solipsistic Instant Universe idea, i.e. the un was created at a late stage = “classic inst un book”, most chapters are defenses of the idea against various criticisms. (fundamentalist type religious audience)
A related work: “A Garden of Edens”: A presentation of many ways of resolving the genesis-science conflict (one of the chapters does discuss the instant universe, but this is a small fraction of the book) (Orthodox but liberal audience).
…
FIN ch 3 from vivienne
THE SCIENTIFIC AND BIBLICAL COSMOLOGIES WILL NEVER BE IDENTICAL
It is certainly unlikely that through experiment, science will eventually prove that the correct cosmological model can be best described precisely as follows: “In the beginning, G-d created the heavens and the earth … G-d rested... etc.
Conversely, no religious fundamentalist is likely to claim that the scientific method, if applied correctly, will eventually lead inevitably to this picture of the origin of all as described in the Bible.
This generates some questions, which beg to be answered:
1. What model for universal and human origin does the religious Bible believer expect scientific theory to arrive at? If this model is NOT the same as the creation account, then how does he/she explain this discrepancy? Assuming that all occurs according to natural law, what is the most reasonable scenario for the universe’s past history?
We feel that aside from the question of the ultimate origin of the universe, even believers in divine creation and providence might reach a scenario similar to modern big bang/evolution theory.
2.What account would scientists accept as a reasonable Genesis creation account for a creating G-d to give at Sinai 3,500 years ago? Given that the universe is as it is, i.e. G-d - (if One exists) - is definitely hidden. If there was a divinely revealed creation account there are certain assumptions that a scientist could reasonably expect about it:
a) It would not explicitly constitute a proof of G-d – since He is hidden.
b) It would be comprehensible to contemporary humans.
If the actual creation account e.g. in the Bible, is different than this scientifically expected account, how does the scientist explain the discrepancy? Given the assumptions inherent in traditional understandings of the Bible, what is the most likely manner for the universe, life and humanity to have emerged into existence? We believe that even for the atheist the most reasonable answer could be something like the creation accounts in the Bible.
3.Is It Possible to Believe in the Validity of Both Accounts?
The two ideas below by themselves are not necessarily logically incompatible:
1) The universe was created, and the creator dictated the Genesis account to Moses at Sinai
2) The scientific endeavor leads inevitably to the picture of the universe arising from a big bang x billion years ago, and life evolving from non-life.
According to Jewish tradition the Bible - including the creation account - was ‘dictated word for word’ to Moses at Sinai. Is it possible to accept the truth of both Jewish tradition and science? Traditionalists throughout the ages have considered the Biblical creation account, which speaks of six days of creation in a specific order etc, as being in accordance with the prevailing scientific/philosophical cosmological view of their times - even though these other views have never spoken of this type of 6-day-creation. Thus, even from the “fundamentalist” perspective it is not necessary for the scientific view to be identical to the wording of Genesis in order to believe that they do not contradict each other.
Where conflicts were perceived, such as by Rambam regarding the Aristotelian view of the universe as being eternal as opposed to the Biblical view of a creation, the conflict was not about details such as the six days and the order of creation but rather about the fundamentals. It seems that had Aristotle proposed the idea of creation, Rambam would not have considered the fact that Aristotle’s creation account presented a different picture of creation from the Bible’s, as implying that there was a conflict between the two that had to be resolved. Traditionalists accept that a divinely-revealed creation account will not be identical to a scientific account in the details. Do scientists expect that they should? To what extent?
First we wish to isolate the central issues that traditionalists and scientists would expect should be identical in a divinely-revealed creation account and a scientific origin theory, and separate these crucial issues from the details whose difference is non-problematic. Then we want to look at the crucial differences and see how the traditionalist explains them.
The following statements are either untrue, irrelevant, or relate to a spurious antagonism, as will be revealed in the discussions in the book:
1. Science has shown that the universe was not created by G-d, yet Genesis claims it was.
2. Science has shown that the universe came about via a big bang, yet some commentaries on Genesis claim that it was created in 6 days in a very different process.
3. Science has shown that the universe began about 15 billion years ago, yet Genesis claims it was created only about 6,000 years ago.
4. Science has shown that humans evolved yet Genesis claims they were specially created.
5. Science has shown that humans are basically animals, evolved apes, yet Genesis makes perhaps the opposite claim: that humanity was created “in the image of G-d”.
PATTERNS OF RECONCILIATION
Agnosticism and Biblical fundamentalism share a basic similarity in their approach to theological questions.
Biblical religion posits an all-powerful deity, and the “fundamentalist” believes that this deity may act in ways incomprehensible to humanity - 'the ways of G-d are mysterious.' They conclude that no rational argument or scientific evidence of any sort can be used as proof of the non-existence of G-d or of the non-divine origin of the Bible. Agnosticism is the doctrine that G-d is unknowable and unknown. They believe that one cannot know anything beyond material phenomena. Both groups have in common that one cannot logically disprove that G-d exists or not, or understand why He does anything at all.
This causes some creationists to attempt to discredit the scientific origin theory. Other fundamentalists simply state that G-d planted the fossils etc, that the disparity between what science concludes and the Bible states is a test of our faith! They conclude that it is impossible to assume that we could know why an all-knowing all-powerful deity would create the universe in a way that would mislead scientific investigators.
Those who prefer a more 'rational' approach to Biblical religion - perhaps as a result of the belief that it is incumbent on people to understand religion rationally as far as possible, or because of their deep attachment to rational thought, or to scientific theory - seek ways in which science and the Bible can be reconciled.
Disregarding the possibility that eventually scientific investigation will somehow prove the creation account to be correct, (another possible implication of creationism,) such a reconciliation can be effected in two general ways:
1. Accepting the Biblical account literally together with the stipulation that at some point after creating the universe as detailed in Genesis (perhaps after the expulsion from Eden), G-d put the universe into the big-bang-emergent state it is observed to be in today. Or alternatively:
2. Accepting that the creation and Eden accounts are not to be understood in their entirety according to their surface literal meaning, as corresponding to descriptions of historical events in the physical universe.
In this book we do not make the claim that Jewish tradition supports this or that approach, since many adherents of tradition are likely to object to this or that particular interpretation, and many of the sources are ambiguous and can be interpreted one way or another. What is presented are approaches, which the author feels are in consonance with traditional belief and the positions taken by traditional sources, along with various arguments which the author feels support this contention.
According to Rambam1 the main conflict between general philosophy and Biblical religion revolves about the question of creation: “There is no other difference of opinion as regards any portion of the universe, except that the philosophers believe in the eternity of the universe and we believe in the Creation. Note this.”
Rambam states further:2 “Only demonstrative proof should be able to make you abandon the theory of the Creation; but such a proof does not exist in Nature.3”
Science and philosophy presently accept that there is no way to prove that the universe was created, or that it was not, and so the conflict today is not primarily centered around whether or not the universe was created. It is also not usually thought that the universe is eternal but rather that it emerged into existence about 15 billion years ago. Instead, the conflict today is about the age of the universe, with some commentaries on Genesis implying that it is about 6,000 years old and science stating that it is about 15 billion years old.
Science finds itself in conflict with the Biblical creation not only on philosophical grounds, but also due to this seemingly direct contradiction of scientific fact. In the words of the cosmologist P. C. Davies4:
“To argue whether the date of the Creation was 4 004 BC or 10 000 BC is irrelevant if scientific measurements reveal a four and a half billion year old Earth. No religion that bases its beliefs on demonstrably incorrect assumptions can expect to survive very long.”
In truth, there is no scientific as opposed to philosophical or metaphysical conflict between the origin theory and the Biblical creation account. It is in fact, the attitude expressed by the quote above which is based on “demonstrably incorrect assumptions,” as we will reveal.
We will now show why nothing in nature can possibly disprove that the universe originated in a special act of Creation.
There are essentially two types of knowledge - that which is obtained by seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, tasting; and that which originates in our brain via thinking, imagining, dreaming, etc. That is, whatever is in our brain either originates within, or without. If it is from without, i.e. from the outside universe, then we can know of it only via our senses. We do not experience a “table” when we look at it - rather we experience the way our brain interacts with our sensory perceptions of the table. When we see, feel, smell and taste an apple, and hear it crunch, we are experiencing the effect on our brain of the electric currents generated in our nerves by our organs of sight, feel, smell, taste and hearing. That is all that we can hope to experience – the “apple itself” remains a stranger. Indeed, theoretically at least, a disembodied brain floating in a laboratory jar, stimulated by electric wires in the appropriate fashion, could be made to experience sensations so that it believes itself to belong to a body whose mouth is eating an apple. All that we can ever know of the universe outside us, we can know only as it is transmitted via our senses.
Furthermore, we exist in the present - always. What is now present will immediately become past, and what was future is now present. We can never know of the future. Indeed, even the past cannot be directly known. Our only means of knowing the past is via our memories, or via traces left in the present by past events. However, it is clear that a distinction exists between an event itself, and the memory or trace of that event.
Thus, we can know only the present, and even the present we can know only through the medium of our senses. Since the present is constantly slipping away to become the past, virtually everything we know is actually only a memory of sensory experience - not events in themselves- but only memories; not even memories of events in themselves, but only memories of our sensory perceptions of events in themselves.
Conclusion: It may appear to be a shocking statement, but further thought confirms the following conclusion. What might seem to be a basic question - whether or not the universe was created this very instant - is not the type of issue that can be investigated by the scientific method.
Further, to quote the eminent physicist John Wheeler [in a context that will become clear later on (in chapter six)]:“The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present.”5
This is a crucial point: the past is inaccessible to our senses, therefore dogmatic statements regarding occurrences in the past are in a sense unscientific. Rather than claiming to deduce the past universe-state, a more proper role for science might be to construct a theory that relates events to each other as cause and effect - and which correctly predicts future events. This theory can then be used to determine what kind of past would, according to the theory, lead to the present we observe.
Rambam’s statement that there is no proof contradicting creation to be found within nature is vindicated.
In the optimal situation, a scientific pronouncement should explicitly or implicitly refer to the assumptions upon which it is based, and to the limitations on its validity. Scientific theory states that the universe as it is at present developed from a “singularity” via the big bang. Man, and all life in the universe, arose via the evolutionary process governed by random genetic mutations and the selection of life forms with the more effectively adapted (superior) genes via the competitive war for survival and growth. However, it cannot be proven that the big bang ever actually took place, nor that life actually did evolve. What can be concluded from scientific investigation are the following:
*The universe and the life in it could have developed as described by the theories of the big bang and evolution
*The origin theory should change its claim from “the universe arose as big bang” to “the universe is now in a big bang emergent state.”6
The world could have been created in an instant, complete and in its final form, with all species present, including man. The “instant universe” idea in its simplest form seems to have originated with the scientist Granville Penn in 18257. At that time, thirty-five years before Darwin published his book on the theory of evolution, the conflict between science and Genesis centered on the age of the Earth. According to geologists, the Earth was millions of years old, whereas traditional Biblical explanations put the date as only a few thousand years old. Penn used the instant universe idea to reconcile the two.
The concept was rediscovered and elaborated upon by the scientist Philip Henry Gosse in 1857, and it formed the subject of his book “Omphalos”8. However, because his theory did not present a satisfactory logical reason for supposing that Gd would create in such a fashion, his theory was rejected out of hand, misinterpreted and ridiculed. People incorrectly assumed that his Instant Universe theory implied that Gd was deliberately “falsifying” the geological record in order to test man’s faith. Even religious people felt that this was far too devious an action for a compassionate Gd. In addition, since Gosse maintained that the entire evolutionary theory was false, his critics felt that Gosse’s work was an attempt to denigrate and discredit science.
Nevertheless, A.J. Ayer, in rejecting the Instant Universe approach, vindicated that it could be true:9
“the statement that the earth is millions of years old is supported by a wealth of geological evidence; it would not be incorrect to say that we know it to be true. There are, however, people who for religious reasons prefer to believe that the earth came into existence only a few thousand years ago but already bearing perceptible signs of age. We may say that this is a silly view: if we know the other to be true, we know it to be false, but it is formally compatible with the evidence. Even the view that the earth and all its inhabitants had come into existence just at this moment would not be formally inconsistent with anything that one could now observe. What it would contradict would be the accepted interpretations and explanations of the phenomena; it would be an arbitrary denial of them, and all the more irresponsible in that it would furnish us with no other means of accounting for subsequent events. The case for the scientifically orthodox explanations is that they do explain.
Still it is logically conceivable that they are false.”
It is important to understand that the “Instant Universe” idea can in no way be disproved by science. Science cannot logically challenge the truth of the Biblical creation account, and conversely, there is no need for biblical religionists to reject origin theories on religious grounds. Whatever the apparent origin of the universe, it could have actually arisen as an instant universe. The question of evidence supporting an eternal or a created universe is irrelevant as proof. Even a universe, which seems to be an infinite or oscillating one, can obviously be actually a created universe, created as an instant universe in an eternal –universe-emergent or oscillating-universe-emergent state.
Clearly then, it is recognized by scientists and philosophers that the Instant Universe scenario does present a resolution of the apparent conflict between the origin theory and the Biblical creation account in a manner which is logically unimpeachable. Nevertheless, the rejection by scientists and philosophers was:
1. Although valid on logical grounds, the Instant Universe theory contradicted “accepted interpretations” and explanations, was considered an “arbitrary denial” of them, and would “furnish us with no other means of accounting for events.”
2. Although logically possible, it would seem a very bizarre method for Gd to use to create the Universe, even if there is such a Creator. The logical way to do so, according to science, is the creation of a big bang.
Therefore, both scientists and philosophers often take it for granted that one can simply extrapolate to the past – and they often build other theories upon this assumption without even realizing that they have made an assumption.
THE INSTANT UNIVERSE AND CIRCULAR REASONING.
The Davies quote above is an example of the circular reasoning which can result from an assumption that one can extrapolate to the past. The argument implied by Davies’ words is as follows: “Assuming that the Biblical creation account is wrong, and that there is no Gd, then the universe could not have been created as an instant universe, and then it follows that the Biblical creation account is wrong.
The philosopher Alfred North Whitehead10 uses the belief in an extrapolated past to counter the argument of the subjectivist (or Solipsist11). He assumes that one can extrapolate to the past, and then reasons that just as “all these things which it appears certainly happened” cannot be directly ascertained to exist yet existed, so too, other centers of consciousness cannot be directly ascertained to exist, yet nevertheless do exist”:
“My second reason for distrusting subjectivism is based on the particular content of experience. Our historical knowledge tell us of ages in the past when, so far as we can see, no living being existed on earth. Again it also tells us of countless star systems, whose detailed history remains beyond our ken. Consider even the moon and the earth. What is going on within the interior of the earth, and on the far side of the moon! Our perceptions lead us to infer that there is something happening in the stars, something happening within the earth, and something happening on the far side of the moon. Also they tell us that in remote ages there were things happening. But all these things which it appears certainly happened, are either unknown in detail, or lese are reconstructed by inferential evidence. In the face of this content of our personal experience, it is difficult to believe that the experienced world is an attribute of our own personality.”
Thus the assumption that “what seems to exist- or have existed – certainly does or did exist” is used to support the contention that “What seems to exist does indeed exist”! Again, the lack of the recognition of this assumption has led to circular reasoning.
A literary genius can construct a complete imaginary world and then bring his creation into the pseudo-reality of the printed word. A world inhabited by complex characters involved in intricate plots, with each character presented along with a past history, and occasionally making reference to “past events” recorded in his memory. The author first creates a mental design of his imaginary world. An artist will do likewise with canvas and paint. Analogously, an omnipotent, omniscient Gd. can mentally construct an entire universe - a universe populated by beings possessing past histories, with the memories to match: a universe, which shows the physical traces of all “past” events, including of course those events recorded in human memory.12
If this designed universe were then actually created, the people in it would be utterly convinced that their universe was billions of years old, and that they had actually performed, all the actions remembered in their own memories. Of course, this would be incorrect, since they had actually been created, along with their memories, just at that instant - in an instant universe.
As we have seen, it is logically and scientifically impossible to determine whether or not the universe was created even this very instant. This is not disputed - even by those who would probably assume that a belief in such an odd creation, and timing of creation, would be quite absurd. As Nobel Prize winning philosopher Bertrand Russel stated: “It is quite clear that I can have a recollection without the thing remembered having happened; as a matter of logical possibility, I might have begun to exist five minutes ago, complete with all the memories that I then had.”13 In the words of Stephen Hawking, one of the world’s leading physicists and cosmologists:“One could still imagine14 that G-d created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang.”
IDEAS SIMILAR TO THE INSTANT UNIVERSE
According to the theory of continuous creation put forward by the eminent cosmologists Hoyle and Bondi 15, matter is constantly being created, and there is no way to distinguish such matter created this very instant from the same type matter existent for billions of years.
According to the Midrash,16 Gd renews the creation of the universe every instant.
According to Plato, the universe exists only because Gd is its ground of being, and continues to exist at any given instant only due to the instantaneous desire of Gd that it exist at that moment. The distinction between a universe which has existed for a long period and one which has only recently emerged into existence is meaningless in the type of universe imagined by the ancient Greeks. History was considered to be cyclic, and all the history of one epoch would be exactly repeated in some later epoch.
The cyclic time of Godel's universe17, and the closed time of Hawking's universe18 both lead to a similar repetition of all time, so that the universe of times seemingly separated by many billions of years may be identical in the deepest sense.
FLEXIBLE TIME
An extension of an Instant Universe approach, is to consider that the universe may have been fast-forwarded from the big bang up to the creation time of 6,000 years ago, so that the billions of years preceding Adam occurred in six days, corresponding to the “six days of creation”.
The two approaches can be combined into a model in which the universe was created as a big bang and instantaneously fast-forwarded, so that the 15 billion years up to the time of Adam passed instantaneously. This idea of an instantaneous fast-forwarding is essentially identical to the assumption that the universe emerged into existence fully developed, at the stage of the existence of Adam - that it was created as an instant universe.
In these models, it is essentially irrelevant whether the universe is considered as having actually run instantaneously through a 15 billion-year period of development or if it was created directly at the stage which it would be in if it had gone through this development. The essential point is that there is no way to distinguish between a universe created: this very instant; at the big bang and fast-forwarded to this point of time; or as a big-bang 15 billion years ago.
Our main concern in this work is to show that the Biblical and scientific origin accounts do not contradict each other. We do not necessarily claim that we can provide an explanation of the motives Gd might have had for creating at all, nor for Gd’s motive in using the creation methods he chose to use. As long as we can show that there is a way of reconciling the Biblical and scientific accounts in a plausible manner, we do not have to provide any more justification than does science for why the universe is, and why it is as it is. From the fact that the universe is a big bang emergent one, we know that such is the type of universe that Gd wished to create. Since Man cannot know the reason Gd had for creating at all, we do not have to provide explanations as to the motivation of Gd in deciding that this was the type of universe to create19.
Nevertheless, we shall endeavor to provide some indication as to why Gd might to proceed in this manner - to create a big-bang-emergent completed moral-stage universe, as opposed to any other type of possible completed moral-stage universe. We will look at several related questions.
1 Why create an instant universe rather than a big bang? –The Instant Universe vs Big Bang Option.
2. Why create a big-bang emergent universe state?
3.The emergence of Man- 6000 years ago?.
1 WHY CREATE AN INSTANT UNIVERSE RATHER THAN A BIG BANG? -THE INSTANT UNIVERSE VS BIG BANG OPTION.
Although the instant universe model reconciles the scientific and Biblical views of the origin of the universe and of life, there remains the question of why the universe would be created in this odd manner. Indeed, on the face of it, such a proposition seems absurd, even if not physically or logically impossible.
Furthermore, based on certain approaches in the philosophy of science, since an instant universe is physically indistinguishable from a big-bang-derived universe - to all intents it is a big-bang-derived universe. Therefore, one cannot meaningfully speak of our universe as being an instant universe - as opposed to a big bang derived one. It is not really clear that there is meaning to the claim that it was created in this way or that way. It is therefore perhaps irrelevant and possibly meaningless to ask how the universe actually emerged20.
The relevant question is rather: Why is the creation account in Genesis is more relevant to the context of the Bible than a creation account describing a big bang?
FREE WILLED CONSCIOUSNESS.
To answer this question, we need to explore the notion of Free-Willed Consciousness. This will be a central concept here, and we shall refer constantly to a certain category of being – namely: an intelligent, conscious, free-willed being which understands the distinction between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ (‘Good’ and ‘Evil’). Such a being will be termed here a ‘moral being’.
Furthermore, any good or evil decision or action of a moral being employing free will to decide between right and wrong will be termed ‘moral activity’. And, a universe containing moral activity - that is, a universe containing moral beings - will be termed a moral universe.
As we discussed, our resolution involves the concept of an ‘instant universe’: a universe instantaneously created by Gd in a complete, finished state [containing stars, planets, animals, people, the memories in peoples minds, and so on]. Such a universe may be unambiguously new, or it may seem old, as our universe does.
The religious person believes that Gd created the universe and the laws of nature. There are religious people who would agree with the scientific approach, that the universe emerged from a big bang, and that man evolved. Some of them also believe that this big bang was specifically designed so as to produce life. Thus the origin theory is not in conflict with religion per se. However, a superficial reading of the Genesis account of creation does seem to conflict with the origin theory. Therefore, there are those religious people who reject the scientific view.
There are also differences in approaches to explain the presence of free-willed consciousness in the universe and its significance.
The most fundamental premise of science is that all phenomena - even those not understood at present - can be explained ‘naturally’. In conformance with this view, atheists claim that the universe and everything in it - including life - emerged and developed to its present state without the intervention of any non-‘natural’ agency. The phenomenon we call ‘free-willed consciousness’ is no exception - those scientists who accept the reality of consciousness and of free-will, will postulate that they, too, arose ‘naturally’. That is, according to the origin theory, the universe in the distant past contained only inorganic matter. Today, however, it contains free-willed consciousness. Science must therefore assume that free-willed consciousness - if it truly exists - developed in a natural way from the inorganic matter.
For example, one can draw an analogy between the growth of a tree and the emergence of consciousness. The combination of seed, earth, environment, and laws of nature together possess all the properties necessary for the development of a tree from the seed. Similarly the combination of singularity space-time-energy-matter, big bang, and laws of nature possessed all the properties necessary for the development of free-willed consciousness from the initial singularity.21
In summary, in this view, life - and even free-willed conscious life (if it exists) - is a natural phenomenon, arising naturally within the natural universe.
FREE WILLED CONSCIOUSNESS: A RELIGIOUS APPROACH
According to the religious view, the universe was created, and the Creator is an omnipotent - that is, an all powerful - Being. As an all-powerful Being, the Creator would possess the capability of creating a big bang and of designing it to order. For example, the big bang could be specifically designed to develop into a complete physical universe. Similarly, as an all-powerful Creator, this big bang could be invested with whatever inherent properties and qualities are requisite in order to guarantee that life, and intelligent life, develop from it at some stage. Then, when the intelligent life develops somehow, it would investigate the universe about it. Some or all of the properties and qualities which Gd implanted in the universe to allow it to give rise to intelligent life, could be discovered by scientific investigation and would be called “natural law”.
The belief that life could arise via natural processes in a created universe is not contrary to religious belief at all: for example, many religious leaders believe in spontaneous generation without this seeming to them to be counter to their religious beliefs. [See chapter 3]. Thus they believe that Gd created the universe, and yet they study the laws of nature as reflections of how the Divine Will operates. Further, if Gd wished to create not merely a universe with life but rather a moral universe, then being Omnipotent, Gd could certainly create a big bang with appropriate “natural law” containing the ingredients necessary to ensure22 the eventual emergence of moral beings 23.
From this we conclude that for the religious population, the concept that moral beings arise naturally via evolution is in not a contradiction to their belief that the universe was created by Gd, and their belief that Man is not a chance development.
If indeed Gd had proceeded in this way so that the universe emerged from a big bang specifically designed and created by Gd to give birth to moral beings, then the beliefs of the religious do not conflict at all with the origin theories. Au contraire, the origin theories could even be studied by the religious as revelations of Gd’s Will and manifestations of Gd’s Design. The conflict between the religious and the atheistic views, would center not on the origin theory itself, but rather on its interpretation - the essential issue being that of purpose vs. chance.
Atheists would claim that the universe and its life are products of chance. The fact that a singularity existed, that it developed into a big bang, that this evolved into a universe, that the universe evolved life in it, would not be accepted as being due to design - instead it would be considered as the result of chance.
Religious people, on the other hand, would claim that both the universe and life are the products of careful design and deliberate creation: the system of big bang and its concomitant natural law being specifically designed and created so as to produce moral beings. Neither side would be able to refute the other, since they agree on the observable facts, and disagree only on the aspects that are not empirically observable or measurable or even open to investigation in a scientific manner. The religious person could maintain that man has a divine purpose in life, while the atheist would deny this.
Certainly, however, both could agree wholeheartedly on the actual science - the origin theory - while at the same time disagreeing vehemently on its philosophical interpretation. Clearly then, the theory of evolution, and of the big bang, are in no way refutations of religion per se.
DETERMINISM, RANDOMNESS, AND FREE WILL
According to science, the state of the universe at any one time depends on its immediately prior state. From that prior state the following state develops according to natural law, either deterministically or quantum-randomly. Thus, the state of any entity or group of entities at any one time depends only on the prior state of the (entire) universe24 and on quantum randomness.
A truly scientific approach towards human brain states would demand that they also be considered as 'natural' phenomena. This would seem to imply that the brain states of all people at any one time depend only on the previous state of the universe (including all the brain states in it), and on random processes25. Since each universe-state depends on the previous state, then necessarily they all depend on the first state of the universe - namely the conditions obtaining at the initial singularity (or at the big bang). If this were true however, then the state of all entities in the universe, including all the brain states of all humanity, would be inherent in the big bang. This would mean that man has no part in deciding what to think about, how to act, and so on - all is preprogrammed into the big bang.
Of course quantum uncertainty (see chapter 5) introduces random processes rather than deterministic processes. Furthermore, even in a fully deterministic universe, the complexity of the interactions involved may well preclude any possible method of even computer-aided prediction of a future thought or act26. In such a universe then, if thoughts cannot be predicted, we can say that man has a 'calculationally-free' will. Similarly, if man feels that he possesses a free will, we can say that he has a 'psychologically free' will.
However, we will say that in such a universe, man does not have an 'inherently-free' will: regardless of whether or not thoughts are predictable, or whether or not man 'feels' free, in actuality man has no say over what he will think or do - he only thinks he does.
If Gd were to create a universe governed by the laws of physics as we know them, then as soon as the big bang exists, all of man's future history (quantumly-possible histories) are written therein - man is but a puppet acting them out. Nature - which was created by Gd - decides all via deterministic (and quantum-random) processes. From the very first instant the entire history of the universe and man is either decided in detail (determinism) or left to chance (quantum indeterminacy) - nothing at all is left to man27. All events which occur in such a universe, all actions seemingly initiated by man, are in actuality attributable to Gd, since they are indirect results of the initial conditions and laws of nature created by Gd. Man is a puppet who falsely believes he pulls his own strings. In reality man can no more decide whether to be 'good' or 'evil' than he can decide whether or not to be born.
THE RELIGIOUS VIEW : FREE WILL AND PURPOSE
A universe in which all is random, or in which all is totally determined by the initial conditions instituted by Gd, is devoid of meaning to Gd - and its creation by Gd would be purposeless.
In this work however, we assume that the universe was created for some purpose, that it possesses meaning from the point of view of its Creator, and that humans are involved in the achievement of this purpose via meaningful activity. This idea that the structure and design of the Universe is intimately connected with that of man, is “the Anthropic Principle”, further discussed in Chapter 2.
Since Gd created the universe for a purpose, it must be true that a non-random, non-deterministic element has been injected into the universe. Further, in order that the events caused by this element have meaning, it must involve intelligent activity. A perfect candidate for such a non-random non-deterministic intelligent element is an 'inherently free' will28. 29 30And since humans are involved in the achievement of purpose, it is postulated that a radical difference exists between the actions of man and that of the rest of the universe: specifically, that man possesses an 'inherently free' will, which allows him to decide on his activity and thoughts in a partially autonomous manner. That is, using his free will31, man can free himself from the deterministic/random universe and initiate activity (partially) independently of the prior state of the universe.
Free will can exist only if it is founded on processes, which are neither random nor determined. If the processes underlying an allegedly free willed decision are actually random, then the result of these processes, the randomly-arrived-at decision, cannot be said to be the expression of a will, since it is random. If the underlying processes are instead determined ones, then the resulting decision is determined, and therefore by definition is not a free one.
Even if the decisions are inherently unpredictable, for example based on non-computable processes, if these processes are at their fundamental level deterministic/random then the decisions they give rise to may be non-predictable but neither are they free32.
If the brain state corresponding to a decision follows from prior brain states (and universe-states) in a chain of cause and effect following the same natural law governing other events, then the decision is no more free willed than is the falling of a drop of rain, the growth of a plant, or the orbit of an electron in its path.
Even in mental terms the same problem arises. Free willed action needs to be based on logical considerations in order to be will rather than caprice, however if it is so based, then the decision is not free, but is rather dictated by logic. And, to whatever extent it is not logical, it is not will that is deciding, but rather some other factor. The question of the origin of a free-willed choice therefore presents a paradox, since if it is caused, it is not free, yet if it is random, it is not willed.
Even if one posits an extra-physical realm, which interacts with the physical in order to produce free-willed phenomena, we are again involved in the mind body problem, the paradox of the physical and non-physical being able to interact. And in any case, the acausality of free will is inherent to the nature of the decision - that it is free - and an extra-physical realm may not provide a solution to this.
Even if all else operates in accordance with the ordinary laws of physics, free-willed decisions do not. The brain processes involved in making decisions between moral alternatives of right and wrong are in this view unique in that they are the only non-random/deterministic processes in the universe.
In an otherwise random/determined universe, only free-willed decisions can imbue events with meaning and purpose from the point of view of Gd . Only a 'moral universe' with its freedom of development - as opposed to a random/determined universe - could possibly be of interest to a Purposive creator. Only a universe containing a 'moral being' can begin to exhibit Purpose.
MORAL BEINGS AND PURPOSIVE ACTIVITY
Moral activity however, could begin only upon the emergence of the first true 'moral being' - a being possessing sufficient intelligence and foresight to understand the consequences of its actions, equipped with a moral sense to know the difference between good and evil actions, and endowed with the free will to choose between the two.
Clearly there can be no moral choice in a being lacking consciousness and self-consciousness. It therefore behooves us to ask where along the evolutionary chain the phenomenon of consciousness and self-consciousness arose, and then when there arose a moral consciousness.
As the eminent evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky writes, self awareness is quite possibly unique to human beings: "Self-awareness is, then, one of the fundamental, possibly the most fundamental characteristic of the human species. This characteristic is an evolutionary novelty: the biological species from which mankind has descended had only rudiments of self-awareness, or perhaps lacked it altogether."
If self-awareness arose only in the human humans, or possibly is present in a rudimentary form in 'the species from which mankind has descended', moral consciousness could only have arisen in one of these two species. Although not everyone might agree on definitions of intelligence, consciousness, morality and so on, certainly no-one would consider any animal - even the highest ape - as morally responsible for its actions 33. This is because no species other than man seems to posses the requisite combination of free will, intelligence, and analytic ability which can allow us to consider their actions to be freely chosen. According to Darwin34 - in agreement with earlier writers: "of all the differences between man and the lower animals, the moral sense of conscience is by far the most important."
Julian Huxley35 saw the emergence of moral consciousness as a turning point in the evolutionary process itself: "It is only through social evolution that the world-stuff can now realize radically new possibilities. Mechanical interaction and natural selection still operate, but have become of secondary importance. For good or evil, the mechanism of evolution has in the main been transferred onto the social or conscious level...The slow methods of variation and heredity are outstripped by the speedier processes of acquiring and transmitting experience...And in so far as the mechanism of evolution ceases to be blind and automatic and becomes conscious, ethics can be injected into the evolutionary process....it becomes possible to introduce...moral purpose into evolution."
According to Erich Fromm [italics in original]:"....The religious need is rooted in the basic condition of existence of the human species.......the human species can be defined as the primate who emerged at the point of evolution where instinctive determination had reached a minimum and the development of the brains a maximum . This combination....had never occurred before in animal evolution and constitutes, biologically speaking, a completely new phenomenon. " 36 Using the terminology of Victor Frankl 37, one could say that the human being is unique in that it is driven at its most basic level by "the will to meaning". No other member of the evolutionary chain can be so described - and thus man is qualitatively different than his evolutionary forebears.
One could say that until the emergence of man, there was no moral activity on earth, no free willed choice, and thus no true purpose - at least from the point of view of Gd - to the existence of the universe.38 We can now begin to consider what methodology would be the most logical to employ in creating a purposive universe.
A POSSIBLE CREATION SCHEDULE
After creating the 'initial singularity', big bang, and natural law, Gd could “sit back” and watch the creation develop along the path it was designed to follow. Matter would emerge from the initial energy, atoms would be built up from the matter, and stars would form from the atoms. Planets would assume shape and finally after billions of years of 'waiting', life would emerge 39.
Then, after a few billion more years, after the extinction of the dinosaurs, with the amoeba finally evolved via the ape into the human being, the long wait would be over, and the drama of moral activity could begin. With the emergence of the first moral being, the universe could begin to be considered meaningful, to be working towards the achievement of some purpose.
This is a glorious scenario. However, it is somewhat inelegant, to say the least, for Gd to have created a universe which must go through 15 billion years of predictable (or random) meaningless activity - preprogrammed into the big bang. Until the emergence of the first moral being, before the appearance of man, all is deterministic or random. All the activity unfolding to Gd's 'eyes' for 15 billion years follows from Gd's own actions - Gd's choice of the conditions of the big bang and of the form of the laws of nature and so on. Indeed, one can say that everything was already computed by Gd's 'mind' 15 billions years earlier by instantaneous extrapolation from the big bang. In addition, not only does Gd already know beforehand every detail of this 15-billion-year-long movie 40, the whole production is meaningless since no moral activity takes place, and it is only as a vehicle for moral activity that the universe was created at all.
THE "INSTANTANEOUS-FAST-FORWARD UNIVERSE"
A far more elegant procedure would be for Gd to cause time to pass in 'fast-forward', to skip over as fast as possible the 15 billion years of predictable and meaningless preliminaries; to begin the drama of life where it becomes both nonpredictable and also meaningful, when the universe begins to work towards the purpose of its creation - at the emergence of the first moral being. Indeed, considering that this 'fast forward' is being performed by the omnipotent Gd, creator of space-time, then rather than skipping through 15 billion years in 'fast-forward', one could say that passing from creation/big bang to the emergence of morality is accomplished instantaneously. Thus, the universe would in essence be created as an "instant universe" at the stage immediately prior to the emergence of moral man. This would be the logical, reasonable method to use in creating a meaningful universe41.
Alternatively, one could say that Gd computed the future history of the universe by extrapolating from the state at the big bang. However, since free-willed decisions cannot be simulated or computed (that is the assumption we made previously about free-will) the extrapolation of the future history can be performed only up to the stage of the emergence of free-willed choice42.
Thus Gd could have an exact blueprint in Mind of the stage immediately prior to the first exercise of free-willed choice, merely by extrapolating from the big bang. Since this is the first interesting and purposeful stage, the universe could be created directly at this moral stage, rather than at the big-bang stage. From the Mental blueprint for the big bang, an instantaneous Mental fast-forward could be performed to obtain a Mental blueprint of the pre-moral stage. From this Mental blueprint the universe is instantaneously created, complete and at the immediate pre-moral stage.43
Origin Theory and Genesis : The Difference
According to the scientific origin theory, the universe originated in a big bang, and has developed over a period of billions of years until the present time. According to our understanding of it, the Biblical creation account agrees with this, just with the added stipulation that the billions of years between big-bang-creation and the emergence of the first moral being were passed in "instantaneous fast-forward" rather than in "real time". Since the scientific method cannot distinguish between a universe that was "fast-forwarded" and one which developed in "real-time", there is no scientific difference between the creation accounts of the standard big bang theory and the instant-universe theory 44.
There are nevertheless three differences between the two approaches; however they are metaphysical, philosophical and semantic differences, rather than scientific differences.
a)The metaphysical difference involves the distinction between "real-time" passage versus "fast-forward time" passage - the scientific method cannot distinguish between the two.
b)The philosophical difference is as follows:
According to the Bible, the universe contains intelligent conscious beings because it was designed to contain them45. On the other hand, according to the scientific view, the universe itself is a product of chance, and the presence within the universe of conscious intelligent beings is also a result of chance46. However, this is actually only a philosophical difference and not a scientific difference, since the scientific method cannot distinguish between a universe which emerged and evolved by chance, and one which emerged and evolved according to a design [a design which includes the laws of quantum-randomness].
c)The semantic difference between the "real-time" and "fast-forward" scenarios involves a question of priority. In a fast-forward universe, which stage of the universe is the more "basic" stage, and which is the "first" stage? We can decide this matter as follows:
Science and the Bible would agree that not every big bang would evolve into a life-containing universe, and that only very specific types of big bangs would develop into universes containing conscious intelligent beings. Thus, science and the Bible would agree that if a universe were to be created with the express intent that there eventually develop within it intelligent conscious beings, it would have to be very carefully designed. First the type of universe desired would have to be pictured - that is, a mental design would have to be constructed containing a picture of the type of being desired - namely a moral being - and the type of physical environment and ecology it required. This mental design would, when completed, give rise to a mental blueprint for the essential components of the proposed universe. Then this mental universe-blueprint would be "extrapolated backwards" to determine which type of big bang would lead to such a universe. Only then could this big bang be created, and instantaneously fast-forwarded up to the point at which there develops within it the desired moral being 47.
Terminology:' Teleological evolution' means evolution according to a Divine plan written into the laws of nature. A 'teleological big bang' would be one, which is designed so as to produce some particular result. In our case, the design for a teleological big bang is derived from the plan for the moral stage. We will therefore use the term "teleoderived big bang".
Definition: Teleoderived big bang: a big bang whose design was derived from a mental blueprint of a moral-stage universe [a universe containing its first moral being].
According to the "real-time" scenario, the first and most basic stage of the universe was the big bang. On the other hand, according to the "fast-forward" scenario, the conditions of the big bang were teleoderived from the moral stage ( in order to guarantee that moral beings emerge from the big bang when it is fast-forwarded ). Thus it is the moral stage which is the first and most basic stage of the universe. However, this difference is only terminological/ metaphysical, rather than scientific; science cannot distinguish between a universe whose big bang was:.
teleoderived from a moral stage and
one whose big bang simply arose by itself
If the terms and concepts involved may be problematic to some, then even more so the whole that employs these concepts. Genesis as interpreted within the context of the instant universe scenario may seem foreign to our scientific/technological mode of thought; however it is not our intention to prove that Genesis is valid, or that there is a Gd or purpose - we wish only to show that if we accept the fact of purposeful creation (and so on) for arguments sake - as explained in the introduction - then the moral stage instant universe can be seen to be the most reasonable mode for such a creation.
There is a very striking parallel between this idea and the creation account in the Bible: The beginning of Genesis tells of the creation of the universe - and of man and woman. Immediately thereafter we are told of the Garden of Eden incident wherein mankind learns to distinguish between Good and Evil, and makes the first moral choice. That is, the beginning of the universe was followed immediately by the emergence of morality. Thus in its overall structure, the Biblical creation account is in agreement with our logic in dictating that the universe 'began' just before the first moral choice was made.
We have hereby demonstrated the plausibility of the central thesis of this book - and from here on we will indeed accept its validity. That is, we will assume that the instant universe method of creation is the most reasonable method of creating a purposive universe, and that the most reasonable creation nexus would be that of the emergence of the first free-willed being, as stated in Genesis
Science teaches us that the universe is in a big bang emergent state. Genesis tells us that if this is so, then the universe emerged into physical existence as a big band emergent universe at the moral stage of the development of mankind. We can now paraphrase the verse in Genesis: Vayomer Elokim: Yehi Ohr (And Gd said: Let there be light) into:
And Gd said: ‘Let there have been a big bang’.
1Rambam: III:25
2Rambam: III:25: ואל תט מהשקפת חדוש העולם כי אם בהוכחה, וזו אינה מצויה בטבע
3II:23 [trans. by Friedlander] . Kapakh: "compare אמונות ודעות פתיחת המאמר ראשון "רס" ג
4 Davies “Gd and the New Physics” p.3: Stated in reference to the attempts of some Christian theologians to establish the exact date of creation.
5 Wheeler: "Beyond the Black Hole", p358; "Strangeness", p375, note #99.
6 Definitions:
Universe-state: The universe as it is in its entirety at any particular moment.
Big bang emergent state: Any state of the universe, which is consistent with its having emerged in accordance with the origin theory. Consider a universe containing only the planet earth without containing other stars and planets, or containing only man without also containing his evolutionary predecessors (or their remains) and without the outside universe containing all that is required for planetary development according to scientific theory. Such a “humanity- centered universe” could not have arisen according to the origin theory and is therefore not in a “big bang emergent state.”
7 G.Penn.
8 Gosse, a naturalist, was acquainted with Darwin and met with him before writing his book. It was not until 1859, two years after the publication of Gosse’s “Omphalos”, that Darwin published his “Origin of the Species.” However, Darwin’s ideas had been known beforehand through published and unpublished material, and his ideas had also been anticipated by numerous forerunners, e.g.Chambers: “Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation:1844.. Gosse rejected the theory that man was descended from apes, as proposed by Robert Chambers.
9 A.J.Ayer, “The Problem of Knowledge”, p163-164.
10 A.N. Whitehead: “Science and the Modern World”, P.91.
11 Temporal Solipsism is the belief that the universe emerged into existence at this very moment in a complete big-bang-emergent state. This position can be neither proven nor disproven. That we exist right now, and that both we and he existed one moment ago, are statements which we cannot prove to him, and which he cannot disprove. This kind of “instant universe” scenario differs from that proposed in this work in that it has a built in general anarchic denial at any one moment that the universe existed the previous moment. We propose instead, that “time began” not at the singularity, but at the time of free will emergence, and that subsequent to that time, the universe existed just as truly as it exists at present. This is not solipsism at all, merely a shift in the proposed timing of creation.
12 Man has constructed computers which have large memories. Clearly, therefore, memory is a physical entity. As such, a Gd who can create human brains can certainly create human memories inside them. These memories can be of anything at all.
13Russel: "Human Knowledge": p194.
14 That is, the assumption is not disprovable by science or logic.
15prior to the discovery of the cosmic background radiation, which provided experimental evidence for the correctness of the big bang theory
16
17
18
19 This is a meta-metaphysical or hypothetical meta-physical question.
20 The more dogmatic fundamentalist approach however, might reject such conclusions in regards to Genesis since a description of creation originating in a document of divine origin might be legitimately qualified to make such statements and distinctions despite their apparent lack of meaning if made in accordance with the limitations of human knowledge. This issue is dealt with in later chapters.
21 Even if free-willed consciousness is a holistic emergent phenomenon, science would still assume that such a phenomenon would arise only under very specific conditions, and that these conditions would themselves arise as a result of a chain of cause-effect stretching from the initial conditions of the universe.
22 Problems raised by quantum indeterminacy are dealt with later.
23 Ramban states that Gd gave the waters the power to bring forth "a living soul" - that is, life. See also Midrash Gen.R. 8:1 on Gen. 1:26 ['let us make man'] and see ref. to Midrash Thilim "and the spirit of Gd hovered" , this is the spirit of Adam. Also see Gen. R. 17:1 which states that 'the spirit of Gd hovered' represents one of the ten ma'amarim (essential creative acts). We can thus understand the passage "and Gd breathed into man 'nishmas khayim' " as implying a potentiality placed in the creation [see e.g. the Midrash regarding the creations created at dusk on the sixth day]. This potential would be activated when a being emerged which had the capacity to be moral- or we can understand it as meaning a special Divine intervention at the time of the emergence of such a being.
Therefore, for those who might insist that free willed consciousness can be achieved only via Divine bestowal, in the text above, read: "Gd could certainly ensure the emergence of a being capable of serving as a vessel for the Divine gift of free willed consciousness." According to Rambam ["Guide" II:6], any act of Gd - any means by which Gd's Will is carried out in the physical universe - is termed an 'angel'. Since the laws of nature were created by Gd, according to Rambam the category 'angel' includes natural forces such as the elements, and the formative power in a seed. Thus, when it is said that Gd Willed a certain event or process to take place, what is meant is that it occurred via an angel - for example by the action of 'the laws of nature'.
Therefore, to say that Gd Willed that Man possess a consciousness, or a free-willed consciousness, is to say that Gd gave these properties to Man via an angel, or equivalently, via the workings of 'natural law'.
24 Ignoring problems of light cones and Cauchy conditions.
25 See however chapter 5 for brief discussion of holism in this connection.
26 Chaos, etc.
27 Assume that Gd created a big bang and allowed it to develop naturally. According to the principles of quantum physics, the universe could develop along very many ( - a countably infinite number of - ) paths. Each path would lead to a different universe, some differing only minutely from each other, some differing vastly and fundamentally from each other.
If the entire universe is founded on the basis of quantum physics and no free will exists, then after creating the big bang, Gd could predict exactly which are the possible paths of development of the universe, and obtain by extrapolation a complete picture of the entire history of each possible universe.
If a specific big bang were created a countably infinite amount of times, and each universe was filmed as it developed, then after a countably infinite amount of time, a complete film library would be obtained containing a complete description of every possible universe which could result from that big bang. We could then number the films sequentially and refer to them by their number.
If we had committed to memory the complete film library, we could conjure up a complete description of any of the possible universes by referring to it by its assigned number.
We could then construct the analogy of a "die" with a countably infinite amount of sides, (for example, a random number generator) with each side having a number on it such that each film number appeared exactly once on the die. If we associate one universe-film to each side, and the flipping of the die is random, then the universe-films are summoned at random. If we will consider this scenario, we will see that flipping this die is exactly analogous to watching a big bang develop naturally : both procedures lead to the playing of a randomly chosen universe-film.
We can now apply this analogy to Gd: when Gd decides to create a certain big bang, even before actually creating it , there can be obtained - via mental extrapolation - a complete description of each state of each possible resultant universe. For Gd to go ahead and actually create the big bang and let it develop, is exactly the same as for us to toss our film-library die.
Since all the futures of all the possible universes resulting from a big bang are known to Gd as soon as He decides on the characteristics of the big bang, it adds nothing to Gd's knowledge for Him to actually create the big bang and allow it to develop. If Gd wishes to know simply which one of the possible universes will eventually win out - by chance - all He has to do is construct a random die with as many sides as there are possible futures as , we explained previously, and spin the die. This is far simpler and far more elegant and intelligent than actually creating the big bang and "waiting around" billions of years for it to develop.
Thus, if the universe does run according to the principles of quantum physics, there would be no sense in Gd's creating a universe at all - it would merely be a boring game - equivalent to one in which one die was thrown once, with the one throw lasting many billions of years!
INSERT: "universe as Gd's machine" - from fw article
28 Possibly an inherently-free will is the only possibility which fulfils the stated criteria.
29As we have seen, if the beings which inhabit a universe do not possess an 'inherently free' will, then all acts and thoughts in that universe derive solely from Gd's own initial act of creation of the universe and its laws of nature. Such a universe would not have any meaning or purpose from the point of view of Gd
30 One can construct a 'film library' as discussed in a previous note even if free will does exist: At any juncture where free will comes into play, there are a countable infinity of options available from which to choose freely; then each of the resulting possible universe-states has a countable infinity of options available at the next decision point, etc., etc. Thus one can construct a film library of all the possible total histories of the universe; i.e., this library will contain, corresponding to each and every possible combination of moral free-willed choices in the universe, a universe-film portraying exactly those choices.[A reference to Gd's knowledge of such a 'film-library' can be found in the Responsa of R. Hai Gaon. See reference in Guttman p.87.]
As in the case with quantum probability, one could number the films and bring each universe to existence (or to mind) by pressing the corresponding number of its film on the universe-generator.
However, the crucial point is that it is impossible to simulate an actual created universe in this way: the decision of which film number to choose cannot simulate the free willed decisions of moral beings.
The whole point of free will is that there is no way for free willed decisions to be predicted or simulated on a computer since free will is beyond determinism or probability. Thus, there is an absolute significance to which precise decision is made at each juncture: that Gd can freely choose one of the films merely reflects Gd's choice, not man's. As we can see from Rambam ["Guide" III:20] there is no way that Gd can "know" which film will correspond to the actual universe , without going ahead and creating that universe:
"Gd's knowledge extends to things not in existence, and includes also the infinite...we may attribute to Gd the knowledge of a thing which does not yet exist, but which will exist, and which can be affected by Gd when it exists. However, that which never exists cannot be an object of Gd's knowledge."
That is, Gd knows the future choices only of a created universe. However, if the universe is never actually created, Gd does not know what the choices would have been had the universe been created. Of course even a totally deterministic and/or random universe is an enigma to Gd if it is not actually created. However, despite the fact that the result is unknown, the universe would not be created since the unknown result is inherently uninteresting since it is either determined or random. On the other hand, free willed choice is Purposeful, and the occurrences in such a universe are therefore not only unknown, they are of interest. Thus, since it is not possible to know the results of such a type of Purposeful universe without actually creating, it is reasonable that the universe would be created.
Thus, if there was introduced into the big bang the potential to produce a universe with an element not of chance but rather of "free choice", so that the universe could develop in a way unpredictable to Gd, in a non-random way; if the actual free-willed-choices of the intelligent beings in the universe were not amenable to simulation, extrapolation, or models based on random throws of a die however complicated; then it would be an interesting spectacle to watch, even a drama which could contain within it some special Purpose.
31 From this point on, 'free will' will mean exclusively what we have termed an 'inherently free' will. For a more comprehensive and deeper discussion of the whole free will issue : free will versus determinism : free will , meaning , and purpose :etc: see Rabinowitz :" " and " ".
32 The fact that a decision process is non-computable does not make it more free or less free. Even in a non-computable process, components which are not random can be computed by a real-time simulation, and the fact that they cannot be predicted simply means that one can not determine the result of the simulation any faster than the events will themselves unfold. If by performing a simulation of a choice one can know the result of the choice, then even if the simulation is slower than, or as slow as, the choice mechanism itself, there is clearly no free will involved.
33 See however Gosse "Life", and Donald R. Griffin : see also ref. in chapter 6, section "Free Will and Animals".
34 "The Descent of Man", Chapter 4.
35 Huxley and Huxley [Romanes Lectures] p126.
36 "To Have or To Be" Erich Fromm
37 Victor Frankl "Man's Search for Meaning"
38 The relevance of the question as to whether or not there are other free willed species of beings in the universe is dealt with in a later chapter.
39 A more detailed description of the origin theory is given in Chapter C.
40 We assume that Gd, as Creator of space-time-matter-energy and of the laws of physics is 'above' the indeterminacy of quantum physics. However, this assumption is not necessary to our point. In the next section, we will make the same point without assuming anything about quantum physics. [See Note # 15 of old ms.].
41The Closed Universe: In the ordinary model of the universe, that is, of four-dimensional space-time, the three dimensions of space are taken to be 'closed'[see discussion in Chapter B] into a 'three-sphere', so that space has no beginning and no end, no boundaries. In contrast, time in the standard model is taken to have a beginning and an end in a singularity, so that the one dimension of time is taken as being non-closed.
Recently, the eminent cosmologist Stephen Hawking has proposed an alternate model for the universe. In this model, all four space-time dimensions are closed together into a four-sphere.
In this model, time has no beginning and no end, just as in the standard model space has no beginning and no end. In this model then, all points of time are equal - no point in time can be said to be the 'beginning' of the universe. One cannot point to a particular point, a 'big bang' point, and say that the universe would have emerged at that stage rather than at any other stage.
In creating such a universe, there would be no particular point in time which would be more likely to serve as the beginning of the universe. Therefore its begining point would be determined by other criteria than those of the laws of nature. According to our model, we would say that the point at which the first moral being emerged would serve as the beginning point. That is, Gd would create the universe 'beginning' from that point.
42A reference to Gd's knowledge of all possible results of free willed decisions - but not necessarily which one will be actually chosen - can be found in the Responsa of R. Hai Gaon. See reference in Guttman p.87.
43 Hugo Mandelbaum, p84 of AOJS says that can't be inst. un. bec. this means that the laws of nature were created at the end of creation, which is against Jer.33:25: Answer:
According to the prophecy of Jeremiah, Gd says "if I have not appointed ... the laws of nature...I will abandon the Jewish People". Some have interpreted this to mean that just as the laws of nature always were and always will be, so too the Jewish People will never be abandoned by Gd.
For this reason they claim that it cannot be that the laws of nature were created only at the end of creation; for if it is not true that the laws of nature always have been in effect, then the implication is that Gd will abandon the Jews.
Of course one could explain the passage to mean "as long as there are days and nights, and laws of nature, the Jewish People remain Gd's People". However, this explanation is problematical since the words "if I have not appointed ... the laws of nature.." implies "if at any time there were not laws of nature".
However, we can interpret this within the context of the instant universe scenario as follows: The universe with its laws of nature emerged into existence upon the emergence and exercise of free will. The universe never existed in physical reality prior to the emergence and exercise of free will, and the laws of nature were instituted immediately at the emergence of the universe into physical reality. Thus, as long as there has been, and will be, a physical universe, the laws of nature remain in force - therefore the Jewish People will forever remain Gd's people.
44 Indeed, the concept of a time frame for the development of the universe itself is a problematic one. See e.g. Joe Rosen "The Age of the Universe" in "The American Journal of Physics" Vol .
The idea of a fast-forwarded time can be found in various forms in the writings of Penn and Gosse, and also in the works of contemporary Christian theologians.
The idea can also be found in Jewish sources, in the writings of Harav Kook, R. Shimon Schwab andthe Lubavitcher Rebbe. More recently the idea was mentioned in an article by N. L. Rabinovitch in "Challenge".
Mention of the instant universe idea in a non-theological context can be found for example in "Godel Escher Bach" [D.Hofstatter, Vintage Books Random House 1980] "Turing's" speech on top of page 735 , and in science fiction , in "TheLathe of Heaven" by Ursula Leguin.
The idea of a fast-forwarding of physical processes is somewhat analogous to the 'time dilation' of special relativity, and the variability of the temporal metric coefficients in general relativity, both of which can result in differing 'rates of time passage' for people in different situations.
45 The question of how a universe governed by quantum randomness can be designed to a specific end is discussed in chapter 4.
46 c.f. the "strong anthropic principle" in chapter 6. However, even in that scenario, man and the universe are both products of chance.
47 In the "inflation" scenario, the initial big-bang conditions are smoothed out. According to Pagels:"One of the beautiful features of this scenario is that inflation can take almost any hypothetical initial conditions for the universe to the right beginning state for the standard big-bang model; "fine tuning" of the initial conditions is not needed.["Perfect Symmetry "p.352]
…
FIN 2 intro
The purpose of this work is to show that one can accept as valid both the Biblical accounts of creation and also the scientific theories regarding the origins of the universe – specifically, the Big Bang and evolution theories1. The reconciliation of the two approaches is of course made simpler if the Biblical presentation is taken as allegorical. However, many people - both religious and secular - feel that this is not really the way it was meant, and are therefore not satisfied with such an approach. We will therefore endeavor to work within the framework of a literal interpretation, to whatever extent this is feasible.
We wish our resolution of the problem to be acceptable to those who find the evolutionary theory most problematic. Thus, when we speak of Jewish belief or tradition, we will always be referring to what is termed ‘Orthodox’ belief.
There are two entirely separate groups of people for whom this book was written. One group is comprised of those who reject scientific origin theories because they seem to contradict the Bible. The other group is comprised of those who reject the Biblical creation accounts - and with it, all of the Bible - because it seems to contradict the scientific origin theories. It is hoped that the present work will allow some narrowing of the gap between these two groups. On the one hand, it is hoped that religious people will not feel uncomfortable with the scientific origin theories. On the other hand, it is hoped that those who have more faith in science than in the Bible will also accept the integrity and credibility of those who believe in the validity of the Bible.
The issues to be addressed in order for the conflict to be resolved are very different for the two groups. One group is concerned with the religious and theological validity of the explanations, whereas the other group is concerned only with the scientific validity of the explanations. It is therefore inevitable that some of the discussions and arguments presented in the book will be of little interest or relevance to one group or the other.
Most of the objections raised by religious people against the evolutionary theory base themselves on two types of argument. The first concerns the impossibility of evolution producing life, or consciousness, or a soul. In contrast, a scientific approach considers life, consciousness, and the soul also to be purely physical or mental processes or entities - that is, if they exist at all. They are not viewed as being qualitatively different from other phenomena. Therefore, such arguments are generally brushed aside in scientific circles. The second type of objection raised by religious people against the evolution theory concerns the improbability of successful evolution given only the few billion years of the Earth’s existence2. However, this approach may run the danger of finding itself obsolete in the face of future advances, leaving atheistic interpretations of evolutionary theory to claim victory over religion. This would happen if, for example, a purely natural mechanism were discovered which allows evolution to occur much faster or in a more directed fashion than previously thought. Or consider the case if it were discovered that the Earth is actually much older than previously thought! Or, what if the universe undergoes cyclic expansions and contractions, with some of the developments gained in one cycle, lasting to the next, etc?
Various approaches attempt to discredit the theory of evolution on scientific grounds, but none of these are accepted as convincing by non-religious scientists. Even if at some future date a different scientific account will replace the evolutionary theory, it is rather unlikely that the creation account in its literal sense will be arrived at from scientific considerations.
Scientists generally assume several things. The first assumption is that the universe is comprehensible to the human mind. A second assumption at the foundation of the scientific endeavor is that all measurable natural phenomena occur in repetitive and identifiable patterns, which can be mathematically described. These mathematical formulations are called laws of nature.4 That we have a satisfactory understanding of much of the observed phenomena in the universe reinforces this assumption. The philosophical/psychological implication of this assumption is that all phenomena (even those not yet fully understood) can be comfortably attributed to natural law rather than to the workings of a supernatural being. Therefore it is thought that there is no necessity to postulate the existence or intervention of G-d5.
From the viewpoint of scientists, man has existed for only a tiny fraction of the age of the universe, and critical thought began only a few thousand years ago. Science is still in its infancy, yet it has made tremendous progress in the last few hundred years. Although there is much still unknown and inexplicable, if the growth of knowledge continues as it has until now, according to this viewpoint there is no reason to assume that there is anything unknowable to the human mind - or to some possible genetically-improved human brain of the future.
As a result of these beliefs, when a scientific model is discredited by further scientific discovery, the reaction among scientists is not to give up science and look to religion for the answer. Ideally, scientists do not shy away from weaknesses in scientific theory, or reject evidence of these weaknesses, since they do not threaten the scientific world-view. Weaknesses in a theory are the best pointers to a new and better theory, and are thus eagerly set upon. Even if it requires time for the improved understanding to develop, there is confidence that this better understanding will develop. Even if the invalidity of a particular natural law is demonstrated, the assumption is that there is some other natural law at work, not that the scientific process or world-view is wrong.
An example of this process: It was clear to the ancient Greeks that - as both a logical/mathematical and physical fact - parallel lines never meet. However, two thousand years later it was realized that this seemingly obviously true statement is actually of only limited truth mathematically/logically, since mathematical spaces can be curved rather than flat6. Even more radically, it was later realized that even physical space could be curved rather than flat7. Rather than disproving mathematics or science, these discoveries which indeed repudiated previous mathematical and physical understandings actually enriched them. Logically, there may be other fundamental, as-yet-unacknowledged assumptions, underlying currently accepted theories of nature, which may repudiate a theory but will enrich science.
For these reasons it does not seem to the author that attacks on the scientific origin theory can weaken the validity of science to the scientist, or strengthen the claims of the religious person who believes that religion conflicts with science.
UNDERSTANDING GENESIS
We may believe that G-d created the universe for a purpose, but we do not know what G-d is, we cannot truly even define the concept. Neither can we properly define the words 'creation' [how can there be a beginning?], 'universe' [it cannot be defined except in relation to itself since nothing else exists] or ‘purpose’ [it cannot be defined in terms that are neutral]. Nevertheless, most of us feel that we know intuitively the meaning of the sentence 'G-d created the universe for a purpose'. We understand it intuitively even if we cannot express the basic emotion-concepts central to this sentence in the necessarily limited medium of words.
To read Genesis and accept all that is written there is difficult for the 'sophisticated modern' since we are generally used to talking about only that which we can be seen, touched, or experienced directly. Especially in modern times where science and technology reign, where one is used to 'provability', or to assigning meaning only to terms which can be defined 'objectively', speaking of G-d, of Purpose and so on is all the more difficult. Many feel uncomfortable just mentioning the word 'G-d'.
However, when speaking of the Bible, we cannot avoid the subject of G-d. Nor can we ignore concepts like 'creation' and 'universe' and 'purpose'. Therefore, if we are to deal with questions regarding the seeming conflict of Genesis and science, and we understand the Bible from within the Jewish tradition perception of it, we may find these concepts and terms unavoidable.
The creation account in Genesis contains many important teachings. Several of these include metaphysical teachings irrelevant to science. Examples include the following: The universe was created. (This is impossible to assess by the scientific method, as we will see.) All that is in the universe is a product of design. There is Good and Evil. Life has purpose. Man has a spiritual nature and man has a free will and therefore the freedom to choose between good and evil. Man’s life and his moral choice are of significance to G-d.
All of these elements are of course absent in the origin theory of science. Nevertheless, these essentially religious teachings are not necessarily in conflict with the origin theory. Rather, the essential conflict between Genesis and the origin theory is generally attributed to the discrepancy in the age of the universe as implied in commentaries on Genesis and as stipulated in the origin theory, and it will be this issue which is the focus of the book.
Many scientists might categorize as metaphysics (being ‘about physics’ rather than being physics itself) the question of why there are patterns, why there are laws of nature, why anything exists at all, and why humans are capable of comprehending these subjects. Recently however science has advanced to the point where some scientists are beginning to ask these questions8.
As Davies writes: “To imagine G-d reigning in an earlier phase of the cosmos, and being motivated to cause the universe, is quite misguided, and the result of attributing to the Deity and over-anthropormorphic status. Not only do notions like cause and effect require the existence of time in which to operate, but also they require time asymmetry; but time, and especially the asymmetry, are concrete properties of the material world, having meaning only after its creation, and indeed, in the latter case, well after, when the primordial equilibrium had been removed by the cosmological expansion.”
Hawking states: “Many people would claim that the role of science is confined...they would regard the question of the initial conditions for the universe as belonging to the realm of metaphysics or religion.” Although Hawking himself disagrees with this view, and considers this inquiry into ultimate origins to be legitimately within the purview of science, he continues:
“What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to govern? Is the ultimate unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Although science may solve the problem of how the universe began, it cannot answer the question: Why does the universe bother to exist?”
Whether the truly ‘ultimate’ questions are or will ever be truly in the legitimate province of science- or what is today called science -is a moot point. In order to avoid these complications here, we will speak of the origin theory or the big bang theory as a theory of the development of the physical universe from its initial state rather than as a theory of ultimate origins.
ACCEPTING - FOR ARGUMENTS SAKE - THE VALIDITY OF BOTH APPROACHES
In this book we will deal with the Biblical and the scientific explanations for the development of the universe. Whether or not the reader happens to believe in both is irrelevant to our purpose here. We are not attempting here to convince people of the validity of either one. Rather we will try to show that no contradiction arises if one believes in the validity of both.9 For argument’s sake, we will assume that the basic premises of the two theories are correct.
Thus, although the modern theory of evolution has had much scientific criticism, is far from a proven theory, and will possibly undergo revision in the future, we assume here that its features are essentially correct. We similarly accept the validity of the big bang theory despite possible present and future scientific revisions10. Coupling the theory of evolution with that of the big bang, results in a theory providing a direct progression from “a beginning” to the emergence of Homo Sapiens.11
In the same spirit we will accept the basic premises of Biblical religion. Therefore throughout the book we will assume that there exists a G-d, who created the universe for a purpose. Further, we assume the following to be true: the actions, thoughts and words of man play an important role in achieving the purpose for which the universe was created. Man can be held responsible for what he does and can invest his actions with meaning since he possesses a free will. These actions are considered good or evil, depending on whether they conform to, or violate, G-d’s Will.
Another basic principle which will guide us will be the assumption that if there is a G-d, creator of the universe, creator of space-time-matter-energy and the laws of nature and so on, then G-d transcends the limitations these place on created beings. Therefore, we will allow that G-d the creator could do all that the Divine Will wishes to do.12
Further, we assume in this book that the entire “Bible” (Torah) is true, and was communicated to man by G-d.
The Talmud refers a few times to the thought processes of G-d’s mind during creation: for example, in Eruvin 18a: “At first there arose in mind the thought to create (...two entities...) but in the end only (...one entity...) was created.” Here perhaps there is a deliberate usage of language so as to avoid using the word G-d in the sentence, relying rather on the context to make it clear that it is referring to G-d. Nevertheless, the language is quite daring in referring to the thought processes in G-d’s mind during creation in such an anthropomorphic manner.
In the spirit of Talmudic passages such as these, we have taken the liberty of using similar phraseology, although we clearly intend it to be meant only allegorically - and even then we only do so in the interest of clarity of presentation. Additionally, in order to be clear that we are referring to G-d, we explicitly include reference to G-d in these sentences. . For ease of reference and following traditional usage we will occasionally employ the masculine pronoun he to refer to G-d. For example, we have taken the liberty to use phrases such as “G-d wanted to…” and “first G-d figured out…and then He13 created…” “G-d extrapolated in His mind…and then created”, “the most reasonable thing would be to expect that G-d would first compute…”, etc.
According to the Oral Tradition, there are two categories of esoteric knowledge handed down from teacher to special student, over the generations. One is the “Ma’aseh Bereisheet” - “the account of creation” - and the other is the “Ma’aseh Merkavah” - “the account of the chariot “[Isaiah’s vision, Chapter VI of Isaiah and Chapters I, X,of Ezekiel]14.
According to Rambam15, Ma’aseh Bereisheet means natural science, and Ma’seh Merkavah means metaphysics16. Indeed, his “Guide to the Perplexed” was written expressly as an exposition of these esoteric matters. As he states17: “the primary object in this treatise has been to expound as much as possible of the Ma’aseh Bereisheet and Ma’aseh Merkavah.”
Since the “account of creation” thus refers to natural science, it is impossible that it should conflict with the evidence of nature, and we will feel it to be most appropriate both to reconcile its wording with present-day science, and to do so by employing scientific modes of reasoning18.
The way the universe appears to scientific analysis, it seems to be the result of some process, which differs greatly from that described in Genesis. Conversely, if the universe were created as described in Genesis, scientific analysis states that the universe would look differently than it does now. Thus a conflict exists, and will probably always exist, between a literal understanding of Genesis and science.
Since, however, the focus of the conflict might shift if a new scientific theory replaced the present one, the approach taken in this book is to develop reconciliation of scientific fact19 and Genesis, rather than of present-day science and Genesis. The resolution is therefore not directly dependent on future developments in science. Nevertheless, since the present scientific theory is very popular, and may never be rejected by science, we adapt our resolution to this particular theory.
To some, the questions raised in this book may be invalid, and to others the answers may be unconvincing. Certainly there is more than one way to understand these matters. This book is offered in the hope that it may be at least an allegorical approximation to the truth. Various other approaches to the issues dealt with here can be found in the author’s book “A Garden of Edens.”
1The combination of scientific theories which claim to provide an explanation of the origin and development of the universe and the life in it – specifically, the big bang theory and the theory of evolution - we will call the origin theory for short.
2If one were to program a super-computer of the future to produce texts of random combinations of letters and to print out only those which seem meaningful, it is clear that given sufficient time, it will eventually produce texts meaningful to us. Almost every text - 99.99999999999.....% of them - will be meaningless jumbles of letters. However, every once in a while a text will form which is meaningful and will be printed. Some such books will duplicate books already written by man. At some point a Bible will emerge, and so on.
However, even if the super-computer can print one book every second, even one meaningful book would probably not appear within the next hundred billion years. If the computer began to print in the first year of the universe's existence, the universe would probably end before even one meaningful book would emerge. However, if the universe continued to exist for an unlimited amount of time, eventually a meaningful book would emerge. Then after another such period, another meaningful book would emerge.
Similarly so for the theory of evolution - it is quite clear that a mechanism of random mutation and selection can lead to almost anything. According to the theory of evolution, life arose via chemical interactions among chemicals in the sea. There are trillions of molecules in a spoonful of water, and trillions of spoonfuls of water in the oceans, chemical reactions can occur in a fraction of a second, and the theory states that life arose after billions of years of interactions. Although almost all would agree that complex mechanisms can arise this way eventually, many religious people claim that there was not sufficient time for it to actually occur
3Technically a theory or theorem is a statement that is necessarily true if its axioms (assumptions) are true. In this article we are using the looser idea of a theory as a postulated model of natural processes.
4After the pattern is observed many times in many varied situations, it is assumed that the pattern represents a 'law of nature', and that all events of that type which have not yet occurred, will do so in conformance with that pattern. Given the mathematical form of the 'law', one can derive all the particular examples of this pattern, and make predictions regarding the details of as yet unobserved events. However there is no way to know if the 'law' will always operate. If it suddenly changes, then this change will be incorporated into a new law, one that takes into account this change.
5 Science is a collection of data, relationships etc, and therefore science itself has no views or beliefs - it is the scientist rather than science itself, who possesses these. Therefore one cannot speak of the views of science, but only of the views of the scientist.
However, in matters of a metaphysical nature, clearly not all scientists believe alike, and therefore one cannot use phrases such as 'scientists believe' in such matters. Nevertheless, in order to deal with the supposed conflicts between science and the Bible, when speaking of scientists we will often refer to some convenient imaginary grouping of atheistic scientists, and for simplicity will refer to them simply as 'scientists' and will elevate their views to 'the perspective of science'.
6An axiom stated: given a parallel line and any point, one can draw a line - and only one line - through that point which is parallel to the given parallel line. From this axiom, Pythagoras’s theorem is derived. However, the theorem falls because the axiom turned out to be invalid.
7 The mistake was even more fundamental than merely an incorrect assumption - they did not even realize that they were assuming that space is flat since it was inconceivable to them - as it is to most people nowadays - that it could be anything else!
8 See Paul Davies: The Mind of God p, and Hawking: Black Holes and Baby Universes, page 51, 91, 99.
9The actual choice of whether or not to believe one or both rests with the reader. We can only show that simultaneous belief in both theories is a possibility to be considered.
10For the sake of simplicity, we will consider the correct cosmological origin theory to be the big bang theory - or the inflationary universe-big bang theory. Whether or not more recent theories such as closed models and so on or even continuous creation or eternal universe models will be proven to be more correct, is actually irrelevant to our program here. This point is dealt with later on in the text.
11No scientific theory has yet been able to explain how or why the universe actually began, i.e. why there was a big bang at all, etc. However, this very problem is the subject of much research and discussion these days, and one must assume that science will continue to succeed in pushing the unknown farther back. [See Pagels:Perfect Symmetry", p250-251 and p.354-5.]
12except perhaps that which is self-contradictory. We will not enter into a discussion on what is impossible to Gd, since this is not relevant here. [See for example Rambam "Guide" I:75.]
13An effort was made to avoid the use of the masculine, but in some places it was retained for linguistic convenience.
14 See the Talmud, khagigah 11b
15Sefer Hamada, Hilchot Yesodei Torah: 2:12 , 4:10 , and the introduction to the "Guide".
16 All of the esoteric knowledge is contained in the written Torah, albeit in hidden form.[see e.g. Chapter 8 re: alternative readings of the Torah.]
17"Guide": II:29.
18It is forbidden to reveal any of the secrets of Creation to more than one person at a time, etc. [The conditions are stated in the Talmud.]
It would be an overreaching conceit to fear that this work violates the above ruling.
19 As presently accepted
….
FIN 4 ch 2
CHAPTER 2. THE BIG BANG EMERGENT STATE – MOTIVATION AND JUSTIFICATION
Our universe contains many indications that seem to point to its great age. Of course even the universe as it is today could have been created right this moment as an instant universe, so that these indications are merely indications of great age, albeit very reasonable-seeming ones, but not proof.
A universe beginning from a big bang will at any later stage obviously contain indications of its development since its beginning. All the entities and phenomena, which seem to give evidence that the universe was not created that instant, but rather began some time previously, are here termed memory-artifacts. For example, in our universe, our own memories and the dust on our shelves are memory artifacts, indicating that the universe has been around a while. Light from distant stars, dinosaur bones, and so on are also memory-artifacts, all of which seem to indicate that the universe is not new, but rather emerged from a big bang “long ago”. When a universe begins as a big bang and develops naturally, it is probably identifiable at later stages as a universe that as emerged from a big bang. Therefore all its stages after the big bang are here called big bang emergent states.
Our assumption was that big bang emergent states contain within themselves memory-artifacts pointing to their origin in a big bang. However, an instant universe can be created at an advanced state that has not evolved from a big bang. That is, it need not be in a big bang emergent state, and it need not contain memory-artifacts. An instant universe can, for example, be a “patchwork” universe - containing only man and his needs, a place to live in, an energy source, food and the like, and sufficient complexity to allow for moral dilemmas to challenge him. It need contain neither stars, nor animals, nor apple trees and so on- certainly there is no need for billions of galaxies, millions of species of insects and so on. The residence of man would not even have to be a “planet”, and it would certainly not need to contain memory-artifacts such as fossils, apes, or starlight from distant stars. It could be a relatively ‘empty’ universe.
We can therefore question why Gd did not create such an “empty” universe, instead of the ‘complete’, big-bang-emergent universe we live in.
The universe as it looked after creation: complete.
The universe as it could have looked after creation: “empty”.
Indeed, even natural law would not need to operate, since Gd could run the universe manually. Clearly, however, in our universe this is not the case. Natural law operates, we live in a complete universe, and our planet does contain memory-artifacts. Since Gd could have created a “manual” moral-stage universe, we can wonder why it was that Gd created our big-bang-emergent kind instead.
In the instant universe scenario, Science and Torah disagree only on the metaphysical questions of whether the first and most basic stage was the big bang itself or the moral stage, and whether the initial billions of years passed in “real time” or in “instantaneous fast-forward”. However, both agree that the universe always was in a big bang emergent state from the time it began - or very soon after it began - until now. The question for the religious person is: Why did Gd create the universe in a big bang emergent state at all? As we have seen, there was an alternative; if it is desired to create a universe containing moral beings, it is possible to create the moral beings directly in an “empty universe” rather than to create a big bang that will evolve into a big bang emergent moral universe. In fact, it would seem to be more sensible to create an “empty” moral universe rather than to create a big bang emergent universe, for the following reason:
In order to ensure that the big bang would indeed produce moral beings, it would have to be designed with these moral beings in mind. Thus, even if the big bang creation method were to be used, it would be necessary to first have a mental picture of what the moral beings would be like. Why then not simply create the moral stage directly? Why bother deriving a big bang from the moral stage, especially if this big bang will in any case be fast-forwarded to the moral stage.
Thus it certainly seems more efficient to create an “empty” moral universe than to create a big bang emergent one.
We will use Rambam’s views to explain why creation would involve a ‘complete’ universe - that is, a big bang emergent universe - rather than an ‘empty’ universe.
According to Rambam, the Torah teaches that the universe was designed specifically in order to include man. He then points out that many people, feeling that this teaching implies that all was created for man, ask why spiders detrimental to man were created, and why Gd created distant stars, which are out of man’s reach1.
In response, Rambam states that it is simply not true that all was created for Man. And the reason that harmful and useless entities were created is that it is Gd’s Will that these entities exist, and because Gd wanted to grant the Good of existence to all possible beings.
Our answer to the question of why Gd created a ‘complete’ universe will be based on our interpretation of this idea, and especially on the meaning of the concept “all possible beings”. Specifically, we will posit that according to the Biblical view, since Man plays an important role in the purpose of creation, the universe to be created is designed with Man in mind.2 Therefore the conditions of the big-bang can be derived from the consideration that it must eventually develop into a universe containing a moral being. Then, any other beings - animals, insects and so on - which derive from the resultant teleoderived big-bang, are “possible” beings. They are then given actual existence through Gd’s creation of a big bang. Therefore, within the Biblical context - as interpreted by Rambam, and as applied to the instant universe scenario - it is logical to expect that a big-bang-emergent universe would be created rather than an ‘empty’ universe.
This theme is developed more fully in the following.
According to the Midrash, all was created in potential in one act of creation, and the entire universe developed from this one state. We are also told by the Midrash that Adam was first a shapeless mass of clay, and was shaped into Man during a certain period, finally receiving the Divine “image” on the sixth “day”. One can then say that the initial creation contained the rudiments of Adam, and the passing of time brought closer the development of this entity to being “Adam”.
On the basis of this one can construct the following image: All beings which were links in the evolutionary chain leading to man can be considered as one continuously existent being, taking on various transient shapes, each one more complex than the last, until the final shape is achieved - that of man.3 We have seen that the big bang was teleoderived from the moral-being stage, and that the resultant big bang-emergent state of necessity contains man’s evolutionary predecessors, including of course his near ‘ancestor’ the monkey/ape.
Had there been no need for a big bang-emergent state, then there would be no need for the existence of the monkey, whose sole raison d’etre in a teleological sense is as the logically necessary evolutionary predecessor of man. The monkey is a transient being in the evolutionary sense since it eventually mutates to become man, and in the teleological sense because after the appearance of man, its existence no longer serves a purpose - thus both the species and its teleological importance are transient.
Even more so, all species which developed along branches of the evolutionary chain unrelated to man - species unnecessary as steps towards the eventual emergence of man - are not only teleologically purposeless now that man exists, but always were so; nevertheless, their existence is necessary in order that the universe exist as a big bang-emergent state.
As outlined previously, Rambam provides us with a reason for why Gd created the universe in a big-bang-emergent state. According to Rambam, existence in itself is a great good.4 5 As a result, Gd wished to give existence to all beings whose existence is possible.6 In our context, this would mean not only to give existence to man, as the purpose of the evolutionary process, but also to all those other beings who would exist as a result of that process.
Thus it was Gd’s Will to create the moral universe not with only moral man inhabiting it, but also with all the creatures implied in the form of Man. That is, Gd wished to give the benefit of existence to all the creatures that would exist in a universe designed to produce Man, all the creatures that would develop from a big bang-emergent universe teleoderived from the moral stage.
Thus, according to the Rambam it is wrong to assume that if a being exists, it does so to serve man, or for man’s benefit. Instead, they exist because Gd wanted to give existence to all that could exist, including and especially the transiently-purposeful transient being which evolved into man - the monkey: in the words of the Rambam.7
“no notice need be taken of the nonsensical idea that monkeys were created for our pastime [i.e. for man’s benefit]. Such opinions originate only in man’s ignorance of the nature of transient beings,8 and in his overlooking the principle that it was intended by the Creator to produce in its present form everything whose existence is possible,”9 10 11
If man is to be held responsible for his actions, it is necessary that he be able to forsee their consequences. Therefore, a moral universe must be an ordered universe, in which similar causes give rise to similar effects 12. However, it is precisely this regularity which is termed ‘natural law' ‘. Thus, a moral universe must be governed by natural law.
This natural law will govern the occurrence of events within the universe, and will govern the development of the universe as a whole. This natural law could therefore be used to extrapolate backwards to an origin of the universe. If the universe is not consistent with that extrapolated original state, the system of natural law is inconsistent. Therefore a universe governed by natural law must be in a state consistent with its having emerged from an origin. In our terms: a moral universe must be in a big bang emergent state.
ECOLOGICAL COMPLETENESS
Another reason for the creation of a big bang emergent instant universe derives from the concept of ecological completeness. The study of ecology has taught Man the amazingly delicate balance between the various components of the physical universe. Without the plankton in the sea, the shrimp die, causing starvation in the small fish which feed on them, and then starvation on the slightly larger fish which feed on the small fish...and so on down the food chain.
Man and animal breathe oxygen, and exhale carbon dioxide. Plants, trees and all vegetation “breathe” carbon dioxide, and “exhale” oxygen. Therefore, too few plants means suffocation for Man and animal. Without the algae on the ocean surface, the carbon dioxide breathed out by Man and animal begins to dominate the atmosphere, and suffocation begins. If no non-vegetative life remained to convert oxygen to carbon dioxide, the vegetation would “suffocate”.
Fluorocarbons released into the atmosphere rise to the ozone layer and destroy it, allowing the ultra-violet rays of the sun to penetrate to the Earth’s surface, causing cancer in Man and animal.
The destruction of a species of animal or insect allows the species it preyed upon to wreak havoc on the species it itself preys upon, wiping out that species, and thus allowing its prey to wreak havoc.... The fuel Man uses - oil and coal - are formed from the fossils of long-dead animals. Without a rich history of life, a planet cannot have fossil fuels.
In the universe at large there is also some interdependency. Aged stars explode and scatter their particles to other parts of the universe, causing the formation of new stars, and of planets. Some of the higher-energy scattered particles may also cause some vital mutations on some distant planet, thereby contributing to the upward climb of life there. The laws of nature themselves interact with each other to form a balanced unity - dispensing with one law could cause the entire universe to collapse.
The universe is an organic whole. As Rambam says13:“Know that this universe, in its entirety, is nothing else but one individual being.” No part is superfluous, and no part can be dispensed with. Only the complete system of a big-bang-emergent universe is viable.
THE UNIVERSE AS A MATHEMATICAL SYSTEM.
Another reason for the creation of a big-bang-emergent universe is presented here, based on the concept of the completeness and self-consistency of mathematical systems. In any mathematical system, all statements implied by the axioms, or by other statements in the system, must be contained within the system. If the system implies the truth of statements, which are not contained within it, the system is incomplete14. In addition, all the statements must be mutually consistent, and each one must be self-consistent.
A universe is a system - a physical representation of a mathematical system. If the instant universe is to be a complete and consistent system it must contain within it all that is implied logically by the presence of its components. Every entity in the universe, from galaxies to spiders, from space-time to man logically implies, by its very existence, the existence of that from which it originated. Thus, a logically and aesthetically complete and self-consistent instant universe must contain all the implied memory-artifacts: that is, it must be in a big bang-emergent state. If an instant universe were created with the moral being as the sole living entity on a planet under a sky empty of all stars but his sun, the being would not ‘fit in’ to nature. He would be an obvious freak, and the universe would be an obvious paste-together-job. Had the moral being been created alone, it would not ‘fit in’ to the instant universe, since it was not truly consistent with it. However, when the universe is in a self-consistent big bang emergent state, the universe is complete, and man fits in as an organic part of nature, in a richly populated world under a sky full of stars15. Any universe that is truly and fully self-consistent, will be consistent in time as well as in extension. It follows that just as any one section of the universe is consistent with any other, so too the universe as it is at any one time will be consistent with the universe as it is at any other time. Just as consistency in spatial extent implies continuity and not necessarily uniformity, so too the temporal consistency implies a dynamical continuity and not an unchanging static state. Also, if it is fully self-consistent, it must contain within itself all that it needs in order to change from one state to another. Thus, a fully self-consistent universe will contain within itself the seeds for its future development. As a result, since time directions are symmetric, it will contain as well all the information necessary for a reconstruction of its past.
If, as is true in our universe, there are beings capable of formulating “mathematics laws of nature” to describe quantitatively the dynamics of the universe, then these beings will eventually discover the secrets of the origin and future of the universe - as we are doing today. The state of the universe at that time will be traceable back to an origin - for example the “big bang”.
The entire universe will be recognized as being in a state which developed over time from a big bang, containing all the entities/beings whose existence was implied by the conditions obtaining at the big bang. One could see the present state of the universe - and all it contains - as having “emerged” from the big bang. Thus one could term such a universe a “big bang emergent universe” and every state of the universe could be termed “a big bang emergent state”. As Rambam stated16: “When anything can only exist provided some other thing has previously existed, Gd has caused the latter to precede it.”
As generations of scientists and philosophers have found, contemplation of the universe reveals the unity of its nature and the coordination of its functioning. Organisms feed, and are fed; plants and animals recycle oxygen and carbon-dioxide; rain falls and evaporates again - an entire ecology; the sun sets and rises; the organs of the human body act in coordination with symbiotic microorganisms which digest our food; gravity acts to keep us on the ground and to orbit the earth etc. More and more, science is discovering that all of nature can be described by fewer and fewer general principles; the grand hope is that all laws of nature will be unified into one universal law.
In any case, even now it is clear that the universe operates as a self-consistent system. This order, unity and elegance apparent in the universe led many people to believe that the universe is a product of mind, of a conscious act of creation by an omnipotent being. In all ages, alleged “proofs” of the existence of a creator, based themselves on “arguments from design” essentially inspired by the feeling of awe and wonder gained by contemplating the universe. Today we would not adduce any of this as proof of anything, but we would say that if indeed a “Gd” created the universe, it was done in a way which allowed the entire universe to “run itself” in accordance with a very beautiful, intricate, elegant - yet economical - unified universal law.
One could phrase this metaphysically as follows: Gd as creator of the universe ex-nihilo is the ground of being of that universe. A universe which operates according to one universal law can run itself as long as Gd maintains the operation of the one law. Gd is “the ground of being of the universe” and as such Gd’s attributes are manifested in it. One can then say that Gd’s unity is manifested in the physical universe as the one universal law, or that this unity is the “motive power” behind this one law.
In contrast, a universe with more than one law, with any number of laws, must be “propped up” by Gd, constantly “operated manually”.
Thus, for both logical and aesthetic reasons we postulate that any created universe would be self-consistent and complete, elegant and ordered rather than disjointed and makeshift.
Recent research in astrophysics, cosmology and field theory has shown that had things been only very slightly different than they are the universe could never have developed into a life-bearing universe. The fact that only very special and improbable kinds of big bangs and systems of physical law would lead to the emergence of conscious life has been interpreted in contradictory way. To some, this furnishes an indication that the universe was designed by a Designer, purposefully, in such as way that it would be guaranteed to bring forth life: how else explain that the universe is such and improbable one that it actually gives birth to life? However, if the universe were not of this improbable type, there would be no beings around to notice it! That is, the fact that our universe is a very improbable one is the only possibility – since we would not exist if it weren’t. Therefore, anytime this type of improbable big bang exists, beings will arise and eventually realize that their big bang is very improbable.
This idea had been presented by Brandon Carter and others, to construct the “anthropic principle”. This principle states that the strange improbable nature of our universe can be “explained” by the very fact of the existence of beings such as us. That is, not every type of word would give rise to beings such as us, or to any life at all. Therefore, we can deduce many facts about how the universe is constituted from the fact that we have arisen within it. This idea has been termed the “anthropic principle”.
A further possible reason for the creation of a big-bang-emergent universe, is provided by the realization of the intimate connection between the design of man and the design of the universe, as embodied in the anthropic principle.
As we saw previously, the universe possibly emerged into physical reality due to the emergence within it of the first moral being. This would imply a very fundamental existential connection between the existence of man and the existence of the universe. Indeed, the conditions at the big bang17, and the value of the fundamental constants of nature, must be precisely those that would allow the eventual emergence of man18. Had these conditions and constants been any different - even in the most tiny amount - from what they were, the universe could not have given rise to man. This is another deep existential link between man and the universe, between the physical characteristics of man and the fundamental physical structure of the universe.
The existence of man is therefore intimately interconnected with the very existence and structure of the universe. It is awesome and moving that the universe also contains all that is implied by this interconnection - all the physical and biological links between a big bang that would produce a human, and the human himself.
SUMMARY
That there exist parts of the universe which are seemingly useless to man - for example the distant stars or some of the millions of insect species, and so on - means that they do not exist because of man, that is, to serve him. However, since all these parts exist only in order that the universe be in a self-consistent big bang emergent state, and the big bang is teleoderived from the state containing moral man, then all that exists does exist because of man, that is, because man exists.
As the Mishna in Sanhedrin states, man must say “Bishvili nivra ha’olam” - ‘because of me was the world created’. So, the universe is designed for Man, and any being living in it exists only because they are part of the chain of being stretching from the first creation to the first moral people. However, they do not exist merely to serve Man, but rather because Gd wished to give the Goodness of existence to all those in the chain.
We conclude that the universe is created in a manner that maximizes existence, is complete and self-consistent, and manifests the intimate existential connection between man and universe itself.
1 Ironically , today man has the reverse delusion - that nothing was created to serve him , that indeed even man is a product of chance development.
2 See the discussion of the anthropic principle in chapter 6.
3"the great chain of being"
4 On the connection between good and existence: in the Torah Gd says: "Hinei na'tati lachem et hatov ve'et ha'ra et ha'chaim ve'et ha'mavet ubacharta bechaim." That is, choosing ‘good’ is equated with choosing existence. Further, as we have seen, man's awareness of the distinction between good and evil brought existence from non-existence. In addition, according to Rambam:
"All the great evil which men cause to each other ... are ... due to non-existence; because they originate in ignorance, which is absence of wisdom." Guide III:XI. That is, all evil is nonexistence: and all existence is good: [ Guide: III:X]
5"Guide" III:10, III:12, III:25. See also R. Sa'adya Gaon, "Emunot Ve'de'ot" [very beginning of Part III]. Ramban also makes this point: According to Ramban, the phrase "and Gd saw that it was good", means "and Gd gave permanent existence to that which was created according to the Divine Will, because this existence was good"]. Ramban Gen.1:4. See also 2:18 (very end), and 1:10 (beginning of "Vayar Ki Tov").
6The apparent lack of necessity for the existence of much of creation was used as a point against the emanation theory of creation, and likely supported the contention that they were created because of the intrinsic good of existence. However this loses force in the light of the origin theory and anthropic principle. Our application therefore reinvests this approach with meaning.
7"Guide" III:25. A drash on Rambam, applying his translated words to the context of our thesis here.
8Hebrew version: "Teva ha'havayah veha'hefsed"
9See also "Guide" III:10 - III:13
10When we say that Gd wished to give existence to all possible beings, it is obviously not meant all beings which can possibly be imagined since that would be an infinite number, and since in any case it is clear that many imaginable beings were not created. Clearly then "all possible beings" means 'all beings possible which fulfil a certain criterion' - the criterion being logical self-consistency and consistency with the rest of creation. As Rambam says: (adapted to our interpretation) 'All beings which would arise along all the possible branches of evolution' (rather than just their teleological end, man).
"Possible beings" are those which are present in the big bang emergent universe, and the big bang emergent universe arises from a big bang teleoderived from the moral stage. Thus it is the characteristics of the moral stage, and particularly of the moral being, which determine the forms of all "possible being". In contrast, the existence of any form of being not derived in this way from the moral stage is "impossible." Since the moral stage is that which is directly designed according to the purpose which Gd's Wisdom has decreed for the universe, one can say that the existence and form of all possible beings is dependent on the original decree of the Divine Wisdom.
We can now read the whole passage as written by the Rambam (translated):
"...no notice need be taken of the nonsensical idea that monkeys were created for our pastime [i.e. for man's benefit]. Such opinions originate only in man's ignorance of the nature of transient beings, and in his overlooking the principle that it was intended by the Creator to produce in its present form everything whose existence is possible; a different form was not decreed by the Divine Wisdom, and the existence [of objects of a different form] is therefore impossible, because the existence of all things depends on the decree of Gd's Wisdom." Thus, the universe exists in a big bang -emergent state because existence is a good in of itself, and Gd wished to bestow the intrinsic good of existence on all "possible beings". This truth is not obvious to man only because man erroneously believes that the whole universe exists only to serve his purposes, and that all created entities achieve their purpose only through their being of use to him. Because of this delusion, when they find no use for some of creation, they erroneously assume that these creations resulted from trivial, purposeless, or vain action on the part of Gd: as the Rambam says (translation):
"Know that the difficulties which lead to confusion in the question what is the purpose of the universe or of any of its parts, arise from two causes; first, man has an erroneous idea of himself, and believes that the whole world exists only for his sake; secondly he is ignorant both about the nature of the sublunary world, and about the Creator's intention to give existence to all beings whose existence is possible, because existence is undoubtedly good. The consequences of that error and of the ignorance about the two things named, are doubts and confusions, which lead many to imagine that some of Gd's works are trivial, others purposeless, and others in vain."
11 Insert as note long quote [full page] from Rambam "Guide" III:13.
12See Levi, and Barth p.132-133
13Guide I:72
14However, mathematical and logical systems contain true statements that are not provable within that system. See appendix "Godel".
15 2e.g. Gosse considered it only logical that Adam would be created with a navel - a memory artifact - even though he was created directly rather than being born from woman.
16 "Guide" II:13
17 Or, after the end of the inflationary phase.
18 See discussion of the anthropic principle in Ch. 6.
..
Fin 4 ch 4
CHAPTER 4: THE METHOD OF CREATION
WHICH REPRESENTS THE FACTUAL RECORD OF PHYSICAL EVENTS: GENESIS OR ORIGIN THEORY?
If Gd placed the universe into a big bang emergent state, then there is by definition no scientific difference between our universe and one that emerged from a big bang. Therefore, scientific study of the universe should assume that the universe arose from a big bang. Indeed, since science is based on observation, and observation leads to the conclusion that the universe originated in a big bang, a big bang theory is the only reasonable scientific origin theory. To science the question of whether or not the universe 'actually' emerged as an instant universe or from a 'real' big bang is meaningless and totally irrelevant. Science cannot distinguish between a universe arising:
this very instant;
at the big bang and fast-forwarded to this point of time;
as a big bang 15 billion years ago.
On the other hand, when dealing with concepts such as meaning and purpose, scientific concepts are irrelevant since they are neutral. They are however very relevant to religion. And, based on these categories of significance, one arrives at the conclusion that the universe arose as an instant universe at the moral stage.
There is no conflict. Science by definition deals only with apparent truth - and using science it is apparent that the universe emerged from a big bang. Religion deals with the 'actual' and not necessarily with the apparent, and is largely based on tradition, which reveals that the universe actually emerged from a creative act.
We have demonstrated the plausibility of the central thesis of this book - that the instant universe method of creation is the most reasonable method of creating a purposive universe, and that the most reasonable creation nexus would be that of the emergence of the first free-willed being, as stated in Genesis. However, the creation account in Genesis does not describe an instantaneous creation of a moral-stage universe. Instead, we are told that Gd created the universe 'piecemeal' over a six 'day' period. We therefore wish to demonstrate that the creation method and order of 'piecemeal' construction described in Genesis is the most logical creation method for a purposive creator to use.
Furthermore, the second account of the creation of man in Genesis tells that free will emerged not as a natural process of evolutionary development in an instantaneously fast-forwarded universe, but rather via the fruit of the tree of knowledge. We wish to understand this as best we can.
One can amalgamate the creation method in Genesis and the instant universe scenario by postulating the following: Gd created the universe in six days as detailed in Genesis, and then after the Garden of Eden events, as the final step in the creation process, put the universe into the moral stage of a big-bang-emergent instant universe [the universe as it would be if it were created as a big bang and instantaneously fast-forwarded up to the moral stage].
We are still left however with a number of questions, among them the following: Does not creation in the manner described in Genesis involve processes which contradict the laws of nature? And furthermore, why would Gd wish to create as detailed in Genesis rather than via a big bang?
Creation and the Laws of Nature
The Genesis creation account may seem impossible because the creation as detailed there violates many of the laws of nature. However, Gd was not constrained to create the universe in accordance with the manner and order dictate by the laws of nature. It was not the laws we now have discovered which governed how the universe developed; rather it was the final structure of the universe which determined which system of laws would come into being.
According to Rambam:1"the creation of Eve from Adam, the tree of life, the tree of knowledge, the history of the serpent and the events connected therewith....All our sages agree that this took place on the sixth day, and that nothing new was created after the close of the six days.” None of the things mentioned above is therefore impossible, because the laws of Nature were then not yet permanently fixed. And, we might add, perhaps the laws of logic were not fixed yet either.
According to Sforno2 the meaning of the passage "In the day that Hashem Elokim [Gd] made earth and heaven"[Gen. 2:4] is: "On that day Gd set in order, from heaven, the permanent natural laws of the earth and of its 'offspring'. This was after the six days of creation. Gd is then called 'Hashem Elokim' , for by setting this order, Gd made its existence permanent." The fact that 'laws of nature' are observed to be in effect now can in no way be used as proof that they were always in effect, or that the Creator of the universe was constrained to follow these 'laws' in creating the universe.
We now wish to show that the Genesis account describes a creation method that is the most logical creation method for a creator to employ in creating a moral universe.
Universe-Design: Divine 'Logic'
It is clear that human logic cannot be directly applied to Gd. Therefore even if the Genesis account describes a creation methodology, which seems to humans to be the most logical creation method, we cannot make statements regarding what is the most logical creation method for Gd to employ. Nevertheless, the Genesis account is directed to humans3, and the objections to it from the origin theory derive from considerations of human reasoning. Therefore if we can show that the creation methodology related in Genesis is indeed the most logical creation method according to human logic, we will feel that we have achieved our aim 4.
Universe-Design
It would seem evident that each different possible set of conditions developing during a big bang would lead to the development of a different type of universe. Certainly not any big bang would lead to the emergence of intelligent free-willed morality-comprehending beings! However, since Gd created the universe for a purpose, and purposive action can only result from free-willed moral choice, moral beings are indispensable. Thus, it is evident that even if Gd did create a big bang rather than an instant universe, it would definitely have been that specific type of big bang, which would eventually lead to the development of moral beings. Whether our big bang necessarily led to life, or life could also never have developed from it is not known. In any case however, the fact is that it did so 5.
Universe-Design: Human Logic
If we had been faced with the task of designing the blueprints for such a big bang we would probably suggest the following method: Construct in the imagination an exact description of the general type of creature which satisfies the criterion of a moral being. Then, design a physical universe-environment which could provide the appropriate conditions necessary both to sustain the moral being's life and to present it with the proper type of challenges. Next, with a clear picture of the universe and the moral being, design a set of 'natural laws' consistent with them in order to allow the universe to develop and function on its own. This completes the generalized blueprint for a moral universe. This blueprint can now be used to create an instant universe at the moral stage, without even bothering with a big bang! Indeed, there is no way we can begin with a big bang, since an arbitrary big bang will not lead to the desired universe and moral being. It only is at the very end, after the piecemeal construction of the universe, that the appropriate big bang can be determined by backwards extrapolation from the 'piecemeal' blueprint. This big bang could then be fast-forwarded instantaneously up to the moral stage6.
This is the methodology we would consider to be the most logical to employ if we wished to create a moral universe.
A Literal Interpretation of Genesis
The First Creation Account: Divine Blueprint Design
We wish to interpret the first creation account as a description of the construction by Gd of the universe-blueprint. However it can be objected that the account seems to describe the actual physical construction of the universe itself, not of the blueprint for the universe.
We can answer in two ways. Firstly, some midrashim and statements in the Zohar do imply that it was a mental creation. Secondly, for an omnipotent creator, the creation of physical elements is no more difficult than the creation of their mental design. The distinction between an idea in Gd's mind, and the actual realization of that idea is more semantic than actual.
The Second Creation Account
According to the Ramkhal, the universe existed purely on the spiritual plane until the transgression of Adam. At that point, the universe became a physical entity7.
After the onset of free will, it was no longer possible for Man to know unequivocally of Gd's existence8 - it was now a matter of free willed choice to believe or not. Thus the universe was transformed from a Garden of Eden existence in which Gd's presence was a fact, to a rational physical universe where Gd's presence is hidden. That is, the universe was transformed from an unequivocally created universe to a big bang emergent one.
The universe was apparently initially created on the spiritual plane, and developed on this plane as detailed in the second account. Then, after the transgression, Man was expelled from the Garden, that is, the universe emerged into physical reality as a big bang emergent universe at the moral stage.
As Rambam points out,9 the events detailed in the second account took place prior to the establishment of the laws of nature. The laws of nature - and perhaps the laws of logic as we know them today - were permanently fixed only at the interface between the sixth and seventh days. One can then say that as the final act of creation, after all the events recorded in he creation accounts took place, Gd put the universe into a big-bang-emergent physical state, at the stage of the emergence of the first moral being.
Partially-Allegorical Interpretation of the Creation Account
There is no necessity for Biblical religion to justify Gd's actions, to explain why Gd created as recorded in Genesis, or why Gd then put the universe into a big-bang-emergent-state. Clearly, Gd can do as He wishes, and did so. It is not a religious tenet that all Gd's actions are comprehensible to Man - quite the contrary. If we can show that there is no contradiction between a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account and the scientific origin theory, we have done enough. We need not justify anything any futrther.
However, it is possible to provide some explanation of the method and timing of creation, and to correlate them with the way a universe would develop according to scientific theory. However, in order to do so, one is led to a more 'allegorical' type approach in interpreting Genesis.
The Design of a Big-Bang-Emergent Moral Stage Universe
As a first step, it is necessary to design the desired moral stage. To this end, a model can be constructed mentally, in order to ensure the existence of all that is required by the moral being: sun, planet, vegetation, animals for work, milk , wool [ leather for tfilin etc.] etc.
If this is the first creation of such a being, there is no precedent for its creation, and for the creation of its environment. Therefore, the model would be constructed piece by piece, and when it was seen that all was OK, the next element would be introduced. Then, after all the necessary elements were present, the resultant system could be organized into a self-running system via the introduction of a set of 'natural laws'. This then completes a mental blueprint for a moral stage universe.
In order to obtain a temporally, spatially, and aesthetically complete system consistent with these natural laws, the mental blueprint of the moral stage could then be extrapolated backwards using the "natural laws" to discover a big bang which would give rise to such a moral stage universe. This mentally-teleoderived big bang could then be mentally extrapolated10 up to the point at which the first moral being emerged. This mental blueprint-picture of the moral stage could then serve as the blueprint for the creation of a complete big bang-emergent moral-stage universe.
The literal translation of the second creation account contradicts the literal translation of the first account11. Since both accounts cannot be interpreted literally within one theory, at least one of the accounts must be meant more as an "allegorical message" then as an exact description of actual historical events. The second Biblical creation account deals with very complex questions which are obviously fundamental to the very nature of the Bible as a whole: morality, free will, man's position in the cosmic order, and so on, issues most easily explored in allegorical form. If one of the two accounts is allegorical, it would be more sensible to assume that it is the second Biblical creation account that is meant allegorically.
We interpret the first creation account as a description of the construction of the blueprint of creation. In this way, we view the second account as a description not of physical events, but rather of Divine mental events. We thus interpret the first account as a literal description of the Divine Mental construction of the universe-blueprint, and the second account as an allegorical message regarding the most fundamental and complex issues.
We now examine the Biblical creation account in the light of our instant universe scenario, and in accordance with the interpretation method outlined above.
The Creation Accounts
The first Biblical creation account describes in brief the creation of the universe and the life in it, culminating in the creation of man and woman. Immediately thereafter in the second creation account, the Bible spotlights the events surrounding the creation of humanity, and describes these in some detail. It is only in this second account that the well-known accounts of Adam and Eve, the tree of knowledge and so on are given. The central event in this second account is the creation of a being, which becomes endowed with the ability to know good and evil, and the freedom to choose between them.
In the detailed first account, we are told that man was created 5 'days' after the heavens and earth were created, and that after this Gd 'rested'. Immediately thereafter, in the passage leading from the first account to the second, we are told
"These are the chronicles of the heavens and the earth in their being created in the day Gd made the heaven and the earth (and the vegetation grew not, because Gd had not yet caused rain to fall) and man was not yet and Gd formed Man ... and placed him in the garden He had fashioned". That is, man was 'formed' - not 'created' as in the first account. In addition, this formation occurred on the day that heaven and earth were made - not 5 days later.
The terminology 'in their being created' in reference to the heaven and earth is somewhat mystifying, as is the connection between the creation of man and of heaven and earth. However, in our instant universe scenario, all this becomes clear.
The first account can be understood as a description of Gd's step by step Mental construction of a completed universe-blueprint, including the design of a moral being at a stage immediately prior to his emergence into morality. Then we are told that Gd finished the design of the universe-blueprint, and that it was very good. Finally Gd 'rested' - that is, Gd created a theoretical system of natural law which would be consistent with this universe, and which would be able to 'run' it.
The passages between the first and second account tell of the creation of natural law [after Gd looked into the first account in order to create the Mental blueprint]. The second account tells of the significant events which were 'occurring' in non-time at the point where Gd said 'enough' and stopped the instantaneous fast-forward. Then the Bible tells of the beginning of actual history, when the universe was just emerged into full physical reality.
Thus, the unity and interdependence of the two creation accounts became clear in the instant universe scenario12.
TORAH AS BLUEPRINT: THE NEFESH HAKHAYIM
We are told by the Midrash and by the Zohar that the Torah is the blueprint from which our universe was created. How can this be?
R. Khayim Volozhiner, the outstanding disciple of the Gaon of Vilna, was the author of a mystical treatise entitled "Nefesh HaKhayim". In this work, he states that the Torah is, so to speak, 'of Gd', a 'part' of the Creator - the aspect called "Khokhma" , "Wisdom". Thus the Torah is on a level higher than that of any of the Emanations of Gd which form the strata of the cosmos, including all spiritual and physical creations13. As a result, it can serve as a blueprint for the spiritual as well as the physical cosmos. Being the aspect of Wisdom, the Torah can perhaps be considered as the Mental blueprint of the universe.
Of course since the Torah preceded the creation of space-time-matter-energy, it could not be a physical entity. Also, since it is a spiritual aspect of Gd, it cannot be 'written', certainly not written in human language. Thus, R. Khayim states, the Torah which we possess is a translation into physicality and into human terms of the beyond-human-comprehension actual Torah14. Nevertheless, says R. Khayim, the Torah which was the blueprint for creation was the Torah as we know it. That is, when we are told that Gd created the universe by looking into the Torah, what is meant is that Gd looked at the words "Bereisheet bara Elokim et hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz" ["In the beginning Gd created heaven and earth"], and then Gd created heaven and earth. Gd looked at the words "Yehi ohr" - "Let there be light[ohr]" - and then created ohr. Thus, the first creation account is the actual blueprint of creation.
It would perhaps follow that there must be two creation accounts: the first being the creation account into which Gd looked to create the universe, and the second being an account of the actual creation, that is, an account of Gd's looking into the first account and creating the universe. Then, the second account tells us, when all was Mentally designed - physical universe, moral being and natural law - Gd actually created this universe: creating it at the corresponding big bang-emergent stage immediately prior to the emergence of a moral being. Effectively, the universe emerged into reality with the emergence of conscious free-willed moral man [see Chapter 7].
We end this section with an appropriate quote from Rambam: INSERT GUIDE II:17
“ Everything comes into existence from non-existence; even when the substance of a thing has been in existence, and has only changed its form, the thing itself, which has gone through the process of genesis and development, and has arrived at its final state, has now different properties from those which it possessed at the commencement of the transition from potentiality to reality, or before that time. Take, e.g., the human ovum as contained in the female’s blood when still included in its vessels; its nature is different from what it was in he moment of conception, when it is met by the semen of the male and begins to develop; the properties of the semen in that moment are different from the properties of the living being after its birth when fully developed. It is therefore quite impossible to infer from the nature which a thing possesses after having passed through all stages of its development, what the condition of the thing has been in the moment when this process commenced; not does the condition of a thing in this moment show what its previous condition has been. If you make this mistake, and attempt to prove the nature of a thing in potential existence by its properties when actually existing, you will fall into great confusion; you will reject evident truths and admit false opinions……..
We, the followers of Moses, our Teacher, and of Abraham, our Father, believe that the Universe has been produced and has developed in a certain manner, and that it has been created in a certain order. The Aristotileans oppose us, and found their objections on the properties which the things in the Universe possess when in actual existence and fully developed. We admit the existence of these properties, but hold that they are by no means the same as those which the things possessed in the moment of their existence from absolute non-existence. Their arguments are therefore no objection whatever to our theory; they have demonstrative force only against those who hold that the nature of things as at present in existence proves the Creation. But this is not my opinion……
In short, the properties of things when fully developed contain no clue as to what have been the properties of the things before their perfection. We therefore do not reject as impossible the opinion of those who say that the heavens were produced before the earth, or the reverse, or that the heavens have existed without stars, or that certain species of animals have been in existence, and others not. For the state of the whole Universe when it came into existence may be compared with that of animals when their existence begins; the heart evidently precedes the testicles, the veins are in existence before the bones; although, when the animal is fully developed, none of the parts is missing which is essential to its existence. This remark is not superfluous, if the Scriptural account of the Creation be taken literally; in reality, it cannot be taken literally……”
An alternate method of reconciling the two is that of the non-literal approach. For example, one can state that Gd created a big bang as science states, but fast-forwarded it instantaneously to the moral stage, because it is only then that the universe can begin to fulfil the purpose for which it was created. The account in Genesis teaches us that the universe was created at the moral stage - the first intelligent conscious free willed moral activity. Further, we are told that this occurred approximately six thousand years ago.
The actual details given in Genesis - the description of the 'six days of creation' and of the events which occurred in the Garden of Eden - are seemingly not in accord with this scenario. Although they can be understood also as literal descriptions of actual physical events [as explained above] they can perhaps also be interpreted in a different fashion, or as being meant mostly allegorically
This approach and a number of others are discussed in appendix "options".
The first creation account tells of the construction by Gd of the mental blueprint of the universe. This blueprint contained all that was necessary for the existence of a moral being. The laws of nature were then designed, and were used to teleoderive the requisite big bang from this blueprint.
The second creation account tells us that after all this was completed, Gd created this big bang, and instantaneously fast-forwarded it up to the moral stage15. Or that the universe was created as a big-bang-emergent universe at the moral stage, emerging into existence with the emergence of the first moral being - or equivalently, with the first exercise of moral choice.
The third creation account [Genesis 5:1] relates of the beginning of actual history, on the day of the emergence of the universe into actual physical existence.
We have now further clarified the issues involved in the instant universe scenario. A big-bang-emergent universe would be created to maximize existence, for completeness, and to maintain freedom of belief. The instant universe would be created as an instant universe because before the emergence of a moral being the universe is purposeless, boring, and preprogrammed. Thus, one could say that until the emergence of man, there was no moral activity on earth, no free willed choice, and thus no true purpose - at least from the point of view of Gd - to the existence of the universe16 It would be created at the stage depicted in Genesis - the onset of the moral stage - since that is the point at which purposeful activity can begin. This would take place about 6,000 years ago since as has been shown by various fields, human moral consciousness developed then. Lastly, creation proceeded in the manner related in Genesis since a piecemeal construction was called for, as here was nothing previous from which to copy.
We have thus shown that the choices of creation type [big-bang-emergent instant universe], creation stage [moral stage], creation date [historical point at which moral being emerged on Earth], and creation method [piecemeal construction] were the most logical ones that a Creator could choose in creating a purposive universe.
1 "Guide" II:30
"The following point now claims our attention. The account of the six days of creation contains, in reference to the creation of man, the statement: "Male and female created he them" (i. 27), and concludes with the words: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them" (ii. I), and yet the portion which follows describes the creation of Eve from Adam, the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge, the history of the serpent and the events connected therewith, and all this as having taken place after Adam had been placed in the Garden of Eden. All our Sages agree that this took place on the sixth day, and that nothing new was created after the close of the six days. None of the things mentioned above is therefore impossible, because the laws of Nature were then not yet permanently fixed."
2 [1475-1550]
3And according to Ramhal - Rabbi M.H. Luzatto - the Torah is written according to the human perspective.
4 We could then say 'allegorically' that by analogy to our own reasoning, the Genesis creation methodology is the most logical creation method for a creator to have used in creating a moral universe.
5See Chapter 6 and Davies re anthropic principle.
6As we have seen, according to the Genesis creation account the laws of nature, including the laws governing the manner and order in which a universe might develop, were created to fit the completed universe.
7The events recounted in the second creation account seem more 'dream-like' than real, and some appear to contradict what is told in the first creation account. [See Chapter F for sources, and a discussion of the allegorical nature of this account.] Nevertheless, both accounts can be interpreted as being meant literally.
8 (After account of 6th day) xzqd miwl` ceak o`k cre xtqd zlgzn" :`
"xac That is: Gd, in creating an instant universe in a big bang-emergent state with memory-artifacts, is hidden, because it seems as though the universe actually did arise via a big bang, not as an instant universe, which could have been without memory-artifacts. That is, xac xzqd ,o`k cr. ("xac xzqd" meaning that Gd 'hid' himself due to the presence of memory artifacts from beginning until 'here', i.e. until this point - the stage of the emergence of moral man.)
9 "Guide" II:30
10 along the most probable quantum path
11 to humans bound by human logic:However, the Torah was written "in the language of man", and was designed so as to be understood by humans
12 Hirsch:"Eyleh Toldot Shamayim Va'aretz""Ayleh toldot shamayim va'aretz be'hibar'am..."
According to R. Samson Rafael Hirsch, "Eyleh" always refers to the passages which follow it rather than to those which precede it. Thus, the above passage should be read:
"The following is the generations of the heaven and earth...".
In addition, according to R.Hirsch, "toldot" implies that one is speaking of that which derives from the "shamayim va'aretz" rather than from the "shamayim va'aretz" themselves. Also, since "briyah" is not used, the passage is referring to natural processes.
In our interpretation, the meaning of this passage is clear
13 Sha'ar daled, perek yod.
14 Sha'ar daled, perek khof-khet.
15 The first and second creation accounts contradict each other, and thus they cannot both be meant entirely literally in the usual sense of the term. Only if one of the two is accepted as being non-totally literal can the other be accepted as being meant literally.
The second account deals with philosophical issues, a talking snake, strange trees, and so on. Thus, of the two creation accounts, the second account is the more natural candidate to be chosen as the allegorical account, and this is indeed how Rambam understands it [see his "Guide" II:17, II:29, and the Introduction.] We can then interpret the first account literally. See my book " Origin Theories " for an extensive discussion of this issue.
16 The relevance of the question as to whether or not there are other free willed species of beings in the universe is dealt with in a later chapter.
…
Fin 5 ch 3
CHAPTER 3- THE ORIGINS OF MAN- 6000 YEARS AGO?
According to evolutionary theory, and as evidenced by the remains of ancient cities1, pottery, weapons, skeletal bones, Homo Sapiens Sapiens arose approximately 60,000 years ago2 and thus had some 55,000 years to multiply and spread before this date. Logically, there should have been millions of humans by that time. However, according to traditional commentaries on Genesis, it would seem that only one pair of humans existed at the time of the creation of man.
This poses a dilemma since if only one pair of humans existed 6,000 years ago, the absence of their contemporaries predicted by evolutionary theory is puzzling, whereas if these others did indeed exist, then Adam and Eve were seemingly not the first humans.
If these millions of contemporaries of Adam and Eve existed, they should have many descendents. There would then be people living today who are not descended from the Adam of the creation account. This is especially puzzling since Adam and Eve were to have been the first humans and also therefore the forebears of all mankind.
SCIENTIFIC MONOGENESIS
It has long been recognized by many evolutionary biologists that all life emanates from a common source (monogenesis). The famous mathematical-physicist Hermann Weyl writes as follows3:
"Considerations of evolution in the large will of necessity lead to the question of the origin of life. The evidence of genetics makes one incline to see in life the chance success of a play of creative accidents. Not some predictable macrophysical or macrochemical process, that with a certain natural necessity came to pass at a certain stage of evolution - and would repeat itself wherever the appropriate conditions prevailed - seems responsible for the historic beginnings of life, but a molecular event of singular character, occurring once by accident, and then starting an avalanche by autocatalytic multiplication (P. Jordan). Jordan adduces as a strong argument for this opinion: ‘the fact that all the more complicated molecules found in plants and animals, especially the protein molecules, are stereochemically different from their mirror images.’ Indeed had they an independent origin at many places and many times their levo- and dextro-varieties should show nearly the same abundance. Thus it looks as if there is some truth in the story of Adam and Eve, if not for the origin of mankind then for that of the most primitive forms of life."
It is now becoming evident however, that there is yet more truth to the story of Adam and Eve: a specific gene has been traced in the various races of Man which indicates that it derives from a common ancestress who lived about 100,000 years ago.
Thus comparative genetics indicates that all mankind existing today is descended from one genetic line, which mutated from the parent line about 100,000 years ago 4. Thus even according to evolutionary theory, all humankind is descended from one original progenitor - just as Genesis states. Fittingly, evolutionary geneticists have dubbed her "Eve" 5.
Thus science and Genesis agree that the universe emerged out of nothing, and is not eternal; that all life is descended from a single original life form; and that all Mankind is descended from one unique ancestral human being.
Despite the agreement noted above, there is a seeming conflict between genetics and Genesis around the issue of when the original progenitor of the human race lived. According to evolutionary theory it was about100,000 years ago when the first Homo Sapiens Sapiens (Cro-Magnon Man) evolved, while according to the traditional commentaries on the Bible, the species we refer to today as Man - emerged only 6,000 years ago.
FLEXIBILITY OF THE CREATION DATE
The creation date is not given explicitly in the Bible. The date of the emergence of the first human can be known only via the genealogy given after the creation account. In this genealogy we are told of life-spans of almost a thousand years. If we do not take this genealogy as referring to ordinary physical processes, then the alleged implied date of 6,000 years can be rejected6.
Furthermore the date of 6,000 years can be obtained only by counting time across the gap of the creation of the instant universe after the expulsion from Eden and thus this figure is perhaps not necessarily correct. We can then perhaps say that the first moral being arose about100,000 years ago, and it is this event which is referred to in Genesis.
MORAL MAN
In the terms of reference of the purpose of the human race as seen by Tradition, it was the emergence of the first free willed morally conscious intelligent being - what we will term here 'Moral Man' - which allowed the onset of purpose.
One can say perhaps that Traditional perspective classifies beings according to categories relating to purpose rather than to evolutionary-genetic development. From this perspective, the predecessors of the first moral man - since they lacked intelligent free willed consciousness - are classified with the animals. Only the first free-willed being is a 'human' being, and can be classified as being 'in the image of Gd7.8
From the Traditional point of view, which would see the purpose of the universe as tied to the free willed actions of Man, the universe can be considered to begin its purposeful existence with the emergence of free willed man. It would then be reasonable for a creation account to be followed immediately by an account of the emergence - or creation - of the first moral man, as indeed presented in the Garden of Eden account.
Even if it the purpose of the entire universe were not necessarily tied into the moral activity of man, at least the relevant beginning from the point of view of mankind could be seen as the point of emergence of the first moral human.
We will present various approaches to the issue of the predecessors and contemporaries of Adam. Generally, the approach taken will be to consider that evolutionary processes led to the emergence of a race of humans, from which arose a moral being - as a mutation, who subsequently became the progenitor of the present day human race of moral man; or a genius from among the original human stock, who taught future generations to become moral beings.
The creation accounts as they relate to man will then be interpreted as describing the initial emergence of the human race, followed by the emergence of the first moral being from among this race. A number of approaches to this issue are sketched briefly below, and are then discussed in more detail.
ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES
In one approach, Cro-Magnon Man is considered to have been genetically capable of being Moral Man. However, the actualization of the moral sense is considered to have required the development of latent abilities - and recognition of the concepts of good and evil - which only a supreme genius could achieve. In this interpretation, the Biblical account can be taken as speaking of the first such moral genius among Cro-Magnon man, who emerged about six thousand years ago9. The rest of mankind was then able to follow his example, so that all eventually became 'moral man'.
Another approach considers the first moral man as a genetic mutation from Cro-Magnon Man, so that his Cro-Magnon contemporaries would not be moral man. The descendants of these non-Cro-Magnon contemporaries: a) are alive today and are not Moral Man;
b) perished in the flood;
c) died out in the struggle for survival - perhaps in a struggle against our moral man ancestors, just as perhaps they themselves had previously eliminated Neanderthal Man.
The last approach we consider is that when the Torah speaks of Adam, it is referring to the race of Man rather than to an individual. That is, the Adam of the Garden of Eden refers to the entire race of Cro-Magnon Man. And, the event corresponding to the Garden of Eden account was perhaps some event in the life of this race - perhaps they were simultaneously transformed into a race of Moral Man 6,000 years ago, via a race-wide mental 'rite of passage', or some other form of divine intervention10.
THE HISTORICAL EMERGENCE OF MORAL MAN
When Might Moral Man Have Emerged?
The emergence of Man according to the origin theory is approximately described by the following dates: [The abbreviation Y.A. is used here to denote "years ago". ]11
Early Hominid
3,000,000 YA = Australopithecus
Homo Erectus
700,000 YA = Java Man
500,000 YA = Peking Man
Homo Sapiens
120,000 YA = Neanderthal Man
Homo Sapiens Sapiens
60,000 YA = Modern Man [Between 100,000 and 40,000 YA]12
THE EVOLUTION OF MORALITY
According to the scientific origin theory, we have been billions of years in developing: from big bang to home planet, from inorganic matter to life, from simple life to ape, and millions of years more from ape to man. However, it was only approximately 100,000 years ago that there appeared an ancestor we could identify as a member of our species: a truly sapient [thinking] creature, the first of Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Clearly, then, although the big bang "occurred" 15 billion "years ago", morality could probably only have emerged in the last 100,000 years.
The time-spans for geological and astronomical events are in the billions and millions of years and therefore because of the evolutionary theory and the theory of the big bang, many people tend to think in terms of billions of years. As a result it is surprising to them that our species, Homo-Sapiens-Sapiens, evolved "only" 100,000 years ago, when life had begun already billions of years previously.
The essential human qualities we associate with a human, as opposed to an animal or a computer, are those of moral behavior and the idea of moral accountability. These qualities, when they first arose among Homo Sapiens Sapiens would almost certainly result in the formulation of religion. Thus, the earliest religions would follow not too long after the first stirrings of moral consciousness. When one actually reviews the cultural history of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, one makes an interesting discovery - it becomes clear that religion as we know it developed only in the last 4,000 years.
A Short History of Major Cultural Developments 13
10,000YA
BCE
Painting14, burials
5000 YA
3000
Writing, farming
4000 YA
2000
Abraham-Monotheism formulated15
2400 YA
400
Jeremiah (Yirmiyahu)
3500 YA
1500
Hinduism formulated; Moses
3000 YA
1000
King Solomon - philosophy , ethical writing , poetry
2500 YA
500
Isaiah (Yeshayahu) , Buddha, Confucius, Lao-Tze
Greek-Science/Culture/Philosophy:Socrates,Plato,Aristotle etc.
CE
2000 YA
100
R. Akiva; Christianity (spread of);
1400 YA
600
Islam
300 YA
1700
Newton
140 YA
1850
Darwin
100 YA
1900
Einstein
We see that Man's brain had developed about 100,000 years ago. His cultural abilities - painting, pottery and so on - developed perhaps 15,000 years ago. The first glimmerings of thought about death and life - the first burials - took place about 10,000 years ago, and the first religions were developed about 4,000 years ago.
The emergence of the first true moral being, with sufficient intelligence and understanding to make a free choice would presumably occur somewhere between the time that man began to think of death and a possible afterlife, and the time that religious thought and attitudes were first developed . According to the chronology of the Biblical genealogies, this occurred roughly 6,000 years ago - 2,000 years before the first religion developed, and about 4,000 years after the Cro-Magnon culture reached its height [?].
We would then add one stage onto the chain of human development16
Early Hominid
Homo Erectus
Homo Sapiens
Homo Sapiens Sapiens
*** Homo Sapiens Voluntas
3,000,000YA
700,000YA
500,000YA
100,000YA
60,000YA
6,000YA
= Australopithecus
= Java Man
= Peking Man
= Neanderthal Man
= Modern Man
= Moral Man
We propose the following:
1. Man as a race achieved his modern type of intellectual capacity only 100,000 years ago, and prior to that many modern concepts - such as "morality" - were simply beyond the conceptual ability of man' evolutionary ancestors.
2. All the world's religions were founded in the last 4,000 years, so that 4,500 years ago there was no real conception of a Gd, of moral responsibility, of purpose to a human life, and so on. 17
3. The vast majority of our scientific knowledge was unknown only 500 years ago, and science had its rudimentary beginnings only 2,500 years ago. The great ideas, which are the foundations of our society - ideas of religion, philosophy, culture and science - are relatively recent innovations.
6,000 years does not seem like a long time for moral man to have been in existence. However, this is an illusion created by the overwhelming scientific and cultural stores of knowledge available today. It surprises us to see how much we have achieved in so short a time.
CONCLUSION
The development of Homo Sapiens Sapiens to moral man in only 50,000 years (approximately) was a remarkably quick process compared to the development during the millions of years before then. Since Homo Sapiens Sapiens is such a new arrival, it would then not be surprising if the first moral man arose only about 6,000 years ago, as implied in traditional interpretations of Genesis.
DISCUSSION OF THE OPTIONS
MORAL MAN AS CRO-MAGNON MAN
We will here consider Moral Man as genetically one of the race of Cro-Magnon Man which evolved 100,000 years ago. Mankind of 100,000 years ago was genetically Moral Man, however the moral consciousness was only latent. True free willed choice is possible only through the exercise of a combination of intelligent analysis, foresight and strength of will. It therefore required a unique genius to come along and first realize this latent potential. The first such genius lived about 6,000 years ago, and he was therefore the first true Moral Man, referred to in the Bible as Adam. Following his teachings, the rest of Humanity learned to exercise their free will as well.
ADAM AS THE FIRST HUMAN
In the religious view, the emergence of this first free willed conscious intelligent being allowed the onset of purpose. The Biblical perspective classifies beings according to categories relating to purpose. From this perspective, the predecessors of the first free-willed conscious being - since they lacked intelligent free willed consciousness - are classified with the animals. Only the first free-willed being is a 'human' being, and is 'in the image of Gd'18.19
We propose that, although Cro-Magnon Man existed for about 50,000 years before Adam, we are told that it was Adam who was the first human, and therefore the only human of his time, since he was the first Moral man.
Genesis and the origin theories agree that the race of modern man 'began' at some point, that there was a 'first man'. However from the categories of science and of religion 'human' is defined differently, and therefore the date of emergence of the 'first human' is different.
ADAM AS A GENETIC MUTATION FROM CRO-MAGNON MAN
Physical science does not recognize free will as a qualitatively unique physical phenomenon, but rather as a psychological phenomenon. Therefore evolutionary genetics can consider an intelligent conscious being with free will as genetically identical to one lacking free will.
Science does not deal in categories of purpose, and therefore the ability to exercise free will and become a moral being is not considered scientifically significant. However, religious philosophy would certainly make a great distinction between free-willed man and non-free-willed man.
We assume in this approach that free-willed man is genetically different from non-free-willed man. That is, Adam was a genetic mutation from Cro-Magnon Man. He, and therefore we, are Moral Man, as opposed to Cro-Magnon Man.20 To say that the descendants of Adam's Cro-Magnon contemporaries are alive today and are not Moral Man is very problematic.21 Instead we postulate that all people alive today are Moral Man, and that Cro-Magnon Man died out either in the flood or in the struggle for survival.
THE FLOOD AS A SELECTION MECHANISM:
All mankind today derives from Noah and Noah was a direct descendant of Adam (the lineage is given in Genesis). Thus, even if there were human contemporaries of Adam, they died in the flood, and only Adam's line remained - leaving us all as descendants of a single unique pair. In this sense as well - as the only humans whose descendants survived - Adam and Eve were the "sole" progenitors of the human race. Indeed, since the Torah was given to a world populated only by Adam's descendants (because of the "selection" caused by the flood), and Adam was a species apart (Homo Sapiens Voluntas - as were therefore his descendants) it is quite reasonable to speak of Adam and Eve as the only ancestors of man, and of Adam and Eve therefore as the only "humans" at creation-time22.
This interpretation is however problematic because we solve one difficulty - that of the creation account and evolutionary theory - only by involving ourselves in another conflict - between the Biblical flood account and geological science23.
MORAL FITNESS AS A SELECTION FACTOR:
In the approach we are considering, all non-Moral Man died out somehow over the years leaving the Earth to the descendants of the first moral being. Similar disappearances are postulated in evolutionary theory, as explained below.
Only an individual can mutate, not an entire race. Those individual apes which mutated sufficiently severely have given rise to other species. However, such severe mutation is a very rare phenomenon, and therefore virtually all of the members of previous races would not have mutated, and their presence should seemingly be felt today as well.
We know that there was a race of humans different than ourselves long ago since traces remain in the form of skeletal bones and artifacts. This race has been named 'Neanderthal Man', and lived about 100,000 years ago. In the last 100,000 years, only a very few Neanderthalers - if any at all - would have mutated in a manner sufficiently severely so as to produce a new race. Therefore the original Neanderthal species should continue to exist as it was, alongside the newly emerging mutated race or races.
Thus even if we were the mutated race, the Neanderthalers should still be in evidence today. However, no Neanderthalers exist nowadays. Similarly so for the Australopithecans and so on. Similarly, there are no races today existent which are the intermediary races between humans and apes.
According to evolutionary theory, our progenitors did have contemporaries, all of whose lines eventually died out - leaving only our line to dominate the earth.
Today's scientific theory says that modern man descends from a different evolutionary line than did Neanderthal man, and that the two were contemporaries and rivals. It is held that the Neanderthalers died out possibly through competition with modern man's ancestors. Similarly so for any other parallely-evolved "humans" - they have all died out, leaving Homo Sapiens Sapiens (Cro-magnon man) to inherit the earth.
In our terms we state this as follows: the race descended from Adam survived, but the race of Adam's contemporaries did not. Why did they not survive?
As we have seen, "Adam" was the first successful moral being, "Homo Voluntas". If this heightened perception was genetic in nature24, it may have helped give his descendants a higher survival factor, making them "fitter" in the selection sense ("survival of the fittest")25.
Perhaps the moral sense allowed united civilizations to appear for the first time - this would give Homo Voluntas a clear survival advantage over Homo Sapiens Non-Voluntas. Alternatively, the genetic change which led to the ability to use free will almost certainly led to a far greater range of choice in any activity - to heightened originality, creativity and productivity. This would give an overwhelming advantage to Adam's descendants. The race of Adam's parents would eventually disappear, losers in the competitive struggle for existence.
Since only Adam's line lived on, and all modern man stems from Homo Voluntas, the non-Voluntas beings are not considered of our species, and thus Adam is considered to have been the only "human being" and to be the father of all future human beings.
Conclusion: Thus we can read Genesis and the origin theory as agreeing that the universe emerged out of nothing, and is not eternal; that all life is descended from a single original life form; and that all Mankind is descended from one unique ancestral human being - the predecessors and contemporaries of this common ancestor were not 'human', and all the descendants of these non-humans eventually died out.
A different approach to resolving the conflict about the contemporaries of Adam is suggested by the statement in the Talmud and Midrash to the effect that "Gd created and destroyed worlds" prior to the creation detailed in Genesis26. It is not clear however whether this implies the creation of worlds prior to the very creation of heaven and earth - i.e. the creation of prior universes, or it is referring to the creation of planets within the universe whose creation is described in Genesis. And, if it refers to the creation of planets within the universe of Genesis, it is not clear whether the reference is to planets other than earth, or to the planet earth prior to the creation of Adam.
In the last mentioned case, this would mean that Adam was not necessarily the first human on our planet. Indeed, the Tiferet Yisrael27 stated that fossil remains may bear witness to such pre-Adamic man. Similarly, according to R. Shimon Schwab, Adam was not necessarily the first human-like being28.
We can perhaps interpret the "creation of worlds" as taking place via a divinely instituted natural law - via an evolutionary process. One could then say that life - and man - originally arose on Earth via evolution. Then at some stage Gd "destroyed the world" which arose this way, and created Adam as described in Genesis.
Genesis is not in conflict with the evolutionary theory's description of the origin of pre-Adamite man, and with its conclusion that the humanoid fossils discovered are the remnants of evolved man of many thousands of years ago. However, Adam was a unique creation, and had no similar contemporaries. Furthermore, mankind today is descended from Adam, and not from the evolved pre-Adamite humans whose fossils have been discovered.
Summary
We have seen that moral thought could have arisen about 6,000 years ago. We can then interpret Genesis to be depicting the emergence of moral thought among Cro-Magnon Man, where Adam is the first such moral man29.
Of course in such a scenario Adam had contemporaries who were Cro-Manon as was he, but as the first Moral Man he is considered to be the first true human. His difference from the ordinary Cro-Magnon might be genetic - a mutation - or it might be that he was a 'super-genius'.
Alternatively, Adam was the first Cro-Magnon man, and lived about 60,000 years ago.
A more speculative approach to a resolution of the problem is to suppose that Genesis relates the creation of a race of moral man, rather than of an individual. Thus as regards the presence of contemporaries of Adam, there is no contradiction between the situation as depicted in Genesis and as implied by the origin theory.
We have seen that, indeed, the most logical manner of Creation is to create an instant universe, the most logical point at which to create it, is at the stage of the emergence of morality, and that aesthetic considerations lead to the preference of a complete big bang-emergent universe rather than an incomplete one.
However, if Gd in fact used this method and timing, why did He not tell us that He did so? Why “trick” us into believing that the universe is billions of years old and originated in a big bang?
The answer, of course, is that Gd did tell us- in the Bible (Torah).
The Creation account tells of how Gd created the universe by building it piece by piece, continuing only when satisfied with the product (“and Gd saw that it was good”); of how Gd reviewed the entire Creation as a whole and approved; of how Gd then “rested” - that is, created a system of law consistent with the universe so that it could ‘run by itself’; of how all this was immediately followed by man’s first experience with the problem of good and evil – i.e.- with the emergence of morality.
Some scientists have even felt that Gd communicated to us the fact of creation via the laws of nature themselves.
According to Nobel Prize-wining physicist Arthur Compton30: “The scientist ...feels that God is in nature, that the orderly ways in which nature works are themselves manifestations of God’s will and purpose. Its laws are his orderly way of working.” However, although the beauty, elegance and unity of the laws of nature have inspired thinkers throughout the ages to recognize the existence of Gd, they are not - to the finite human brain - a proof of Gd’s existence.
As Rambam said31:
“But of the things in the heavens man knows nothing except a few mathematical calculations, and you see how far these go. I say in the words of the poet, “The heavens are the Lord'’, but the earth He hath given to the sons of man” (Ps. cxv. 16); that is to say, G-d alone has a perfect and true knowledge of the heavens, their nature, their essence, their form, their motions, and their causes; but He gave man power to know the things which are under the heavens; here is man’s world, here is his home, into which he has been placed, and of which he is himself a portion. This is in reality the truth. For the facts which we require in proving the existence of heavenly beings are withheld from us; the heavens are too far from us, and too exalted in place and rank. Man’s faculties are too deficient to comprehend even the general proof the heavens contain for the existence of Him who sets them in motion.”
As we have seen, Rambam stated that “Man’s faculties are too deficient to comprehend even the general proof the heavens contain for the existence of Him who sets them in motion”.
Some people feel that now that science has provided such interesting alternative explanations to those provided by the Torah, perhaps Gd should step out of heaven for a few minutes and announce His existence unequivocally. Others are hopeful that science will fail to explain some of the mysteries of nature - in fact some people devote their lives trying to disprove scientific findings in favor of religion.
Both of these positions seem to ignore the primary importance of our freedom to believe or disbelieve in Gd. The meaningfulness of our actions derives from the fact that we chose to do these actions from a number of possibilities available to us, that is, due to the fact that we have a free will. The purpose of the universe revolves about the achievement of moral goals by moral beings – goals, which can only be achieved via the exercise of free will.
Indeed, as we have stated, the universe probably emerged into existence at the emergence of the first free willed being. If free willed action would be compromised then our actions would be devoid of meaning to ourselves and to Gd. In a universe created expressly to allow the free willed action of moral beings, any frustration of this free will would be fundamentally counter-productive.
The most direct way to frustrate free will would be for Gd to continually and unequivocally manifest Himself while demanding obedience and threatening punishment. Good deeds done under such circumstances would be merely self-serving obsequiousness motivated by the fear of definite punishment. As a result, it would seem absurd and self-defeating for Gd to manifest Himself unequivocally to man. Thus Gd appeals to us via the Torah, not directly from “heaven” [”lo bashamayim hiy”]. .
Similarly, in order that belief in Gd should result from choice, there must be an alternative. In ancient times, pagan idols, pantheons of gods and the like were the alternative to a belief in the morality-demanding Gd of the Torah. In fact, the Midrash relates that at the time of the Exodus from Egypt, Gd destroyed all the idols in the world - except for that of ‘Ba’al Tzafon’ . The Midrash further relates the reason for this: in order that the nations of the world would have the choice of believing that it was this idol which had destroyed the other idols, or that Gd was not sufficiently powerful to destroy ‘Ba’al Tzafon’.
With the increasing sophistication of man, idols were left behind and science became the alternative. Thus, in this sense science today has assumed the role of ‘alternative to religion’ formerly played by ‘Ba’al Tzafon’.
Five hundred years after King Solomon, the early Greek philosophers (before Aristotle) formulated ‘scientific’ explanations for the emergence of life on Earth, and for the existence of the Earth itself. These explanations provided an alternative to the idea of a ‘Gd the Creator, Who created for a Purpose, and Who had made man aware of this fact’.
In order that Gd’s existence not be proven by the inability of science to provide alternative explanations, any question that man can ask about the nature of the universe should be answerable without recourse to the explanation that “all is the work of Gd”. If a question defies answer this can be attributed either to a temporary lack of sufficient knowledge or to the limitations of the finite human brain - not to the evasive non-answer that “the ways of Gd are mysterious”. Therefore, religion can contain within it the belief that science must, in theory, have the power to answer any question about Nature, including the question of the origin of the universe and life in it. In our universe, man’s freedom of choice is vital to the achievement of the universal purpose.
Man with his innate curiosity can wonder about the mysteries of the universe, and with his intellect discover some of the laws of nature. He can deduce that he is in a big-bang-emergent-state-universe operating according to “natural law” - he then has the free will to attribute the universe and its laws to Gd or to some other source.
Gd, in infinite Wisdom, wished to create a universe which would contain meaningful activity, and which could therefore fulfill a certain Purpose. In order that the universe so created would contain meaningful activity, rather than activity which at its most fundamental level is determined or random, Gd created - as protagonist of the universe - a being bearing the Divine ‘Form’, or image - that is, having a free will. The universe to be created would thus be a moral universe.33
The characteristics of the moral universe were specified by a specially-created abstract model - the Torah. Thus, the Torah - in its abstract spiritual Form - served as blueprint for the moral stage with both its structure and content determining the necessary characteristics of the moral being and his environment.
In order that the universe be able to fulfil a Purpose, there must be within it beings capable of purposive action, that is, it must contain moral beings. However, it would seem that not much else would be needed - certainly the distant galaxies, and even virtually all of our own galaxy are superfluous. As long as it contained moral beings and the few items necessary for their survival, any universe would be capable of the same purpose as our own.
For example, imagine a universe containing only one flat “planet”, no apes, no mountains (and so on). There is no need for other planets, moons, no need even for “gravitation” etc. - there need be only a flat “planet” to which man would be bound by “Divinely instituted attraction” rather than by a “natural law of gravitation”. As long as it contained moral beings and the few items necessary for their survival, such a universe would seem to be capable of the same purpose as our own.
This universe, however, would require constant Divine intervention since it could not operate “on its own” as would a self- consistent “natural” universe. Also, in such a universe, the intrinsic good of existence would be denied to the multitudes of species of animals and plants, fish and insects, stars and planets, which do exist in a big-bang-emergent universe.
Further, this type of universe would be unaesthetic, incomplete, and neither spatially nor temporally self-consistent. In addition, such a universe would manifest Gd’s existence to a degree that would effectively nullify man’s free-willed choice between good and evil, and would thus greatly impair the achievements of a meaningful purpose for the universe - the very purpose for which the universe was created.
For these reasons and more, the universe was created as a self-consistent, complete - and therefore aesthetically pleasing - “natural” universe; that is, a universe operating according to a “natural law” which allowed it to develop “on its own” without constant Divine intervention. As such, spatial self-consistency demanded the existence of complete galaxies; completeness implied the existence of evolutionary precursors to man; self-operation demanded the existence of natural laws such as gravitation, which in turn implied the existence of planets, moons, black holes; and temporal self-consistency implied that all had arisen from some beginning - namely that which is today termed the ‘big bang’ or the ‘initial singularity’.
Furthermore, as we have seen, there is a deep existential link between man and the universe, and between the physical characteristics of man and the fundamental physical structure of the universe. The existence of man is intimately interconnected with the very existence and structure of the universe.
Thus, the universe is created in a manner that maximizes existence, is complete and self-consistent, and manifests the intimate existential connection between man and universe itself - a big-bang-emergent moral-universe.
1 e.g. Jericho is said to be 9,000 years old
2 Various figures are provided by different authorities, between 40,000 and 120,000. The actual time is of course very significant historically, but it is not relevant in our context. What is relevant is that it is more than the 6,000 years seemingly implied by the chronologies in Genesis.
3 Natural philosophy of ..... p.298
4 Such mutations are exceedingly rare and would not occur twice in exactly the same way and thus it is quite certain that there was only one such mutation, and we are all descended from that one mutant. See also Appendix: "All Men are Brothers"]
5 See "In Search of Eve" by Rebecca L. Cann in "The Sciences": Sept/Oct. 1987 and "The Search for Adam and Eve" "Newsweek" Jan 11, 1988. See also Appendix at the end of this chapter.
6 The genealogy tells of people living to ages of almost a thousand years, giving birth at ages of many hundreds of years old. We need only interpret one passage in the chain as being allegorical, and the chain is broken, leaving the date of creation undetermined
7See Appendix "Adam as Mutation vs. Adam as Genius".
8The idea that the human fossils found by archaelogists are the bones of the predecessors of Adam is not an idea that negates Jewish belief: the Tifereth Yisrael discusses this very idea! [give photocopy & translation]. R.I. Lifchitz - Drush Or Hachaim, 3: about one third from the beginning: "micol heamur" (found in "Yachin Uboaz" mishnayos, after Sanhedrin).
9For example, if such a genius is a one in a billion phenomenon, then one would expect him to arise somewhere between the 500 millionth and 2 billionth human. Assuming a beginning from one human 100,000 years ago to a population of approximately ten million 10,000 years ago, 6,000 years ago is in the right time period.
10Parallels can perhaps be drawn to the racial archetypes and racial memories etc. of for example Jung and Jung and Pauli .
11The dates given below are rough approximations - new discoveries often cause significant revisions. They are only meant to give an idea of the progression - the exact timing is of no relevance here.
12 This figure varies as new discoveries are made, and different viewpoints exist also as to the interpretations of such findings. The exact number - whether it is 300,000 or 50,0000 years is not relevant here.
13 Intended only as a sample - no intent is made to compare the value of any one development to any other.
14 on cave walls in what are today Spain and France.
15 The ancient lawgiver Hammurabi may have been no other than Abraham:
HAM | UR | AB | I
ABRA | HAM | | AB | RAHAM
UR = UR KASDIM?
ABRAHAM - Three syllables = AB-RA-HAM, Backwards = HAM-RA-AB AR
AV RU HAM = AV HAMon Goyim of UR kasdim = AV HAM of UR = HAM UR AV = Hammurabi
16The dates given below are rough approximations - new discoveries often cause significant revisions. They are only meant to give an idea of the progression - the exact timing is of no relevance here.
17Paganism is not conducive to the idea of morality. As far back as 6,000 years ago - 2,000 years before the introduction of the first monotheistic religion - mankind probably had only a potential for conceiving of the concept of "morality".
The pagan belief was essentially that many gods ruled the world and were themselves bound by their limited powers and by the constant strife between gods. These gods were believed to be dependent on man's gifts and sacrifices, which could occasionally persuade them to perform favors to individual men or groups of men.
According to the pagan conception, the gods ruled arbitrarily and were not bound by any rules of fair conduct, justice, kindness, etc. to man. There were no rules given to man whereby he might achieve the immortality of life after death - no code of ethics to follow in his man-to-man dealings and no set code for man-to-god interaction. The idea that all men are equal, that one should love one's fellow man, that life has meaning, and that therefore the taking of life is bad, that there is some reason that man should be what we call "moral" - all these did not exist and thus neither did "moral" man. Man's body was formed millions of years ago, and his brain 60,000 years ago, but his "soul" is only 6,000 years old.
18 See Appendix "Adam as Mutation vs. Adam as Genius".
19 The idea that the human fossils found by archaelogists are the bones of the predecessors of Adam is not an idea that negates Jewish belief: the Tifereth Yisrael discusses this very idea! [give photocopy & translation]. R.I. Lifchitz - Drush Or Hachaim, 3: about one third from the beginning: "micol heamur" (found in "Yachin Uboaz" mishnayos, after Sanhedrin).
20 We cannot tell from an analysis of our own bones that we possess the ability to exercise a free will. Therefore from an analysis of the bones of Cro-Magnon Man we do not know whether or not Cro-Magnon Man of 60,000 possessed the ability to exercise a free will.
21 For example since codes of law - the Noakhide Laws - were given for all Mankind
22 The 'Eve' of evolutionary theory did not necessarily live in the generation of the first Cro-Magnon Man. She is termed 'Eve' not because of her priority, but rather because all Mankind is descended from her. That is, it may well be that there were women prior to 'Eve', but only Eve's descendants’ survived. However, for all intents and purposes, she is the 'mother of all Mankind'.
23There does not seem to be any direct archaeological evidence for the occurrence of a worldwide flood as described in Genesis, at the date indicated there. Indeed, in certain areas there seem to be traces of continuous habitation throughout the past ten thousand years. However, the flood should have caused at the very least a noticeable gap in those cultures. It would have taken Noakh's descendants some time to increase, repopulate the area, excavate the remains of the previous civilization, and continue the previous culture - if it is at all likely that they would do so instead of building their own culture.
However, even if the possible evidence for a continuous culture is accepted, there is no logical difficulty in accepting the literal truth of the flood account in Genesis.
When atheist deny the existence of Gd, they generally do not deny the possibility a priori that a Gd can exist. Rather, it is because they are aware of the possibility that there exists a Gd that they have searched about to determine if in fact a Gd does exist. Atheists believe - based on the evidence of their senses and rational thought etc. - that in fact no Gd exists.
However, in this we are assuming the existence of a Gd, creator of the universe, creator of space-time-matter-energy and the 'laws of nature' and so on, and therefore transcending the limitations these place on created beings. Therefore, we will allow that Gd the creator could do all that the Divine Will wishes to do.
It would be silly to say that Gd the creator of the entire universe could not have the power to flood the Earth, or to bring together all the species of living beings - beings which Gd created - into the ark, and to make them fit in and so on. Similarly, if Gd can create the universe, then when creating it universe, if it is so wished, Gd can create it as an instant universe.
24 see section X: "the origin of the soul".
25According to Rambam (Guide I:7):
"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat (va-yoled) a son in his own likeness, in his form" (Gen. v. 3). As regards the words, "the form of Adam, and his likeness," we have already inferred their meaning. Those sons of Adam who were born before that time were not human in the true sense of the word, they had not "the form of man." With reference to Seth who had been instructed, enlightened and brought to human perfection, it could rightly be said, "he (Adam) begat a son in his likeness, in his form." It is acknowledged that a man who does not possess this "form" (the nature of which has just been explained) is not human, but a mere animal in human shape and form."
It is only regarding Seth that Genesis states that Adam begat a son in his own likeness, in his form - that is, to whom he passed on the ability to exercise free will. We can therefore propose perhaps that the previous children, Cain and Abel, did not possess this ability. Indeed the chain of ancestry leading to Noah and Abraham is from Seth rather than Cain or Abel.
Furthermore, there was a special blessing given by Gd to Adam related in the passage directly preceding the passage relating the birth of Seth [Gen. 5:1-2]. These passages are after those relating the story of Cain and Abel. According to Ramban this blessing was for the ability to procreate, and since their first offspring were Cain and Abel, although the blessing is related after the story of Cain and Abel it necessarily refers to a time before them. In our interpretation the passage can refer to a time after Cain and Abel, and before Seth - the blessing is that of the ability to pass on free will to their progeny. And that is why the passage states that "and Gd blessed them and called them 'human' " - they were human by virtue of their free will, and the blessing was the ability to pass this on - rather than as had been the case prior to the blessing, with Cain and Abel.
26The creation and destruction is not necessarily total. 'Creation of worlds' may refer to major changes in existing entities, rather than creation where nothing was before, and 'destruction of worlds' may refer to major surgery rather than to total annihilation. See for example Rambam regarding the hyperbolic language occasionally employed by the prophets.
27 [Rabbi I. Lifchitz] "Drush Or Ha'chaim", 3: about one third from the beginning: "mikol he'amur": found in "Yakhin U'boaz" mishnayot, after Sanhedrin.
28 See discussion re: the different wording in Gen.:"['kol' = the rest of (see Vayikra 4:7)] the beasts of the field" in the second account, as opposed to "the beasts of the land" in the first account. "The rest`' implying others.
29The Evolution Of Morality: According to the evolutionary theory, since life emerged from non-life, and since moral sensitivity is present in man but not in non-life, then the capacity for moral sensitivity must have arisen at some point between the emergence of non-life and the emergence of modern man. Indeed, since even apes do not have moral sensitivity/intelligence [we would not hold them morally responsible for their actions] then we can say that morality emerged somewhere between the present and the time of the first human mutations from apes. When would this have been?
Science does not yet have answers to this question: indeed science as science cannot regard 'morality' as anything of significance or as something of transcendental worth: many scientists even believe that it is a meaningless word. However that may be, it is clear that the feeling of possessing moral responsibility is present in humans, and is almost certainly not present in apes. Thus, it is a legitimate scientific question to ask when such feelings - or the capacity for them - arose.
Although it is possible that Neanderthal Man had some type of moral sense, it was probably not as well developed as that of the next mutation to appear on the scene, Cro-Magnon man. Thus, it is quite probable that morality arose only after Cro-Magnon man evolved. Indeed, as we have seen, moral codes become widespread only about 4,000 years ago in the time of Abraham and Hamurabi, so that it is quite possible that morality emerged only slightly prior to that, at the time of Adam about 6,000 years ago.
30 Arthur Compton, The Freedom of Man, p. 79: quoted in Barth.
31 Guide Part II:XXIV.
32It is not a priori clear whether or not an unequivocal proof of Gd's existence can ever be derived from the structure of the universe, whatever that structure might be. However, we assume that it would have been possible for Gd to have created man and the universe in such a way that the universe itself would be proof of Gd's existence. See Appendix "Proof".
33In addition, in order that this being's free willed activity be conducive to the achievements of the Divine spiritual Purpose, the being was endowed with a spiritual dimension as well as a physical one: "[Gd] breathed into him a living soul".
…
Fin 6 ch 5
March 24, 1991
In this chapter we will show how both the concept of the instant universe, and the timing of its creation at the emergence of the first moral being, can be derived from considerations of quantum physics.
No prior background in physics is needed, and no equations will be introduced. However the material is nevertheless slightly technical. It can be skipped over, or skimmed through, without prejudicing the thread of the argument.
SECTION ONE: QUANTUM PHYSICS
For many years there was a debate among scientists regarding the nature of light. Certain phenomena seemed to indicate that light is a wave, while others pointed to its having a particle-like nature. The debate was stilled early this century when it was realized that all entities could be considered to be both waves and particles. Some physical conditions cause a manifestation of the wave-like properties of these entities, and some cause a manifestation of their particle-like properties. This duality became one of the fundamental concepts of the newly developed quantum physics.
The duality concept arises as follows. If one were to eject an electron from an electron gun and run it through a slit of some sort, one would expect that since an electron is a particle, it would continue straight in a flat trajectory and reach a screen or a detector directly opposite to where it emerged. On the other hand, if one has a water or light wave, the waves bend as they traverse an opening, and form a complex pattern on the other side. When water or light waves are passed through a double slit, it has been shown that the resulting pattern can be attributed to the fact that each wave passes through both slits. It was shown experimentally, that surprisingly, even particles such as electrons, form the same patterns as do waves, as though each particle passed through both slits—which seems impossible to our intuition. This led to the understanding that all entities in the universe are both waves and particles.
PROBABILISTIC DETERMINISM
Prior to the advent of quantum physics, scientific theory postulated that every event in the universe occurred as an inevitable and necessary result of previous events. The state of the universe at any one instant was believed to be totally determined by the states of the universe in the past, and in turn the present state totally determined what all future states of the universe would be.
Quantum physics, introduced at the beginning of the twentieth century, brought with it a drastic change in this viewpoint. According to quantum physics, events at the most fundamental level are not determined, but instead, can occur in more than one way. In order to predict how an event will occur, one applies the quantum formulas. Assuming that physical laws govern every physical process, and that every event occurs in some specific circumstance, by combining the knowledge of the relevant physical laws and the relevant circumstances one might determine in which ways the event could occur. Then one could determine the relative probability of each such different way of occurrence. We then would know the possible outcomes and their relative probabilities of occurrence. However we cannot know what will actually occur. Nature so to speak, rolls the dice and chooses one of the possibilities, according to the relevant probabilities1.
An example is the behavior of light when passed through a slit. It is a fact of nature that when a beam of light is shone through a slit, it spreads out on the other side of the slit, making a well-defined pattern on a screen placed behind the slit – the property of light acting as a wave.
It is also a fact of nature, that if the light is turned lower and lower (less and less light), there is not a continuous decrease of light, but a decrease in jumps - which means that the light is discrete 'pieces of light'. One can even reduce the beam so low that only one 'piece' of light comes through.
It is a fact that various pieces of light aimed at the center of the slit, after passing the slit, often land at different angles away from the center, rather than all hitting the center of the screen, (which is what a solid object should do- such as a bullet) and rather than all hitting at the same angle. There is no way to predict where an individual piece of light will impact. Nevertheless, when sufficient pieces are sent through, the expected pattern begins to assert itself.
How do the individual pieces conspire to make the pattern? According to the understanding of science, the path of an individual piece of light, or any other fundamental particle, is not describable in ordinary concepts - only the aggregate is describable. Each microscopic particle travels along a randomly chosen path, and science can predict only the pattern made by many particles, not the path of an individual particle. When there are sufficient paths involved for a statistical statement to be relevant, science can make exact predictions regarding the patterns that will develop.
Using the rules of quantum physics, one can exactly determine the relative probabilities of each "way of occurrence" for every type of physical process, under any circumstance. Since the relative probabilities are exactly determined, we will call quantum processes “probabilistically determined" processes.
It is now understood that each event could occur in a number of ways, and that the actual way in which it occurs is left to “chance.” Despite the fact that chance “rules” each individual event, however, when numerous similar events occur, the pattern that emerges resembles the results one would have expected using pre-quantum physics. Each individual event, though occurring “at random,” nevertheless contributes somehow to a pattern, which can be determined beforehand in the aggregate. Quantum physics teaches that all sub-microscopic events occur as a combination of determined and random effects, and that any such event can occur in a number of possible ways.
. This combination of random and determined behavior is called here probabilistic determinism or probabilistically determined randomness (PDR).
Physicists were troubled since this “random” aspect seemed to be contrary to the “spirit of physics.”
Much inquiry was directed to the question of whether the chance aspect was only apparent—i.e. due to our lack of sufficient scientific knowledge and adequate instrumentation—or if it was an actual physical requirement. With the accumulation of more experimental evidence it was shown that, indeed, the nature of the physical universe appears to be such that intrinsically, at the most fundamental level, events are probabilistic and not deterministic.
Furthermore, events develop in time in a way that is affected by all the possibilities. In order to correctly predict the outcome of an experiment on a quantum particle one must always perform a calculation, which involves the implication that the particle is in a combination state composed of all possible states. The physical interpretation of this combination is that of a probability - it tells us the relative probability of occurence of each of the possible outcomes represented in the combination.
The EPR Paradox and Bell's Inequality
Einstein was very involved in the debate as to whether or not events had a real existence when not being measured2. He and two colleagues - Podolsky and Rosen - proposed the following experiment:
An electron can have either "spin up" or "spin down". Prepare a state with two electrons having opposite values of spin, and have them fly apart from each other. According to general rules of physics, the two electrons must be in opposite spin states even after they fly apart. Thus, if we later measure one and find it has "spin up" then we automatically know that the other electron has "spin down" even without measuring it3.
Einstein was convinced that one could thus deduce that a particle is totally existent in full physical reality even when it is not measured. However, a remarkable equation [the "Bell inequality"] developed by John Bell indicates that it is possible to experimentally determine whether or not this is so.
Experiments carried out by Alain Aspect and others then showed that in fact Einstein was wrong - particles have real properties only when they are measured4!
When computing the result, prior to measurement, the correct result will be arrived at only via a calculation that attributes to the electron a combination of up and down at every instant. A computation which considers the electron as having been either up or down at any given time, gives an incorrect answer. Only the combination equation is correct, but all it can provide us with is the relative likelihood of the electron being in its spin up state and its spin down state.
John Von Neumann, one of the greatest mathematicians of this century, was the first to provide a rigorous mathematical foundation for quantum theory5. The mathematical equations describing quantum systems clearly lead to a superposition of many alternatives developing simultaneously and in concert - mathematically described as a 'wave packet'. On the other hand of course, when we observe any physical system, it has a very specific and unique state. Mathematically, there is no reason that the superposition should collapse to a unique value, yet nevertheless the physical fact is that it does.
There is something of a paradox involved.
REALITY AND MEASUREMENT-BEFORE AND AFTER
The mathematical description of a quantum system is that of a wave which corresponds to the system being in all possible states simultaneously—a “superposition of states.” (The physical interpretation of this wave is that of a probability distribution for the result of an individual event in an ensemble of cases or particles.) For example, if a beam of light is passed through a screen in which there are two parallel slits, side by side, the pattern it produces on a screen after passing through the slits is the pattern that would be predicted if the beam passed through both of the slits. In other words, each particle making up the beam of light, is represented by a wave function that corresponds to its going through both slits at all possible angles. Furthemore, the exact path of the beam cannot be predicted, as even the most subtle measurements on the particle while it is in flight, to determine its exact path have been shown experimentally and theoretically to so disturb the path that the pattern is lost. Our conscious observation of the event causes a new reality to be produced.
Retroactive Causation. John Wheeler, one of the leading theoretical physicists of this generation, made a radical extension of this idea. Wheeler showed that not only can our conscious measurement/observation of an event cause the emergence of that physical event into reality, but an observation now can cause retroactively the emergence into reality of an event which occurred in the past.
This he demonstrated by the delayed choice experiment - a variation on the standard 'double-slit' experiment. In Wheeler's words6 [italics in the original]:
"Let us wait until the quantum has already gone through the screen before we -at our free choice - decide whether it shall have gone "through both slits" or "through one." "
INSERT DIAGRAM
one photon lens plus venetian-blind two
per timed doubly-slit film photon flash metal screen detectors
"We make a last-minute choice, after the photon has already traversed the doubly slit screen, whether to open this blind or close it. Closed, as shown, it registers on a blackened grain of silver halide emulsion the arrival of that photon "through both slits." Opened, it allows the light to be focused by the second, or L.F Bartell lens on the two-photon counters. There being only one photon, only one counter goes off. It tells "through which slit" the photon came. In this sense we decide, after the photon has passed through the screen, whether it shall have passed through only one slit or both."
.... We, by a decision in the here and now, have an irretrievable influence on what we will want to say about the past - a strange inversion of the normal order of time.... The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present."
Thus there is a vast difference between the system prior to measurement and after measurement, when it is in a unique state. Prior to a measurement, any event can occur in a number of ways, and actually does so in some sense. Without measuring the state of a particle, we cannot say "it is in some particular state, which is however as yet unknown to us". It is not. It is (in some sense) simultaneously in all the possible states in which it can be! Indeed, even after measurement is made and the particle is found to be in a specific well-defined state, it would not be correct to say that the particle was in that state all the time. Rather, it had no definite state until one measured it.
Our measurement does not 'reveal' what was there already. Instead, our measurement forces the universe to assume one definite state from among the 'superposition' of possibility-states existent prior to the measurement. The epistemic becomes the ontologic. This is called "the collapse of the wave packet or collapse of the wave function7 into reality” in the terminology of quantum physics.
It can only be the act of measurement itself that causes this drastic change. This observation is counterintuitive, because out observations of the universe about us are measurements, and we therefore always see only unique states, not superpositions.
Summary
From the preceding discussion, we can make the following summary: All entities in the universe have a dual nature, one material and localized (particulate) and one nonmaterial and non-localized (wavelike). The universe, or any subsystem of it, is capable of being in two (or more) mutually contradictory states simultaneously. Saying that the universe is uniquely in one state is just as invalid as saying that it is in the other state. Until the measurement is made both views are only partially correct since the state is actually a combination. After the measurement only one becomes correct. However, this does not imply that it was always the correct one; there was no “correct” state until the measurement was made. It was also found that [assuming locality] the "choice" of how a quantum event will occur is actually "decided" on only when the result of the choice is measured.
This surprising and bewildering property can be interpreted as implying that events in the physical universe can emerge into reality only as a result of their being measured.
Consciousness as the 'Active Ingredient' of a Measurement
We see that physical events occur in a ghost-world of conflicting probabilities, and can emerge into reality only via the act of measurement. It would almost imply that since measurement is merely the recording of the effect of an event, one can say that all events are always measured: since nothing in the universe can ever be totally isolated from all interaction, all events necessarily leave their mark on other events. Thus, one would imagine that emergence into reality could take place automatically - simultaneously with each event. Nevertheless, according to the mathematics it does not. Indeed it never does according to the math; the march of combined probabilities continues on and on, and in fact experiment proves this math correct. And yet, of course we see that only one of the probabilities out of the combination is eventually actualized - when we look at a real physical box it is either open or closed, it is not 50% likely to be open and 50% likely to be closed.
We can see that the discrepancy with the combination-form predicted by quantum physics arises only when we see an entity, when we observe that a particular result has been actualized.
Von Neumann indeed found that according to the mathematics there was no way to account for this 'collapse of the wave packet'; he concluded that it was the effect of a human consciousness observing the state of the system8. When a human consciousness is not observing a system it indeed develops as a superposition of possibilities, but when an observation is made, it collapses to one unique value. In this way there is no contradiction between the fact that the system develops as a superposition, yet is in a definite state every time anyone observes it.
This however implies that human consciousness has a real and significant effect on the physical universe, that a human consciousness observing the universe is not a passive observer but a critical element in the development of physical states in the universe. The effect that it has according to this approach is that of bringing physical systems from a state of 'superposition of probabilities', or a 'wave-packet' - a very counterintuitive unphysical state in which for example position and speed are undefined - to that of the usual physical state we are accustomed to, that we call physical reality.
Eugene Wigner [a], a leading theoretical physicist, came out clearly in support of the idea that consciousness is qualitatively other than non-conscious measuring devices:
" ........It follows that the quantum description of objects is influenced by impressions entering my consciousness ..........."
"..........it follows that the being with a consciousness must have a different role in quantum mechanics than the inanimate measuring device ..........." 9.
Why Consciousness is Effective in Collapsing the Wave Function: Speculations
Consciousness: The Unobserved Observer
It would seem reasonable to conclude that the collapse of the wave function is possible only where the observation is qualitatively different than the events or interactions it is observing. That is, the observation is not part of a chain of quantum events, existing as a superposition, but rather is a uniquely distinct phenomenon, deriving from outside the chain of cause-effect. If so, consciousness may be that which uniquely collapses the wave function since it is the medium whereby we perceive everything whether it is the outside universe, our own internal reality, or the consciousness of another: all is necessarily filtered through our own consciousness and it is the final arbiter of what is reality.
Being conscious we say that we 'exist', and being conscious of something else we say that it exists, and so it is perhaps not surprising that consciousness has the ability to collapse the wave function to bring entities from probability-existence to real physical existence. Or that without consciousness there is no meaning to 'existence' and therefore mathematics which does not take consciousness into account will be necessarily lacking that final step. If the equations are attempting to describe what is, they must necessarily describe what it is that we will be aware of as existing, and so they must insert consciousness into the equation, and the way of inserting it is to effectuate the collapse of the wave function.
When the consciousness of a mathematician or theoretical physicist contemplates the universe and creates equations in their consciousness which describe the universe as it is viewed by their consciousness, it is not a valid equation if it ignores consciousness.
The All-Seeing but Unseen
When consciousness wishes to observe itself, there is always some part of itself, which it cannot observe - namely that part which is doing the observing. Hence, consciousness is both necessary and sufficient for observation (for example, observation of itself) and is also the only phenomenon in the universe not given to observation in totality (since consciousness can never totally observe itself).
Consciousness therefore occupies a very unique role in terms of observation and of external and internal reality. Perhaps the fact that consciousness alone is what observes, yet it alone cannot itself be observed, is what provides it uniquely with the ability to bring the universe into physical reality via observation.
Consciousness, Time and Separateness
The very idea of a the state of a system being actually a superposition-wave developing in time and then collapsing to a definite value involves the concept of a flow of time, a concept not actually inherent in the system itself, nor in the mathematical description of the system. As such, the perception that there has been a change from the system as superposed wave function to specific value is directly a ramification of our status as conscious entities.
Similarly, the very idea that we exist separately from the system, that we are not the system, but rather are outside it and observing it, is also a direct ramification of our being conscious entities.
This separateness and sense of time flow are two fundamental aspects of consciousness, and as they underlie the concept of a system developing as a wave function and then collapsing to a specific value, it is appropriate that it be the very act of consciousness observing the system which is the catalyst for the change of state of the wave function.
Why would consciousness appear in quantum physics rather than in classical physics? Certainly the fact that quantum physics speaks of many possibilities but we witness only one, there is need for a mechanism to collapse the many to the one, but why should it be consciousness?
Consciousness might be that which by definition is the unique identity, the 'other' opposed to everything else in the universe, the ‘I’, and therefore the existence of more than one possibility is antithetical to consciousness. Also, a consciousness aware of all possiblities is stagnant, time-symmetric and invariant; only the individual possibility can have a unique identity. Therefore that which transforms the all-possibility into the one unique way is by definition consciousness - which selects out a unique identity from the multitude-all.
Even if one wished to argue that consciousness is not fundamental to 'nature' it is certainly fundamental to our theory of nature, since theory is a description by our minds of patterns of our sensory perceptions. And consequently, consciousness enters into physical theory at a fundamental level, albeit in a manner that is maximally unobtrusive - not actually affecting events, but rather selecting out a unique path of events.
If consciousness has no effect on the physical realm, then it would seem to follow that a universe without consciousness would be identical to that universe without its consciousness. Nevertheless, to make such a comparison requires a consciousness - there must be a consciousness, which observes both universes- and then can conclude that there is no difference. Therefore consciousness can play the role of that which allows the statement to be made to the effect that there is no effect of consciousness on the universe. Thus consciousness has the minimum physical effect, yet the maximum effect - the effect on the universe not of changing matters but allowing them to be stated, giving meaning to statements. The one element in a universe which may be indispensable even though it does not interact with the rest of the universe is therefore consciousness.
have an independent effect on physical events without "resorting to dualist views":
1For example: Quantum formulas applied to process X show that there are five ways for it to occur; ways A B C D and E; the formulas show further that way number A has a 10% probability, B a 5% probability, C has 35% probability, D a 27%, and E a 23% chance. Nature then constructs the following table in its mind:
Way type Relative Probability Code Numbers Assigned
________________________________________________
A 10% 1 - 10
B 5% 11 - 15
C 35% 16 - 50
D 27% 51 - 77
E 23% 78 - 100
________________________________________________
and then rolls a one hundred-sided die.
drawing: A 100-sided die: each number has an equal chance in each throw
If the number on the die is e.g., between 1 and 10, then event X occurs in way A. If the number is e.g., between 51 - 77, it occurs in way D, etc.
2 As opposed to the existential anguish of many philosophers caused by their belief that the universe was meaningless and 'uncaring', Einstein, felt secure and comforted in the knowledge that there existed an Absolute, Objectively existent universe. [See the first few pages of the book "Einstein" by P. A. Sclipp.] To Einstein, whose beliefs were of the Spinozistic pantheistic variety, such a universe was an acceptable substitute for the Biblical Gd he had rejected. However, the 'Copenhagen interpretation' of quantum physics - which postulates that particles can be said to exist in the classical sense only when their properties are being measured - must certainly have threatened this picture of an Absolute and Objectively existent universe, and we can thus perhaps infer that it therefore threatened the very existence of Einstein's "god" as well. We can therefore speculate that this is perhaps why Einstein fought so hard against the Copenhagen interpretation. [See first few pages of the book "Einstein" by P. A. Sclipp.]
3 Even if the electrons have flown apart so that they are separated by thousands of miles, as soon as one is measured, we know for sure that the other electron has the opposite spin value. If we arrange for the two to be measured simultaneously by two people, then each one knows from the local result exactly what is the result of the other measurement. Thus we can have some information about a particle's state without anyone sending the information to us. In fact, this "information" is "transmitted instantaneously", that is, faster than the speed of light - which is the maximum transmission speed of information allowed by the special theory of relativity. There is no paradox here because this " information" is not really information; one cannot set up any system which can use this effect to enable one to transmit - faster than light - information about anything else [see D'Espagnat and Herbert].
4 Particles can be said to have real [macroscopic-type] properties only if one allows the existence of 'action-at-a-distance' [which do not violate relativistic physics]. See D.Bohm.
5 See Von Neumann, and Jammer "Conceptual.." Section 9.2, for discussion of this matter and for further references.
6 "Beyond the Black Hole" p.356-358.
7 or: collapse of the wave function; actualization of potentials; rotation of the state vector.
8 In the final chapters of his book he presents what he feels is a rigorous proof of this conclusion.(Check to see what aspect of consciousness i s crucial - and if any connection to fw.)
9 Wheeler has wavered between full acceptance of this fundamental difference and a more cautious approach. He has expressed some hesitation in accepting consciousness as a qualitatively unique phenomenon, and has carefully phrased some of his writings:
"No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a registered phenomenon". ["Beyond the Black Hole" [Page 359] "The Central Lesson of the Quantum] This summary of the central lesson of the quantum takes its two key words from Bohr. "Registered" as Bohr uses is means "brought to a close by an irreversible act of amplification" and "communicable in plain language". This adjective, equivalent in most respects to "observed", has a special feature as compared to that more frequently seen word. It explicitly denies the view that quantum theory rests in any way whatsoever on "consciousness". The critical word, "phenomenon", Bohr found himself forced to introduce in his discussions with Einstein to stress how different "reality" is from Einstein's "any reasonable conception of reality".
[Page 356] "No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a recorded phenomenon" [note 91 refers to this statement] . [Note #91 in text] "[the word] Phenomenon: [was] Introduced by N. Bohr to meet and overcome the objections of Einstein, op. cit. in N. 7, p.230. For a preliminary account of stages in Bohr's evolution of this term see Petersen. "No phenomenon is ... until it is ... " [used by J. A. Wheeler in Varenna lectures of 1977] revised [in printed version, Frontiers of Time, op.cit. in N. 8] to read "No elementary phenomenon ..." to exclude macroscopic phenomena. The ending used there, "until it is an observed phenomenon" is revised here to "until is a registered phenomenon" to exclude any suggestion that quantum mechanics has anything whatsoever directly to do with "consciousness" and to recall Bohr's point that an irreversible act of amplification is required to bring an elementary phenomenon to a close."
….
Chapter 1 : The Instant Universe
Section I : The Conflict
Introduction
Science finds itself in conflict with the Biblical creation account not only on philosophical grounds, but also due to the seemingly direct contradiction of scientific fact. In the words of the cosmologist P.C. Davies:
"To argue whether the date of the Creation was 4,004 BC or 10,000 BC is irrelevant if scientific measurements reveal a four and a half billion year old Earth. No religion that bases its beliefs on demonstrably incorrect assumptions can expect to survive very long."
Rambam and Scientific 'Disproofs' of Creation
According to Rambam the main conflict between gerneral philosophy and Biblical religion revolves about the question of creation:
"There is no other difference of opinion as regards any portion of the universe, except that the philosophers believe in the eternity of the universe and we believe in the Creation. Note this."
However, Rambam unequivocally states that :
"Only demonstrative proof should be able to make you abandon the theory of the Creation; but such a proof does not exist in Nature ."
We will now proceed to show why this is true - why nothing in nature can possibly disprove that the universe originated in a special act of Creation.
Section II: The Instant Universe
An omnipotent Gd, on observing our universe, could certainly "commit to memory" all the details of the entire universe including all the thoughts and memories of all people etc. (Imagine all this data fed into a giant computer, as an analogy.)
This Gd, being omnipotent, could cause the universe to cease to exist instantly. Then Gd could reconstruct the universe any time by simply recreating it according to all the information stored in His 'memory'.
A literary genius can construct a complete imaginary world inhabited by complex characters involved in intricate plots. Each character is presented along with a past history, and occasionally makes reference to "past events" recorded in his memory. The author first creates a mental design of his imaginary world and then brings his creation into the pseudo-reality of the printed word. An artist will do likewise with canvas and paint.
Analogously, an omnipotent, omniscient Gd can mentally construct an entire universe - a universe populated by beings possessing past histories, with the memories to match : a universe which shows the physical traces of all "past" events, including of course those events recorded in human memory .
If this designed universe were then actually created, the people in it would be utterly convinced that their universe was billions of years old, and that they had actually performed all the actions remembered in their own memories. Of course, this would be incorrect, since they had actually been created, along with their memories, just at that instant - in an instant universe.
How We Know of the External Universe
There are essentially two types of knowledge - that which is obtained by seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, tasting; and that which originates in our brain via thinking, imagining, dreaming, etc. That is, whatever is in our brain either originates within, or without. If it is from without, i.e. from the outside universe, then we can know of it only via our senses. We do not experience a "table" when we look at it - rather we experience the way our brain interacts with our sensory perceptions of the table. When we see, feel, smell and taste an apple, and hear it crunch, we are experiencing the effect on our brain of the electric currents generated in our nerves by our organs of sight, feel, smell, taste and hearing. That is all that we can hope to experience - the "apple itself" remains a stranger.
Indeed, a disembodied brain floating in a laboratory jar, stimulated by electric wires in the appropriate fashion, could be made to experience sensations so that it believes itself to belong to a body whose mouth is eating an apple.
All that we can ever know of the universe outside us, we can know only as it is transmitted via our senses.
Furthermore, we exist in the present - always. What is now present will immediately become past, and what was future is now present.
We can never know of the future. Indeed, even the past cannot be directly known. Our only means of knowing the past is via our memories, or via traces left in the present by past events. However, it is clear that a distinction exists between an event itself, and the memory or trace of that event.
Thus, we can know only the present, and even the present we can know only through the medium of our senses. Since the present is constantly slipping away to become the past, virtually everything we know is actually only a memory of sensory experience - not events in themselves, but only memories; not even memories of events in themselves, but only memories of our sensory perceptions of events-in-themselves.
Our Universe
What might seem to be a basic question - whether or not the universe was created this very instant [as an instant universe] - is not the type of question decideable by the scientific method.
In the words of Stephen Hawking, one of the world's leading physicists and cosmologists:
"One could still imagine that Gd created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even In the words of Stephen Hawking, one of the world's leading physicists and cosmologists:
As Nobel Prize winning philosopher Bertrand Russel stated:
"It is quite clear that I can have a recollection without the thing remembered having happened; as a matter of logical possibility, I might have begun to exist five minutes ago, complete with all the memories that I then had."
Further, to quote the eminent physicist John Wheeler [in a context which will become clear later on (in chapter six)]:
"The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present".
This is a crucial point: the past is inaccessible to our senses, and therefore dogmatic statements regarding occurrences in the past are in a sense unscientific. A more proper role for science might be to construct a theory which relates events to each other as 'cause and effect' - and which correctly predicts future events. This theory can then be used to determine what kind of past would, according to the theory, lead to the present we observe.
In the optimal situation, a scientific pronouncement should explicitly or implicitly refer to the assumptions upon which it is based, and the limitations on its validity. In regard to the origin theory, an explicit type formulation might be something like:
"if the present state of the universe is as we see it, and if the universe existed previously, and if events in the past developed in accordance with our theory, then the previous state of the universe can be determined to have been such and such"; or:
"the present state of the universe seems to us to be in a state which it would reach had it existed previously in such and such a state 'x' years ago and developed since then in accordance with scientific theory".
Once these assumptions are made clear, one can perhaps then agree to accept that all this is implied implicitly in the statement :
"the universe was in such and such a state x years ago."
The Big Bang and Creation:
Definitions:
Universe-state : The universe as it is in its entirety at any particular moment .
Big-bang-emergent state: Any state of the universe which is consistent with its having emerged in accordance with the origin theory. For example, consider a universe containing only the planet earth without containing other stars and planets, or containing only man without also containing his evolutionary predecessors (or their remains) . Such a universe could not have arisen according to the origin theory and is therefore not in a "big-bang-emergent state".
Scientific theory states that the universe as it is at present developed from a 'singularity' via the big bang etc. Man, and all life in the universe, arose via the evolutionary process governed by random genetic mutations and the selection of life forms with the more effectively adapted (superior) genes via the competitive war for survival and growth. That is, our universe is at present in a big-bang emergent state.
However - and this is the main point here - it cannot be proven that the big bang ever actually took place, nor that life actually did evolve. What can however be proven - or at least demonstrated to some degree of satisfaction - are the following :
a) the universe and the life in it could have developed as described by the theories of the big bang and evolution,
b)the universe is now in a big-bang emergent state.
We know in theory how the universe would have developed, and how it would have come to be in the present big-bang-emergent state, if it would have begun as a big bang and continued to develop naturally.
The question which then faces us is that of determining how the universe actually did develop, and how it actually came to be in a big-bang-emergent-state. These questions however, since they are not decideable by scientific means, are more metaphysical than scientific. The answer to these questions will depend on one's metaphysical assumptions, rather than on science.
A Big Bang or an Instant Univere
According to quantum physics, it might be possible for a universe to emerge by chance, and from nothing. However, the form that such a universe would assume is also up to chance. Possibly, the first stage of such an ex-nihilo chance-derived universe is not determined - so that it could emerge in any configuration at all. Thus, a complete universe such as the one we inhabit now could emerge by itself, by chance, from nothing, as the first stage of the universe.
That is, as far as we know the universe as we know it today could have arisen directly from nothing -an instant universe - via a quantum event. This, however, would be an occurrence - although physically possible - of such a high improbability that one would normally not consider it at all. Instead, one would assume that one of the configurations with a very high probability had occurred - namely, a big bang of the type which leads to our type universe.
However, the determination of what is more likely than what requires certain basic assumptions to be made about the universe.
Since the scientific view is based on the assumption that there is no creator, no design and no purpose, from the scientific viewpoint it is far more reasonable to suppose that the universe first appeared as a singularity and big bang rather than as a completed big-bang-emergent universe.
On the other hand, in the religious view, since it is assumed that there is a Creator, a design and a purpose, and since both ways of creation are possible, then the question of which is the more reasonable supposition depends on which way Gd wished to create the universe.
The "Instant Universe" and Genesis
We can now reconcile the two seemingly contradictory beliefs of the atheist and of the Biblical religionist: that on the one hand the universe was created as detailed in Genesis, approximately 6,000 years ago, and that on the other hand the universe is now in a "big-bang-emergent state".
The resolution is obvious: one can say that 6,000 years ago, after creating the universe, component by component as detailed in Genesis, Gd arranged the whole into a self-consistent composite big-bang-emergent state. Thus, the universe is indeed now in the state it would have assumed had Gd created the initial singularity billions of years ago. The universe was created only 6,000 years ago, but Gd created it then in a big-bang emergent state.
If one interprets the creation account totally allegorically, there is no conflict with science to begin with. If one interprets the description of the events in Genesis as being meant allegorically on the whole, but as nevertheless describing a creation 6,000 years ago, then the instant universe scenario resolves the conflict.
One can also resolve any conflict even if Genesis is interpreted totally literally.
A Literal Interpretation of Genesis
The events recounted in the second creation account seem more 'dream-like' than real, and some appear to contradict what is told in the first creation account. Nevertheless, both accounts can be interpreted as being meant literally.
As Rambam points out the events detailed in the second account took place prior to the establishment of the laws of nature at the interface between the sixth and seventh days .
"the creation of Eve from Adam, the tree of life, the tree of knowledge, the history of the serpent and the events connected therewith....All our sages agree that this took place on the sixth day, and that nothing new was created after the close of the six days. None of the things mentioned above is therefore impossible, because the laws of Nature were then not yet permanently fixed."
And, we might add, perhaps the laws of logic as we know them today were not yet fixed either.
According to Sforno:
"On that day Gd set in order, from heaven, the permanent natural laws of the earth and of its 'offspring'. This was after the six days of creation. Gd is then called 'Hashem Elokim' , for by setting this order, Gd made its existence permanent."
The fact that 'laws of nature' are observed to be in effect now can in no way be used as proof that they were always in effect, or that the Creator of the universe was constrained to follow these 'laws' in creating the universe. According to the Genesis creation account, the laws of nature, including the laws governing the manner and order in which a universe might develop, were created to fit the completed universe.
It would be absurd to insist that Gd would have been constrained to create the universe in accordance with the manner and order dictate by the laws of nature. It was not the laws we now have discovered which governed how the universe developed; rather it was the final structure of the universe which determined which system of laws would come into being.
One can then say that the creation account corresponds to the following chain of events. As the final act of creation, after all the strange events recorded in the creation accounts took place, Gd put the universe into a big-bang-emergent-state, and instituted the reign of physical law.
There is not even any necessity for Biblical religion to justify Gd's actions, to explain why Gd created as recorded in Genesis, or why Gd then put the universe into a big-bang-emergent-state. Clearly, Gd can do as He wishes, and did so. It is not a religious tenet that all Gd's actions are comprehensible to Man - quite the contrary.
There is thus no contradiction between a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account and the scientific origin theory.
However, if one wishes to attempt some explanation of the method and timing of creation, and to correlate them with the way a universe would develop according to scientific theory, one is led to a different type of approach - we will develop our approach in the next few chapters.
In any case, since there does exist this means of reconciling scientific origin theory and Genesis, we can conclude that science and the Bible are not in conflict over this issue. We may not like the resolution of the conflict presented here, but this is no grounds for declaring that no resolution exists, and that therefore Genesis and scientific origin theory conflict.
Section III
The Scientific Validity of the Instant Universe Approach
This type of "instant universe" solution is impervious to scientific disproof. Regardless of whether or not this type of resolution is appealing, the fact that such a resolution exists means that the approaches of the Bible and of science to the question of origins are not logically contradictory. Therefore, although one might reject one or the other of the approaches for aesthetic, philosophical or personal reasons, logic does not require this. It is not logically necessary for those who accept the methodology and results of science to negate the truth of the biblical creation account, and conversely, there is no need for biblical religionists to reject origin theories on religious grounds.
This would be true for any type of scientific origin theory. Whatever the apparent origin of the universe, clearly it could have actually arisen as an instant universe. Thus the question as to whether the evidence supports an eternal or a created universe is irrelevant as proof. Even a universe which seems to be an eternal or oscillating one, or one which does not seem to have had a true beginning can obviously be actually a created universe, created as an instant universe in an eternal-universe-emergent or oscillating-universe -emergent [or x-emergent] state.
We can thus justify the dogmatic character of Rambam's statement that:
"Only demonstrative proof should be able to make you abandon the theory of the Creation; but such a proof does not exist in Nature ".
The Instant Universe Theory: Valid Even Though Not Subject to Disproof
A theory (or model) which cannot be disproven is not a good scientific theory usually. However, if it does answer questions not answerable by other models, even if it is neither provable nor disprovable, it is valid.
Proponents of a theory who believe their theory to be provably true must not only validate their own theory, but also must invalidate the competing theories.
The Torah states that creation took place, however it makes no claim to have proven that this is the case. The Torah tells us that the Revelation at Sinai was witnessed by the entire Jewish people, but this is not ever used as proof even in Biblical times, in the time of the prophets, when the people were going astray.
There is of course evidence for the truth of the Biblical assertions. Millions of people - among them many great geniuses given to careful and analytical thought - believed them and took exceedingly great pains to transmit the precise tradition as it had been handed down to them. The chain of this tradition now stretches unbroken for 4000 years. However, since the Torah does not anywhere claim that its assertions are provably true, we can not demand from the Torah that it provide us with proof of the validity of its assertions.
On the other hand, many proponents of the scientific origin theories do claim that the origin theory is provably true. Thus it is incumbent upon them to not only validate their own theories, but also to invalidate the competing theories - for example, the Biblical creation account.
The Biblical account however, since it does not claim to be provably true, does not impose on its proponents the obligation to prove its validity, or to prove the non-validity of the competing theory - namely the origin theory.
Non-Disprovable Theories
If someone were to claim that there is ghost named George sitting on his head, but that the ghost is undetectable by any means, nothing one can do will ever be able to disprove the assertion. We say that this statement is undisprovable.
One of the requirements which a theory must fulfil in order for it to be considered as a scientific theory, is that it must be capable of disproof. We cannot claim that an undisprovable theory is an incorrect theory, but we also cannot call it a scientific theory.
The claim that the universe was created right now (as it is this very instant) is an assertion which cannot be disproven . Similarly, the instant universe theory is not capable of disproof. However, this does not mean that the instant universe theory is incorrect, or that the Bible is wrong. Instead, it merely implies that it is not a scientific theory.
Solipsism may be considered to be a philosophically 'unaesthetic' theory. However, it is not only logically impeachable, it is in certain instances the simplest assumption which fits the facts. Therefore, by 'Occam's Razor', it should be the preferred explanation.
Indeed, according to Nobel-Prize winning physicist P. W. Bridgman: [in a different context],:
This position, which I suppose is the solipsist position, is often felt to be absurd and contrary to common sense. How it is asked, can there be agreement as to experience unless there are external things which both you and I perceive? Part of the hostility to the solipsist position is, I think, merely due to confusion of thinking, and there is a strong
element of the pseudo-problem mixed up here. If I say that an external thing is merely part of my direct experience to which I find that you react in certain ways, what more is there to be said, or indeed what other operational meaning can be attached to the concept of an external thing? It seems to me that as I have stated it, the solipsist position, if this is indeed the solipsist position, is a simple statement of what direct observation gives me, and we have got to adjust our thinking so that it will not seem repugnant.
In our case, once we assume that a Gd exists, and that he created our universe, it becomes equally likely that this universe was created at one stage as at another. Then, when we analyze the purpose of creation within the context of the Bible, and the idea of free-willed consciousness, etc., it becomes logically compelling to assume that one particular time was optimal as creation point - the time of the emergence of free will.
Another requirement of a scientific theory is that it be testable. Scientific theories describe regularities but cannot describe events which are unique.If a theory can be tested in the lab - or elsewhere - then it can be considered as a scientific theory. However, the full origin theory is impossible to test since we cannot create universes at will. Also, since the origin of the universe ocurred only once, it is a unique phenomenon and is therefore not amenable to scientific analysis. Thus, a truly scientific theory of the origin of the universe would seem to be impossible.
To create a theory for no reason, a theory which explain nothing, is of course absurd, especially if the theory cannot be proven or disproven. However, if the theory explains what was previously unexplainable then it can clearly serve a very useful and valid purpose even if by its very nature it is not disprovable.
Neither the scientific origin theory nor the instant universe form of the Biblical creation account can be disproven, and therefore neither can be a truly scientific theory. Nevertheless they are both explanatory theories, and thus do serve a useful function .
Section IV
The Concept of the Instant Universe: the History of its Origin and Rejection
The "instant universe" idea in its simplest form seems to have originated with the scientist Granville Penn in 1825 . At that time, thirty-five years before Darwin published his book on the theory of evolution, the conflict between science and Genesis centered on the problem of the age of the Earth. According to geologists, the Earth was millions of years old, whereas according to Genesis, it was only a few thousand years old. Penn used the instant universe idea to reconcile the two.
INSERT MILLHAUSER "2nd PART" [without ref. to Gosse?]
INSERT PENN QUOTES
The concept of the instant universe was rediscovered and elaborated by the scientist Philip Henry Gosse in his book "Omphalos" in 1857 - two years before Darwin published his work on evolution. At that time, the basics of the evolutionary theory were 'in the air': in 1844, fifteen years before Darwin's work was published, Robert Chambers proposed the theory that Man was descended from the apes, and Darwin's ideas were known to his colleagues in the years he was working on his book. In fact, another scientist - Wallace - had independently arrived at the same conclusions as had Darwin, and sent Darwin his manuscript. When Darwin saw the great similarity, he offered to present Wallace's paper along with his own invited paper at the meeting of the Royal Society - and so it was.
Gosse, a naturalist, was acquainted with Darwin and met with him before writing his book. He also met with Huxley, who later began bringing to the attention of the world the ramifications of Darwin's work to the question of the origin of man. At that time however, the evolutionary theory - or the 'development hypothesis' as it was then known - was precisely that - an hypothesis. It was not yet backed up by the great mass of evidence Darwin was to present in his "Origin of the Species", and even Darwin himself accepted some role of Divine creation in the emergence of Man.
The closing paragraph of his famous "Origin of the Species" shows this clearly:
"Thus from the war of Nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Although in the years following his publication of "Origin of the Species" Darwin began to change his religious views, and later rejected Christianity and all revealed religion, in his autobiography he writes:
"In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a Gd. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, an agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."
Since Darwin's work had not as yet appeared when Gosse published his book, and since in any case Darwin himself seemed willing to accept the role of a Creator in the scheme of things, Gosse was not overly concerned with the theory of evolution - the 'development hypothesis. Rather than dealing with what where then still speculations or with general theories which might later be abandoned by science, he dealt only with the unimpeachable. That is, he tried to reconcile the factual evidence uncovered by scientific research - facts which were true independent of the truth of any theory purporting to explain them - with the Biblical creation account.
Gosse proposed that just as is true with any other human, Adam was created "complete" - and thus possessed a navel, an "omphalos". Similarly, he maintained that the earth as a whole had been created "complete" - and included dinosaur fossils for this reason.
INSERT "OMPHALOS" QUOTES
Darwin and the Instant Universe
What might have been Darwin's reaction to our instant universe system? Of course we can only speculate, however perhaps we can find some clues in his writings.
After Darwin's work achieved wide attention, it was generally agreed that there was considerable evidence that the his theory of evolution was correct. However, since there was then no conclusive proof of the theory, and as Darwin himself and others had pointed out various loose ends and serious problems [as there still are today] , there were a number of scientists who remained critical of the theory. They maintained that although the evolutionary theory fit the facts, there was perhaps a better theory - as yet unknown - which would be a better fit to the facts, and that evolutionary theory was incorrect.
Darwin however tended to dismiss this possibility using a theological rather than scientific approach. Darwin agreed that it was possible that there was an alternate theory and that evolutionary theory could be wrong. However, Darwin believed in Gd, and in the 'goodness' of Gd, and could not accept the fact that Gd would create the world in such a way that Man would be deceived into believing an incorrect theory.
As Gillespie writes:
INSERT GIllespie quote
Darwin of course was a scientist and not a theologian. Part of his difficulty with Biblical belief was perhaps due to his ignorance rgarding Biblical matters. As Gillespie writes :
"As late as 1861, he revealed his lack of expertise in biblical matters by replying to the information that the notorious 4,004 B.C. date for the creation of the world was Archbishop Ussher's and not Moses' by laughing, "How curious about the Bible. I declare I had fancied that the date was somehow in the Bible.""
However, his belief in Gd, and in the "goodness' of Gd seems to have been quite sincere - certainly at the time that he wrote the "Origin", and in the years immediately following its publication.
We are then led to the question: how might Darwin have reacted to the instant universe concept?
We can speculate that his reaction would then have been not necessarily unfavourable. According to our instant universe approach, the theories of evolution and of the big bang [or whatever theory will be propounded in the future] are quite correct. In essence, none of their scientific conclusions need be changed. The only difference on this issue between science and religion concerns the question of whether the universe was created at the moral stage, or at the big bang stage. This however is a question of metaphysics, not decideable by scientific means or philosophical arguments.
Such an approach could easily fit in with Darwin's own approach as stated at the conclusion of the "Origin of the Species":
"Thus from the war of Nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
INSERT HANDWRITTEN PAGE
The Instant Universe in Traditional Jewish Source
As Ibn Ezra points out, Man was created in a completed adult stage, rather than as a new born infant - just as the universe itself , we would add, was created in a completed 'adult' stage.
About a thousand years ago some people had expressed astonishment that the universe was only a few thousand years old. R. Sa'adya Gaon pointed out that all generations living within the first few aeons would feel astonished at hearing that the universe was so young. Indeed, since the universe was created rather than eternal, there had to be even a first generation. In that generation, the first living people would express astonishment that the universe was new, but that would not make it less true.
INSERT MORE SOURCES XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Gosse and the Instant Universe
Because Gosse's theory did not present a satisfactory logical reason for supposing that Gd would create in such a fashion, his theory was rejected out of hand, misinterpreted and ridiculed. People incorrectly assumed that his instant universe theory implied that Gd was deliberately 'falsifying' the geological record in order to test man's faith - even religious people felt that this was far too devious an action for a compassionate Gd. In addition, since Gosse maintained that the entire evolutionary theory was false, his critics felt that Gosse's work was an attempt to denigrate and discredit science.
INSERT "FATHER AND SON" QUOTES
INSERT ENC. BRIT. QUOTE RE: GOSSE
Section V
A Critique of Gosse's Approach
Gosse's scientific critics felt that his approach implied that science was merely falling prey to a 'trap' set by Gd "to catch those weak in faith"; these critics however believed that the evolutionary theory was based on more sound evidence than was the Biblical creation account.
To quote the well-known philosopher A. J. Ayer [words in brackets added by A.R.]:
"the statement that the earth is millions of years old is supported by a wealth of geological evidence; it would not be incorrect to say that we know it to be true. There are, however, people who for religious reasons prefer to believe that the earth came into existence only a few thousand years ago but already bearing perceptible signs of age. We may say that this is a silly view: if we know the other [that the Earth is millions of years old] to be true, we know it [that the Earth is only a few thousand years old] to be false, but it [that the Earth is only a few thousand years old] is formally compatible with the evidence. Even the view that the earth and all its inhabitants had come into existence just at this moment would not be formally inconsistent with anything that one could now observe. What it would contradict would be the accepted interpretations and explanations of the phenomena; it would be an arbitrary denial of them, and all the more irresponsible in that it would furnish us with no other means of accounting for subsequent events. The case for the scientifically orthodox explanations is that they do explain.
Still it is logically conceivable that they are false."
As we have seen previously, Bertrand Russel stated:
"It is quite clear that I can have a recollection without the thing remembered having happened; as a matter of logical possibility, I might have begun to exist five minutes ago, complete with all the memories that I then had."
And, as we have seen, the eminent physicist John Wheeler [in a context which will become clear later on (in chapter six)] stated that :
"The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present".
The Instant Universe in Rambam and in Modern Jewish Sources
At the time of Rambam, most philosophers believed in the eternity of the universe, rather than in its creation. Rambam agreed that the evidence of nature and of philosophical analysis supported this proposition. According to Rambam, the important evidence for creation was the revelation at Sinai, and not scientific or philosophic analysis.
Indeed, because of the evidence of nature, Rambam felt that [Guide II:17] those who would admit the possibility that prior states of the universe can be deduced from the present state of the universe might have to conclude that the universe is eternal, in accordance with Aristotle's proofs.
"The Aristotelians oppose us, and found their objections on the properties which the things in the universe possess when in actual existence and fully developed. We admit the existence of these properties, but hold that these properties themselves have come into existence from absolute non-existence. The arguments of our opponents are thus refuted; they have demonstrative force only against those who hold that the nature of things as at present in existence proves the Creation. But this is not my opinion."
Thus, one who states that the present state of the universe can be used to prove the truth of creation, opens himself up instead to the proof of the eternity of the universe developed by Aristotle.
As a result, according to Rambam, the present state of the universe cannot be used to deduce what the prior state was. Therefore, no analysis of the universe as it is now will allow one to prove that the universe is created, nor that it is eternal. ["Guide" II:17]
"It is quite impossible to infer from the qualities which a thing possesses after having passed through all the states of its development what its condition was at the moment when this process commenced; nor does the condition of a thing at that moment show what its previous condition had been."
Writing in 1891, Friedlander quotes this discussion of Rambam, and applies the reasoning to the contemporary problem of the geological age of the Earth, probably paraphrasing Gosse:
"He who could create a germ endowed with all the natural forces required for development and differentiation into the great variety of forms which we perceive at present, must certainly have been able to create the things actually endowed with these forms. Thus, also, the various strata of the earth, whatever forms they contain, cannot with certainty be described as the results of development; they may just as well have come directly from the hand of the Creator. Maimonides (The Guide, xxx.) says in reference to this question:
"You should also know the dictum of our Sages - 'All the beings of the work in the beginning (Heb Ma'ashe be'rashit) were created in their full height, their fully developed reason, and endowed with the best of properties.' Note this, for it involves an important principle."
INSERT FULL RAMBAM QUOTE??
Ideas Similar to the Instant Universe Scenario
According to the theory of continuous creation put forward by the eminent cosmologists Hoyle and Bondi , matter is constasntly being created, and there ids no way to distinguish such matter created this very instant from the same type matter existent for billions of years.
According to the Midrash, Gd renews the creation of the universe every instant.
According to Plato, the universe exists only because Gd is its ground of being, and continues to exist at any given instant only due to the instantaneous desire of Gd that it exist at that moment.
The distinction between a universe which has existed for a long period and one which has only recently emerged into existence is meaningless in the type of universe imagined by the ancient Greeks - history was considered to be cyclic, and all the history of one epoch would be exactly repeated in some later epoch.
The cyclic time of Godel's universe, and the closed time of Hawking's universe both lead to a similar repetition of all time, so that the universe of times seemingly separazted by many billions of years may be identical in the deepest sense.
The Instant Universe and Circular Reasoning
It is often taken for granted that one can simply extrapolate to the past - and theories are occaisionally built upon this unconscious assumption.
Davies' quote above ["To argue whether the date of the Creation was 4,004 BC or 10,000 BC is irrelevant if scientific measurements reveal a four and a half billion year old Earth. No religion that bases its beliefs on demonstrably incorrect assumptions can expect to survive very long."] is an example of the circular reasoning which can result from an assumption that one can extrapolate to the past. The argument implied by Davies' words is as follows: 'assuming that the Biblical creation account is wrong and that there is no Gd, then the universe could not have been created as an instant universe, and then it follows that the Biblical creation account is wrong'.
The philosopher Alfred North Whitehead uses the belief in an extrapolated past to counter the argument of the subjectivist or solipsist. Whitehead assumes that one can extrapolate to the past, and then reasons that just as "all these things which it appears certainly happened" cannot be directly ascertained to exist, yet existed, so too other centers of consciousness cannot be directly ascertained to exist, yet nevertheless they do exist. :
"My second reason for distrusting subjectivism is based on the particular content of experience. Our historical knowledge tells us of ages in the past when, so far as we can see, no living being existed on earth. Again it also tells us of countless star-systems, whose detailed history remains beyond our ken. Consider even the moon and the earth. What is going on within the interior of the earth, and on the far side of the moon! Our perceptions lead us to infer that there is something happening in the stars, something happening within the earth, and something happening on the far side of the moon. Also they tell us that in remote ages there were things happening. But all these things which it appears certainly happened, are either unknown in detail, or else are reconstructed by inferential evidence. In the face of this content of our personal experience, it is difficult to believe that the experienced world is an attribute of our own personality."
Thus, the assumption that: 'what seems to exist - or [seems to] have existed - certainly does or did exist' is used to support the contention that 'what seems to exist does indeed exist'. Again the lack of the recognition of this assumption resulted in circular reasoning.
Clearly then, it is recognized by scientists and philosophers that the instant universe scenario does present a resolution of the apparent conflict between the origin theory and the Biblical creation account in a manner which is logically unimpeachable.
Nevertheless, this reconciliation of the two approaches is rejected by scientists and philosophers for three reasons:
1. Although the instant universe theory is logically valid, in Ayer's words: "it would contradict ... accepted interpretations and explanations ... ".
2. Although the instant universe scenario is a logically possible one for Gd to have used in creating the universe, it seems totally "arbitrary". In Ayer's words: "it would contradict ... accepted interpretations and explanations ... it would be an arbitrary denial of them ..". That is, even if there is a Gd who created the universe, it would seem a very bizarre method for Gd to use in doing so. Seemingly, even if there does exist a Gd - the Creator - the logical way for the Creator to create a universe would be to create a big bang, rather than the "arbitrary" act of creating an instant universe.
3. Science provides an explanation for the universe about us - to deny this explanation "would be ... irresponsible in that it would furnish us with no other means of accounting for events" [Ayer].
These objections are countered in the chapter "The Instant Universe" .....
As we have seen, the scientific origin theories, and science in general, can in no way afford the basis for a disproof of the existence of Gd, or that Gd created the big bang. Additionally, as we have seen, science cannot be used to prove that the universe actually first emerged into existence as a big bang: what can be proven is only that the universe is now in a big-bang-emergent state.
Thus, although the scientific approach attempts to explain all phenomenon without using Gd as part of the explanation, there can be no scientific objection to the claim that Gd created the big bang (20 billion years ago), or that the universe was created three minutes ago in a big-bang-emergent state.
However, if indeed there is a Gd who created the universe in a big-bang-emergent state 6,000 years ago, the following questions arise:
1. Why did Gd desire a universe which looks as though it has arisen via a big bang - a universe of the big-bang-emergent type ?
2. If Gd wanted a big-bang-emergent universe, why not create it as a big bang rather than as an instant universe ?
3. If the universe had to be a big-bang-emergent one, and it had to be an instant universe, why did it have to be created at the stage of development depicted in Genesis rather than any other stage ?
4. What is the connection between the stage at which the universe was created as depicted in Genesis, and the date '6,000 years ago' derived indirectly from the geneology in the Bible ?
Of course the Biblical religionist can simply answer "It was Gd's will" to all such questions. However, if a cogent answer can be found which is consistent with the rest of religious belief, and with the Bible itself, then to both religious and non-religious people that answer acquires a much greater plausibility .
OUTLINE OF CHAPTER "THE INSTANT UNIVERSE"
We intend not only to give an answer which is plausible, but one that is eminently logical. Indeed, we will show that the following is true: if there is a Gd who wished to create a universe such as ours - a universe with a Purpose - then the most logical way for this Gd to proceed would be to do as outlined in Genesis.
In the resolution of the origin theory-Biblical creation account which we present here, we will make use of the instant universe concept in a way which in no way contradicts, denies, or denigrates the scientific method of spirit nor any scientific theories whatsoever. Indeed, we shall show that there is no need to reject the scientific results of the origin theory, and that this theory - like all other scientific theories - can be considered as a description of how Gd's Will manifests itself in nature.
The Aim of this Work
We hope to indicate:
1. Why Gd desired a big-bang-emergent universe:
2. Why Gd would create an instant universe rather than a big bang.
3. Why the instant universe would begin when it did rather than at some other point.
4. Why the Bible intimates - albeit indirectly - that the Creation stage occured 6,000 years ago.
In effect, what we wish to do is to provide a model within which one can make the following conclusion:
The Biblical creation method, and choice of starting date, are the most logically and aesthetically compelling creation method and date for a Gd to use in creating a purposive universe.
[Of course when we speak of "the most logical creation method for Gd to use", we actually mean "the creation method which to us seems most logical for Gd to use ".]
After this has been achieved, we will deal with a reconciliation of the order of creation as given in Genesis with that of the big bang theory, and then with various other aspects of the contradiction.
Why an Instant Universe? and:
Why Creation at the Stage Depicted in Genesis?
According to science, the state of the universe at any one time depends on its immediately prior state. From that prior state the following state develops according to natural law, either deterministically or quantum-randomly. Thus, the state of any entity or group of entities at any one time depends only on the prior state of the (entire) universe and on quantum randomness.
A truly scientific approach towards human brain states would demand that they also be considered as 'natural' phenomena. This would seem to imply that the brain states of all people at any one time depend only on the previous state of the universe (including all the brain states in it), and on random processes.. Since each universe-state depends on the previous state, then necessarily they all depend on the first state of the universe - namely the conditions obtaining at the initial singularity (or at the big bang). If this were true however, then the state of all entities in the universe, including all the brain states of all humanity, would be inherent in the big bang. This would mean that man has no part in deciding what to think about, how to act, etc. - all is preprogrammed into the big bang. [ Of course quantum uncertainty (see chapter five) introduces random processes rather than deterministic processes, but either way man has no say over what he will think or do - he only thinks he does . ]
If Gd were to create a universe governed by the laws of physics as we know them , then as soon as the big bang exists, all of man's future history (quantumly-possible histories) are written therein - man is but a puppet acting them out. Nature, via deterministic (and quantum-random) processes, decides all. From the very first instant the entire history of the universe and man is either decided in detail (determinism) or left to chance (quantum indeterminacy) - nothing at all is left to man.
All event which occur in such a universe, all actions seemingly initiated by man, are in actuality attributable to Gd, since they are indirect results of the initial conditions and laws of nature created by Gd. Man is a puppet who falsely believes he pulls his own strings . In reality man can no more decide whether to be 'good' or 'evil' than he can decide whether or not to be born.
The religious view : Free Will and Purpose
A universe in which all is random or all is determined by the initial conditions, is meaningless to Gd - and its creation by Gd would be purposeless. Thus, if Gd created the universe for a purpose, it must be true that a non-random, non-deterministic element has been injected. It must be postulated that a radical difference exists between the actions of man and that of the rest of the universe: specifically that man possesses a "free-will" which allows him to decide on his activity and thoughts in a partially autonomous manner. That is, using his free will, man can free himself from the deterministic/random universe and initiate activity (partially) independently of the prior state of the universe. Even if all else operates in accordance with the ordinary laws of physics , free-willed decisions do not . The brain processes involved in making decisions between moral alternatives of right and wrong are in this view unique in that they are the only non random/deterministic processes in the universe. Therefore only free-willed decisions can provide an otherwise random/determined universe with meaning and purpose .
We can therefore conclude that only a 'moral universe' with its freedom of development - as opposed to a random/determined universe - could possibly be of interest to a Purposive creator. Only a universe containing a 'moral being' can begin to exhibit Purpose.
Moral Beings and Purposive Activity
Moral activity however could begin only upon the emergence of the first true 'moral being' - a being possessing sufficient intelligence and foresight to understand the consequences of its actions, equipped with a moral sense to know the difference between good and evil actions, and endowed with the free will to choose between the two.
Clearly there can be no moral choice in a being lacking consciousness and self-consciousness. It therefore behooves us to ask where along the evolutionary chain this phenomenon of consciousness and self-consciousness arose.
As the eminent evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky writes:
"Self-awareness is, then, one of the fundamental, possibly the most fundamental characteristic of the human species. This characteristic is an evolutionary novelty: the biological species from which mankind has descended had only rudiments of self-awareness, or perhaps lacked it altogether."
We now pose the question of where here along the evolutionary chain did the moral consciousness arise.
Although not everyone might agree on definitions of intelligence, consciousness, morality, and so on, certainly no-one would consider any animal - even the highest ape - as morally responsible for its actions . Thus, until the emergence of man, there was no moral activity on earth, and thus no true purpose to its existence.
According to Erich Fromm [italics in original]:
"....The religious need is rooted in the basic condition of existence of the human species.......the human species can be defined as the primate who emerged at the point of evolution where instinctive determination had reached a minimum and the development of the brains a maximum . This combination.....had never occurred before in animal evolution and constitutes, biologically speaking, a completely new phenomenon. "
Using the terminology of Victor Frankl , one could say that the human being is unique in that it is driven at its most basic level by "the will to meaning". No other member of the evolutionary chain can be so described - and thus man is qualitatively different than his evolutionary forebears.
We can now begin to consider what methodology would be the most logical to employ in creating a purposive universe.
A possible creation method
After creating the 'initial singularity', big bang, and natural law, Gd could 'sit back and watch' His creation develop along the path it was designed to follow. Matter would emerge from the initial energy, atoms would be built up from the matter, and stars would form from the atoms. Planets would assume shape and finally after billions of years of 'waiting' life would emerge .
Then, after a few billion more years, after the extinction of the dinosaurs, with the amoeba finally evolved via the ape into the human being, the long wait would be over, and the drama of moral activity could begin. With the emergence of the first moral being, the universe could begin to be considered meaningful, to be working towards the achievement of some purpose.
This is a glorious scenario. However, it is somewhat inelegant, to say the least, for Gd to have created a universe which must go through 15 billion years of predictable (or random) meaningless activity - preprogrammed into the big bang. Until the emergence of the first moral being, before the appearance of man, all is deterministic or random. All the activity unfolding to Gd's 'eyes' for 15 billion years follows from Gd's own actions - Gd's choice of the conditions of the big bang and of the form of the laws of nature and so on.
Indeed , one can say that everything was already computed by Gd's 'mind' 15 billions years earlier by instantaneous extrapolation from the big bang. In addition, not only does Gd already know beforehand every detail of this 15-billion-year-long movie , the whole production is meaningless since no moral activity takes place, and it is only for moral activity that the universe was created to begin with.
The "instantaneous-fast-forward universe"
A far more elegant procedure would be for Gd to cause time to pass in 'fast-forward', to skip over as fast as possible the 15 billion years of predictable and meaningless preliminaries; to begin the drama of life where it becomes both nonpredictable and also meaningful, when the universe begins to work towards the purpose of its creation - at the emergence of the first moral being. Indeed, considering that this 'fast forward' is being performed by the omnipotent Gd, creator of space-time, then rather than skipping through 15 billion years in 'fast-forward', one could say that passing from creation/big bang to the emergence of morality is accomplished instantaneously. Thus, the universe would in essence be created as an "instant universe" at the stage immediately prior to the emergence of moral man. This would be the logical, reasonable method to use in creating a meaningful universe.
There is a very striking parallel between this idea and the creation account in the Bible: The beginning of Genesis tells of the creation of the universe - and of man and woman. Immediately thereafter we are told of the Garden of Eden incident wherein mankind learns to distinguish between Good and Evil, and makes the first moral choice. That is, the beginning of the universe was followed immediately by the emergence of morality. Thus the Biblical creation account is in agreement with our logic in dictating that the universe 'began' just before the first moral choice was made.
Insert Psukim
The "instantaneous-fast-forward universe" in the Midrash, Zohar, and Rishonom
According to R. Nekhemya, the entire universe was created not in six days, but in one day - in one act of creation. R. Simon states that this initial creation contained within itself all the universe - the universe developed from this initial creation over the "six day" period mentioned in Genesis. According to the Midrash, the expression [HEBREW]
"ux [insert 'aleph']de minyd elekie"
means that everything that exists in the universe was evolved out of the initial creation ["Vayekhulu" = "nikhlal"].
What was this initial creation?
According to Ramban, the initial creation was of a "very small point of matter having no substance" and from this "everything in the heavens and on the earth was created".
According to the Zohar, the universe began as a "supernal and mysterious point beyond which ['before' which] there was no time". This point was of "black fire", the "strongest fire of all fires". In our terms, perhaps a "black-hole singularity".
According to the Zohar, this point then spread out and expanded, and from it developed the universe - in our terms, cosmic evolution and expansion.
According to the Midrash, Gd is outside of time, and even when operatring 'within' time, the 'rate of passage of time' for Gd can be much different than that of Human time - in our terms, Gd can "fast-forward" or "fast-forward-instantaneously" natural processes.
According to the Midrash, Gd allowed the initial creation to expand and develop up to a certain point, and then said "enough!". In Hebrew, this is "dai" - and the Midrash then states that this is the reason that Gd's aspect of power over nature is called "sha-dai" ["that {said} 'enough' "] . The Midrash states that had Gd not stopped its development, the universe would have continued up to this very time - in our terms, Gd fast-forwarded the big bang up to a certain stage, and stopped it there so that it not continue developing past the desired point.
According to the Midrash, in statements quoted by Rambam, all things were created together at one time, in a completed state: - in our terms, an instant universe.
According to Sforno, Man is the 'image' and 'form' of Gd because Man posseses a free will - and is the only such creature on Earth.
Thus according to the above sources, the entire creation occurred in one instant; this creation was of a black hole singularity"; Gd - Who is beyond time - allowed the universe to develop from this initial creation for "six days" at which point Gd stopped the development; immediately following this, a full fledged universe containing a free-willed being - in "the image and form of Gd" emerged into existence, and made the first free-willed choice.
We assume that achievement of purpose in the universe is dependent on the performance of meaningful actions, and that those can be performed only by conscious beings possessing a free will. We can then see that prior to the emergence of such beings the universe cannot begin to achieve the purpose, and thus no event can have true meaning.
Thus, the most reasonable point at which a universe should be created, is that at which free-willed conscious beings first begin to become aware of morality, and thereby begin to perform the first potentially meaningful activity. This is indeed what the Creation account in Genesis seems to imply. Gd created the entire universe, then rested, that is, created a system of natural law to regulate the processes of the universe.
As we have seen, the Midrash states that the entire universe evolved out of the initial creation, and we can interpret the Midrash as saying that the universe was fast-forwarded in six days to the moral stage. After Genesis tells us of these events, we are told of the Tree of Knowledge incident, wherein originate the first free-willed moral decisions on the day that all was created and evolved. That is, we are told that the universe was created in a fast-forwarded instant-universe-state which was immediately prior to the emergence of moral activity, and thus of purpose.
Thus we have answered two of our questions: We have shown why Gd would want to create an instant universe rather than creating a big bang, and we have also seen that the logical initial stage of this instant universe would be that of the emergence of the first moral being, as depicted in Genesis.
The Date of Creation
We have seen that the most reasonable time for creation is at the emergence of the first moral being. We are left to question to what period in human history this corresponded, that is, to determine how long ago there did in fact emerge Earth's first moral being.
History and the Instant Universe
According to the theory of evolution, the emergence of Man is approximately described by the following dates: (Dates given here are in accordance with evolutionary theory. Terms such as "a million years ago" are to be understood in the context of the instant universe concept.)[The abbreviation Y.A. is used here to denote "years ago". ]
Early Hominid
YA = years ago 3,000,000 YA = Australopithecus
Homo Erectus
700,000 YA = Java Man
500,000 YA = Peking Man
Homo Sapiens
100,000 YA = Neanderthal Man
Homo Sapiens Sapiens
60,000 YA = Modern Man
The Evolution of Morality
INSERT
According to the scientific origin theory, we have been billions of years in developing: from big bang to home planet, from inorganic matter to life, from simple life to ape, and millions of years more from ape to man. However, it was only approximately 60,000 years ago that there appeared an ancestor we could identify as a member of our species: a truly sapient/thinking creature, the first of Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Clearly, then, although the big bang "occurred" 15 billion "years ago", morality could only have emerged in the last 60,000 years.
Today, the generations raised on the evolutionary theory, the theory of the big bang, etc. think in terms of billions of years. Since the time-spans for geological and astronomical events are in the billions and millions of years, it is in fact surprising to them that our species, homo-sapiens-sapiens evolved "only" 60,000 years ago, when life had begun already billions of years previously.
Insert hand-written page
The essential human qualities we associate with a human, as opposed to an animal or a computer, are those of moral behaviour and the idea of moral accountability. These qualities, when they first arose among Homo Sapiens Sapiens would almost certainly result in the formulation of religion. Thus, the earliest religions would follow not too long after the first stirrings of moral consciousness. When one actually reviews the cultural history of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, one makes a radical discovery - it becomes clear that religion as we know it developed only in the last 4,000 years.
A Short History of Major Cultural Developments
10,000 YA Painting, burials
BCE
5000 YA 3000 Writing
4000 YA 2000 Abraham - Monotheism formulated
3500 YA 1500 Hinduism formulated; Moses
3000 YA 1000 King Solomon - philosophy , ethical writing , poetry
2500 YA 500 Isaiah (Yeshayahu) , Buddha, Confucius, Lao-Tze -
2400 YA 400 Jeremiah (Yirmiyahu)
Greek Science/Culture/Philosophy
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle Etc.) -
1900 YA = CE 100 R. Akiva; Christianity (spread of);
1400 YA 600 Islam
300 YA 1700 Newton
140 YA 1850 Darwin
80 YA 1900 Einstein
The Creation Dates as Derived from the Bible
Adam's descendants are listed in an unbroken chain until the time of the Temple, and from the number of generations, ages, etc. given, one can fix the date of creation to a time about 6,000 years ago.
We would then add one stage onto the chain of human development
Early Hominid 3,000,000 YA = Australopithecus
Homo Erectus 700,000 YA = Java Man
500,000 YA = Peking Man
Homo Sapiens 100,000 YA = Neanderthal Man
Homo Sapiens Sapiens 60,000 YA = Modern Man
*** Homo Sapiens Voluntas 6,000 YA = Moral Man
Thus, Man's brain had developed 60,000 years ago, his cultural abilities - painting, pottery and so on - perhaps 15,000 years ago, his first glimmerings of thought about death and life - the first burials - were about 10,000 years ago, and the first religions were developed about 4,000 years ago. Somewhere between the time that man began to think of death and a possible afterlife, and the time that religious thought and attitudes were first developed - that is the time period where we would expect to find the emergence of the first true moral being, with sufficient intelligence and understanding to make a free choice.
According to the chronology of the Biblical geneologies, this occured roughly 6,000 years ago - 2,000 years before the first religion developed, and about 4,000 years after the Cro-Magnon culture reached its height [?].
Thus, the hypothesis that the emergence of moral man took place only 6,000 years ago is quite plausible. In fact, the development of homo sapiens sapiens to moral man in only 50,000 years (approximately) was a remarkably quick process compared to the development during the millions of years before then. That is, it is almost miraculous that moral man is already 6,000 years old: one might have expected him to appear much later, not much earlier.
Thus:
1. Man as a race achieved his modern type of intellectual capacity only 60,000 years ago, and prior to that many modern concepts - such as "morality" - were simply beyond the conceptual ability of man' evolutionary ancestors.
2. All the world's religions were founded in the last 4,000 years, so that 4,500 years ago there was no real conception of a Gd, of moral responsibility, of purpose to a human life, and so on .
3. The vast majority of our scientific knowledge was unknown only 500 years ago, and science had its rudimentary beginnings only 2,500 years ago. The great ideas which are the foundations of our society - ideas of religion, philosophy, culture and science - are relatively recent innovations.
Thus, although 6,000 years does not seem like a long time for moral man to have been in existence, this is an illusion created by the overwhelming scientific and cultural stores of knowledge available today. It surprises us to see how much we have achieved in so short a time.
We have thus answered three questions posed previously : Why an instant universe, why at the stage depicted in Genesis, and why the Bible intimates that this took place about 6,000years ago.
Some Parallels In the Literature
Some interesting parallels to these ideas can be found in the writings of a number of eminent physicists and mathematicians: Sir Arthur Eddington, John Von Neumann, Eugene Wigner, and John Wheeler, and also in the writings of the biologist LeComte duNouy, and the sociologist Jaynes.
Eddington said:
"The material universe itself is an interpretation of certain symbols presented to conciousness. When we speak of the existence of the material universe we are presupposing consciousness. It is meaningless to speak of the existence of anything except as forming part of the web of our consciousness."
Pressed to say whether this meant that he rejected the common scientific teaching that a material universe really existed before life and mind appeared on this planet, he said: "I do not think we understand what we mean by existence." "
du Nouy and "Human Destiny"
After completing the essence of this book, I came across an interesting parallel in the writings of the biophysicist Lecomte du Nouy in his book "Human Destiny". du Nouy writes of the evolution of man as a significant step in the evolution of the cosmos - significant because conscious man has "escape[d] from the grasp of the physico-chemical and biological laws". He sees the advent of a moral consciousness as a preliminary step towards yet further development: Man is
"the forerunner of the future race, the ancestor of the spiritually perfect man."
du Nouy then indicates how these ideas are hinted at in Genesis. He does not attempt to reconcile Genesis and evolutionary theory, but he indicates how the Bible has hinted at the scientifically important fact of the emergence of a qualitatively new phenomenon - free will.
p85 "Let us try...truths"
p85"Gd first breathes...the last freedom"
p98"...the respect of free will"
end "Thus the progress....human conscience."
Another author has made a somewhat similar conjecture. Jaynes points out that most of Man's intellectual processes can occur independently of consciousness, and thus he postulates that consciousness arose in man after all his intellectual abilities evolved. Jaynes quotes from ancient Greek writings to show that the writers were not conscious as we know it. Instead they had two "chambers" in the brain, one which contained the intellect and so on, while the other was the seat of conscience. These two sections could communicate with each other only in a limited way.
Pre-conscious man considered the voice of conscience to be external to himself, a voice from the gods. It was only when the "bicameral mind" broke down that consciousness emerged in the now-unified brain, and the voices of the gods - prophecy and so on - ceased.
Jaynes considers the possibility that the account of the Garden of Eden is a "narratization of the breakdown of the bicameral mind and the coming of consciousness."
Jaynes also traces the development of the moral consciousness among the Jewish people - or the "Khabiru" as he prefers to call them.
A discussion of the ideas of Von Neumann, Wigner and Wheeler is given in chapter six. My work in this book can perhaps be seen as a synthesis and extension of these ideas of du Nouy, the instant universe concept of Gosse, and some speculations of Von Neumann, Wigner and Wheeler [see chapter 6].
Origin Theory and Genesis : The Difference
According to the scientific origin theory, the universe originated in a big bang, and has developed over a period of billions of years until the present time. According to our understanding of it, the Biblical creation account agrees with this, just with the added stipulation that the billions of years between big-bang-creation and the emergence of the first moral being were passed in "instantaneous fast-forward" rather than in "real time". Since the scientific method cannot distinguish between a universe which was "fast-forwarded" and one which developed in "real-time", there is no scientific difference between the creation accounts of the standard big bang theory and the instant-universe theory .
There are three differences between the two approaches; however they are metaphysical, philosophical, and semantical differences, rather than scientific differences.
The metaphysical difference involves the distinction between "real-time" passage versus "fast-forward time" passage - the scientific method cannot distinguish between the two.
The philosophical difference is as follows:
According to the Bible, the universe contains intelligent conscious beings because it was designed to contain them. On the other hand, according to the scientific view, the universe itself is a product of chance, and the presence within the universe of conscious intelligent beings is also a result of chance.
Thirdly , the semantic difference between the "real-time" and "fast-forward" scenarios - a question of terminology - the question as to which stage of the universe is the more "basic" stage, or which is the "first" stage.
Of course, science and the Bible would agree that not every big bang would evolve into a life-containing universe, and that only very specific types of big bangs would develop into universes containing conscious intelligent beings. Thus, science and the Bible would agree that if a universe were to be created with the express intent that there eventually develop within it intelligent conscious beings, it would have to be very carefully designed. First the type of universe desired would have to be pictured - i.e. a picture of the type of being desired and the type of environment it required . Then this universe would be "extrapolated backwards" to determine which type of big bang would lead to such a universe. Only then could this big bang could be created, and instantaneously fast-forwarded up to the point at which there develops within it the desired moral being .
Definition : We will use the term "teleoderived big bang" to denote a big bang whose design was derived from a mental blueprint of a moral-stage universe [i.e. a universe containing its first moral being].
According to the "real-time" scenario, the first and most basic stage of the universe was the big bang. On the other hand, according to the "fast-forward" scenario, since the conditions of the big bang were teleoderived from the moral stage ( in order to guarantee that moral beings emerge from the big bang when it is fast-forwarded ) then it is the moral stage which is the first and most basic stage of the universe. However, this difference is only terminological / metaphysical rather than scientific since science cannot distinguish between a universe whose big bang was teleoderived from a moral stage, and one whose big bang simply arose by itself.
SUMMARY
The most reasonable method for a Creator to employ in creating a Purposive universe would seemingly be to proceed as follows:
A big bang would be created, and then "fast-forwarded" up to the point at which the first moral being emerged. Why fast-forwarded? Because until the point of emergence of the first moral being, all is predictable, automatic, un-free, 'boring' and purposeless.
However, not any big bang will result in moral beings when fast-forwarded. Some will never give rise to life, some will never produce advanced life-forms, and so on. How can the eventual evolution of the required type of moral being be guaranteed? By specifically designing a set of natural laws, and a big bang, which would do precisely this. That is, first must come the mental design of the required type of moral being and its environment , and only after that can a system of natural-law-and-big-bang be mentally designed which would produce this type of moral being. Then, once this natural-law-and-big-bang system is designed, it can be confidently fast-forwarded instantaneously to the point of the emergence of the moral being . This stage of the universe - the stage at which the first moral being emerges - is truly the first and most basic stage of the universe: it was this stage which actually formed the basis for the design of the big bang.
The Scientific View versus the Religious View
Scientific results or theories cannot prove the existence or non-existence of Gd. Also, science cannot prove that the universe actually originated in a big bang - instead what can be proved is that the universe is presently in a big-bang-emergent state. However, if the assumption is made that no Gd exists, it follows that the universe emerged on its own. Since that which emerges on its own cannot be the product of design, or of purpose, it follows that the universe arose by chance, and has no intrinsic purpose.
According to quantum physics, it might indeed be possible for a universe to emerge by chance, and from nothing. However, the form that such universe would assume is also up to chance. Possibly, the first stage of such an ex-nihilo chance-derived universe it not determined - i.e. it could emerge in any configuration at all. What would perhaps be determined would only be the relative probabilities of emergence for each possible universe-configuration. Thus, a complete universe such as the one we inhabit now could emerge by itself, by chance, from nothing, as the first stage of the universe. This, however, would be an occurrence - although physically possible - of such a high improbability that one would normally not consider it at all. Instead, one would assume that one of the configurations with a very high probability had occurred - e.g., a big bang of the type which leads to our type universe.
As we have seen, science cannot prove that the universe originated in a big bang billions of years ago, and cannot disprove that it emerged at the moral stage in a big-bang-emergent state. However, since the scientific approach attempts to explain all of Nature on the assumption that no Gd exists, that there is no creator, no design and no purpose, from the scientific viewpoint it seems more reasonable to suppose that the universe first appeared as a singularity and big bang rather than as a completed moral-stage big-bang-emergent universe.
On the other hand, in the religious view, since it is assumed that there is a Creator, a design and a purpose, and since both ways of creation are possible, then the more reasonable supposition would be that the universe would be created as a big-bang-emergent universe - either directly at the moral stage, or by instantaneously fast-forwarding up to the moral stage.
The Instant Universe Scenario versus Temporal Solipsism
"Temporal Solipsism" is the belief that the universe emerged into existence this very moment in a complete big-bang-emergent state. The solipsist's position can be neither proven nor disproven: that we exist right now, and that both we and he existed one moment ago are statements which we cannot prove to him, and which he cannot disprove.
However, despite the unassailable logic in his claim, we feel justified - albeit only intuitively rather than logically - in considering such a view insane. On the other hand, when solipsism in some form emerges as the logical conclusion of a set of reasonable hypotheses, it ceases to be incredible. In our case, once we assume that a Gd exists, and that he created our universe, it becomes equally likely that this universe was created at one stage as at another. Then, when we analyze the purpose of creation within the context of the Bible, and the idea of free-willed consciousness, etc., it becomes logically compelling to assume that one particular time was optimal as creation point - the time of the emergence of free will. This time is a highly non-arbitrary one, and follows logically from the assumption of the existence of a creator who created man for a Purpose, etc.
Thus, this kind of 'instant universe' scenario is not "temporal solipsism" - which is a general anarchic denial at any one moment that the universe existed in the previous moment. Instead, it is a statement that "time began" not at the singularity but at the time of free will emergence, and that subsequent to that time, the universe existed just as truly as it exists at present. This is not solipsism at all - it is merely a shift in the time of creation from the scientist's 15 billion years ago to the Biblical 6,000 years ago:
According to science, since it is assumed that no creator exists, and therefore that the universe is not a Purposive one, the most logical beginning state of the universe is the big bang: for an atheist to believe in an instant universe would be absurd and solipsistic.
However, according to religion, since it is assumed that ours is a created, purposive universe, the most logical initial stage of the universe to be created is the immediate pre-moral stage, and thus no "solipsism" is involved.
Introduction to the next two chapters
Gd is the creator of all nature , and therefore all of nature is Gd's Work . Gd is the Author of the Torah , and therefore all of the Torah is Gd's Word .
By investigating the Works of Gd , the conclusion has been reached that the universe is now in a big-bang-emergent state. From Gd's Word we learn that the universe was created in a completed state about six thousand years ago . Since both nature and torah are of Gd , there cannot be any real contradiction between them . Thus we can say that the universe was created about six thousand years ago , in a big-bang-emergent state .
The questions which remain are the following :
Chapter 2: Granted that the universe is in a big-bang-emergent state and that it was created at the stage of the emergence of the first moral being : However , why did Gd employ this method of creation - why bother with big bangs etc. - why not create a moral being in an instant universe which is not of the big bang type at all ?
Chapter 3: How do we interpret the actual Genesis account in the light of the theory developed here?
(Do not know where following section should be )
If all is determinism, then Gd knows the end as soon as he decides on the beginning. If all is random, either 1) it is not random to Gd, so that is determinism to Him, and therefore Gd knows the end as soon as he decides on the beginning: or 2) it is random to Gd also, but it is like flipping coins to see how many heads and tails get and in what order - there is no meaning to this and it is also very 'boring' [ although of course, Gd is 'above' time and cannot be 'bored'].
Even though it is unpredictable, it is meaningless (stress difference between predictability and meaning/interest.
FOR INTRO TO CHAP 6 ??
According to Sir
DeBeer:
"...man...through ....communication....memory...and his moral sense.....differs from other animals.
"Since man owes his body....instincts..and ...some...genes to his pre-human ancestors...[we can] question whether his mental and moral powers are similarly descended.
"......As regards man's moral qualities, however, the first question is to determine how far natural selection could account for their origin and improvement.[SEE ECCLES WHO SAYS EVO> CAN'T ACCT FOR IT
"Darwin himself believed that moral qualities had been evolvedfrom pre-human ancestors, but he attributed their improvement and perfection to man's power of reasoning and not to natural selection."
Bibliography
Bertrand Russel: "Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits", Allen & Unwin, London 1948, BD161/R78, p194.
John Wheeler: "Beyond the Black Hole", p358; "Strangeness", p375, note #99.
Milton Millhauser"Just Before Darwin" Wesleyan University Press 1959 [Chapters 2 and 5]:
For a discussion of the history of the early attempts at reconciling the origin theories and Genesis see "Conflict Thesis" Open University Press.
For a discussion of Chambers' work and that of other early evolutionists, see also "Forerunners of Darwin" ed. B. Glass , O. Temkin, W. L. Straus, Jr. :The Johns Hopkins Press 1959.
A. J. Ayer, "The Problem of Knowledge", p163-164.
A. N. Whitehead "Science and the Modern World", p.91:
Gosse.Penn.Omphalos
Gosse and the Reaction to his Ideas
Philip Henry Gosse was born in England in 1810. He travelled in the U.S. where he "was received and noticed by men of science" (E.B.) and wrote numerous books on zoology and other related subjects including a widely popular book, "The Ocean" (1844). In 1856 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society.
He was acquainted with all the major figures of his day in his field, including Darwin and Lyell and made numerous contributions to his field. However, because of his work in endeavouring to reconcile evolutionary theory with the Bible, he was considered almost a crank by his atheistic scientist colleagues. In the sneering words of the Encyclopedia Brittanica
"Gosse, who was a most careful observer, but who lacked the philosophical spirit, was now tempted to essay work of a more ambitious order, publishing in 1857 two books, "Life" and "Omphalos", embodying his speculations on the appearance of life on the earth, which he considered to have been instantaneous, at least as regarded its higher forms. His views met with no favour from scientific men, and he returned to the field of observation, which he was better qualified to cultivate."
His son Edmund wrote an autobiography in which his relationship to his father played a central role. The book ' "Father and Son" - became a classic, as an example of an open, honestly critical analysis of a father-son relationship. In the book, Edmund Gosse relates the events surrounding the publication of his father's works on evolution and the bible. His compassionately condescending and snidely mocking tone more than adequately reveals the bias of his own atheistic beliefs.
(quotes from printed matter)
As Edmund states, even religious people did not accept Gosse's theory because it seemed to totally discredit science, logic, and common sense and was even somewhat religiously unpalatable as it seemingly involved Gd in an "enormous and superfluous lie".
In view of the failure of Gosse's attempt, the purpose of this book is to develop the idea of the instant universe into a coherent and comprehensive theory which will not only resolve the conflict, but which will show that the instant universe creation method rather than being a perverse mockery of logical thought is actually the most reasonable creation method for Gd to employ: rather than Gd hiding the fossels in the rocks to tempt geologists into infidelity - as the newspapers of Gosse's time had it - we will see the logic behind the whole idea; rather than having to give up scientific conclusions and believe that "Gd has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie", we will show that all scientific results can be totally accepted without exception.
Although this author independently originated the instant universe theory, this was of course over 150 years after Penn first came up with it. Indeed, it seems that in the intervening 150 years a number of others also originated this idea independently, unaware of Gosse and Penn's work - and of each other's work. Nevertheless, certainly it is Penn and Gosse who deserves the credit for the idea. If this present work is accepted with a reaction in any way more positive than the reception accorded to Gosse's, then hopefully this tribute to him will help to posthumously give them some of the credit they deserve.
BOX FOR GRANVILLE PENN ?
"LIFE" : Gosse
CONTINUE HERE: "WE THEREFORE" OF CHAP 1 .
Gosse wrote his book just before Darwin published his epochal work on evolution. Gosse was aware of Darwin's ideas, but he considered them to be unfounded. At the time "Omphalos" was written, the main conflict between Genesis and scientific theory concerned the age of the Earth.
According to geological considersations, the Earth was millions of years old, whereas according to the Bible, it is only about six thousand years since creation.
It is mostly this problem that Gosse deals with, although he also deals of course with the question of the origin of Man.
At the end of the preface to the book, Gosse writes:
INSERT
Gosse then presents the following contradiction: Nature, which is Gd's Work, seems to show that the Earth has existed for very much longer than is implied by the literal meaning of Gd's Word - the Bible.
INSERT
Gosse then brings several types of arguments which had been offered to explain the seeming discrepancy between Bible and geology.
* Origen, Augustine etc.
Gosse then speaks of those who reject these attempts at rersolving the contradiction, and who therefore deny altogether the truth of the Bible, and consider the Bible to be a collection of myths and poetry. Gosse quotes from Prof, Baden Powell's work "Unity of Worlds" of 1856, and then he briefly notes the work of Robert Chambers. However, although Chambers' "Vestiges" was a close anticipation of Darwin's theories it was not solidly backed by fact, and the theory of evolution was not accepted in the scientific community until Darwin's monumental and thorough work was published.
INSERT
Gosse then concludes that none of the previous methods of resolving the discrepancies were successful in convincing those familiar with geology that the Bible is capable of a reasonable interpretation.
Gosse therefore presents his own theory - a theory he later discovered in another form in the work of Penn - but prior to setting forth his theory, he wishes to clearly state what his assumptions are.
INSERT
Note: "the development hypothesis" is the title under which the theory of evolution was first known.
INSERT
for bottom of p.23
930 years gradually decaying, slowly dying.
bottom p.129
....and so on and so on.
Gosse's theory rests on the fact that chickens come from eggs and eggs from chickens, trees from seeds and seeds from trees, etc, and therefore......
INSERT
These considerations would lead the botanist to conclude that the plant had been in existence for some time:
INSERT
is invulnerable
Gosse then applies this reasoning to the question of the origin of Man.
Imagine an examination of Adam immediately following his creation:
INSERT
May 14 1992
Section V: Predecessors and contemporaries of Adam
Introduction
We have presented many interpretations of Genesis which have indicted that the Traditional understanding of the creation account need not be perceived as being in conflict with the science origin theories. However, one of the particular apparent discrepancies between the two has not been explicitly dealt with - and that is the question of the predecessors and contemporaries of adam as predicted by the scientific origin theory, and as seemingly negated by Genesis.
It is this issue which will form the topic in the next few chapters.
Chapter 1:
Ha'adam: 'Man' the Species vs. 'the man', an Individual
According to the creation account as remembered by most people, man was created alone, a single male individual without any contemporaries. From this man, a woman was later created. However, careful reading of the Torah will show that this is inexact.
In the first creation account, the species 'man' is created in male and female types from the very outset. The idea that the male, Adam, preceded the female, Eve, is only developed in the second account. It is difficult to imagine that a male human would be created if no female were existent or planned. The second account, however, is quite possibly meant allegorically, as Rambam states1. However, one can attempt an interpretation which stays close to the literal meaning.
The very factors which define a male as such, would be meaningless and superfluous in the absence of a female, and even undefined before the idea of a female human was created. Thus it would seem most logical to assume that, as indeed stated by the Midrash, the Adam which preceded Eve was not male, but was rather either a neuter or a combination of what was later separated into male and female 2 3.
Indeed, since no command was given to the original Human to multiply until after woman was created, there was no need for any reproduction mechanism at all in the original Human. Thus, this Human (Ha'adam) was probably not 'male', and perhaps without gender at all. Therefore, since there could be no 'man' without 'woman', 'man' was created only when woman was produced out of Ha'adam. That is, man and woman as such were created simultaneously out of Ha'adam.
Thus "Ha'adam" is the evolutionary predecessor of the first true human beings, male and female . And as in the origin theory, man and woman emerged separately but from a common source.
Monogenesis: Adam and Eve as Sole Original Humans
According to evolutionary theory, and as evidenced by the remains of ancient cities4, pottery, weapons, skeletal bones, Homo Sapiens Sapiens arose approximately 60,000 years ago5 and thus had some 55,000 years to multiply and spread before this date and therefore there should have been millions of humans by that time. However, according to Genesis it would seem that only one pair of humans existed at the time of creation.
This poses a dilemma since if only one pair of humans existed 6,000 years ago, the absence of their contemporaries predicted by evolutionary theory is puzzling, whereas if there did indeed exist these others, then Adam and Eve were seemingly not the first humans.
If these millions of contemporaries of Adam and Eve existed, they should have many descendents. There would then be people living today who are not descended from the Adam of the creation account. This is especially puzzling since Adam and Eve were to have been the first humans and also therefore the forebears of all mankind.
Scientific Monogenesis
It has long been recognized by many evolutionary biologists that all life emanates from a common source. The famous mathematical-physicist Hermann Weyl writes as follows6:
"Considerations of evolution in the large will of necessity lead to the question of the origin of life. The evidence of genetics makes one incline to see in life the chance success of a play of creative accidents. Not some predictable macrophysical or macrochemical process, that with a certain natural necessity came to pass at a certain stage of evolution - and would repeat itself wherever the appropriate conditions prevailed - seems responsible for the historic beginnings of life, but a molecular event of singular character, occurring once by accident, and then starting an avalanche by autocatalytic multiplication (P. Jordan). Jordan adduces as a strong argument for this opinion "the fact that all the more complicated molecules found in plants and animals, especially the protein molecules, are stereochemically different from their mirror images". Indeed had they an independent origin at many places and many times their levo- and dextro-varieties should show nearly the same abundance. Thus it looks as if there is some truth in the story of Adam and Eve, if not for the origin of mankind then for that of the most primitive forms of life."
It is now becoming evident however, that there is yet more truth to the story of Adam and Eve: a specific gene has been traced in the various races of Man which indicates that it derives from a common ancestress who lived about 100,000 years ago.
Thus comparative genetics indicates that all mankind existing today is descended from one genetic line, which mutated from the parent line about 100,000 years ago 7. Thus even according to evolutionary theory, all humankind is descended from one original progenitor just as in Genesis. Fittingly, evolutionary geneticists have dubbed her "Eve" 8.
Thus science and Genesis agree that the universe emerged out of nothing, and is not eternal; that all life is descended from a single original life form; and that all Mankind is descended from one unique ancestral human being.
Despite the agreement noted above, there is a seeming conflict between genetics and Genesis around the issue of when the original progenitor of the human race lived. According to evolutionary theory it was about100,000 years ago when the first Homo Sapiens Sapiens (Cro-Magnon Man) evolved, while according to the Torah, the species we refer to today as Man emerged only 6,000 years ago.
Flexibility of the Creation Date
One approach to this issue is similar to some explored previously.
The creation date is not given explicitly in the Bible. The date of the emergence of the first human can be known only via the geneology given after the creation account. In this geneology we are told of life-spans of almost a thousand years. If we do not take this geneology as refering to ordinary physical processes, then the alleged implied date of 6,000 years can be rejected9.
Furthermore the date of 6,000 years can be obtained only by counting time across the gap of the creation of the instant universe after the expulsion from Eden and thus this figure is perhaps not necessarily correct.
We can then perhaps say that the first moral being arose about100,000 years ago, and it is this event which is referred to in Genesis.
Moral Man
In the terms of reference of the purpose of the human race as seen by Tradition, it was the emergence of the first free willed morally conscious intelligent being - what we will term here 'Moral Man' - which allowed the onset of purpose.
One can say perhaps that Traditional perspective classifies beings according to categories relating to purpose rather than to evolutionary-genetic development. From this perspective, the predecessors of the first moral man - since they lacked intelligent free willed consciousness - are classified with the animals. Only the first free-willed being is a 'human' being, and can be classified as being 'in the image of Gd'10.11
From the Traditional point of view which would see the purpose of the universe as tied to the free willed actions of Man, the universe can be considered to begin its purposeful existence with the emergence of free willed man. It would then be reasonable for a creation account to be followed immediately by an account of the emergence - or creation - of the first moral man, as indeed presented in the Garden of Eden account.
Even if it the purpose of the entire universe were not necessarily tied into the moral activity of man, at least the relevant beginning from the point of view of mankind could be seen as the point of emergence of the first moral human.
We will present various approaches to the issue of the predecessors and contemporaries of Adam. Generally, the approach taken will be to consider that evolutionary processes led to the emergence of a race of humans, from which arose a moral being - as a mutation, who subsequently became progenitor of the present day human race of moral man; or a genius from among the original human stock, who taught future generations to become moral beings.
The creation accounts as they relate to man will then be interpreted as describing the initial emergence of the human race, folowed by the emergence of the first moral being from among this race.
A number of approaches to this issue are sketched briefly below, and are then discussed in more detail in the following.
Alternative Approaches
In one approach, Cro-Magnon Man is considered to have been genetically capable of being Moral Man. However, the actualization of the moral sense is considered to have required the development of latent abilities - and a recognition of the concepts of good and evil - which only a supreme genius could achieve. In this interpretation, the Biblical account can be taken as speaking of the first such moral genius among Cro-Magnon man, who emerged about six thousand years ago12. The rest of mankind was then able to follow his example, so that all eventually became 'moral man'.
Another approach considers the first moral man as a genetic mutation from Cro-Magnon Man, so that his Cro-Magnon contemporaries would not be moral man. The descendants of these non-Cro-Magnon contemporaries: are alive today and are not Moral Man; perished in the flood; died out in the struggle for survival - perhaps in a struggle against our moral man ancestors, just as perhaps they themselves had previously eliminated Neanderthal Man.
The last approach we consider is that when the Torah speaks of Adam, it is referring to the race of Man rather than to an individual. That is, the Adam of the Garden of Eden refers to the entire race of Cro-Magnon Man. And, the event corresponding to the Garden of Eden account was perhaps some event in the life of this race - perhaps they were simultaneously transformed into a race of Moral Man 6,000 years ago, via a race-wide mental 'rite of passage', or some other form of divine intervention13.
Section II: The Historical Emergence of Moral man
When Might Moral Man Have Emerged?
The emergence of Man according to the origin theory is approximately described by the following dates: [The abbreviation Y.A. is used here to denote "years ago". ]14
Early Hominid
YA = years ago 3,000,000 YA = Australopithecus
Homo Erectus
700,000 YA = Java Man
500,000 YA = Peking Man
Homo Sapiens
120,000 YA = Neanderthal Man
Homo Sapiens Sapiens
60,000 YA = Modern Man [Between 100,000 and 40,000 YA]15
The Evolution of Morality
According to the scientific origin theory, we have been billions of years in developing: from big bang to home planet, from inorganic matter to life, from simple life to ape, and millions of years more from ape to man. However, it was only approximately 100,000 years ago that there appeared an ancestor we could identify as a member of our species: a truly sapient[thinking] creature, the first of Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Clearly, then, although the big bang "occurred" 15 billion "years ago", morality could propbably only have emerged in the last 100,000 years.
The time-spans for geological and astronomical events are in the billions and millions of years and therefore because of the evolutionary theory and the theory of the big bang, many people tend to think in terms of billions of years. As a result it is surprising to them that our species, homo-sapiens-sapiens, evolved "only" 100,000 years ago, when life had begun already billions of years previously.
The essential human qualities we associate with a human, as opposed to an animal or a computer, are those of moral behaviour and the idea of moral accountability. These qualities, when they first arose among Homo Sapiens Sapiens would almost certainly result in the formulation of religion. Thus, the earliest religions would follow not too long after the first stirrings of moral consciousness. When one actually reviews the cultural history of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, one makes an interesting discovery - it becomes clear that religion as we know it developed only in the last 4,000 years.
A Short History of Major Cultural Developments 16
10,000 YA Painting17, burials
BCE
5000 YA 3000 Writing, farming
4000 YA 2000 Abraham: Monotheism formulated18
3500 YA 1500 Moses . Hinduism formulated
3000 YA 1000 King Solomon:philosophy,ethical writing,poetry
2600 YA 600 Isaiah (Yeshayahu)
2500 YA 500 Ezekiel(Yeheskel),Buddha,Confucius,Lao-Tze 2400 YA 400 Greek Science/Culture/Philosophy:
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle Etc.)
1900 YA = CE 100 R. Akiva; Christianity (spread of);
1400 YA 600 Islam
300 YA 1700 Newton
140 YA 1850 Darwin
80 YA 1900 Einstein
Thus, Man's brain had developed about 100,000 years ago. His cultural abilities - painting, pottery and so on - developed perhaps 15,000 years ago. The first glimmerings of thought about death and life - the first burials - took place about 10,000 years ago, and the first religions were developed about 4,000 years ago.
The emergence of the first true moral being, with sufficient intelligence and understanding to make a free choice would presumably occur somewhere between the time that man began to think of death and a possible afterlife, and the time that religious thought and attitudes were first developed .
According to the chronology of the Biblical geneologies, this occured roughly 6,000 years ago - 2,000 years before the first religion developed, and about 4,000 years after the Cro-Magnon culture reached its height [?].
We would then add one stage onto the chain of human development19
Early Hominid 3,000,000 YA = Australopithecus
Homo Erectus 700,000 YA = Java Man
500,000 YA = Peking Man
Homo Sapiens 120,000 YA = Neanderthal Man
Homo Sapiens Sapiens 60,000 YA = Modern Man [between 100,000 and 40,000 YA]
*** Homo Sapiens Voluntas 6,000 YA = Moral Man20.
Thus:
1. Man as a race achieved his modern type of intellectual capacity only 100,000 years ago, and prior to that many modern concepts - such as "morality" - were simply beyond the conceptual ability of man' evolutionary ancestors.
2. All the world's religions were founded in the last 4,000 years, so that 4,500 years ago there was no real conception of a Gd, of moral responsibility, of purpose to a human life, and so on 21 .
3. The vast majority of our scientific knowledge was unknown only 500 years ago, and science had its rudimentary beginnings only 2,500 years ago. The great ideas which are the foundations of our society - ideas of religion, philosophy, culture and science - are relatively recent innovations.
6,000 years does not seem like a long time for moral man to have been in existence. However, this is an illusion created by the overwhelming scientific and cultural stores of knowledge available today. It surprises us to see how much we have achieved in so short a time.
Conclusion
The development of homo sapiens sapiens to moral man in only 50,000 years (approximately) was a remarkably quick process compared to the development during the millions of years before then. Since homo-sapiens sapiens is such a new arrival, it would then not be surprising if the first moral man arose only about 6,000 years ago, as implied in our interpretation of Genesis.
Chapter III: Discussion of the options
Moral Man as Cro-Magnon Man
We will here consider Moral Man as genetically one of the race of Cro-Magnon Man which evolved 100,000 years ago. Mankind of 100,000 years ago was genetically Moral Man, however the moral consciousness was only latent. True free willed choice is possible only through the exercise of a combination of intelligent analysis, foresight and strength of will. It therefore required a unique genius to come along and first realize this latent potential. The first such genius lived about 6,000 years ago, and he was therefore the first true Moral Man, referred to in the Bible as Adam. Following his teachings, the rest of Humanity learned to exercise their free will as well.
Adam as First Human
In the religious view, the emergence of this first free willed conscious intelligent being allowed the onset of purpose. The Biblical perspective classifies beings according to categories relating to purpose. From this perspective, the predecessors of the first free-willed conscious being - since they lacked intelligent free willed consciousness - are classified with the animals. Only the first free-willed being is a 'human' being, and is 'in the image of Gd'22.23
Thus, although Cro-Magnon Man existed for about 50,000 years before Adam, we are told that it was Adam who was the first human, and therefore the only human of his time, since he was the first Moral man.
Genesis and the origin theories agree that the race of modern man 'began' at some point, that there was a 'first man'. However from the categories of science and of religion 'human' is defined differently, and therefore the date of emergence of the 'first human' is different.
Adam as a Genetic Mutation From Cro-Magnon Man
Physical science does not recognize free will as a qualitatively unique physical phenomenon, but rather as a psychological phenomenon. Therefore evolutionary genetics can consider an intelligent conscious being with free will as genetically identical to one lacking free will.
Science does not deal in categories of purpose, and therefore the ability to exercize free will and become a moral being is not considered scientifically significant. However, religious philosophy would certainly make a great distinction between free-willed man and non-free-willed man.
We assume in this approach that free-willed man is genetically different from non-free-willed man. That is, Adam was a genetic mutation from Cro-Magnon Man. He, and therefore we, are Moral Man, as opposed to Cro-Magnon Man24 . To say that the descendants of Adam's Cro-Magnon contemporaries are alive today and are not Moral Man is very problematic25. Instead we postulate that all people alive today are Moral Man, and that Cro-Magnon Man died out either in the flood or in the struggle for survival.
The Flood As a Selection Mechanism:
All mankind today derives from Noah and Noah was a direct descendant of Adam (the lineage is given in Genesis). Thus, even if there were human contemporaries of Adam, they died in the flood, and only Adam's line remained - leaving us all as descendants of a single unique pair. In this sense as well - as the only humans whose descendants survived - Adam and Eve were the "sole" progenitors of the human race. Indeed, since the Torah was given to a world populated only by Adam's descendants (because of the "selection" caused by the flood), and Adam was a species apart (Homo Voluntas - as were therefore his descendants) it is quite reasonable to speak of Adam and Eve as the only ancestors of man, and of Adam and Eve therefore as the only "humans" at creation-time26.
This interpretation is however problematic because we solve one difficulty - that of the creation account and evolutionary theory - only by involving ourselves in another conflict - between the Biblical flood account and geological science27.
Moral Fitness as a Selection Factor:
In the approach we are considering, all non-Moral Man died out somehow over the years leaving the Earth to the descendants of the first moral being. Similar disappearances are postulated in evolutionary theory, as explained below.
Only an individual can mutate, not an entire race. Those individual apes which mutated suffiently severely have given rise to other species. However, such severe mutation is a very rare phenomenon, XXXXXXand therefore virtually all of the members of previous races would not have mutated, and their presence should seemingly be felt today as well.
We know that there was a race of humans different than ourselves long ago since traces remain in the form of skeletal bones and artifacts. This race has been named 'Neanderthal Man', and lived about 100,000 years ago. In the last 100,000 years, only a very few Neanderthalers - if any at all - would have mutated in a manner sufficiently severely so as to produce a new race. Therefore the original Neanderthal species should continue to exist as it was, alongside the newly emerging mutated race or races.
Thus even if we were the mutated race, the Neanderthalers should still be in evidence today. However, no Neanderthalers exist nowadays. Similarly so for the Australopithecans and so on. Similarly, there are no races today existent which are the intermediary races between humans and apes. According to evolutionary theory, our progenitors did have contemporaries, all of whose lines eventually died out - leaving only our line to dominate the earth.
Today's scientific theory says that modern man descends from a different evolutionary line than did Neanderthal man, and that the two were contemporaries and rivals. It is held that the Neanderthalers died out possibly through competition with modern man's ancestors. Similarly so for any other parallely-evolved "humans" - they have all died out, leaving Homo Sapiens Sapiens (Cro-magnon man) to inherit the earth.
In our terms we state this as follows: the race descended from Adam survived, but the race of Adam's contemporaries did not. Why did they not survive?
As we have seen, "Adam" was the first successful moral being, "Homo Voluntas". If this heightened perception was genetic in nature28, it may have helped give his descendants a higher survival factor, making them "fitter" in the selection sense ("survival of the fittest")29.
Perhaps the moral sense allowed united civilizations to appear for the first time - this would give Homo Voluntas a clear survival advantage over Homo Sapiens Non-Voluntas. Alternatively, the genetic change which led to the ability to use free will almost certainly led to a far greater range of choice in any activity - to heightened originality, creativity and productivity. This would given an overwhelming advantage to Adam's descendants. The race of Adam's parents would eventually disappear, losers in the competitive struggle for existence.
Since only Adam's line lived on, and all modern man stems from Homo Voluntas, the non-Voluntas beings are not considered of our species, and thus Adam is considered to have been the only "human being" and to be the father of all future human beings.
Conclusion: Thus we can read Genesis and the origin theory as agreeing that the universe emerged out of nothing, and is not eternal ; that all life is descended from a single original life form; and that all Mankind is descended from one unique ancestral human being - the predecessors and contemporaries of this common ancestor were not 'human', and all the descendants of these non-humans eventually died out.
A different approach to resolving the conflict about the contemporaries of Adam is suggested by the statement in the Talmud and Midrash to the effect that "Gd created and destroyed worlds" prior to the creation detailed in Genesis30. It is not clear however whether this implies the creation of worlds prior to the very creation of heaven and earth - i.e. the creation of prior universes, or it is referring to the creation of planets within the universe whose creation is described in Genesis. And, if it refers to the creation of planets within the universe of Genesis, it is not clear whether the reference is to planets other than earth, or to the planet earth prior to the creation of Adam.
In the last mentioned case, this would mean that Adam was not necessarily the first human on our planet. Indeed, the Tifferet Yisrael31 stated that fossil remains may bear witness to such pre-Adamic man. Similarly, according to R. Shimon Schwab, Adam was not necessarily the first human-like being32.
We can perhaps interpret the "creation of worlds" as taking place via a divinely instituted natural law - via an evolutionary process. One could then say that life - and man - originally arose on Earth via evolution. Then at some stage Gd "destroyed the world" which arose this way, and created Adam as described in Genesis.
Thus Genesis is not in conflict with the evolutionary theory's description of the origin of pre-Adamite man, and with its conclusion that the humanoid fossils discovered are the remnants of evolved man of many thousands of years ago.
However, Adam was a unique creation, and had no similar contemporaries. Furthermore, mankind today is descended from Adam, and not from the evolved pre-Adamite humans whose fossils have been discovered.
Summary
We have seen that moral thought could have arisen about 6,000 years ago. We can then interpret Genesis to be depicting the emergence of moral thought among Cro-Magnon Man, where Adam is the first such moral man33.
Of course in such a scenario Adam had contemporaries who were Cro-Manon as was he, but as the first Moral Man he is considered to be the first true human. His difference from the ordinary Cro-Magnon might be genetic - a mutation - or it might be that he was a 'super-genius'.
Alternatively, Adam was the first Cro-Magnon man, and lived about 60,000 years ago.
A more speculative approach to a resolution of the problem is to suppose that Genesis relates the creation of a race of moral man, rather than of an individual. Thus as regards the presence of contemporaries of Adam, there is no contradiction between the situation as depicted in Genesis and as implied by the origin theory. This approach is developed in the next chapter.
Chapter IV : Biblical Creation: An Individual or a Race ?
According to scientific origin theory, if there was a man named Adam who lived 6,000 years ago, he would have had many contemporaries and predecessors of the same species as himself.
The idea that there existed human predecessors of Adam is not an idea which negates Jewish belief. According to the "Tifferet Yisrael"34, since the Midrash states that Gd created and destroyed worlds before creating the world as detailed in Genesis, it is quite possible that the fossils found by archeologists are the bones of humans who lived on Earth before Adam35.
According to Rav Shimon Schwab, there may have existed semi-human beings prior to Adam , beings without free will, beings not created 'in the image of Gd' . These were the 'prehistoric men' whose remains have been discovered during the last hundred and fifty years[see below].
The question of the contemporaries of Adam is more complicated. According to Jewish tradition, it would seem that at the time of creation only Adam was created. However, according to the instant universe scenario, the creation must have included many people, since it was actualized as a late stage in its development many years after man first evolved. Indeed, according to evolutionary population theory etc. there were approximately 8 million people on the Earth 6,000 years ago.
36 The difficulty can of course be resolved if one could read Genesis as describing the creation of an entire race of Homo Voluntas, so that Adam had contemporaries of his own type. The creation of 'Adam' at the moral stage would then be understood as the emergence/creation of a race of potentially-moral beings at the stage of the emergence of the first moral action by a member of that race37.
The potential difficulty with this approach is that the Bible traditionally is taken to speak about the creation of Man as the creation of an individual, who then fathered the race of Man, not the creation of the race itself.
However, if we look at the Biblical text, we are left with the impression that it is ambiguous on this point.
Rav Shimon Schwab notes that the first and second creation account differ in the term used for the beings created prior to the creation of Adam. In the first account, the Torah speaks of "kol khayat ha'sadeh" ["all the animals of the field"] whereas the second speaks of "khayat ha'aretz" [the animals of the land"]. Furthermore, he points out that the word "kol" means "the rest of" as in Leviticus [Vayikra] 4:7, and that the Talmud speaks of a man-like being called the "adnei ha'sadeh" ["the masters(?) of the field"]. Thus, the phrase "kol khayat ha'sadeh" in the first creation account may be referring to the creation of a race of man-like beings prior to the creation of Man.
According to Ibn Ezra [1089-1164], there is a secret hidden in the word "Ha'Adam". The Bible uses the term "Ha'Adam" rather than " Adam" and Ibn Ezra calls this distinction a "secret" of the Torah38. Ibn Ezra may be hinting that an entire race of humans was created at the time of Adam, and that this is why the Torah calls it "Ha'Adam" - "the species Man" - rather than "Adam" - the individual named "Man":
However, some commentators on Ibn Ezra disagree39.
Sforno40 indicates the same point, that a species called "Man" was created. [Translation and commentary taken from "Artscroll Sforno"41:]
As we have seen above, the first creation account can be interpreted as implying that an entire race of Man was created; in such case, it is only the second creation account, which speaks of the garden of Eden and the emergence of morality, which speaks of two individuals, Adam and Eve. And, as we have seen, the second account can/must be taken at least partially allegorically. Even there, the language used implies a generic 'man' and 'woman' rather than a specific man and woman (Ha'adam and Ha'isha). It is only after the Tree of Knowledge incident, when Gd is describing the limitations of the new reality they have entered, that language is used which indicates reference to particular people - to a man named "Adam" and his "wife" named "Eve"42.
Inspeaking of creation in general, we are told of the creation of the race of man; then, afterwards, we are told of the emergence [mutation or genius] of the first moral man. Obviously the first moral man must have been an individual, and just as obviously he must have emerged from within an entire race of human beings [via mutation, or as a genius]. Thus, there is no contradiction between the two accounts.
If the Bible is read literally, then Adam can be considered as a mutation whose descendants we are - via Noah - and thus Adam was unique, the first true human being, as tradition states.
However, if one does not wish to consider Adam as a mutation, but rather as a genius who arose from within Cro Magnon Man, there is not necessarily any conflict with tradition, for we can interpret creation as being the creation of a race of moral beings.
The source available to us for the tradition that Adam was the only created man is the Mishnah in Sanhedrin (Talmud: San. 37A), and the Midrash:
"AND GD CREATED MAN. Gd created only one man at first. Why? Lest the righteous boast that they are the descendants of a righteous first man, whilst the wicked plead that their first progenitor was evil. Another reason: So that families should not quarrel with each other. For if now, when man was created alone (and all have one common ancestor), there is strife, how much more so had two men been created! A further reason: On account of robbers and men of violence. If such exist even now that man was created alone (and they really rob their own kith and kin), how much more so if two had been created! Yet another explanation is this: Man was created alone to demonstrate Gd's greatness, that with a single die He created the entire world."
Also: "lest people say "there are many creators because there were many created beings in the image of Gd""[i.e. each god created a man in its image] 43.
It seems clear from this Mishna that the reason one should not kill or rob and so on is not simply because all Man is descended from one ancestor, but rather that even were we to be descended from many, killing and robbing would be just as forbidden. It is only the pedagogical lesson which differs in the two instances: it is easier to teach morality when one can say that all Mankind are brothers.
Certainly of course Gd could have created many humans simultaneously, and this would be perfectly in consonance with the rest of the Torah. Certainly it would make no difference whatsoever to the immorality of killing and robbing. The important thing would be for the Torah to state that one Man was created in order that people learn a moral lesson from this. However, it may well be that in actuality many were created, and that the ambiguity in the Torah whether "Adam" means "one man named Man" or "a race called Man" was deliberate, for the pedagogical reasons explored in the mishna above..
Furthermore, evolutionary theory agrees with the mishna that all mankind is descended from one individual, and one can accept the description of creation of Adam as representing both the creation of the first human, and the eventual emergence of an entire race from this individual.
Therefore, it may not be necessarily a point of dogma to insist that "Adam" meant an individual as opposed to a race.
Creation of a Race Rather Than an Individual:
Biblical Indications
One can perhaps find some supports for the idea that there were human contemporaries of Adam from the Bible itself. A reading of the three creation accounts--the first five chapters of Genesis--reveals the following details.
One hundred thirty years after creation a son was born to Adam [5:3]. Adam declares that this son is a gift of Gd to replace Hevel who had been killed by Kayin, and as a result names this son "Sheth" ("appointed" or "sent" {by Gd}) [[4:25].
From this we see that no male children had been born to Adam since the births of Kayin and Hevel, and also that Hevel had been killed within the first 130 years after creation. Nevertheless, Kayin, when cursed by Gd to wander the Earth, expresses the fear that "anyone that finds me will slay me". Of whom was he afraid?
Hevel died childless, Adam would not kill his own son, and surely Kayin was not afraid of his own children, especially as he didn't have any yet! If there were no other male humans about, of whom was he afraid?
We are also told [4:17] that Kayin built a city in the land of Nod. If there were no other people about, why was there a name to the land before Kayin arrived, and for whom did he build his city? Another problem is presented by the question of whom Kayin and Lamekh and so on married. One can say that the births of female children were simply not recorded, however we have seen that only three male children were born to Adam over a period of hundreds of years. It is therefore quite possible that no daughters at all were born to Adam. We see also that the wives of Lamekh are mentioned by name, and so one cannot presume that women were simply ignored by the Bible. Indeed, the geneologies of Sarah, Rivka, Rachel and Leah are recorded, and one might expect that the geneologies of the first few matriarchs of the human race would be recorded as well.
Further, regarding the birth of Sheth, we are told "Adam again knew his wife", implying that he had not done so since the births of Kayin and Hevel -- so that no daughters could have been born. In fact, had there not been any other human contemporaries of Adam, then Kayin could only have married his mother or his sister. Surely this detail is significant, and would be mentioned by the Bible44. Instead, the Bible tells us that "Kayin knew his wife" [4:17] rather than "Kayin knew his sister".
In addition, it is clear that there were other types of beings present on the Earth at least at a later stage -- the mysterious "Nefilim", and "bnei Elohim" [6:1-6:7] who interbred with the female children of Adam's line. When were these daughters of Adam born? After Noah had reached the age of 500 years, we are told "And it came to pass, when Adam's line began to multiply on the face of the Earth, and daughters were born to them, and the 'distinguished men' saw the daughters of Adam's line. . . and took of them wives. . . "
This seems to imply that daughters were not born to Adam's line for a few generations, until after they had spread out across the face of the Earth. Who then were the wives and mothers of all these people? Surely Eve was not the wife of all her male children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren!
And who were these "distinguished men" -- "bnei haElohim" -- who were not of Adam's line? Man, and the Jewish people, are called "my sons" by Gd in the Bible. In the third person, this is equivalent to 'the sons of Gd'. In fact, the wording, "I will erase the Adam which I have created" indicates the existence of two races named 'Adam' [6:7]: the "Adam which I created" as opposed to another Adam - perhaps one which arose evolutionarilywithin the created universe rather than as a direct creation. That is, non-Moral-Man.
Perhaps they were the non-mutated, non-moral-man, Homo Sapiens Sapiens rather than the Adamite Homo Sapiens Sapiens Voluntas. Perhaps they are called "bnei Elohim" to tell us that they were the "prior creation" of Elohim, creations not possessed of moral consciousness and therefore not capable of good or evil, and therefore not requiring the Divine aspect of mercy called "Hashem" - but capable of being ruled by Midat Ha'din - by "Elohim".
Then perhaps, it was when non-Moral-Man males took Moral-Man-females that problems began, with a corruption of the Adamite line, leading to the necessity of a new beginning, from Noah, the direct descendent of Adam.
Of course there are answers to all these questions given by the Midrash, consistent with the picture of Adam as sole human. However, from P'shat - the direct meaning of the words - it would seem that there were other humans. And in actuality it can be seen that this reading is not in conflict with the traditional interpretation since these contemporaries of Adam were not moral-man, and were not truly human in the sense meant by the Bible. Instead, they were the evolutionary predecessors of the first moral being, Adam, or alternatively they were seperate and prior creations.
Indeed, according to Rambam (Guide I:7):
"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat (va-yoled) a son in his own likeness, in his form" (Gen. v. 3). As regards the words, "the form of Adam, and his likeness," we have already stated (ch. i.) their meaning. Those sons of Adam who were born before that time were not human in the true sense of the word, they had not "the form of man." With reference to Seth who had been instructed, enlightened and brought to human perfection, it could rightly be said, "he (Adam) begat a son in his likeness, in his form." It is acknowledged that a man who does not possess this "form" (the nature of which has just been explained) is not human, but a mere animal in human shape and form."
"Adam" - Individual or Race?
As we havew seen above, indications of the possible existence of a human race at the time of Adam can be found in the ambiguity of the term Adam itself. We can also analyze the intent of Genesis in employing language which implies that only an individual rather than a race was created. A possible flexibility in the intended understanding of the situation can possibly be implied by similar flexibility in other instances, specifically regarding the survivors of the Flood.
The Bible makes the point very clearly, and repeatedly, that Gd destroyed all man and beast in the whole world expect for Noakh and those in the ark. Nevertheless, one of the Rabbis of the Talmud tells us that Og, King of Bashan, survived the flood!45 Also, that the Amalekites predated and survived the flood is taught by the Zohar [Gen:25a {Hebrew insert}].
Ramban quotes as acceptable the belief that others escaped the flood along with Og [see Ramban on "Bnei ha'elohim"].
Thus, the surface implication in the language of Genesis that an individual rather than a race was created may not reflect the intended understanding.
A similar ambiguity can be found in the words of the prophets.
According to Rambam, the prophet may use the word "Mankind" when "a nation" is what is actually meant. In addition, a severe Divine punishment can be described as though it were complete annihilation46.
This may aid us in understanding the statements of the Midrash and Zohar brought above. That is, perhaps a description of the complete annihilation of Mankind in the flood account can in actuality be referring to the severe punishment of one particular nation . However, applying this to an interpretation of the Flood is perhaps inappropriate: Rambam is speaking only of the words of the prophets, whereas the account of the Flood was dictated by Gd , and that to Moshe - who received a higher form of prophecy than that of any other prophet Nevertheless, it may perhaps be partially applicable in conjunction with the evidence given above that indeed according to Jewish tradition the Flood did not wipe out all Mankind outside the Ark.
Further, according to Maharal47, the Torah is written from the perspective of the reality as perceived by human beings. Indeed, according to Malbim, passages in the Torah relating a seeming fact, may actually be relating a perception of human beings - even erroneous perceptions48. We can therefore perhaps suggest that if humans at the time of the Flood considered the reality to have been that all life had been eradicated other than their own family - a delusion which we are told was thye case with the daughter of Lot after the great destruction of 'the cities of the plain' [Soddom and Gomorrah etc.] - then perhaps this is why the Flood is so described in the Torah. And that is why it is possible for Genesis to state that the entire Earth was covered by the Flood, and all Mankind was destroyed, while tradition tells us that the Land of Israel was not covered, and that various people did survive the flood.
Just as the implications generated by a surface understanding of the Flood account in Genesis can be misleading as to its true intent, and 'the destruction of all mankind' was not meant in its strict sense, so too perhaps with the account in Genesis as regards the implication that 'all Mankind' descended from Adam and Eve. In fact Eve is so named Genesis tells us, becuse she was 'the mother of all life' which is not the case according to Genesis itself, which does not claim that all living beings emerged from Eve!
II) There is an alternate way of resolving the contradiction between the survival of Og and Amalek and the passage which states that "all Mankind" was destroyed. One can perhaps distinguish between humanity as represented by Noakh and that represented by the giant Og. According to Midrash, Og was 15 feet tall, and thus was possibly not of original human stock, but of a priorly evolved race. Similarly, Amalek is the only group which it is incumbent on the children of Israel to fight, and it is a group which is genetically rather than culturally determined. Perhaps they are the perennial arch-enemies of the Jewish people because genetically they represent a different, non-moral, strain of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.49
If this is so, then we can conclude that only Homo Sapiens Sapiens Voluntas was destroyed in the flood, and thus that when the Bible tells us that all mankind was destroyed, it means all of Homo Sapiens Sapiens Voluntas and not necessarily all of everyone else.
This would explain the widespread evidence uncovered by archaeologists that there were civilizations which were seemingly not destroyed in a flood 4,000 years ago.
It would also strengthen the case for there being non-Homo Sapiens Sapiens Voluntas present at the time of the creation of Adam - just as "all mankind" clearly refers only to a certain portion of Homo Sapiens Sapiens in the flood account since we are told that at least one survived, so too the creation of mankind in the creation account possibly refers only to the creation of Homo Sapiens Sapiens Voluntas.
One can perhaps also adapt the remarks above regarding the interchangeability of "Mankind" with "a nation", and "total annihilation" with "local diaster", as indicating the possibility that the implication that Genesis is relating the creation of all Mankind is erroneous - it is instead perhaps relating not the creation of all Mankind, but rather the emergence of Homo Voluntas.
Monogenesis50 and Genesis
The creation accounts are somewhat ambiguous as regards the number of humans created. In the first account, humans are created in male and female form in unspecified numbers, and even the second account deals mostly with a generic 'man' and 'woman' - Ha'adam and Ha'isha - rather than an individual named 'Adam' and his mate.
The accounts in Genesis do not state explicitly that a race of humans was not created. The first account can easily be understood as seems to be taught by Ibn Ezra, that is that a race of humans was created. The second account - that of the Garden of Eden seems to speak of one couple, but its connection to the first account is far from clear at the level of surface interpretation since much of it seems to contradict the first account.
It certainly seems possible at the surface level of interpretation to understand the Garden of Eden account as referring for example to a couple inhabiting a world already populated by the humans of the first account. Indeed, the Adam of the Garden of Eden account is not 'created' as is the case in the (first) creation account - instead he is 'formed from the dust of the earth'51. That is, the first account may perhaps be understood as relating the creation of a race of humans, and the Garden of Eden account relates the story of one couple within that populated world.
Rambam and Monogenesis
According to the Rambam "it is one of the fundamental principles of the Law that the Universe has been created ex nihilo, and that of the human race, one individual being, Adam, was created"52.
Here the Rambam links two seemingly unrelated conflicts. One conflict is between the idea that Adam was created alone vs. the hypothesis that an entire race being created. The second conflict is that between the idea of creation vs. the idea of the eternity of the universe. Rambam connects the two because he fels that one implies the other, as follows: If the universe is eternal, there was no creation of man, and therefore there was always a human race . Therefore Adam was not the only human existing at the time of the events related in Genesis.
However, Rambam himself admits that if there was a convincing proof of the eternity of the universe, he would accept it and interpret the creation idea as 'allegory' just as he did with anthropomorphisms. Therefore, that Adam was the only Human is as much - and as little - dogma as that creation occurred . That is, if there is convincing proof to the contrary, we can accept it.
One can perhaps assume that Rambam's elevation to the status of dogma of the idea of individual creation (vs. race creation ) was due to his apprehension that belief in race creation would be within the context of belief in an eternal universe. However, it is clear that although the eternity of the universe might imply the existence of a race "Adam" rather than an individual "Adam", the opposite is not the case. Thus, in our case where they are unrelated, perhaps we can assume that Rambam would not consider individual creation as dogma.
If individual creation is not necessarily dogma - even Rambam agrees its acceptance is contingent on their not being any proof to the contrary,i.e. that such proof is theoretically possible - it would seem that the reason we are told that only one man was created is to make the moral/pedagogical points related by the Mishnah and Tosefta of Sanhedrin. That is, it is quite possible that in actuality more than one man was created, but we are told not to derive sanctions for antisocial behaviour from this fact.
The Rambam however states in strong form that only one human was created. Therefore, we could perhaps be safer in saying that indeed only one human being was created; i.e. only one moral being was created, the rest were not moral beings and thus do not count fully as "human beings".
In any case, even in the evolutionary theory, all humans stem from one original human being; thus the Midrash and the Rambam can be interpreted literally53. For example, the "Ha'adam" of the first account could be the first human, and the Adam of the second account is the first human to exercise free willed choice, who lived much later.
Summary
If we interpret both creation accounts strictly literally, they contradict each other as to the order of creation of man, woman, and animals; as to the purpose and role of the animals; and as to the days on which all was created. Therefore part of the creation account is necessarilly non-purely-literal: that is, it is allegorical. Within this partial allegory, partial literalness, we can say that the very wording of the Torah implies that a complete human race was created, and that the Tree of Knowledge incident is an allegory for a process which involved man as a species - and that is why even the second account speaks in terms of a generic 'man' and 'woman'.
The first two passages of the fifth chapter of Genesis states:
"This is the book of the descendants of Adam: In the day Gd created Adam , He created them as male and female:and Adam bagat Shem.....[Gen.5:12].
The Midrash on this passage tells us that everything in the Torah until this point belongs to the "toldot shamayim va'aretz" - the generations of heaven and earth - rather than to "toldot Adam" - the generations of man. That is, the story of the Garden of Eden is not a description of actual events ocurring to man, but is rather part of the description of the process whereby Gd created the heavens and the earth
Malbim quotes a Midrash to the effect that the Torah itself really begins at Genesis 5:1 with the words "This is the book of the generations... ". Certainly however, the entire account up until the fifth chapter is an account of creation, and thus of events beyond human comprehension. The beginning of actual events commences with the birth of Shem as related in the fifth chapter. That is, the first and second creation accounts are not the record of actual events as implied in a literal reading, but are rather descriptions of mysteries as told in language comprehensible to man.
According to the Sforno, at this juncture the Torah begins to detail for us the history of the human race - that is, on the day Adam was created, there was already a human race .
The Torah begins with a description of the creation of the physical elements of the universe (the first creation account), and then the Torah describes the onset of free-will, morality, etc (the second account). It is only then that the Torah begins the tale of actual history - dealing with a specific couple, Adam and Eve, and their descendents. [This history is meant literally, and is an account of actual historical events.]
Thus, according to this 'partially allegorical' interpretation, there is no problem concerning the creation of woman separately from man, or of the contemporaries of Adam and Eve: the first account tells us that man and woman were created simultaneously in unspecified number.
The idea of the separate creation was given as an allegory for man's existential loneliness, his search to give and receive love and companionship, and so on. The idea of the uniqueness of the Adam/Eve pair is to teach mankind that all men are equal since they originate from one pair, and all are truly brothers since they derive from the same parents
Conclusion
Thus, the problems raised by the instant universe idea with respect to the Biblical account of the creation of Adam and Eve are resolved satisfactorily both in the partial-allegorical approach and in the absolute literal interpretation.
Appendix: Adam as Mutation Vs. Adam as Genius
What does it mean to say that Adam was the first moral being? Certainly amoebas are not moral beings. However, would it be true to say that no evolved being prior to Adam was a moral being? Was Adam a mutation, and thus uniquely the first being capable of moral consciousness and free will? Or was he a genius, but not a mutant?
If he was a mutation, then he was indeed the unique physical progenitor of our race; if he was not a mutation but rather a genius, he was the spiritual progenitor.
Although a mutant, Adam would posses almost all his genes in common with the non-Voluntas species, and some of his offspring would not carry his mutant gene. Indeed, according to Rambam, some of the descendents of Adam did not have his special characteristic - the Divine "form". Rambam states that as a result these offspring were not "human"54.
Thus, from the Biblical perspective, neither the ancestors nor the contemporaries of the first moral being are considered human. Therefore, in Genesis we are told that the first human had no human ancestors, nor did he have human contemporaries.
All the ancestors of this first free-willed human were of the animal kingdom, whereas he was the first true human. Thus Genesis tells of the emergence of the first true human, after the emergence of the animals.
That is, both Genesis and the origin theory agree that the first human had predecessors, and both agree that these predecessors were not human in the way we are.
Sources indicating that Adam was a mutation and not merely a genius with the same genes as his contemporaries:
In the third and last recounting of events at the creation (Gen: 5:1), we are told that on the day man - Adam - was created, he was created in the image of Gd ... [Gen: 5:1-3].
As we can see, we are told only of the birth of Sheth, not of the birth of Kayin ("Cain") and Hevel ("Abel"). Sheth was born to Adam, "in his likeness, in his image" whereas Kayin and Hevel were born to Chava (Eve) [Gen 4:1-2]55.
After telling of the birth of Sheth, the Torah tells us of his line of descendants: Adam; Sheth; Enosh; Kenan; Mehalalel; Yered; Chanoch ["Enoch"]; Methushelach; Lemech; Noach.
Chanoch ["Enoch"] was so righteous the Torah says of him that he "walked with Gd" and did not die but rather " and he was no more, for he was taken away by Gd"... [Gen: 4:25].
Noach was of course the Righteous man of his generation, and the progenitor of all post-flood humanity. Thus, only the descendants of Adam through Sheth were truly righteous, and only they survived the flood. The other children of Adam were seemingly not quite so righteous: Kayin was the first murderer, and his victim Hevel (Abel) was the first person mentioned to kill at all, in this case an animal, albeit to sacrifice to Gd. Of the descendants of Hevel we are told not of spiritual accomplishments but that they initiated cities, cattle farming, music and metal instruments - all of which could be used both for good and for bad.
Perhaps we can now understand why the Torah tells us that only Sheth was born of Adam "in his likeness in his image": just as Adam was created "in the image of Gd" by virtue of his ability to use free willed choice, perhaps only Sheth of all his children was sufficiently advanced to become capable of moral choice and spirituality, while the others possessed only the creative instinct without a refined moral sense56. If this were the case, we can understand why they are not called children of Adam, but rather children of Chava, why they are not "in the image of Adam", why they created art and technology, rather than spirituality, why their descendants did not survive the flood.
In terms of our thesis, one can say that the mutation which made Adam special was not passed on totally to all of his children: only Sheth inherited that physical complexity which enabled him to respond to the divine and to develop a moral sense: the others were different from Adam's predecessors in their advanced intellectual and creative ability, but not in the realm of the spiritual57.
The "selection" provided by the flood weeded out those morally unfit, and allowed only the Righteous Noach of the line of Chanoch and Sheth to repopulate the world58.
Chapter V : The origin of the soul, and its transmission
According to religious philosophy, Man posseses a non-physical aspect - his 'soul' . However, if man evolved from non-Man - which do not possess souls - how did man acquire a soul. In addition, how is it that a non-physical aspect like a soul can be passed on to on to the next generation.
We are told that man possesses a 'soul', and that this is what distinguishes him from the animals. However, if man is descended from the animals, how is it that he has a soul, and they do not? In addition, once the soul is acquired, how is it passed on to others ?
If indee the 'soul' were a genetically determined entity, the first being to evolve with sufficiently 'advanced' genes would possess a soul , and pass it on genetically to its progeny. However, the 'soul' is then a purely physical entity, whereas by definition the soul, as man's connection to the spiritual realm, must be a spiritual59 entity, not a physical one.
The genetics of soul
When one speaks of a 'soul' one must distinguish between the 'necessary' and 'sufficient' conditions that have to be fulfilled in order for a being to 'possess' a soul.
Let us take an analogy: in order to 'listen to the radio', one must have, as a necessary condition, a functioning, powered radio. However, this is not a sufficient condition. There must also be a transmitter which is broadcasting, and among other things, the radio must be tuned to the same frequency as the transmitter. Similarly so with the soul.
In order for the spiritual realm to interact with the physical realm in the sense which a 'soul' does, it is necessary that the being be of a highly developed type with a certain genetic structure etc. This however is not a sufficient condition - it is merely the specification that there is a 'receiver'. It is also necessary that there be the transmitter, i.e. the spiritual realm reaching out to the physical being. In addition, the being must 'tune' his consciousness to the proper 'channel', in order to feel the 'soul', to 'tune in' and 'resonate' with the spiritual.
This genetic potential to tune in to the spiritual can be inherited genetically. The spiritual realm is constantly reaching out to man, and anyone with the potential60 can tune in and 'possess a soul' if they choose to do so. Thus, a 'soul' is more of an interaction, a reception, than an entity by itself. It is not a 'thing' that can be inherited or given. Rather, it is 'a phenomenon' available to all beings with the requisite genetic structure.
Thus physical birth can allow transmission of a transcendant 'soul' from a mother, and the origin of a transcendant soul can coincide with a particular physical genetic development.
Appendix: Scientific Monogenesis
According to the theory of evolution and modern genetic knowledge, all mankind stems from one ancestor, one original prototype human being who emerged where no true human had existed previously. This of course agrees with the teaching of Genesis on this matter.
We will now briefly sketch the reasons why geneticists have reached this conclusion.
Genetic differences between man and ape and between man and man
1 gene
Chromosome
DRAWINGOfChromosome
1 gene pairs of nucleotides
All the physical characteristics of a person or an animal are determined by their genes and their environment. The genetic constitution of a being is determined by the type and order of its DNA nucleotide chain [see end of chapter C for more detail.].
When comparing two beings, one cannot necessarily make a linear correlation between the percentage difference in their nucleotide-pairs and the percentage difference in their proteins, nor between these and vital qualities such as intelligence, creativity etc. Nevertheless, one can take these measures as rough guides to the 'similarity' or 'dissimilarity' of the two beings.
Human beings and chimpanzees have approximately 5 billion nucleotide pairs in their chromosomes. The vast majority of these nucleotide pairs - 99% of them - are identical, so that the proteins of humans and chimpanzees are largely alike, as are their resulting genetic traits: both have two arms with 4 fingers and a thumb each, 2 legs with 5 toes, similar face, similar skeletal structure, similar blood etc. The physical differences between man and chimp are due to the 1% difference, i.e. the approximately 50 million out of 5 billion nucleotide pairs which are different in the two species.
The genetic differences between even the most widely disparate humans is very small in comparison with the genetic difference between any human and a chimpanzee. The difference between two people of the same 'racial/ethnic' origin61 is approximately 200,000 nucleotide pairs, i.e. 0.4% of 1% of the total. It is this difference which causes the physical differences between any two people of the same 'race'. People of the same general 'racial' origin but from geographically divided points will differ by very slightly more, and people from differing 'races' will differ by yet a slight bit more. The difference between two people of different 'races' is not significantly more than the difference between two people of the same 'race'. The reason that people of different 'races' seem so different is that the few actual genetic differences that do exist between them are the easily discernable differences of external features such as skin colour, hair type, nose width etc.
The reason that people of different 'races' differ so much in external features is that it is precisely these external features which make the difference in differing climates (Skin colour determines sunburn, absorption of ultraviolet for the synthesis of vital vitamin D; nose width for staying cool in heat etc.. Thus these features will be selected for in different ways among different populations depending on their environment). However, the number of genes necessary to govern these is quite small - the vast majority of genes are the same for all humans. [It is ironic and perhaps unfortunate that the extremely tiny differences between people of different 'races' cause exactly those changes which are visible to the eye.]
The tiny differences between people of different 'races' shows that all the 'races' originated from the same group of people, and that the differences between them arose when various individual families migrated to distant areas, over thousands of years, and slowly the changes solidified into clearly visible changes. [Among those who migrated to Africa, and other tropical climates, those with darker skins were healthier than light-skinned people: dark skinned people had stronger, and more living, children - intermarriage darkened the skin more, these were ever more survival-successful: and therefore dark skins eventually dominated and v.v. in colder areas, etc.)
Clearly, since the difference between man and chimp is 250 times that of the difference between people of different 'races', and people of different 'races' have no significantly greater genetic differences than people of the same 'race', it would be absurd to say that the different 'races' arose from different mutations from the apes.
There are approximately five 'racial' groupings, each differing from the closest type of ape by 1% of their genetic material, yet all sharing 99.995% of genetic material with each other. For each of the five racial types to have evolved separately from the apes is so improbable as to be quite impososible since it would mean that 5 separate mutations occurred during a very short while (20,000 years), all 99.995% identical to each other, yet all differing by 1% - the same 1% - from their pre-mutated form! The mutation from ape to human is highly unlikely and took millions of years - for it to happen 5 times within a few thousand years and result in individuals identical in 99.99% of their nucleotide pairs would be absurdly improbable. Thus, all men of all 'races' must have originated from one original mutation of 1% and then these mutated in 5 different ways, each of approximately ~0.5% relative variation. Since Homo Sapiens Sapiens arose only about 60,000 years ago (40,000-100,000) and all today's 'races' are Homo Sapiens, the split into different 'races' must have occurred some time after this.
Thus, according to the theory of evolution and modern genetic knowledge, all mankind stems from one ancestor, one original prototype human being who emerged where no true human had been previously.
1 RAMBAM SOURCE. Indeed the Midrash uses this account to derive various moral homilies .[See Mishna Sanhedrin 37a quoted below.]
2 That males have nipples can be an indication of a common origin as part of a combination male-female, since the male nipples are not used for nursing, and therefore it would almost seem that the separation into male and female ocurred after the development of mammals..
3 The plain sense of the passages seem to imply that the original undivided state of the "Adam" was the optimal state, but due to its inability to function as is, alone, it was split into two.
cf. See Midrash re: Adam endeavouring to mate with the animals: this implies that Adam possedsed one or both genders.
4 e.g. Jericho is said to be 9,000 years old
5 Various figures are provided by different authorities, between 40,000 and 120,000. The actual time is of course very significant historically, but it is not relevant in our context. What is relevant is that it is more than the 6,000 years seemingly implied by the chronologies in Genesis.
6 Natural philosophy of ..... p.298
7 [Such mutations are exceedingly rare and would not occur twice in exactly the same way and thus it is quite certain that there was only one such mutation, and we are all descended from that one mutant.
See also Appendix: "All Men are Brothers".]
8 See "In Search of Eve" by Rebecca L. Cann in "The Sciences": Sept/Oct. 1987 and "The Search for Adam and Eve" "Newsweek" Jan 11, 1988. See also Appendix at the end of this chapter.
9 The geneology tells of people living to ages of almost a thousand years, giving birth at ages of many hundreds of years old. We need only interpret one passage in the chain as being allegorical, and the chain is broken, leaving the date of creation undetermined.]
10See Appendix "Adam as Mutation vs. Adam as Genius".
11The idea that the human fossils found by archaelogists are the bones of the predecessors of Adam is not an idea which negates Jewish belief: the Tifereth Yisrael discusses this very idea! [give photocopy & translation]. R.I. Lifchitz - Drush Or Hachaim, 3: about one third from the beginning: "micol heamur" (found in "Yachin Uboaz" mishnayos, after Sanhedrin).
12For example, if such a genius is a one in a billion phenomenon, then one would expect him to arise somewhere between the 500 millionth and 2 billionth human. Assuming a beginning from one human 100,000 years ago to a population of approximately ten million 10,000 years ago, 6,000 years ago is in the right time period.
13 Parallels can perhaps be drawn to the racial archetypes and racial memories etc. of for example Jung and Jung and Pauli .
14The dates given below are rough approximations - new discoveries often cause significant revisions. They are only meant to give an idea of the progression - the exact timing is of no relevance here.
15 This figure varies as new discoveries are made, and different viewpoints exist also as to the interpretations of such findings. The exact number - whether it is 300,000 or 50,0000 years is not relevant here.
16 Intended only as a sample - no intent is made to compare the value of any one development to any other.
17 on cave walls in what are today Spain and France.
18 The ancient lawgiver Hammurabi may have been no other than Abraham:
HAM | UR | AB | I
ABRA | HAM | | AB | RAHAM
UR = UR KASDIM?
ABRAHAM - Three syllables = AB-RA-HAM, Backwards = HAM-RA-AB AR
AV RU HAM = AV HAMon Goyim of UR kasdim = AV HAM of UR = HAM UR AV = Hammurabi.
19The dates given below are rough approximations - new discoveries often cause significant revisions. They are only meant to give an idea of the progression - the exact timing is of no relevance here.
20 The amount of time which has passed since creation is of no importance to Jewish law, and is not of crucial importance to Biblical interpretation. Nevertheless, since the traditional age of 6,000 years agrees so well with our tracing of the cultural and moral development of man, we will make no attempt to justify a different age.
21Paganism is not conducive to the idea of morality. As far back as 6,000 years ago - 2,000 years before the introduction of the first monotheistic religion - mankind probably had only a potential for conceiving of the concept of "morality".
The pagan belief was essentially that many gods ruled the world and were themselves bound by their limited powers and by the constant strife between gods. These gods were believed to be dependent on man's gifts and sacrifices, which could occasionally persuade them to perform favors to individual men or groups of men.
According to the pagan conception, the gods ruled arbitrarily and were not bound by any rules of fair conduct, justice, kindness, etc. to man. There were no rules given to man whereby he might achieve the immortality of life after death - no code of ethics to follow in his man-to-man dealings and no set code for man-to-god interaction. The idea that all men are equal, that one should love one's fellow man, that life has meaning, and that therefore the taking of life is bad, that there is some reason that man should be what we call "moral" - all these did not exist and thus neither did "moral" man. Man's body was formed millions of years ago, and his brain 60,000 years ago, but his "soul" is only 6,000 years old.
22See Appendix "Adam as Mutation vs. Adam as Genius".
23The idea that the human fossils found by archaelogists are the bones of the predecessors of Adam is not an idea which negates Jewish belief: the Tifereth Yisrael discusses this very idea! [give photocopy & translation]. R.I. Lifchitz - Drush Or Hachaim, 3: about one third from the beginning: "micol heamur" (found in "Yachin Uboaz" mishnayos, after Sanhedrin).
24 We cannot tell from an analysis of our own bones that we posess the ability to exercize a free will. Therefore from an analysis of the bones of Cro-Magnon Man we do not know whether or not Cro-Magnon Man of 60,000 posessed the ability to exercize a free will.
25 For example since codes of law - the Noakhide Laws - were given for all Mankind
26 [The 'Eve' of evolutionary theory did not necessarily live in the generation of the first Cro-Magnon Man. She is termed 'Eve' not because of her priority, but rather because all Mankind is descended from her. That is, it may well be that there were women prior to 'Eve', but only Eve's descendants survived. However, for all intents and purposes, she is the 'mother of all Mankind'.]
27 There does not seem to be any direct archaeological evidence for the occurrence of a worlwide flood as described in Genesis, at the date indicated there. Indeed, in certain areas there seem to be traces of continuous habitation throughout the past ten thousand years. However, the flood should have caused at the very least a noticeable gap in those cultures. It would have taken Noakh's descendants some time to increase, repopulate the area, excavate the remains of the previous civilization, and continue the previous culture - if it is at all likely that they would do so instead of building thir own culture.
However, even if the possible evidence for a continuous culture is accepted, there is no logical difficulty in accepting the literal truth of the flood account in Genesis.
When atheist deny the existence of Gd, they generally do not deny the possibility a priori that a Gd can exist. Rather, it is because they are aware of the possibility that there exists a Gd that they have searched about to determine if in fact a Gd does exist. Atheists believe - based on the evidense of their senses and rational thought etc. - that in fact no Gd exists.
However, in this we are assuming the existence of a Gd, creator of the universe, creator of space-time-matter-energy and the 'laws of nature' and so on, and therefore transcending the limitations these place on created beings. Therefore, we will allow that Gd the creator could do all that the Divine Will wishes to do.
It would be silly to say that Gd the creator of the entire universe could not have the power to flood the Earth, or to bring together all the species of living beings - beings which Gd created - into the ark, and to make them fit in and so on. Similarly, if Gd can create the universe, then when creating it universe, if it is so wished, Gd can create it as an instant universe.
28 see section X: "the origin of the soul".
29According to Rambam (Guide I:7):
"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat (va-yoled) a son in his own likeness, in his form" (Gen. v. 3). As regards the words, "the form of Adam, and his likeness," we have already stated (ch. i.) their meaning. Those sons of Adam who were born before that time were not human in the true sense of the word, they had not "the form of man." With reference to Seth who had been instructed, enlightened and brought to human perfection, it could rightly be said, "he (Adam) begat a son in his likeness, in his form." It is acknowledged that a man who does not possess this "form" (the nature of which has just been explained) is not human, but a mere animal in human shape and form."
It is only regarding Seth that Genesis states that Adam begat a son in his own likeness, in his form - that is, to whom he passed on the ability to exercise free will. We can therefore propose perhaps that the previous children, Cain and Abel, did not possess this ability. Indeed the chain of ancestry leading to Noah and Abraham is from Seth rather than Cain or Abel.
Furthermore, there was a special blessing given by Gd to Adam related in the passage directly preceeding the passage relating the birth of Seth [Gen. 5:1-2]. These passages are after those relating the story of Cain and Abel. According to Ramban this blessing was for the ability to procreate, and since their first offspring were Cain and Abel, although the blessing is related after the story of Cain and Abel it necessarily refers to a time before them. In our interpretation the passage can refer to a time after Cain and Abel, and before Seth - the blessing is that of the ability to pass on free will to their progeny. And that is why the passage states that "and Gd blessed them and called them 'human' " - they were human by virtue of their free will, and the blessing was the ability to pass this on - rather than as had been the case prior to the blessing, with Cain and Abel.
30The creation and destruction is not necessarily total. 'Creation of worlds' may refer to major changes in existing entities, rather than creation where nothing was before, and 'destruction of worlds' may refer to major surgery rather than to total annihilation. See for example Rambam regarding the hyperbolic language occaisionally employed by the prophets.
31 [Rabbi I. Lifchitz] "Drush Or Ha'chaim", 3: about one third from the beginning: "mikol he'amur": found in "Yakhin U'boaz" mishnayot, after Sanhedrin.
32 See discvussion re: the different wording in Gen.:"['kol' = the rest of (see Vayikra 4:7)] the beasts of the field" in the second account, as opposed to "the beasts of the land" in the first account. "The rest`' implying others.
33The Evolution Of Morality: According to the evolutionary theory, since life emerged from non-life, and since moral sensitivity is present in man but not in non-life, then the capacity for moral sensitivity must have arisen at some point between the emergence of non-life and the emergence of modern man. Indeed, since even apes do not have moral sensitivity/intelligence [we would not hold them morally responsible for their actions] then we can say that morality emerged somewhere between the present and the time of the first human mutations from apes. When would this have been?
Science does not yet have answers to this question: indeed science as science cannot regard 'morality' as anything of significance or as something of transcendental worth: many scientists even believe that it is a meaningless word. However that may be, it is clear that the feeling of possessing moral responsibility is present in humans, and is almost certainly not present in apes. Thus, it is a legitimate scientific question to ask when such feelings - or the capacity for them - arose.
Although it is possible that Neanderthal Man had some type of moral sense, it was probably not as well developed as that of the next mutation to appear on the scene, Cro-Magnon man. Thus, it is quite probable that morality arose only after Cro-Magnon man evolved. Indeed, as we have seen, moral codes become widespread only about 4,000 years ago in the time of Abraham and Hamurabi, so that it is quite possible that morality emerged only slightly prior to that, at the time of Adam about 6,000 years ago.
34 [Rabbi I. Lifchitz] "Drush Or Ha'chaim", 3: about one third from the beginning: "mikol he'amur": found in "Yakhin U'boaz" mishnayot, after Sanhedrin.
35See also the Talmud regarding the 974 generations of man prior to Adam See also Rambam regarding this?
36Deleted: There are two ways to resolve this problem.
1) One way is to make a distinction between Homo Voluntas and Homo Sapiens Sapiens. In this way, we interpret Genesis as indicating the emergence/creation of one 'true human' - Homo Voluntas - while allowing the contemporary existence of an entire race of non Homo Voluntas.
This however raises the question as to what happened to the descendants of these people. One can answer this in three ways. One, they are alive today. Two, that they perished in the flood, leaving only Adam's line of Moral Man alive. Three, that they died out in the evolutionary struggle with Adam's descendants. 2) Alternatively,
37 August Comte, founder of sociology, considered a human society as an organism, and saw the society rather than the individual man as the basic unit of Mankind. Some scientists studying 'emergent properties' such as mind and consciousness also consider the possibility thnat a new emergent level can arise when a sufficient number of individuals combine to form a society.[See section XX re Nouy etc.] Thus, it is possible that a moral being might only be possible as part of a race of moral beings. Alternatively, it might be that although one moral being could be created, a race of moral beings was created in order that there exist a higher level than that possible with one moral being alone.
38 Ibn Ezra on Genesis 2:8
39 See the "Avi Ezer".
40 in comenting on the words "na'aseh adam"[Gen. I:26]
41 Translation and commentary by Rabbi R. Pelcovitz.
42 Adam = 'of earth' = Man(kind) Eve = Khava = mother of life
43 Tosefta Sanhedrin 8 (See Kasher: Torah Shelema.1,765[p64])
44This would of course be a permissible act since there was no other way to fulfil Gd's express command to "be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth". The daughter of Lot committed incest in the same spirit, not knowing that mankind had survived.
45 R. Yokhanan: Nida 61a.
46 According to the Talmud, even when prophesying via Divine inspiration, the prophets spoke in their own words so that two prophets receiving the identical prophecy would formulate it in different ways.
Rambam explains that when the prophets speak, they do so in their own vocabulary and style:
"It must be borne in mind that every prophet has his own peculiar diction, which is, as it were, his language, and it is in that language that the prophecy addressed to him is communicated to those who understand it".
Rambam continues and notes that it may be the style of a particular prophet to greatly exagerate the level of destruction which has occurred, and to use metaphors which translate a local catastrophe to cosmic scale:
"...every prophet has his own peculiar diction...After this preliminary remark you will understand the metaphor frequently employed by Isaiah, and less frequently by other prophets, when they describe the ruin of a kingdom or the destruction of a great nation in phrases like the following; - "The stars have fallen," "The heavens are overthrown", "The sun is darkened", "the earth is waste, and trembles", and similar metaphors.
According to Rambam, the prophet may use the word "Mankind" when "a nation" is what is actually meant. In Rambam's words:
"Sometimes the prophet uses the term 'Mankind' instead of 'the people of a certain place', whose destruction they predict; for example, Isaiah, speaking of the destruction of Israel says, "and the Lord will remove Man far away" [Isaiah 6:12]. So also Zephania [I:3:4], "and I will cut off Man from off the earth". "
In addition, a severe Divine punishment can be described as though it were complete annihilation.In Rambam's words:
"..[as in the passage] 'Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the day of His fierce anger'[Isaiah13:23]. I do not think that any person is so foolish and blind, and so much in favour of the the literal sense of figurative and oratorical phrases, as to assume that at the fall of Babylonian kingdom a change took place in the nature of the stars of the heaven, or in the light of the sun and moon, or that the earth moved away from its center. For all this is merely the description of a country that has been defeated."
Based on the approach of Rambam outlined above, one can perhaps interpret a prophet's description of the complete annihilation of Mankind as actually referring to the severe punishment of one particular nation .
47 Tiferet yisrael 32
48 Malbim on Gen.6:2 regarding "the sons of elohim"
49 Since they are not moral beings, they are not responsible for their actions, and cannot be punished by Gd. Therefore, they were not destroyed by the flood, and they have to be defeated in battle by the Jewish people: in the desert, by Shaul, and in the time of Mordecai and Esther -- and perhaps in later times as well.
50 Referring to the doctrine that only one individual was created, and that the entire human race descends from this one individual, Adam.
51 According to Ibn Ezra, 'via the energy of the sun'. That is, via natural processes.
52 Guide III:50.
53 Roman Catholics are permitted to believe in the theory of evolution, but as at best an incomplete theory, since it cannot - or does not 'wish' to - account for the origin of the soul in man. In addition, it is a dogma of the Roman Catholic church that only one man was created - in order to provide support for their doctrine of the "Fall of Man" which had to encompass all mankind. Thus, they believe in evolution, but only as a partially correct incomplete theory. See the "monogenist theory of human evolution" in the encyclical of Pius XII "Humani Generis":1950.
54 "Guide" I:7
55 Chava was not a full free willed moral being? Is that why she gave Adam the "fruit"?
56The predecessors and contemporaries of Adam were not H. Voluntas, and were thus not moral beings, were not the being 'created in the image of Gd' who was imbued with "the breath of Gd"; only Adam, the first H. Voluntas, was a being "in the image of Gd" and thus creation begins with his emergence, and he is considered the first man.
57 According to the Rambam, anyone with the proper intellectual attainments can become a prophet if Gd decides to allow him to be one [ SOURCE ] . However, according to Rabi Yehuda HaLevi - the Kuzari - the inherent ability to receive prophecy, to be part of 'segulah', is genetic . That is, not only proper intellectual attainments are necessary, but also a certain genetic endowment is a prerequisite for the capability to receive that transmission from the Divine which we term prophecy....[Kuzari 1:95]
58 However some of Noakh's genes and of his wife's genes, were of the non-moral line and therefore his children were representative of both types. Shem the moral being, Yafet the creative artist and Kham the the warrior.
59 We do not deal here with the age-old philosophical problems relating to the difficulty of a purely spiritual entity interacting with a purely physical entity - we deal here only with problems raised by the instant universe idea. See chapter 1 page 2 note 6, and part II chapter X note re: the garden of Eden account.
60 All mankind, and perhaps to a certain degree all living beings since they, as man, are called "ruakh" and "nefesh" in the Bible.
61 These words are in quotations because they are not scientific [genetic] terms - they are more defined in terms of sociology than genetics.
March 17 1991
Chapter 3c
Introduction
In this chapter we will deal with questions which arise within the context of the instant universe model of Genesis. These questions are related to the creation of woman, the uniqueness of Adam and Eve, population figures, and the idea of Man's possesion of a 'soul'.
In section 0 we present the questions which we intend to deal with in this chapter. In section I, we present the solutions.
In section II we present traditional sources which seem to support the notion that an entire race of moral beings were created along with Adam and Eve.
In section III we investigate the uniqueness of Adam: Adam as a mutation - the first Homo Voluntas, or Adam as a major genius who exploited the potential latent in his contemporaries.
In section IV we deal with questions regarding the human "soul".
Section 0 Difficulties to be Dealt With
1) According to population experts there were 20 million people in the world of 5,000 years ago. According to our instant universe scenario, actual creation took place approximately 6,000 years ago. If indeed only one human pair existed 6,000 years ago, how did this pair increase to 20 million people in only one thousand years [an increase of 10 million times, whereas the population increase in the last 1,000 years has been from 400 million to 5 billion which is only 12 times!]
2) Another seeming conflict derives from the different origins of woman in the two approaches. In Genesis we are told of the creation of woman from man, whereas evolutionary theory explains woman as an equally evolved member of the species, rather than as evolving from man.
3) According to Genesis, there were two people alive 6,000 years ago. However, as evidenced by the remains of ancient cities1, pottery, weapons, skeletal bones, etc. and as required by the theory of evolution, there must have been quite a few human beings alive 6,000 years ago. Indeed, Homo Sapiens Sapiens arose approximately 60,000 years ago and thus had some 55,000 years to multiply and spread before this date.
If only one pair of humans existed 6,000 years ago, what happened to the millions of their contemporaries predicted by evolutionary theory? And if there did indeed exist these others, then in what way were Adam and Eve the first humans?
4) According to religious ideas, Man posseses a non-physical aspect - his 'soul' . However, if man evolved from non-Man - which do not possess souls - how did man acquire a soul. In addition, how is it that a non-physical aspect like a soul can be passed on to on to the next generation.
For the most part, we will present two types of solutions to the preceding difficulties. One is based on a completely literal understanding of Genesis and the other on a combined literal-allegorical approach.
Section I
1) Population numbers
If man began in Eden 6,000 years ago, as a single pair, he could indeed have reached a population of 20 million people 5,000 years ago.
Populations are able to grow very quickly.2 At growth rates of about 4 children per family on the average, which gives a doubling of population every 35 years3 the descendants of one couple would number 8 million in only 800 years, and 20 million in about 850 years! Thus, if creation began with only Adam and Eve, then in 850 years, they would have 20 million descendants. Since they lived 6,000 years ago, they could easily have given rise to a population of 20 million 4,500 years ago, that is, 1,200 years after creation. Indeed, with a green, fruitful earth empty before them, with "all the room in the world" to expand into, it is likely that this increase would take place even more quickly.
2) Creation of woman. In Genesis we are told of the creation of woman from man, whereas evolutionary theory explains woman as an equally evolved member of the species, rather than as evolving from man.
a) literal approach
One can easily resolve this problem in the same manner as we resolved the creation account itself: After the creation of woman, the laws of nature were "modified" by Gd to include male and female humans. This makes sense, since one expects that the completed laws of nature would begin to operate only after creation was completed, and creation could only be considered as completed after woman was created.
We can interpret Gd's "resting" from creation as being synonymous with Gd's institution of "laws of nature" to run the universe . We thus identify the onset of the rule of natural law with the Sabbath, which ocurred only after the creation of woman. Thus the creation of woman preceeded the establishment of the laws of nature, and therefore cannot be a 'contradiction' to them.
b) Partially-Allegorical Approach
I) According to evolutionary theory there had to be a first human, and that human would not have a human contemporary to take for a spouse since the mutation to human would occur only once in a million years. If the first human was male, then there would be no human female. The first human female could of necessity only be his child or descendant, 'flesh of my flesh' as Adam states in Genesis. They would be the first human pair.
Observation by this first human would reveal that all living beings had mates. A search for a mate from the living beings inhabiting the world would be fruitless. The existential loneliness of the first human being would be profound, and could be alleviated only by 'flesh of my flesh'. All this is described in Genesis.
II) According to the creation account as remembered by most people, man was created alone, a single male individual without any contemporaries. From this man, a woman was later created. However, careful reading of the Torah will show that this is inexact.
In the first creation account, the species 'man' is created in male and female types from the very outset. The idea that the male, Adam, preceded the female, Eve, is only developed in the second account. The second account, however, is quite possibly meant allegorically, as Rambam states4. Thus if we interpret the first account literally, but the second allegorically, there is no conflict.
However, even if we interpret the second creation account more literally, it is difficult to imagine that a male human would be created if no female were existent or planned . The very factors which define a male as such, would be meaningless and superfluous in the absence of a female, and even undefined before the idea of a female human was created. Thus it would seem most logical to assume that, as indeed stated by the Midrash, the Adam which preceded Eve was not male, but was rather either a neuter or a combination of what was later separated into male and female 5 6.
Indeed, since no command was given to the original Human to multiply until after woman was created, there was no need for any reproduction mechanism at all in the original Human. Thus, this Human (Ha'adam) was probably not 'male', and perhaps without gender at all. Therefore, since there could be no 'man' without 'woman', 'man' was created only when woman was produced out of Ha'adam. That is, man and woman as such were created simultaneously out of Ha'adam.
This "Ha'adam" is the evolutionary predecessor of the first true human beings, and male and female coexisted as demanded by the origin theory.
3) Adam and Eve as Sole Original Humans (Monogenesis). According to Genesis, it would seem that only one pair of humans existed 6,000 years ago. According to evolutionary theory there should have been millions. If only one pair of humans existed 6,000 years ago, what happened to the millions of their contemporaries predicted by evolutionary theory? And if there did indeed exist these others, then in what way were Adam and Eve the first humans?
These millions also should have many descendents alive today. Are there then people living today who are not descended from Adam? If not, why did they disappear?
Scientific Monogenesis
It has long been recognized by many evolutionary biologists that all life emanates from a common source. The famous mathematical-physicist Hermann Weyl writes as follows7:
"Considerations of evolution in the large will of necessity lead to the question of the origin of life. The evidence of genetics makes one incline to see in life the chance success of a play of creative accidents. Not some predictable macrophysical or macrochemical process, that with a certain natural necessity came to pass at a certain stage of evolution - and would repeat itself wherever the appropriate conditions prevailed - seems responsible for the historic beginnings of life, but a molecular event of singular character, occurring once by accident, and then starting an avalanche by autocatalytic multiplication (P. Jordan). Jordan adduces as a strong argument for this opinion "the fact that all the more complicated molecules found in plants and animals, especially the protein molecules, are stereochemically different from their mirror images". Indeed had they an independent origin at many places and many times their levo- and dextro-varieties should show nearly the same abundance. Thus it looks as if there is some truth in the story of Adam and Eve, if not for the origin of mankind then for that of the most primitive forms of life."
It is now becoming evident however, that there is yet more truth to the story of Adam and Eve: a specific gene has been traced in the various races of Man which indicates that it derives from a common ancestress who lived about 100,000 years ago.
Thus comparative genetics indicates that all mankind existing today is descended from one genetic line, which mutated from the parent line about 100,000 years ago 8. Thus even according to evolutionary theory, all humankind is descended from one original progenitor just as in Genesis. Fittingly, evolutionary geneticists have dubbed her "Eve" 9.
Thus science and Genesis agree that:
1) The universe emerged out of nothing, and is not eternal;
2)All life is descended from a single original life form;
3) All Mankind is descended from one unique ancestral human being.
Biblical Monogenesis vs. Scientific Monogenesis
There is a seeming conflict between genetics and Genesis around the issue of when this progenitor lived. According to evolutionary theory it was 60,000 years ago when the first Homo Sapiens Sapiens (Cro-Magnon Man) evolved, while according to the Torah, the species we refer to today as Man emerged only 6,000 years ago.
Thus according to evolutionary theory, by the time Adam and Eve lived 6,000 years ago, they would have had many Homo Sapiens Sapiens contemporaries. However, Genesis seems to imply that this human being had no predecessors and no contemporaries, only descendents. If only Adam and Eve existed, then why did they have no contemporaries? How did they disappear? And if they did have contemporaries, and yet we are all descended only from Adam and Eve, what happened to the descendants of their contemporaries? On the other hand, if we are the descendants of these other people, then in what way are Adam and Eve our progenitors?
There are various ways to reconcile these discrepancies, depending on how literally Genesis is interpreted.
Literal Approach
After creating Adam and Eve as detailed in Genesis10, Gd put the universe into a big-bang-emergent moral-universe-state. Thus effectively there were created an entire race of moral beings, and we are descended from them.
Or: after the flood, and tower of Babel incident, Gd put the universe into a big-bang-emergent moral-universe-state.
Purely Allegorical Interpretation
Gd created a big bang specifically designed to give rise to free willed conscious beings. Genesis is all allegorical, and is meant to teach us various moral rules [see mishna Sanhedrin quoted below] as well as containing many mystical secrets.
Partially Allegorical Interpretations
A number of approaches are possible which can resolve the apparent discrepancy. They are sketched briefly below, and are then discussed in more detail in the following.
1) Cro-Magnon Man was the first moral being, and he is the Biblical 'Adam'. However, he lived 60,000 years ago, as science states, rather than 6,000 years ago as is implied in a literal reading of the Bible.
2) Cro-Magnon Man was genetically capable of being Moral Man, but to actually become one required the development of latent abilities - and a recognition of the concepts of good and evil - which only a supreme genius could achieve. The first such was Adam, who was born about six thousand years ago11.
The rest of mankind was then able to follow his example, so that all eventually became 'moral man'.
3) Adam was a genetic mutation from Cro-Magnon Man. The descendants of his non-Cro-Magnon contemporaries:
a)are alive today and are not Moral Man;
b) all died out i)in the flood;
ii) in the struggle for survival.
4) Gd created a big bang and an evolving universe, in which a human race prior to ours arose. The events recounted in Genesis occured after the disappearance of this prior race.
5) After the events recounted in Genesis, Gd created the universe as an instant universe, at the stage of the existence of an entire race of Moral Man.
6) When the Torah speaks of Adam, it is referring to the race of Man. The entire race of Cro-Magnon Man was simultaneously transformed into a race of Moral Man 6,000 years ago, via race-wide mental 'rite of passage'.
Discussion of the options
Option 1) Adam did indeed live 60,000 years ago, and the geneology in Genesis is meant allegorically.
The creation date is not given explicitly in the Bible. The date of the emergence of the first human can be known only via the geneology given after the creation account. If we interpret the Genesis creation account as being meant totally literally, but take the geneology given afterwards as being allegorical, we have no problem of dates12.
We can then accept the date given by science - say 60,000 years ago - rather than the usually inferred date of 6,000 years ago. If we do this, the other difficulties disappear.
Option 2) Moral Man is genetically Cro-Magnon Man, who evolved 60,000 years ago. Mankind of 60,000 years ago was genetically Moral Man, however the moral consciousness was only latent. True free willed choice is possible only through the exercise of a combination of intelligent analysis, foresight and strength of will. It therefore required a unique genius to come along and first realize this latent potential. Adam - who lived 6,000 years ago - was this genius, and was therefore the first true Moral Man. Following his teachings, the rest of Humanity learned to exercise their free will as well.
In the religious view, the emergence of this first free willed conscious intelligent being allowed the onset of purpose. The Biblical perspective classifies beings according to categories relating to purpose. From this perspective, the predecessors of the first free-willed conscious being - since they lacked intelligent free willed consciousness - are classified with the animals. Only the first free-willed being is a 'human' being, and is 'in the image of Gd'13.
Thus, although Cro-Magnon Man existed for about 50,000 years before Adam, we are told that it was Adam who was the first human, and therefore the only human of his time, since he was the first Moral man.
Genesis and the origin theories agree that the race of modern man 'began' at some point, that there was a 'first man'. However from the categories of science and of religion 'human' is defined differently, and therefore the date of emergence of the 'first human' is different.
Option 3 : Introduction
Physical science does not recognize free will as a qualitatively unique physical phenomenon, but rather as a psychological phenomenon. Therefore evolutionary genetics can consider an intelligent conscious being with free will as genetically identical to one lacking free will.
Science does not deal in categories of purpose, and therefore the ability to exercize free will and become a moral being is not considered scientifically significant. However, religious philosophy would certainly make a great distinction between free-willed man and non-free-willed man.
We assume here that free-willed man is genetically different from non-free-willed man. That is, Adam was a genetic mutation from Cro-Magnon Man. He, and therefore we, are Moral Man, as opposed to Cro-Magnon Man14 . To say that the descendants of Adam's Cro-Magnon contemporaries are alive today and are not Moral Man is very problematic15. Instead we postulate that all people alive today are Moral Man, and that Cro-Magnon Man died out i)in the flood; ii) in the struggle for survival.
i) All mankind today derives from Noah and Noah was a direct descendant of Adam (the lineage is given in Genesis). Thus, even if there were human contemporaries of Adam, they died in the flood, and only Adam's line remained - leaving us all as descendants of a single unique pair. In this sense as well - as the only humans whose descendants survived - Adam and Eve were the "sole" progenitors of the human race. Indeed, since the Torah was given to a world populated only by Adam's descendants (because of the "selection" caused by the flood), and Adam was a species apart (Homo Voluntas - as were therefore his descendants) it is quite reasonable to speak of Adam and Eve as the only ancestors of man, and of Adam and Eve therefore as the only "humans" at creation-time16.
This interpretation is however problematic because we solve one difficulty - that of the creation account and evolutionary theory - only by involving ourselves in another conflict - between the Biblical flood account and geological science17.
ii) All non-Moral Man died out somehow over the years leaving the Earth to the descendants of the first moral being. Similar disappearances are postulated in evolutionary theory, as explained below.
Only an individual can mutate, not an entire race. Those individual apes which mutated suffiently severely have given rise to other species. However, such severe mutation is a very rare phenomenon, XXXXXXand therefore virtually all of the members of previous races would not have mutated, and their presence should seemingly be felt today as well.
We know that there was a race of humans different than ourselves long ago since traces remain in the form of skeletal bones and artifacts. This race has been named 'Neanderthal Man', and lived about 100,000 years ago. In the last 100,000 years, only a very few Neanderthalers - if any at all - would have mutated in a manner sufficiently severely so as to produce a new race. Therefore the original Neanderthal species should continue to exist as it was, alongside the newly emerging mutated race or races.
Thus even if we were the mutated race, the Neanderthalers should still be in evidence today. However, no Neanderthalers exist nowadays. Similarly so for the Australopithecans and so on. Similarly, there are no races today existent which are the intermediary races between humans and apes. According to evolutionary theory, our progenitors did have contemporaries, all of whose lines eventually died out - leaving only our line to dominate the earth.
Today's scientific theory says that modern man descends from a different evolutionary line than did Neanderthal man, and that the two were contemporaries and rivals. It is held that the Neanderthalers died out possibly through competition with modern man's ancestors. Similarly so for any other parallely-evolved "humans" - they have all died out, leaving Homo Sapiens Sapiens (Cro-magnon man) to inherit the earth.
In our terms we state this as follows: the race descended from Adam survived, but the race of Adam's contemporaries did not. Why did they not survive?
As we have seen, "Adam" was the first successful moral being, "Homo Voluntas". If this heightened perception was genetic in nature18, it may have helped give his descendants a higher survival factor, making them "fitter" in the selection sense ("survival of the fittest")19.
Perhaps the moral sense allowed united civilizations to appear for the first time - this would give Homo Voluntas a clear survival advantage over Homo Sapiens Non-Voluntas. Alternatively, the genetic change which led to the ability to use free will almost certainly led to a far greater range of choice in any activity - to heightened originality, creativity and productivity. This would given an overwhelming advantage to Adam's descendants. The race of Adam's parents would eventually disappear, losers in the competitive struggle for existence.
Since only Adam's line lived on, and all modern man stems from Homo Voluntas, the non-Voluntas beings are not considered of our species, and thus Adam is considered to have been the only "human being" and to be the father of all future human beings.
Conclusion: Thus we can read Genesis and the origin theory as agreeing that:
a) The universe emerged out of nothing, and is not eternal;
b)All life is descended from a single original life form;
c)All Mankind is descended from one unique ancestral human being: the predecessors and contemporaries of this common ancestor were not 'human', and all the descendants of these non-humans eventually died out.
Option 4)According to the Talmud and Midrash, "Gd created and destroyed worlds" prior to the creation detailed in Genesis20. It is not clear however whether this implies the creation of worlds prior to the very creation of heaven and earth - i.e. the creation of prior universes, or it is referring to the creation of planets within the universe whose creation is described in Genesis. And, if it refers to the creation of planets within the universe of Genesis, it is not clear whether the reference is to planets other than earth, or to the planet earth prior to the creation of Adam.
In the last mentioned case, this would mean that Adam was not necessarily the first human on our planet. Indeed, the Tifferet Yisrael21 stated that fossil remains may bear witness to such pre-Adamic man. Similarly, according to R. Shimon Schwab, Adam was not necessarily the first human-like being22.
We can perhaps interpret the "creation of worlds" as taking place via a divinely instituted natural law - via an evolutionary process. One could then say that life - and man - originally arose on Earth via evolution. Then at some stage Gd "destroyed the world" which arose this way, and created Adam as described in Genesis.
Thus Genesis is not in conflict with the evolutionary theory's description of the origin of pre-Adamite man, and with its conclusion that the humanoid fossils discovered are the remnants of evolved man of many thousands of years ago.
However, Adam was a unique creation, and had no similar contemporaries. Furthermore, mankind today is descended from Adam, and not from the evolved pre-Adamite humans whose fossils have been discovered.
Option 5) Although this is not stated explicitly in the creation account, Gd at some point put the universe into a complete big-bang-emergent state with a complete race of moral beings. This took place after the events related in the creation account.
Option 6) Genesis relates the creation of a race of moral man, rather than of an individual. Thus as regards the presence of contemporaries of Adam, there is no contradiction between the situation as depicted tuin Genesis and as implied by the origin theory. For an exploration of this idea in depth, see Appendix "Individual or Race".
Summary
If we wish to interpret the geneology literally, so that Adam and Eve lived 6,000 years ago, there is a conflict.
According to the origin theory, 6,000 years ago there lived 8 million true human beings, not two, and these 8 million were descended from a line of humans stretching back 60,000 years.
All such problems are resolved by the supposition that after creating as detailed in Genesis, Gd put the universe into a big-bang-emergent-moral-stage-universe. This allows a purely 'literal' interpretation of Genesis.
We can also resolve the apparent contradiction via a less literal approach.
We have seen that moral thought probably arose only about 6,000 years ago. We can then interpret Genesis to be depicting the emergence of moral thought among Cro-Magnon Man, where Adam is the first such moral man.
Of course in such a scenario Adam had contemporaries who were Cro-Manon as was he, but as the first Moral Man he is considered to be the first true human. His difference from the ordinary Cro-Magnon might be genetic - a mutation - or it might be that he was a 'super-genius'.
Alternatively, Adam was the first Cro-Magnon man, and lived about 60,000 years ago.
In any case we can see that the entire creation account can - within this framework - be interpreted even literally without conflicting with science.
Section IV) The origin of the soul, and its transmission
We are told that man possesses a 'soul', and that this is what distinguishes him from the animals. However, if man is descended from the animals, how is it that he has a soul, and they do not? In addition, once the soul is acquired, how is it passed on to others ?
If indee the 'soul' were a genetically determined entity, the first being to evolve with sufficiently 'advanced' genes would possess a soul , and pass it on genetically to its progeny. However, the 'soul' is then a purely physical entity, whereas by definition the soul, as man's connection to the spiritual realm, must be a spiritual23 entity, not a physical one.
[For elaboration on various related matters see "APPENDIX SOUL" at end of this section.]
The genetics of soul
When one speaks of a 'soul' one must distinguish between the 'necessary' and 'sufficient' conditions that have to be fulfilled in order for a being to 'possess' a soul.
Let us take an analogy: in order to 'listen to the radio', one must have, as a necessary condition, a functioning, powered radio. However, this is not a sufficient condition. There must also be a transmitter which is broadcasting, and among other things, the radio must be tuned to the same frequency as the transmitter. Similarly so with the soul.
In order for the spiritual realm to interact with the physical realm in the sense which a 'soul' does, it is necessary that the being be of a highly developed type with a certain genetic structure etc. This however is not a sufficient condition - it is merely the specification that there is a 'receiver'. It is also necessary that there be the transmitter, i.e. the spiritual realm reaching out to the physical being. In addition, the being must 'tune' his consciousness to the proper 'channel', in order to feel the 'soul', to 'tune in' and 'resonate' with the spiritual.
This genetic potential to tune in to the spiritual can be inherited genetically. The spiritual realm is constantly reaching out to man, and anyone with the potential24 can tune in and 'possess a soul' if they choose to do so. Thus, a 'soul' is more of an interaction, a reception, than an entity by itself. It is not a 'thing' that can be inherited or given. Rather, it is 'a phenomenon' available to all beings with the requisite genetic structure.
Thus it is easily comprehensible how it can be that physical birth can allow transmission of a transcendant 'soul' from a mother, and how the origin of a transcendant soul paralleled physical genetic development.
APPENDIX "SOUL"
Torah: a Way, not dogma
Before we answer these questions regarding the origin and transmission of the soul, it should be pointed out that in Judaism there are no generally accepted dogmas concerning the existence of the soul, the nature of the soul, and so on. Indeed, some people claim that there are no dogmas whatsoever in Judaism! Judaism is a Way of life, not (merely) a set of beliefs. Of course, along with this Way - and as an explanation of the necessity, benefit, trueness of the Way - come the basic concepts of the existence of Gd, of life after death, of good and evil, etc. That is, these latter ideas are not 'dogmas', they are simply the realities which explain the source of the Jewish Way , the reasons to follow the Way, etc.
Thus, questions of where the soul comes from, what it is, how it operates, who has one, etc. are not really important issues in Judaism. Rather, the important question is: what is one to do in order to achieve one's Purpose.
The answer to this question is: to live life according to the Way as set out in the oral and written Torah. Questions about the nature of the soul, about the existence of angels, etc. etc. are not only not dogma-related, but they can be entirely superfluous to a proper following of the Way25.
Torah and the Soul
In light of the previous discussion, and in the context of that discussion, we do not consider the issues we will be dealing with here as crucial ones; rather, it is simply a desire to present a complete theory which motivates the presentation of this discussion.
Indeed, the Written Torah nowhere speaks unequivocally of an afterlife, and never speaks of the 'soul' as a transcendent entity 26. Rather, the Torah merely tells us that Gd breathed into man "the spirit of life" - 'nishmas khayim' - and that man is created in Gd's Tzelem ["image"]. These are of course significant differences between man and animal, but nowhere is anything built on this explicitly. Man and animal are both called "living souls" in Genesis [Nefesh Khaya] and man and animal possess a spirit [ruakh] 27, so that "soul" and "spirit" as used in the Bible do not mean the transcendent "soul" of religious philosophy, but could very well connote a physical property. Man however is the only being into which Gd breathed a 'nishmas khayim'.
Of course, one can correlate the fact that Man was given the Torah and the ability to choose freely between good and evil with the fact that man was created in the Tzelem of Gd, and was infused with 'the spirit of life' (by Gd). From this correlation, one can then build many philosophical speculations - but this is not done in the Written Torah; the 'soul' as we know it plays no part in it. And, that part of the Oral Torah which does deal with such matters, does so in an ambiguous manner, so that no one interpretation can be given precedence over another. Thus, not only are questions and issues regarding the 'soul' not dogma-related, and possibly superfluous to the Way, but they are based on human interpretations, extrapolations and philosophies, and not on Torah itself.
The Torah teaches man that he possesses a free will, that good and evil exists, that he can choose good over evil. The Torah then sets out what is the good and what is the evil. It is then man's responsibility, according to the Torah, to follow this path. Everyone, all mankind, must do good and refrain from evil; there is no mention of a "soul" at all. Those who can understand the Torah, must follow it. Deciding who it is that can understand it, and who is really obeying, are matters left to Gd.
The sole responsibility of Gd
What is a soul, who possesses it, how it is received, transmitted etc. are all matters pertaining to the 'spiritual realm' and are decided by Gd according to a Wisdom which is probably beyond us. It is not necessary for example to determine the exact moment at which a human foetus 'receives a soul'. Rather, it is only necessary to know that which is relevant to actual life. E.g., at what point is killing a foetus prohibited ? This question has nothing to do with the question of when a transcendent 'soul' develops etc. Rather it is a 'legality' which has to be decided based on the Torah teachings. Similarly it is not for us to examine people for souls etc. - we must follow the Torah and leave these 'examinations' to Gd.
In any case, there is no reason that one must suppose that there exists a 'rule' determining who gets a soul, when and how. Thus, there may be no way for us to methodologically decide these matters. However, there is of course no need for us to do so! This is a job for which Gd is quite well qualified.
END APPENDIX "SOUL"
Appendix: Biblical Creation: An Individual or a Race ?
According to scientific origin theory, if there was a man named Adam who lived 6,000 years ago, he would have had many contemporaries and predecessors of the same species as himself.
The idea that there existed human predecessors of Adam is not an idea which negates Jewish belief. According to the "Tifferet Yisrael"28, since the Midrash states that Gd created and destroyed worlds before creating the world as detailed in Genesis, it is quite possible that the fossils found by archeologists are the bones of humans who lived on Earth before Adam29.
According to Rav Shimon Schwab, there may have existed semi-human beings prior to Adam , beings without free will, beings not created 'in the image of Gd' . These were the 'prehistoric men' whose remains have been discovered during the last hundred and fifty years[see below].
The question of the contemporaries of Adam is more complicated. According to Jewish tradition, it would seem that at the time of creation only Adam was created. However, according to the instant universe scenario, the creation must have included many people, since it was actualized as a late stage in its development many years after man first evolved. Indeed, according to evolutionary population theory etc. there were approximately 8 million people on the Earth 6,000 years ago.
30 The difficulty can of course be resolved if one could read Genesis as describing the creation of an entire race of Homo Voluntas, so that Adam had contemporaries of his own type. The creation of 'Adam' at the moral stage would then be understood as the emergence/creation of a race of potentially-moral beings at the stage of the emergence of the first moral action by a member of that race31.
The potential difficulty with this approach is that the Bible traditionally is taken to speak about the creation of Man as the creation of an individual, who then fathered the race of Man, not the creation of the race itself.
However, if we look at the Biblical text, we are left with the impression that it is ambiguous on this point.
Rav Shimon Schwab notes that the first and second creation account differ in the term used for the beings created prior to the creation of Adam. In the first account, the Torah speaks of "kol khayat ha'sadeh" ["all the animals of the field"] whereas the second speaks of "khayat ha'aretz" [the animals of the land"]. Furthermore, he points out that the word "kol" means "the rest of" as in Leviticus [Vayikra] 4:7, and that the Talmud speaks of a man-like being called the "adnei ha'sadeh" ["the masters(?) of the field"]. Thus, the phrase "kol khayat ha'sadeh" in the first creation account may be referring to the creation of a race of man-like beings prior to the creation of Man.
According to Ibn Ezra [1089-1164], there is a secret hidden in the word "Ha'Adam". The Bible uses the term "Ha'Adam" rather than " Adam" and Ibn Ezra calls this distinction a "secret" of the Torah32. Ibn Ezra may be hinting that an entire race of humans was created at the time of Adam, and that this is why the Torah calls it "Ha'Adam" - "the species Man" - rather than "Adam" - the individual named "Man":
However, some commentators on Ibn Ezra disagree33.
Sforno34 indicates the same point, that a species called "Man" was created. [Translation and commentary taken from "Artscroll Sforno"35:]
As we have seen above, the first creation account can be interpreted as implying that an entire race of Man was created; in such case, it is only the second creation account, which speaks of the garden of Eden and the emergence of morality, which speaks of two individuals, Adam and Eve. And, as we have seen, the second account can/must be taken at least partially allegorically. Even there, the language used implies a generic 'man' and 'woman' rather than a specific man and woman (Ha'adam and Ha'isha). It is only after the Tree of Knowledge incident, when Gd is describing the limitations of the new reality they have entered, that language is used which indicates reference to particular people - to a man named "Adam" and his "wife" named "Eve"36.
insert pasuk
We can understand this as follows: a complete evolutionary background for moral man was created [remember: the universe was in a complete, big bang emergent state] which meant that pre-moral man was created along with Adam, the first moral man. Thus, in speaking of creation in general, we are told of the creation of the race of man; then, afterwards, we are told of the emergence [mutation or genius] of the first moral man. Obviously the first moral man must have been an individual, and just as obviously he must have emerged from within an entire race of human beings [via mutation, or as a genius]. Thus, there is no contradiction between the two accounts.
If the Bible is read literally, then Adam can be considered as a mutation whose descendants we are - via Noah - and thus Adam was unique, the first true human being, as tradition states.
However, if one does not wish to consider Adam as a mutation, but rather as a genius who arose from within Cro Magnon Man, there is not necessarily any conflict with tradition, for we can interpret creation as being the creation of a race of moral beings.
The source available to us for the tradition that Adam was the only created man is the Mishnah in Sanhedrin (Talmud: San. 37A), and the Midrash :
"AND GD CREATED MAN. Gd created only one man at first. Why? Lest the righteous boast that they are the descendants of a righteous first man, whilst the wicked plead that their first progenitor was evil. Another reason: So that families should not quarrel with each other. For if now, when man was created alone (and all have one common ancestor), there is strife, how much more so had two men been created! A further reason: On account of robbers and men of violence. If such exist even now that man was created alone (and they really rob their own kith and kin), how much more so if two had been created! Yet another explanation is this: Man was created alone to demonstrate Gd's greatness, that with a single die He created the entire world."
Also: "lest people say "there are many creators because there were many created beings in the image of Gd""[i.e. each god created a man in its image] 37.
It seems clear from this Mishna that the reason one should not kill or rob and so on is not simply because all Man is descended from one ancestor, but rather that even were we to be descended from many, killing and robbing would be just as forbidden. It is only the pedagogical lesson which differs in the two instances: it is easier to teach morality when one can say that all Mankind are brothers.
Certainly of course Gd could have created many humans simultaneously, and this would be perfectly in consonance with the rest of the Torah. Certainly it would make no difference whatsoever to the immorality of killing and robbing. The important thing would be for the Torah to state that one Man was created in order that people learn a moral lesson from this. However, it may well be that in actuality many were created, and that the ambiguity in the Torah whether "Adam" means "one man named Man" or "a race called Man" was deliberate, for the pedagogical reasons explored in the mishna above..
Furthermore, evolutionary theory agrees with the mishna that all mankind is descended from one individual, and one can accept the description of creation of Adam as representing both the creation of the first human, and the eventual emergence of an entire race from this individual.
Therefore, it may not be necessarily a point of dogma to insist that "Adam" meant an individual as opposed to a race.
Creation of a Race Rather Than an Individual: Biblical Indications
One can perhaps find some supports for the idea that there were human contemporaries of Adam from the Bible itself. A reading of the three creation accounts--the first five chapters of Genesis--reveals the following details.
One hundred thirty years after creation a son was born to Adam [5:3]. Adam declares that this son is a gift of Gd to replace Hevel who had been killed by Kayin, and as a result names this son "Sheth" ("appointed" or "sent" {by Gd}) [[4:25].
From this we see that no male children had been born to Adam since the births of Kayin and Hevel, and also that Hevel had been killed within the first 130 years after creation. Nevertheless, Kayin, when cursed by Gd to wander the Earth, expresses the fear that "anyone that finds me will slay me". Of whom was he afraid?
Hevel died childless, Adam would not kill his own son, and surely Kayin was not afraid of his own children, especially as he didn't have any yet! If there were no other male humans about, of whom was he afraid?
We are also told [4:17] that Kayin built a city in the land of Nod. If there were no other people about, why was there a name to the land before Kayin arrived, and for whom did he build his city? Another problem is presented by the question of whom Kayin and Lamekh and so on married. One can say that the births of female children were simply not recorded, however we have seen that only three male children were born to Adam over a period of hundreds of years. It is therefore quite possible that no daughters at all were born to Adam. We see also that the wives of Lamekh are mentioned by name, and so one cannot presume that women were simply ignored by the Bible. Indeed, the geneologies of Sarah, Rivka, Rachel and Leah are recorded, and one might expect that the geneologies of the first few matriarchs of the human race would be recorded as well.
Further, regarding the birth of Sheth, we are told "Adam again knew his wife", implying that he had not done so since the births of Kayin and Hevel -- so that no daughters could have been born. In fact, had there not been any other human contemporaries of Adam, then Kayin could only have married his mother or his sister. Surely this detail is significant, and would be mentioned by the Bible38. Instead, the Bible tells us that "Kayin knew his wife" [4:17] rather than "Kayin knew his sister".
In addition, it is clear that there were other types of beings present on the Earth at least at a later stage -- the mysterious "Nefilim", and "bnei Elohim" [6:1-6:7] who interbred with the female children of Adam's line. When were these daughters of Adam born? After Noah had reached the age of 500 years, we are told "And it came to pass, when Adam's line began to multiply on the face of the Earth, and daughters were born to them, and the 'distinguished men' saw the daughters of Adam's line. . . and took of them wives. . . "
This seems to imply that daughters were not born to Adam's line for a few generations, until after they had spread out across the face of the Earth. Who then were the wives and mothers of all these people? Surely Eve was not the wife of all her male children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren!
And who were these "distinguished men" -- "bnei haElohim" -- who were not of Adam's line? Man, and the Jewish people, are called "my sons" by Gd in the Bible. In the third person, this is equivalent to 'the sons of Gd'. In fact, the wording, "I will erase the Adam which I have created" indicates the existence of two races named 'Adam' [6:7]: the "Adam which I created" as opposed to another Adam - perhaps one which arose evolutionarilywithin the created universe rather than as a direct creation. That is, non-Moral-Man.
Perhaps they were the non-mutated, non-moral-man, Homo Sapiens Sapiens rather than the Adamite Homo Sapiens Sapiens Voluntas. Perhaps they are called "bnei Elohim" to tell us that they were the "prior creation" of Elohim, creations not possessed of moral consciousness and therefore not capable of good or evil, and therefore not requiring the Divine aspect of mercy called "Hashem" - but capable of being ruled by Midat Ha'din - by "Elohim".
Then perhaps, it was when non-Moral-Man males took Moral-Man-females that problems began, with a corruption of the Adamite line, leading to the necessity of a new beginning, from Noah, the direct descendent of Adam.
Of course there are answers to all these questions given by the Midrash, consistent with the picture of Adam as sole human. However, from P'shat - the direct meaning of the words - it would seem that there were other humans. And in actuality it can be seen that this reading is not in conflict with the traditional interpretation since these contemporaries of Adam were not moral-man, and were not truly human in the sense meant by the Bible. Instead, they were the evolutionary predecessors of the first moral being, Adam, or alternatively they were seperate and prior creations.
Indeed, according to Rambam (Guide I:7):
"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat (va-yoled) a son in his own likeness, in his form" (Gen. v. 3). As regards the words, "the form of Adam, and his likeness," we have already stated (ch. i.) their meaning. Those sons of Adam who were born before that time were not human in the true sense of the word, they had not "the form of man." With reference to Seth who had been instructed, enlightened and brought to human perfection, it could rightly be said, "he (Adam) begat a son in his likeness, in his form." It is acknowledged that a man who does not possess this "form" (the nature of which has just been explained) is not human, but a mere animal in human shape and form."
"Adam" - Individual or Race?
As we havew seen above, indications of the possible existence of a human race at the time of Adam can be found in the ambiguity of the term Adam itself. We can also analyze the intent of Genesis in employing language which implies that only an individual rather than a race was created. A possible flexibility in the intended understanding of the situation can possibly be implied by similar flexibility in other instances, specifically regarding the survivors of the Flood.
The Bible makes the point very clearly, and repeatedly, that Gd destroyed all man and beast in the whole world expect for Noakh and those in the ark. Nevertheless, one of the Rabbis of the Talmud tells us that Og, King of Bashan, survived the flood!39 Also, that the Amalekites predated and survived the flood is taught by the Zohar [Gen:25a {Hebrew insert}].
Ramban quotes as acceptable the belief that others escaped the flood along with Og [see Ramban on "Bnei ha'elohim"].
Thus, the surface implication in the language of Genesis that an individual rather than a race was created may not reflect the intended understanding.
A similar ambiguity can be found in the words of the prophets.
According to Rambam, the prophet may use the word "Mankind" when "a nation" is what is actually meant. In addition, a severe Divine punishment can be described as though it were complete annihilation40.
This may aid us in understanding the statements of the Midrash and Zohar brought above. That is, perhaps a description of the complete annihilation of Mankind in the flood account can in actuality be referring to the severe punishment of one particular nation . However, applying this to an interpretation of the Flood is perhaps inappropriate: Rambam is speaking only of the words of the prophets, whereas the account of the Flood was dictated by Gd , and that to Moshe - who received a higher form of prophecy than that of any other prophet Nevertheless, it may perhaps be partially applicable in conjunction with the evidence given above that indeed according to Jewish tradition the Flood did not wipe out all Mankind outside the Ark.
Further, according to Maharal41, the Torah is written from the perspective of the reality as perceived by human beings. Indeed, according to Malbim, passages in the Torah relating a seeming fact, may actually be relating a perception of human beings - even erroneous perceptions42. We can therefore perhaps suggest that if humans at the time of the Flood considered the reality to have been that all life had been eradicated other than their own family - a delusion which we are told was thye case with the daughter of Lot after the great destruction of 'the cities of the plain' [Soddom and Gomorrah etc.] - then perhaps this is why the Flood is so described in the Torah. And that is why it is possible for Genesis to state that the entire Earth was covered by the Flood, and all Mankind was destroyed, while tradition tells us that the Land of Israel was not covered, and that various people did survive the flood.
Just as the implications generated by a surface understanding of the Flood account in Genesis can be misleading as to its true intent, and 'the destruction of all mankind' was not meant in its strict sense, so too perhaps with the account in Genesis as regards the implication that 'all Mankind' descended from Adam and Eve. In fact Eve is so named Genesis tells us, becuse she was 'the mother of all life' which is not the case according to Genesis itself, which does not claim that all living beings emerged from Eve!
II) There is an alternate way of resolving the contradiction between the survival of Og and Amalek and the passage which states that "all Mankind" was destroyed. One can perhaps distinguish between humanity as represented by Noakh and that represented by the giant Og. According to Midrash, Og was 15 feet tall, and thus was possibly not of original human stock, but of a priorly evolved race. Similarly, Amalek is the only group which it is incumbent on the children of Israel to fight, and it is a group which is genetically rather than culturally determined. Perhaps they are the perennial arch-enemies of the Jewish people because genetically they represent a different, non-moral, strain of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.43
If this is so, then we can conclude that only Homo Sapiens Sapiens Voluntas was destroyed in the flood, and thus that when the Bible tells us that all mankind was destroyed, it means all of Homo Sapiens Sapiens Voluntas and not necessarily all of everyone else.
This would explain the widespread evidence uncovered by archaeologists that there were civilizations which were seemingly not destroyed in a flood 4,000 years ago.
It would also strengthen the case for there being non-Homo Sapiens Sapiens Voluntas present at the time of the creation of Adam - just as "all mankind" clearly refers only to a certain portion of Homo Sapiens Sapiens in the flood account since we are told that at least one survived, so too the creation of mankind in the creation account possibly refers only to the creation of Homo Sapiens Sapiens Voluntas.
One can perhaps also adapt the remarks above regarding the interchangeability of "Mankind" with "a nation", and "total annihilation" with "local diaster", as indicating the possibility that the implication that Genesis is relating the creation of all Mankind is erroneous - it is instead perhaps relating not the creation of all Mankind, but rather the emergence of Homo Voluntas.
Monogenesis44 and Genesis
The creation accounts are somewhat ambiguous as regards the number of humans created. In the first account, humans are created in male and female form in unspecified numbers, and even the second account deals mostly with a generic 'man' and 'woman' - Ha'adam and Ha'isha - rather than an individual named 'Adam' and his mate.
The accounts in Genesis do not state explicitly that a race of humans was not created. The first account can easily be understood as seems to be taught by Ibn Ezra, that is that a race of humans was created. The second account - that of the Garden of Eden seems to speak of one couple, but its connection to the first account is far from clear at the level of surface interpretation since much of it seems to contradict the first account.
It certainly seems possible at the surface level of interpretation to understand the Garden of Eden account as referring for example to a couple inhabiting a world already populated by the humans of the first account. Indeed, the Adam of the Garden of Eden account is not 'created' as is the case in the (first) creation account - instead he is 'formed from the dust of the earth'45. That is, the first account may perhaps be understood as relating the creation of a race of humans, and the Garden of Eden account relates the story of one couple within that populated world.
Rambam and Monogenesis
According to the Rambam "it is one of the fundamental principles of the Law that the Universe has been created ex nihilo, and that of the human race, one individual being, Adam, was created"46.
Here the Rambam links two seemingly unrelated conflicts. One conflict is between the idea that Adam was created alone vs. the hypothesis that an entire race being created. The second conflict is that between the idea of creation vs. the idea of the eternity of the universe. Rambam connects the two because he fels that one implies the other, as follows: If the universe is eternal, there was no creation of man, and therefore there was always a human race . Therefore Adam was not the only human existing at the time of the events related in Genesis.
However, Rambam himself admits that if there was a convincing proof of the eternity of the universe, he would accept it and interpret the creation idea as 'allegory' just as he did with anthropomorphisms. Therefore, that Adam was the only Human is as much - and as little - dogma as that creation occurred . That is, if there is convincing proof to the contrary, we can accept it.
One can perhaps assume that Rambam's elevation to the status of dogma of the idea of individual creation (vs. race creation ) was due to his apprehension that belief in race creation would be within the context of belief in an eternal universe. However, it is clear that although the eternity of the universe might imply the existence of a race "Adam" rather than an individual "Adam", the opposite is not the case. Thus, in our case where they are unrelated, perhaps we can assume that Rambam would not consider individual creation as dogma.
If individual creation is not necessarily dogma - even Rambam agrees its acceptance is contingent on their not being any proof to the contrary,i.e. that such proof is theoretically possible - it would seem that the reason we are told that only one man was created is to make the moral/pedagogical points related by the Mishnah and Tosefta of Sanhedrin. That is, it is quite possible that in actuality more than one man was created, but we are told not to derive sanctions for antisocial behaviour from this fact.
The Rambam however states in strong form that only one human was created. Therefore, we could perhaps be safer in saying that indeed only one human being was created; i.e. only one moral being was created, the rest were not moral beings and thus do not count fully as "human beings".
In any case, even in the evolutionary theory, all humans stem from one original human being; thus the Midrash and the Rambam can be interpreted literally47. For example, the "Ha'adam" of the first account could be the first human, and the Adam of the second account is the first human to exercise free willed choice, who lived much later.
Summary
If we interpret both creation accounts strictly literally, they contradict each other as to the order of creation of man, woman, and animals; as to the purpose and role of the animals; and as to the days on which all was created. Therefore part of the creation account is necessarilly non-purely-literal: that is, it is allegorical. Within this partial allegory, partial literalness, we can say that the very wording of the Torah implies that a complete human race was created, and that the Tree of Knowledge incident is an allegory for a process which involved man as a species - and that is why even the second account speaks in terms of a generic 'man' and 'woman'.
The first two passages of the fifth chapter of Genesis states:
"This is the book of the descendants of Adam: In the day Gd created Adam , He created them as male and female:and Adam bagat Shem.....[Gen.5:12].
The Midrash on this passage tells us that everything in the Torah until this point belongs to the "toldot shamayim va'aretz" - the generations of heaven and earth - rather than to "toldot Adam" - the generations of man. That is, the story of the Garden of Eden is not a description of actual events ocurring to man, but is rather part of the description of the process whereby Gd created the heavens and the earth
Malbim quotes a Midrash to the effect that the Torah itself really begins at Genesis 5:1 with the words "This is the book of the generations... ". Certainly however, the entire account up until the fifth chapter is an account of creation, and thus of events beyond human comprehension. The beginning of actual events commences with the birth of Shem as related in the fifth chapter. That is, the first and second creation accounts are not the record of actual events as implied in a literal reading, but are rather descriptions of mysteries as told in language comprehensible to man.
According to the Sforno, at this juncture the Torah begins to detail for us the history of the human race - that is, on the day Adam was created, there was already a human race .
The Torah begins with a description of the creation of the physical elements of the universe (the first creation account), and then the Torah describes the onset of free-will, morality, etc (the second account). It is only then that the Torah begins the tale of actual history - dealing with a specific couple, Adam and Eve, and their descendents. [This history is meant literally, and is an account of actual historical events.]
Thus, according to this 'partially allegorical' interpretation, there is no problem concerning the creation of woman separately from man, or of the contemporaries of Adam and Eve: the first account tells us that man and woman were created simultaneously in unspecified number.
The idea of the separate creation was given as an allegory for man's existential loneliness, his search to give and receive love and companionship, and so on. The idea of the uniqueness of the Adam/Eve pair is to teach mankind that all men are equal since they originate from one pair, and all are truly brothers since they derive from the same parents 48.
Conclusion
Thus, the problems raised by the instant universe idea with respect to the Biblical account of the creation of Adam and Eve are resolved satisfactorily both in the partial-allegorical approach and in the absolute literal interpretation.
Appendix: Adam as Mutation Vs. Adam as Genius
What does it mean to say that Adam was the first moral being? Certainly amoebas are not moral beings. However, would it be true to say that no evolved being prior to Adam was a moral being? Was Adam a mutation, and thus uniquely the first being capable of moral consciousness and free will? Or was he a genius, but not a mutant?
If he was a mutation, then he was indeed the unique physical progenitor of our race; if he was not a mutation but rather a genius, he was the spiritual progenitor.
Although a mutant, Adam would posses almost all his genes in common with the non-Voluntas species, and some of his offspring would not carry his mutant gene. Indeed, according to Rambam, some of the descendents of Adam did not have his special characteristic - the Divine "form". Rambam states that as a result these offspring were not "human"49.
Thus, from the Biblical perspective, neither the ancestors nor the contemporaries of the first moral being are considered human. Therefore, in Genesis we are told that the first human had no human ancestors, nor did he have human contemporaries.
All the ancestors of this first free-willed human were of the animal kingdom, whereas he was the first true human. Thus Genesis tells of the emergence of the first true human, after the emergence of the animals.
That is, both Genesis and the origin theory agree that the first human had predecessors, and both agree that these predecessors were not human in the way we are.
Sources indicating that Adam was a mutation and not merely a genius with the same genes as his contemporaries:
In the third and last recounting of events at the creation (Gen: 5:1), we are told that on the day man - Adam - was created, he was created in the image of Gd ... [Gen: 5:1-3].
As we can see, we are told only of the birth of Sheth, not of the birth of Kayin ("Cain") and Hevel ("Abel"). Sheth was born to Adam, "in his likeness, in his image" whereas Kayin and Hevel were born to Chava (Eve) [Gen 4:1-2]50.
After telling of the birth of Sheth, the Torah tells us of his line of descendants: Adam; Sheth; Enosh; Kenan; Mehalalel; Yered; Chanoch ["Enoch"]; Methushelach; Lemech; Noach.
Chanoch ["Enoch"] was so righteous the Torah says of him that he "walked with Gd" and did not die but rather " and he was no more, for he was taken away by Gd"... [Gen: 4:25].
Noach was of course the Righteous man of his generation, and the progenitor of all post-flood humanity. Thus, only the descendants of Adam through Sheth were truly righteous, and only they survived the flood. The other children of Adam were seemingly not quite so righteous: Kayin was the first murderer, and his victim Hevel (Abel) was the first person mentioned to kill at all, in this case an animal, albeit to sacrifice to Gd. Of the descendants of Hevel we are told not of spiritual accomplishments but that they initiated cities, cattle farming, music and metal instruments - all of which could be used both for good and for bad.
Perhaps we can now understand why the Torah tells us that only Sheth was born of Adam "in his likeness in his image": just as Adam was created "in the image of Gd" by virtue of his ability to use free willed choice, perhaps only Sheth of all his children was sufficiently advanced to become capable of moral choice and spirituality, while the others possessed only the creative instinct without a refined moral sense. If this were the case, we can understand why they are not called children of Adam, but rather children of Chava, why they are not "in the image of Adam", why they created art and technology, rather than spirituality, why their descendants did not survive the flood.
In terms of our thesis, one can say that the mutation which made Adam special was not passed on totally to all of his children: only Sheth inherited that physical complexity which enabled him to respond to the divine and to develop a moral sense: the others were different from Adam's predecessors in their advanced intellectual and creative ability, but not in the realm of the spiritual51.
The "selection" provided by the flood weeded out those morally unfit, and allowed only the Righteous Noach of the line of Chanoch and Sheth to repopulate the world52.
________________________________
The predecessors and contemporaries of Adam were not H. Voluntas, and were thus not moral beings, were not the being 'created in the image of Gd' who was imbued with "the breath of Gd"; only Adam, the first H. Voluntas, was a being "in the image of Gd" and thus creation begins with his emergence, and he is considered the first man.
The idea that the human fossils found by archaelogists are the bones of the predecessors of Adam is not an idea which negates Jewish belief: the Tifereth Yisrael discusses this very idea! [give photocopy & translation].
R.I. Lifchitz - Drush Or Hachaim, 3: about one third from the beginning: "micol heamur" (found in "Yachin Uboaz" mishnayos, after Sanhedrin).
The Evolution Of Morality
Now, according to the evolutionary theory, since life emerged from non-life, and since moral sensitivity is present in man but not in non-life, then the capacity for moral sensitivity must have arisen at some point between the emergence of non-life and the emergence of modern man. Indeed, since even apes do not have moral sensitivity/intelligence [we would not hold them morally responsible for their actions] then we can say that morality emerged somewhere between the present and the time of the first human mutations from apes. When would this have been?
Science does not yet have answers to this question: indeed science as science cannot regard 'morality' as anything of significance or as something of transcendental worth: many scientists even believe that it is a meaningless word. However that may be, it is clear that the feeling of possessing moral responsibility is present in humans, and is almost certainly not present in apes. Thus, it is a legitimate scientific question to ask when such feelings - or the capacity for them - arose.
Although it is possible that Neanderthal Man had some type of moral sense, it was probably not as well developed as that of the next mutation to appear on the scene, Cro-Magnon man. Thus, it is quite probable that morality arose only after Cro-Magnon man evolved. Indeed, as we have seen, moral codes become widespread only about 4,000 years ago in the time of Abraham and Hamurabi53, so that it is quite possible that morality emerged only slightly prior to that, at the time of Adam about 6,000 years ago.
Appendix: "All Men are Brothers"
According to the theory of evolution and modern genetic knowledge, all mankind stems from one ancestor, one original prototype human being who emerged where no true human had existed previously. This of course agrees with the teaching of Genesis on this matter.
We will now briefly sketch the reasons why geneticists have reached this conclusion.
Genetic differences between man and ape and between man and man
1 gene
Chromosome
DRAWINGOfChromosome
1 gene pairs of nucleotides
All the physical characteristics of a person or an animal are determined by their genes and their environment. The genetic constitution of a being is determined by the type and order of its DNA nucleotide chain [see end of chapter C for more detail.].
When comparing two beings, one cannot necessarily make a linear correlation between the percentage difference in their nucleotide-pairs and the percentage difference in their proteins, nor between these and vital qualities such as intelligence, creativity etc. Nevertheless, one can take these measures as rough guides to the 'similarity' or 'dissimilarity' of the two beings.
Human beings and chimpanzees have approximately 5 billion nucleotide pairs in their chromosomes. The vast majority of these nucleotide pairs - 99% of them - are identical, so that the proteins of humans and chimpanzees are largely alike, as are their resulting genetic traits: both have two arms with 4 fingers and a thumb each, 2 legs with 5 toes, similar face, similar skeletal structure, similar blood etc. The physical differences between man and chimp are due to the 1% difference, i.e. the approximately 50 million out of 5 billion nucleotide pairs which are different in the two species.
The genetic differences between even the most widely disparate humans is very small in comparison with the genetic difference between any human and a chimpanzee. The difference between two people of the same 'racial/ethnic' origin54 is approximately 200,000 nucleotide pairs, i.e. 0.4% of 1% of the total. It is this difference which causes the physical differences between any two people of the same 'race'. People of the same general 'racial' origin but from geographically divided points will differ by very slightly more, and people from differing 'races' will differ by yet a slight bit more. The difference between two people of different 'races' is not significantly more than the difference between two people of the same 'race'. The reason that people of different 'races' seem so different is that the few actual genetic differences that do exist between them are the easily discernable differences of external features such as skin colour, hair type, nose width etc.
The reason that people of different 'races' differ so much in external features is that it is precisely these external features which make the difference in differing climates (Skin colour determines sunburn, absorption of ultraviolet for the synthesis of vital vitamin D; nose width for staying cool in heat etc.. Thus these features will be selected for in different ways among different populations depending on their environment). However, the number of genes necessary to govern these is quite small - the vast majority of genes are the same for all humans. [It is ironic and perhaps unfortunate that the extremely tiny differences between people of different 'races' cause exactly those changes which are visible to the eye.]
The tiny differences between people of different 'races' shows that all the 'races' originated from the same group of people, and that the differences between them arose when various individual families migrated to distant areas, over thousands of years, and slowly the changes solidified into clearly visible changes. [Among those who migrated to Africa, and other tropical climates, those with darker skins were healthier than light-skinned people: dark skinned people had stronger, and more living, children - intermarriage darkened the skin more, these were ever more survival-successful: and therefore dark skins eventually dominated and v.v. in colder areas, etc.)
Clearly, since the difference between man and chimp is 250 times that of the difference between people of different 'races', and people of different 'races' have no significantly greater genetic differences than people of the same 'race', it would be absurd to say that the different 'races' arose from different mutations from the apes.
There are approximately five 'racial' groupings, each differing from the closest type of ape by 1% of their genetic material, yet all sharing 99.995% of genetic material with each other. For each of the five racial types to have evolved separately from the apes is so improbable as to be quite impososible since it would mean that 5 separate mutations occurred during a very short while (20,000 years), all 99.995% identical to each other, yet all differing by 1% - the same 1% - from their pre-mutated form! The mutation from ape to human is highly unlikely and took millions of years - for it to happen 5 times within a few thousand years and result in individuals identical in 99.99% of their nucleotide pairs would be absurdly improbable. Thus, all men of all 'races' must have originated from one original mutation of 1% and then these mutated in 5 different ways, each of approximately ~0.5% relative variation. Since Homo Sapiens Sapiens arose only about 60,000 years ago (40,000-100,000) and all today's 'races' are Homo Sapiens, the split into different 'races' must have occurred some time after this.
Thus, according to the theory of evolution and modern genetic knowledge, all mankind stems from one ancestor, one original prototype human being who emerged where no true human had been previously.
1 e.g. Jericho is said to be 9,000 years old
2 According to present scientific "guesstimates", the world population of 10,000 years ago was approximately 8 million. Since Homo Sapiens Sapiens arose approximately 60,000 years ago, this means that this population increase to 8 million required about 50,000 years. This represents a growth rate of only one population doubling every 3,000 years. This is very small - today the human population is doubling every 35 years! The small population probably reflects the harsh conditions of the time: the last of the ice ages was just ending about 10,000 years ago.
As things warmed up and the ice floes retreated to the polar regions, the growth rate picked up somewhat. By about 4,500 years ago, the population of the world was about 20 million (by 2000 years ago, it was 300 million and now it is 5 billion). The change of climate from Ice Age to the kind of climate we enjoy today made the earth grow green and fruitful - turning it into a garden of Eden.
3 Among Orthodox Jews this is an approximate average figure.
4 RAMBAM SOURCE. Indeed the Midrash uses this account to derive various moral homilies .[See Mishna Sanhedrin 37a quoted below.]
5 That males have nipples can be an indication of a common origin as part of a combination male-female, since the male nipples are not used for nursing, and therefore it would almost seem that the separation into male and female ocurred after the development of mammals..
6 The plain sense of the passages seem to imply that the original undivided state of the "Adam" was the optimal state, but due to its inability to function as is, alone, it was split into two.
cf. See Midrash re: Adam endeavouring to mate with the animals: this implies that Adam possedsed one or both genders.
7 Natural philosophy of ..... p.298
8 [Such mutations are exceedingly rare and would not occur twice in exactly the same way and thus it is quite certain that there was only one such mutation, and we are all descended from that one mutant.
See also Appendix: "All Men are Brothers".]
9 See "In Search of Eve" by Rebecca L. Cann in "The Sciences": Sept/Oct. 1987 and "The Search for Adam and Eve" "Newsweek" Jan 11, 1988. See also Appendix at the end of this chapter.
10Or, alternatively, after the flood and the tower of Babel incident
11For example, if such a genius is a one in a billion phenomenon, then one would expect him to arise somewhere between the 500 millionth and 2 billionth human. Assuming a beginning from one human 100,000 years ago to a population of approximately ten million 10,000 years ago, 6,000 years ago is in the right time period.
12 Indeed, the geneology tells of people living to ages of almost a thousand years, giving birth at ages of many hundreds of years old, and thus it is the type of passage which is possibly allegorical. [We need only interpret one passage in the chain as being allegorical, and the chain is broken, leaving the date of creation undetermined.]
13See Appendix "Adam as Mutation vs. Adam as Genius".
14 We cannot tell from an analysis of our own bones that we posess the ability to exercize a free will. Therefore from an analysis of the bones of Cro-Magnon Man we do not know whether or not Cro-Magnon Man of 60,000 posessed the ability to exercize a free will.
15 For example since codes of law - the Noakhide Laws - were given for all Mankind
16 [The 'Eve' of evolutionary theory did not necessarily live in the generation of the first Cro-Magnon Man. She is termed 'Eve' not because of her priority, but rather because all Mankind is descended from her. That is, it may well be that there were women prior to 'Eve', but only Eve's descendants survived. However, for all intents and purposes, she is the 'mother of all Mankind'.]
17 There does not seem to be any direct archaeological evidence for the occurrence of a worlwide flood as described in Genesis, at the date indicated there. Indeed, in certain areas there seem to be traces of continuous habitation throughout the past ten thousand years. However, the flood should have caused at the very least a noticeable gap in those cultures. It would have taken Noakh's descendants some time to increase, repopulate the area, excavate the remains of the previous civilization, and continue the previous culture - if it is at all likely that they would do so instead of building thir own culture.
However, even if the possible evidence for a continuous culture is accepted, there is no logical difficulty in accepting the literal truth of the flood account in Genesis.
When atheist deny the existence of Gd, they generally do not deny the possibility a priori that a Gd can exist. Rather, it is because they are aware of the possibility that there exists a Gd that they have searched about to determine if in fact a Gd does exist. Atheists believe - based on the evidense of their senses and rational thought etc. - that in fact no Gd exists.
However, in this we are assuming the existence of a Gd, creator of the universe, creator of space-time-matter-energy and the 'laws of nature' and so on, and therefore transcending the limitations these place on created beings. Therefore, we will allow that Gd the creator could do all that the Divine Will wishes to do.
It would be silly to say that Gd the creator of the entire universe could not have the power to flood the Earth, or to bring together all the species of living beings - beings which Gd created - into the ark, and to make them fit in and so on. Similarly, if Gd can create the universe, then when creating it universe, if it is so wished, Gd can create it as an instant universe.
18 see section X: "the origin of the soul".
19According to Rambam (Guide I:7):
"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat (va-yoled) a son in his own likeness, in his form" (Gen. v. 3). As regards the words, "the form of Adam, and his likeness," we have already stated (ch. i.) their meaning. Those sons of Adam who were born before that time were not human in the true sense of the word, they had not "the form of man." With reference to Seth who had been instructed, enlightened and brought to human perfection, it could rightly be said, "he (Adam) begat a son in his likeness, in his form." It is acknowledged that a man who does not possess this "form" (the nature of which has just been explained) is not human, but a mere animal in human shape and form."
It is only regarding Seth that Genesis states that Adam begat a son in his own likeness, in his form - that is, to whom he passed on the ability to exercise free will. We can therefore propose perhaps that the previous children, Cain and Abel, did not possess this ability. Indeed the chain of ancestry leading to Noah and Abraham is from Seth rather than Cain or Abel.
Furthermore, there was a special blessing given by Gd to Adam related in the passage directly preceeding the passage relating the birth of Seth [Gen. 5:1-2]. These passages are after those relating the story of Cain and Abel. According to Ramban this blessing was for the ability to procreate, and since their first offspring were Cain and Abel, although the blessing is related after the story of Cain and Abel it necessarily refers to a time before them. In our interpretation the passage can refer to a time after Cain and Abel, and before Seth - the blessing is that of the ability to pass on free will to their progeny. And that is why the passage states that "and Gd blessed them and called them 'human' " - they were human by virtue of their free will, and the blessing was the ability to pass this on - rather than as had been the case prior to the blessing, with Cain and Abel.
20The creation and destruction is not necessarily total. 'Creation of worlds' may refer to major changes in existing entities, rather than creation where nothing was before, and 'destruction of worlds' may refer to major surgery rather than to total annihilation. See for example Rambam regarding the hyperbolic language occaisionally employed by the prophets.
21 [Rabbi I. Lifchitz] "Drush Or Ha'chaim", 3: about one third from the beginning: "mikol he'amur": found in "Yakhin U'boaz" mishnayot, after Sanhedrin.
22 See discvussion re: the different wording in Gen.:"['kol' = the rest of (see Vayikra 4:7)] the beasts of the field" in the second account, as opposed to "the beasts of the land" in the first account. "The rest`' implying others.
23 We do not deal here with the age-old philosophical problems relating to the difficulty of a purely spiritual entity interacting with a purely physical entity - we deal here only with problems raised by the instant universe idea. See chapter 1 page 2 note 6, and part II chapter X note re: the garden of Eden account.
24 All mankind, and perhaps to a certain degree all living beings since they, as man, are called "ruakh" and "nefesh" in the Bible.
25 "can be" because some people are of the type which finds great pleasure and inspiration by dealing with these issues, and this brings them closer to Gd. Coming closer to Gd, loving Gd, is part of the Way - how one accomplishes this differs for different people.
26 However, these topics are dealt with extensively in Jewish mystical texts. See e.g. "Derekh Hashem" by Ramhal.
27 (see Kohelet 3:21) (see W. Chomsky "Hebrew" p.4 bottom)
28 [Rabbi I. Lifchitz] "Drush Or Ha'chaim", 3: about one third from the beginning: "mikol he'amur": found in "Yakhin U'boaz" mishnayot, after Sanhedrin.
29See also the Talmud regarding the 974 generations of man prior to Adam See also Rambam regarding this?
30Deleted: There are two ways to resolve this problem.
1) One way is to make a distinction between Homo Voluntas and Homo Sapiens Sapiens. In this way, we interpret Genesis as indicating the emergence/creation of one 'true human' - Homo Voluntas - while allowing the contemporary existence of an entire race of non Homo Voluntas.
This however raises the question as to what happened to the descendants of these people. One can answer this in three ways. One, they are alive today. Two, that they perished in the flood, leaving only Adam's line of Moral Man alive. Three, that they died out in the evolutionary struggle with Adam's descendants.
2) Alternatively,
31 August Comte, founder of sociology, considered a human society as an organism, and saw the society rather than the individual man as the basic unit of Mankind. Some scientists studying 'emergent properties' such as mind and consciousness also consider the possibility thnat a new emergent level can arise when a sufficient number of individuals combine to form a society.[See section XX re Nouy etc.] Thus, it is possible that a moral being might only be possible as part of a race of moral beings. Alternatively, it might be that although one moral being could be created, a race of moral beings was created in order that there exist a higher level than that possible with one moral being alone.
32 Ibn Ezra on Genesis 2:8
33 See the "Avi Ezer".
34 in comenting on the words "na'aseh adam"[Gen. I:26]
35 Translation and commentary by Rabbi R. Pelcovitz.
36 Adam = 'of earth' = Man(kind) Eve = Khava = mother of life
37 Tosefta Sanhedrin 8 (See Kasher: Torah Shelema.1,765[p64])
38This would of course be a permissible act since there was no other way to fulfil Gd's express command to "be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth". The daughter of Lot committed incest in the same spirit, not knowing that mankind had survived.
39 R. Yokhanan: Nida 61a.
40 According to the Talmud, even when prophesying via Divine inspiration, the prophets spoke in their own words so that two prophets receiving the identical prophecy would formulate it in different ways.
Rambam explains that when the prophets speak, they do so in their own vocabulary and style:
"It must be borne in mind that every prophet has his own peculiar diction, which is, as it were, his language, and it is in that language that the prophecy addressed to him is communicated to those who understand it".
Rambam continues and notes that it may be the style of a particular prophet to greatly exagerate the level of destruction which has occurred, and to use metaphors which translate a local catastrophe to cosmic scale:
"...every prophet has his own peculiar diction...After this preliminary remark you will understand the metaphor frequently employed by Isaiah, and less frequently by other prophets, when they describe the ruin of a kingdom or the destruction of a great nation in phrases like the following; - "The stars have fallen," "The heavens are overthrown", "The sun is darkened", "the earth is waste, and trembles", and similar metaphors.
According to Rambam, the prophet may use the word "Mankind" when "a nation" is what is actually meant. In Rambam's words:
"Sometimes the prophet uses the term 'Mankind' instead of 'the people of a certain place', whose destruction they predict; for example, Isaiah, speaking of the destruction of Israel says, "and the Lord will remove Man far away" [Isaiah 6:12]. So also Zephania [I:3:4], "and I will cut off Man from off the earth". "
In addition, a severe Divine punishment can be described as though it were complete annihilation.In Rambam's words:
"..[as in the passage] 'Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the day of His fierce anger'[Isaiah13:23]. I do not think that any person is so foolish and blind, and so much in favour of the the literal sense of figurative and oratorical phrases, as to assume that at the fall of Babylonian kingdom a change took place in the nature of the stars of the heaven, or in the light of the sun and moon, or that the earth moved away from its center. For all this is merely the description of a country that has been defeated."
Based on the approach of Rambam outlined above, one can perhaps interpret a prophet's description of the complete annihilation of Mankind as actually referring to the severe punishment of one particular nation .
41 Tiferet yisrael 32
42 Malbim on Gen.6:2 regarding "the sons of elohim"
43 Since they are not moral beings, they are not responsible for their actions, and cannot be punished by Gd. Therefore, they were not destroyed by the flood, and they have to be defeated in battle by the Jewish people: in the desert, by Shaul, and in the time of Mordecai and Esther -- and Germany?
44 Referring to the doctrine that only one individual was created, and that the entire human race descends from this one individual, Adam.
45 According to Ibn Ezra, 'via the energy of the sun'. That is, via natural processes.
46 Guide III:50.
47 Roman Catholics are permitted to believe in the theory of evolution, but as at best an incomplete theory, since it cannot - or does not 'wish' to - account for the origin of the soul in man. In addition, it is a dogma of the Roman Catholic church that only one man was created - in order to provide support for their doctrine of the "Fall of Man" which had to encompass all mankind. Thus, they believe in evolution, but only as a partially correct incomplete theory. See the "monogenist theory of human evolution" in the encyclical of Pius XII "Humani Generis":1950.
48 See Mishnah and Tosefta in Tractate 'Sanhedrin', quoted above and brought below
49 "Guide" I:7
50 Chava was not a full free willed moral being? Is that why she gave Adam the "fruit"?
51 According to the Rambam, anyone with the proper intellectual attainments can become a prophet if Gd decides to allow him to be one [ SOURCE ] . However, according to Rabi Yehuda HaLevi - the Kuzari - the inherent ability to receive prophecy, to be part of 'segulah', is genetic . That is, not only proper intellectual attainments are necessary, but also a certain genetic endowment is a prerequisite for the capability to receive that transmission from the Divine which we term prophecy....[Kuzari 1:95]
52 However some of Noakh's genes and of his wife's genes, were of the non-moral line and therefore his children were representative of both types. Shem the moral being, Yafet the creative artist and Kham the the warrior.
53 HAM | UR | AB | I
ABRA | HAM | | AB | RAHAM
UR = UR KASDIM?
ABRAHAM - Three syllables = AB-RA-HAM, Backwards = HAM-RA-AB AR
AV RU HAM = AV HAMon Goyim of UR kasdim = AV HAM of UR = HAM UR AV = Hammurabi
54 These words are in quotations because they are not scientific [genetic] terms - they are more defined in terms of sociology than genetics.