The rabbis had every reason to fear science. It was done, in their day, by the Greeks, and there was a profound difference between the two cultures, so much so that Jews had fought a war ”” essentially a war of culture ”” against Hellenism. The name Epicurus, the Greek thinker who more than anyone presaged atomic science, was synonymous for Jews with heretic.
Yet the rabbis knew wisdom when they saw it, and they valued it even though they dissented from some of its conclusions. They did so for three reasons. First, it was evidence of the fact that God had indeed created humankind “in his image, after his likeness”, meaning according to Jewish tradition, “with the capacity to understand and discern”. Intellect, insight, the ability to frame and test hypotheses: these are God-given and a reason to give thanks.
Second, scientific method can apply to religion as well.
< Second, scientific method can apply to religion as well.
Any takers on that one, reasserters?
He apparently means by this that Scripture should be interpreted in such a way that it does not produce results that are obviously untruthful. So, in this sense, unacceptable interpretations are falsified presumably by what one knows to be truthful.
Actually, driver8 [#2], the scientific method is pretty much exactly the opposite of what you describe. In science, evidence trumps theory; in contrast (if I’m reading your comment correctly), your formulation about unacceptable interpretations seems closely akin to “don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up.”