Origin of Life and Philosophical Outlook

[Article by Rabbi Yoram Bogacz, author of Genesis and Genes; see his website TorahExplorer]
June 28, 2013

In Signature in the Cell, Dr. Stephen Meyer presented a comprehensive and accessible history of research into the origin of life. In this post, we take a bird’s eye view of research into this area over the past three-quarters of a century. We shall also digress in order to get a snapshot of how ideological commitments shape the views of many scientists.

***

Let’s begin with Dr. Ernst Chain. Chain won a Nobel Prize for his contribution to the development of penicillin. I mentioned him inGenesis and Genes, in the context of the discussion about whether evolutionary theory is relevant to nuts-and-bolts research in biology. I cited an article by Philip Skell (1918-2010), who was a distinguished professor of chemistry and a member of the National Academy of Sciences in the USA and a prominent Darwin sceptic. In a 2009 article in Forbes.com entitled The Dangers of Overselling Evolution, he made the point that evolutionary theory makes no contribution to actual research:

In 1942, Nobel Laureate Ernst Chain wrote that his discovery of penicillin (with Howard Florey and Alexander Fleming) and the development of bacterial resistance to that antibiotic owed nothing to Darwin’s and Alfred Russel Wallace’s evolutionary theories.^[1]

Chain understood the immensity of the task of trying to explain life in naturalistic terms. In The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond, we read that:

I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable that happened billions of years ago.^[2]

In August 1954, Dr. George Wald, another Nobel Laureate, wrote inScientific American:

There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility… a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to Evolution.

 This statement may seem astonishingly frank to many members of the public. Informed consumers of science, in contrast, are aware that much of the debate around the origin of life and biological evolution has precious little to do with drawing inevitable conclusions from straightforward evidence. It is far more about worldviews and ideologies, and only extremely naive observers assume that this does not apply to scientists who participate in the debate. Wald makes it perfectly clear that his direction was dictated by his philosophical leanings, and that is true of many scientists and Western intellectuals. Consider the views of Thomas Nagel. Nagel is a courageous thinker whose latest book, Mind and Cosmos, is a fierce demolition of Darwinian evolution.^[3] But Nagel will only go so far. In The Last Word, which appeared in 1997, he offered a candid account of his philosophical inclinations:

I am talking about something much deeper—namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers… It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.^[4]

 The fact that faith – the faith of many scientists in the ability of unguided matter and energy to create life – drives much of the discussion about evolution, was underscored by Dr. Gerald Kerkut, Professor  Emeritus of Neuroscience at the University of Southampton, who wrote in 1960 that: 

The first assumption was that non-living things gave rise to living material. This is still just an assumption… There is, however, little evidence in favor of abiogenesis and as yet we have no indication that it can be performed… it is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that abiogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method… happens to suit him personally; the evidence for what did happen is not available.

 Harold Urey won a Nobel Prize for chemistry, but is probably more famous for participating, with his graduate student Stanley Miller, in what became known as the Miller-Urey experiment. Writing in The Christian Science Monitor on 4^th January 1962, Urey wrote: 

All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.

 Hubert Yockey, the renowned information theorist, wrote in theJournal of Theoretical Biology in 1977 that:

One must conclude that… a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.

Richard Dickerson, a molecular biologist at UCLA, wrote in 1978 inScientific American that: 

The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts. The complex genetic apparatus in present-day organisms is so universal that one has few clues as to what the apparatus may have looked like in its most primitive form.^[5]

 Francis Crick needs no introduction. In Life Itself, published in 1981, he wrote that: 

Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts.

 Crick’s conclusion is that:

The origin of life seems almost to be a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.^[6]

 Prominent origin-of-life researcher Leslie Orgel wrote in New Scientistin 1982 that:

Prebiotic soup is easy to obtain. We must next explain how a prebiotic soup of organic molecules, including amino acids and the organic constituents of nucleotides evolved into a self-replicating organism. While some suggestive evidence has been obtained, I must admit that attempts to reconstruct the evolutionary process are extremely tentative.^[7]

 The views of Nobel Prize winner Fred Hoyle are particularly interesting. He struggled with the conflict between his ardent atheism and his knowledge of the excruciating difficulty of positing a naturalistic start to life. Writing in 1984, Hoyle stated that: 

From my earliest training as a scientist I was very strongly brain-washed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be very painfully shed. I am quite uncomfortable in the situation, the state of mind I now find myself in. But there is no logical way out of it; it is just not possible that life could have originated from a chemical accident.^[8]

 The writer Andrew Scott hit the nail on the head when he wrote, in 1986, that most scientists’ adherence to naturalistic accounts of the origin of life owed little to the evidence and much to ideological commitments:

But what if the vast majority of scientists all have faith in the one unverified idea? The modern ‘standard’ scientific version of the origin of life on earth is one such idea, and we would be wise to check its real merit with great care. Has the cold blade of reason been applied with sufficient vigor in this case? Most scientists want to believe that life could have emerged spontaneously from the primeval waters, because it would confirm their belief in the explicability of Nature – the belief that all could be explained in terms of particles and energy and forces if only we had the time and the necessary intellect.^[9]

 This conclusion is mirrored in the words of Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist and authority on origin-of-life studies. Writing in 2002, Davies affirms that it is scientists’ adherence to methodological naturalism that drives their agenda and conclusions:

First, I should like to say that the scientific attempt to explain the origin of life proceeds from the assumption that whatever it was that happened was a natural process: no miracles, no supernatural intervention. It was by ordinary atoms doing extraordinary things that life was brought into existence. Scientists have to start with that assumption.^[10]

 In 1988, Klaus Dose, another prominent origin-of-life theorist, summed up the situation nicely when he wrote that: 

More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.^[11]

 Carl Woese was a pioneer in taxonomy, and one of the major figures in 20^th century microbiology. His view of the origin of life: 

In one sense the origin of life remains what it was in the time of Darwin – one of the great unsolved riddles of science. Yet we have made progress…many of the early naïve assumptions have fallen or have fallen aside…while we do not have a solution, we now have an inkling of the magnitude of the problem.^[12]

 Paul Davies, too, writes that no substantive progress has been made in this area since Darwin’s time. In a recent short paper suggesting that life be viewed as a software package, Davies writes:

Darwin pointedly left out an account of how life first emerged, “One might as well speculate about the origin of matter,” he quipped. A century and a half later, scientists still remain largely in the dark about life’s origins. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the origin of life is one of the greatest unanswered questions in science.^[13]

 Readers of Genesis and Genes will recall Richard Lewontin’s admission that his mathematical models of evolutionary mechanisms are a sham – they do not correspond to reality. The biologist Lynn Margulis reminisced:
 Lewontin, who is one of the most prominent geneticists in the world and a protégé of one of the founders of neo-Darwinism, Theodosius Dobzhansky, was equally forthright about the role that faith plays in moulding scientists’ approach to important issues. In his review of a book by Carl Sagan, Lewontin wrote in 1997 that:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.^[14]

 Stuart Kauffman of the Santa Fe Institute is one of the world’s leading origin-of-life researchers and a leading expert on self-organisational systems. He writes:

Anyone who tells you that he or she knows how life started on the earth some 3.45 billion years ago is a fool or a knave. Nobody knows.^[15]

 In Genesis and Genes, I also quoted the biochemist Franklin Harold. In his book The Way of the Cell, Harold frankly acknowledged that “We must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”^[16] Regarding the origin of life, Harold writes that:

It would be agreeable to conclude this book with a cheery fanfare about science closing in, slowly but surely, on the ultimate mystery; but the time for rosy rhetoric is not yet at hand. The origin of life appears to me as incomprehensible as ever, a matter for wonder but not for explication.^[17]

 Massimo Pigliucci was formerly a professor of evolutionary biology and philosophy at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, and holds doctorates in genetics, botany, and the philosophy of science. He is currently the chairman of the department of philosophy at City University of New York. He is a prominent international proponent of evolution and the author of several books. Writing in 2003, Pigliucci writes that “[I]t has to be true that we really don’t have a clue how life originated on Earth by natural means.”^[18]
In 2007, we find science writer Gregg Easterbrook writing in Wired: “What creates life out of the inanimate compounds that make up living things? No one knows. How were the first organisms assembled? Nature hasn’t given us the slightest hint. If anything, the mystery has deepened over time.”^[19]
 Also in 2007, Harvard chemist George M. Whitesides, in accepting the highest award of the American Chemical Society, wrote: “The Origin of Life. This problem is one of the big ones in science. It begins to place life, and us, in the universe. Most chemists believe, as do I, that life emerged spontaneously from mixtures of molecules in the prebiotic Earth. How? I have no idea… On the basis of all the chemistry that I know, it seems to me astonishingly improbable.”^[20] 
As recently as 2011, Scientific American acknowledged that origin-of-life research has gotten nowhere in the last century. In an article by John Horgan, we read that:

Dennis Overbye just wrote a status report for the New York Timeson research into life’s origin, based on a conference on the topic at Arizona State University. Geologists, chemists, astronomers, and biologists are as stumped as ever by the riddle of life.^[21]

 Also writing in 2011, Dr. Eugene Koonin provided a neat summary of the utter failure of this endeavour: 

The origin of life is one of the hardest problems in all of science… Origin of Life research has evolved into a lively, interdisciplinary field, but other scientists often view it with skepticism and even derision. This attitude is understandable and, in a sense, perhaps justified, given the “dirty” rarely mentioned secret: Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure – we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth. Certainly, this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem. A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life… these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle.^[22]

***

The area of origin-of-life research is fascinating not only for its own sake, but also in the way that it exposes what many uninformed members of the public take for granted, namely, that scientists are driven by data, and data alone. I elaborated on this misconception inGenesis and Genes, demonstrating that the commitment of many scientists to methodological naturalism is a far more important factor than the scientific evidence in reaching conclusions about life on Earth.

***

 See Also:
The post Certitude and Bluff:
http://torahexplorer.com/2013/01/15/certitude-and-bluff/
References:
Some of the quotations in this post come from an article by Rabbi Moshe Averick, published in The Algemeiner. The article can be read here:
http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/09/27/speculation-faith-and-unproven-assumptions-the-history-of-origin-of-life-research-in-scientists-own-words/
Retrieved 26^th June 2013.

[1] The article can be read here:
.
Retrieved 2^nd November 2010.
[2] R.W. Clark, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London (1985), page 148.
[3] To read more about Nagel and his latest book, see these reviews:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112481/darwinist-mob-goes-after-serious-philosopher
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html
[4] See http://www.jidaily.com/914e2?utm_source=Jewish+Ideas+Daily+Insider
Retrieved 27^th June 2013.
[5] Richard E. Dickerson, “Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life”, Scientific American, Vol. 239, No. 3, September 1978, page77.
[6] Life Itself, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1981, page 88.
[7] Leslie E. Orgel, “Darwinism at the very beginning of life”, New Scientist, Vol. 94, 15 April 1982, page 150.
[8] Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space, New York, Simon and Shuster, 1984, page 53.
[9] Andrew Scott, “The Creation of Life: Past, Future, Alien”, Basil Blackwell, 1986, page 111.
[10] Paul Davies, “In Search of Eden, Conversations with Paul Davies and Phillip Adams”.
[11] Klaus Dose, “The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers”,Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1988, page 348.
[12] Carl Woese, Gunter Wachtershauser, “Origin of Life” in Paleobiology: A Synthesis, Briggs and Crowther – Editors (Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1989.
[13] See: http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.4803.
Retrieved 27^th June 2013.
[14] “Billions and Billions of Demons”, Richard Lewontin, 9^th January 1997, New York Times Book Review.
[15] At Home in the Universe, London, Viking, 1995, page 31.
[16] Franklin Harold, The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life, Oxford University Press, 2001, page 205.
[17] Ibid. page 251.
[18] Massimo Pigliucci, “Where Do We Come From? A Humbling Look at the Biology of Life’s Origin,” in Darwin, Design and Public Education, eds. John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 2003), page 196.
[19] Gregg Easterbrook, “Where did life come from?” Wired, page 108, February, 2007.
[20] George M. Whitesides, “Revolutions in Chemistry: Priestly Medalist George M. Whitesides’ address”, Chemical and Engineering News, 85 (March 26, 2007): p. 12-17. Seehttp://ismagilovlab.uchicago.edu/GMW_address_priestley_medal.pdf.
Retrieved 22^nd April 2012.
[21] John Horgan, Scientific American, 28^th February 2011.
[22] Eugene Koonin, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and origin of Biological Evolution (Upper Saddle River, NJ, FT Press, 2011, page 391.

Demography doesn't threaten the Jewish state

by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
June 26, 2013

http://www.jeffjacoby.com/13471/demography-doesnt-threaten-the-jewish-state
 

.

ISRAEL IS "running out of time," Secretary of State John Kerry told the American Jewish Committee in Washington this month. A two-state solution to the Palestinian conflict must be reached soon or "the insidious campaign to de-legitimize Israel will only gain steam," he warned. "Israel will be left to choose between being a Jewish state or a democratic state, but it will not be able to fulfill the founders' visions of being both at once."

Secretary of State John Kerry, addressing the American Jewish Committee, voiced the familiar warning that without a two-state solution, Israel will have to choose between being Jewish or democratic.

It's an old refrain, erroneous but popular: Israel must make peace with the Palestinians — "peace" being defined as the creation of a 22nd Arab state — before high Arab birthrates turn the Jews into a minority in their own land.

In Jerusalem a few months ago, President Obama echoed the same claim.

"Given the demographics west of the Jordan River, the only way for Israel to endure and thrive as a Jewish and democratic state is through the realization of an independent and viable Palestine."

This so-called "demographic argument" may sound compelling, even ominous. But it rests on an obsolete stereotype of Arab women as baby mills, outbreeding their Jewish sisters at such a pace that it is only a matter of time before Jews are numerically overwhelmed on the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.

In the 1960s, when the fertility rate for Israeli Arabs (9.2 births per woman) soared far above that of Israeli Jews (3.4 births per woman), that demographic challenge certainly seemed plausible. Yasser Arafat liked to say that the ultimate weapon in his arsenal against the Jewish state was "the womb of the Arab woman." The Palestinian Authority has always understood the propaganda value of population data. As the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics began its first census in the West Bank and Gaza in 1997, the bureau's director, Hassan Abu Libdeh, assured The New York Times that the results would amount to nothing less than "a civil intifada." In 2005, the bureau predicted that Jews would be a minority in "historic Palestine" (i.e., west of the Jordan River) by 2010. Now it says the tipping point will come by 2020.

Don't count on it.

Arafat's boast notwithstanding, Palestinian women, like women throughout the Muslim world, are bearing far fewer children than they used to. Within Israel proper, the birth rate among Muslims has trended steadily downward and stands now at 3.5 children per woman. It is even lower for Palestinians in the West Bank —just 2.91, according to the CIA Factbook. In a 2012 survey by the Population Reference Bureau of family planning in the Arab world, 72 percent of married Palestinian women (ages 15 through 49) said they preferred to avoid a pregnancy. That was typical of the modern Middle East: The same survey showed most Jordanians (71 percent), Egyptians (69 percent), and Syrians (68 percent) felt the same way.

But while Palestinian birth rates have dramatically declined, Jewish birth rates in Israel have been heading up. Israel now has the highest fertility level of any modern industrialized nation. The fertility gap between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs, a yawning 5.8 in the 1960s, is just 0.5 today. Defying longstanding conventional wisdom, writes former Israeli diplomat Yoram Ettinger, it is Israel's Jewish population that is undergoing a remarkable surge, rising from about 80,000 per year in 1995 to 130,000 in 2012. (The annual number of Israeli Arab births has held steady at between 35,000 and 40,000).

Israel is now home to nearly half the world's Jews. The Jewish state is a permanent fact of life in the modern Middle East.

It is easy to get tangled in debates over the statistics — Ettinger led a detailed demographic study that exposed serious flaws in previous projections — but the bottom line is that demography, far from being a looming liability for Israel, is a strategic asset. The 6.3 million Jews living in Israel and the West Bank represent 66 percent of the area's population (not including Gaza, which Israel entirely relinquished to the Palestinian Authority in 2005). "Anyone suggesting that Jews are doomed to become a minority west of the Jordan River is either dramatically mistaken or outrageously misleading," Ettinger argues.

Is the "peace process" is worth pursuing? Would a two-state solution end the conflict? These demographic trends can't answer such questions. What they can do is remove the artificial pressure on Israel to do something – anything – before the sword of Damocles falls. And maybe, just maybe, they can open a few eyes among those who have been waiting, like Arafat, for "the womb of the Arab woman" to put an end to the Jewish state. Israel, now home to nearly half of the world's Jews, is a permanent fact of life in the Middle East. Any genuine peace process must start by accepting that reality.

(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe. His website is www.JeffJacoby.com).

-- ## --

Guide of the Perplexed Part II, chap 25.

The following is my formulation of what I learned in discussing this chapter with Rabbi Moshe Meiselman [I alone take responsibility for all the content].

There are rules determining when an interpretation of text is acceptable:

1. Peshat [literal, simple] interpretation is to be used, unless there is a compelling reason to reject it.
2. 2. A philosophical demonstration against [any] interpretation is a compelling reason against it. [What counts as a “philosophical demonstration” will be addressed below.]
3. That an interpretation violates central religious principles is a compelling reason against it.
4. There are absolute limits beyond which interpretation cannot pass – even in the presence of compelling reasons against an interpretation, a reinterpretation may be impossible since the reinterpretation passes those limits [See Part I chaps 1-50 and below].

There are five cases to which these principles are applied:

1. Rejecting the peshat of texts that describe G-d in corporeal terms.
2. Rejecting eternity according to Aristotle
3. Rejecting eternity according to Plato
4. The condition under which we would accept eternity according to Plato.
5. The condition under which we would accept eternity according to Aristotle

Here is how the cases come out via the principles:

1. there is a philosophical demonstration against G-d’ corporeality, so that is a compelling reason against the peshat describing G-d as corporeal [2]; the alternative interpretation does not violate religious principles [3]; the alternative interpretation is within the acceptable limits [4]
2. there is no philosophical demonstration of eternity according to Aristotle, so that is no reason reject the peshat [of creation] [1,2]; eternity according to Aristotle violates central religious principles, so that is a compelling reason not to change the peshat [3]; to change the peshat in those texts would pass beyond the acceptable limits of interpretation
3.  there is no philosophical demonstration of eternity according to Plato, so that is no reason reject the peshat [of Creation] [1,2];
4. If there were a philosophical demonstration of eternity according to Plato, there would be a compelling reason to reject the peshat of the verses of creation [1,2]; the reinterpretation would not violate any central religious principles [3]; the reinterpretation would not violate the limits on interpretation [4]
5. If there were a philosophical demonstration of eternity according to Aristotle, there would be a compelling reason to reject the peshat of the verses of creation [1,2]; but the reinterpretation would pass beyond the limits of acceptable interpretation – and then we would not reinterpret [though it is not clear what we would do]

Now here they are again, with the passages from the text inserted:

6. there is a philosophical demonstration against G-d’ corporeality, so that is a compelling reason against that peshat [2] the Incorporeality of God has been demonstrated by proof:; the alternative interpretation does not violate religious principles [3] Secondly, our belief in the Incorporeality of God is not contrary to any of the fundamental principles of our religion: it is not contrary to the words of any prophet.; the alternative interpretation is within the acceptable limits [4] nor is it impossible or difficult to find for them a suitable interpretation
7. there is no philosophical demonstration of eternity according to Aristotle, so that is no reason reject the peshat [of Creation] [1,2] But the Eternity of the Universe has not been proved; eternity according to Aristotle violates central religious principles, so that is a compelling reason not to change the peshat [3] we should necessarily be in opposition to the foundation of our religion, we should disbelieve all miracles and signs, and certainly reject all hopes and fears derived from Scripture,; to change the peshat in those texts would pass beyond the acceptable limits of interpretation unless the miracles are also explained figuratively. The Allegorists amongst the Mohammedans have done this, and have thereby arrived at absurd conclusions and But if we assume that the Universe has the present form as the result of fixed laws, there is occasion for the above questions: and these could only be answered in an objectionable way, implying denial and rejection of the Biblical texts, the correctness of which no intelligent person doubts.[4]
8.  there is no philosophical demonstration of eternity according to Plato, so that is no reason reject the peshat [of Creation] [1,2] But the Eternity of the Universe has not been proved
9. If there were a philosophical demonstration of eternity according to Plato, there would be a compelling reason to reject the peshat of the verses of creation [1,2]; the reinterpretation would not violate any central religious principles [3] If, however, we accepted the Eternity of the Universe in accordance with the second of the theories which we have expounded above (ch. xxiii.), and assumed, with Plato, that the heavens are likewise transient, we should not be in opposition to the fundamental principles of our religion: this theory would not imply the rejection of miracles, but, on the contrary, would admit them as possible.; the reinterpretation would not violate the limits on interpretation [4] We should perhaps have had an easier task in showing that the Scriptural passages referred to are in harmony with the theory of the Eternity of the Universe if we accepted the latter, than we had in explaining the anthropomorphisms in the Bible when we rejected the idea that God is corporeal.
10. If there were a philosophical demonstration of eternity according to Aristotle, there would be a compelling reason to reject the peshat of the verses of creation [1,2] If, on the other hand, Aristotle had a proof for his theory, the whole teaching of Scripture would be rejected, and we should be forced to other opinions.; but the reinterpretation would pass beyond the limits of acceptable interpretation – and then we would not reinterpret [though it is not clear what we would do]

The quotes under g clearly illustrate limits on interpretation, and this last quote is absolutely compelling: even a philosophical demonstration contradicting the whole of the content of the Torah would not lead to reinterpretation!

It remains to comment on the Rambam’s meaning for “philosophical demonstration”. It is clear from Part 2 chapter 17 that any demonstration relying of the assumption of the uniformity of the laws of nature in the past would not count. On the other hand, the Rambam’s own demonstrations start from presently observed realities and use natural physical/philosophical reasoning, so something like that would count. In any case, the age of the universe and evolution and relating theorizing clearly will not count.

Here is the whole chapter for your convenience: 

WE do not reject the Eternity of the Universe, because certain passages in Scripture confirm the Creation; for such passages are not more numerous than those in which God is represented as a corporeal being; nor is it impossible or difficult to find for them a suitable interpretation. We might have explained them in the same manner as we did in respect to the Incorporeality of God. We should perhaps have had an easier task in showing that the Scriptural passages referred to are in harmony with the theory of the Eternity of the Universe if we accepted the latter, than we had in explaining the anthropomorphisms in the Bible when we rejected the idea that God is corporeal. For two reasons, however, we have not done so, and have not accepted the Eternity of the Universe. First, the Incorporeality of God has been demonstrated by proof: those passages in the Bible, which in their literal sense contain statements that can be refuted by proof, must and can be interpreted otherwise. But the Eternity of the Universe has not been proved; a mere argument in favour of a certain theory is not sufficient reason for rejecting the literal meaning of a Biblical text, and explaining it figuratively, when the opposite theory can be supported by an equally good argument.

Secondly, our belief in the Incorporeality of God is not contrary to any of the fundamental principles of our religion: it is not contrary to the words of any prophet. Only ignorant people believe that it is contrary to the teaching of Scripture: but we have shown that this is not the case: on the contrary, Scripture teaches the Incorporeality of God. If we were to accept the Eternity of the Universe as taught by Aristotle, that everything in the Universe is the result of fixed laws, that Nature does not change, and that there is nothing supernatural, we should necessarily be in opposition to the foundation of our religion, we should disbelieve all miracles and signs, and certainly reject all hopes and fears derived from Scripture, unless the miracles are also explained figuratively. The Allegorists amongst the Mohammedans have done this, and have thereby arrived at absurd conclusions. If, however, we accepted the Eternity of the Universe in accordance with the second of the theories which we have expounded above (ch. xxiii.), and assumed, with Plato, that the heavens are likewise transient, we should not be in opposition to the fundamental principles of our religion: this theory would not imply the rejection of miracles, but, on the contrary, would admit them as possible. The Scriptural text might have been explained accordingly, and many expressions might have been found in the Bible and in other writings that would confirm and support this theory. But there is no necessity for this expedient, so long as the theory has not been proved. As there is no proof sufficient to convince us, this theory need not be taken into consideration, nor the other one: we take the text of the Bible literally, and say that it teaches us a truth which we cannot prove: and the miracles are evidence for the correctness of our view.

Accepting the Creation, we find that miracles are possible, that Revelation is possible, and that every difficulty in this question is removed. We might be asked, Why has God inspired a certain person and not another ? Why has He revealed the Law to one particular nation, and at one particular time? why has He commanded this, and forbidden that ? why has He shown through a prophet certain particular miracles ? what is the object of these laws ? and Why has He not made the commandments and the prohibitions part of our nature, if it was His object that we should live in accordance with them ? We answer to all these questions: He willed it so; or, His wisdom decided so. just as He created the world according to His will, at a certain time, in a certain form, and as we do not understand why His will or His wisdom decided upon that peculiar form, and upon that peculiar time, so we do not know why His will or wisdom determined any of the things mentioned in the preceding questions. But if we assume that the Universe has the present form as the result of fixed laws, there is occasion for the above questions: and these could only be answered in an objectionable way, implying denial and rejection of the Biblical texts, the correctness of which no intelligent person doubts. Owing to the absence of all proof, we reject the theory of the Eternity of the Universe: and it is for this very reason that the noblest minds spent and will spend their days in research. For if the Creation had been demonstrated by proof, even if only according to the Platonic hypothesis, all arguments of the philosophers against us would be of no avail. If, on the other hand, Aristotle had a proof for his theory, the whole teaching of Scripture would be rejected, and we should be forced to other opinions. I have thus shown that all depends on this question. Note it.

PHILOSOPHICAL INDEX FOR THE MOREH NEVUCHIM

1.      Allegory

1.1.   method – when (not) applied II:25 [199-200] (in prophecy; use of linguistic  hints) II:43 [238-40] II:47 [247-9] in using text for mitzvos – midrashim III:43 [353-4]

1.2.   distinguished from metaphor

2.      Anthropomorphism

2.1.   explanation of terms seeming to imply I:1-16,18-30,32-48,65-7,70

2.2.   chazal against  (chazal use anthropomorphic language for G-d just as verses do, relying on their general rejection of anthropomorphism for the reader not to take their words literally) I:46 [59-63]

3.      Aristotle

3.1.   exposition - Aristotle below the sphere of the moon: “for although one substance is common to all, substance without form is in reality impossible, just as the physical form of these transient beings cannot exist without substance.” I:72 [114]  II: Intro [149] II:3-4 [156-8] (necessity of nature) II:13 [173] II:19 [184-9] (arguments for eternity) II:14 [174-6] (aware that his arguments did not demonstrate eternity) II:15 [176-8] (against chance and against design/Creator) II:20 [189-90] (purpose of/in creation) III:8[272-4]

3.2.   opposition - I:69 [103-4] I:71 [111-2] II: Intro [145] II:6 [162] II:13 [171-3] II:16 [178] II:21-4 [190-9] (eternity implies no miracles, so must be rejected) II:25 [199-200] II:29 [210-1] (form independent of matter) III:8 [261] (on providence) III:17 [282-3]

4.      Angels

4.1.   may be referred to by “elokim” I:2 [14] I:27 [36]

4.2.   incorporeal, = intelligences I:43 [57-8] I:49 [65-6] II:6 [160] Incorporeal beings act continuously; effects are determined by the readiness of matter to receive the forms II;12 [168-71]

4.3.   = nature II:6-7 [160-2] (both specific) [161] free will [162-3]

the word “angel” can refer to a prophet II:34 [223] Angels on Jacob’s ladder = prophets I:15 [26]

4.4.   since prophecy is necessary for the Law, and prophecy is received through angels, so belief in angels is necessary for the Law, so the keruvim!! {even though Moshe’s prophecy was not through an angel!?} III:45 [356]

5.      Attributes of G-d

5.1.   types I:52 [69-72]

5.2.   inadmissible - (violates unity) I:51-3 [68-74] (psychological) I:54 [75-8] (passivity = being affected, includes emotions) I:55 [78-9] Category mistake of attributes with respect to G-d I:58 [83]

5.3.   must prove inadmissible I: 55 [78] I:60 [87-9]

5.4.   for the public we admit attributes that they take to be necessary for perfection I:26 [35] I:35 [49-50] I:46 [59-61] I:47 [63-4] (same for angels) I:49 [65-7]

5.5.   refer to actions I:52 [72] I:54 [75-8]

5.6.   negative I:57-60 [80-9] (all attributes are either actions or negative) I:58 [83]

6.       Chazal

fallibility II:8 [163] still appropriate to interpret their words as true insofar as possible) III:14 [278-9] Statements of chazal that contradict his theories (treated with respect and as source for valid ideas) II:26 [201] “I am unable to explain it sufficiently”

7.      Creation

7.1.   purpose of II:11 [167-8] III:13 [272-7] (agency implies purpose, but see 276 which attributes creation to Will and no other object = purpose, and see 308 that all G-d’s action are for (a) purpose(s)) [272] (purpose of A implies an agent that made A, so anything not made has no purpose, so G-d has no purpose, and for Aristotle the universe as a whole has no purpose) [272] (believers in creation must say that Will/Wisdom created the universe and stop there in inquiring for the purpose) [274,277] (Will created, so each thing exists for its own sake {except some that exist for others}) [274-5] (man is not the purpose of the whole creation, just of what is below the moon) [273-4,277-9] (“G-d created A to do X” does not mean that doing X is A’s purpose, but only that A was created in such a way that it would do X) [275-6] (superior is not created for the sake of inferior, so spheres etc not created for man) [276-7] the whole creation is the result of G-d’s wisdom to produce the existence of everything possible since existence is good but not all for man, we do not comprehend His wisdom and therefore wisdom does not imply eternity III: 25 [308-9]

7.2.   Torah begins with the creation = masseh bereishis since it is prerequisite for understanding metaphysics Introduction

7.3.   impossible for man to fully understand Introductionw

7.4.   (different prime matter for heaven and earth) II:26 [201]

7.5.   opinions concerning II:13 [171-3]

7.6.   time is created II:13 [171-2] (nothing really exists before the creation) II:13 [171]

7.7.   Plato’s theory of II:13 [172] II:25 [199-200]

7.8.   (arguments show only possibility of) II:16 [178] II:17-8 [181-3]

7.9.   (reasons for superiority over eternity by comparing both with what is known from nature) II:19 [184-9] (especially the heavens) [188-9] II:21-4 [190-9] (eternity/necessity cannot explain the heavens; design makes explanation possible) [193-4] (weight of objections) [195]

7.10.                    (Biblical account not entirely literal, for literal understanding of all of it might lead to corrupt ideas and false opinions about G-d or to reject Torah altogether) II:29 [211] (literal leads to eternity) III:29 [319] II:30 [212-18]

7.10.1.  details of creation taken non-literally II:30 [212-18] – “et” = together with {heavens and earth all their contents}, simultaneous creation of heaven and earth, lights created on first day, “earth” = everything below the sphere of the moon [? – is it really non-literal?], “caslling a name” = distinguishing things that satisfy a common noun [?], chosech = fire [?], chosech above the air [?], “mayim” = proto-water out of which water below and above and rakia are made, “good” = permanent, regular settled order [?], all of chapter 2 took place during the six days, He tok him (Adam) and placed him – refers to position and rank, not location, “yatzar” = to make a form (= create the abstract form or in in-form something?) [?]

7.11.                    finished in six days – chapter 2 takes place during the six days II:30 [215] Laws of nature do not apply during the six days of creation I:67 [99] II:30 [216] Shabbos = no new creation I:67 [99-100]

8.      Divine providence

8.1.   control/causation (over whole earth) I:44 [58]

8.2.   protection I:23 [33]

8.3.   providence – various theories III:17-8 [282-90]

8.3.1.      all is accident and chance – refuted by Aristotle [282]

8.3.2.      Aristotle – providence is only above the moon where things are constant – below is chance [282-3]

8.3.3.      everything is due to providence = predestination – implies divine injustice [283-4]

8.3.4.      man has free will and providence affects all events and there is no injustice in providence – implies absurdities (and foreknowledge contradicts free will!)

8.3.5.      the Torah – (1) Prophets and sages; (2) later authors; (3) Rambam’s view

8.3.5.1. free will, no injustice – all evils are punishment for sin and all pleasures are reward for mitzvah – no suffering in this world for reward in the next, [285]  reward/punishment for actions which logic show to be right/wrong, even if not commanded [286]

8.3.5.2.??

8.3.5.3. [286-8] (explanation of how providence works based on Rambam’s  understanding of prophetic works) individual providence below the moon only for humans – implied by reward and punishment, mediated by Divine intellectual influence to those who possess intellect, for other individuals agrees with Aristotle, no “special divine Will” for individual events of non-humans {perhaps because there is no aspect of justice in what happens to them – this would have no implications about Divine control of those events??}, proved by Biblical denials of equality between people and animals, the ship goes down by chance but it is not chance who is on board, no divine providence for animals justifies our killing them for our use, providing for animals = providence for the species and not for its individuals {but Species have no external existence – they are only conceptual III:18 [289]}, principle lesson is that “management”, “knowledge” “intention” etc. has no common meaning between human and Divine III: 23 [303]

8.3.5.3.1.      providence as protection III:18 [289-90] source in divine influence therefore varies as possession of intellect [289] and varies as goodness [289] protection is absolute [290]

8.3.6.      petition in order to impress divine providence III:36 [331-2]

8.4.   Permissible to kill animals since they have no intellect and hence are not under individual Divine providence III:17 [287]

9.      Eternity of the world

9.1.   statement of positions II:13 [171-3]

9.2.   past [Aristotle] I:71 [111] (arguments for) II:14 [174-6] (refutation of arguments) II:18 [181-3] II:30 [212]  (“admissible” = possible) II:16 [178]

9.3.   (argument for depends upon assumption of constant laws of nature) II:17 [178-81]

9.4.   future (possible) II:27 [201-2] (Solomon believed, and is correct) II:28 [202-4]

10.  Evil

10.1.                    nature – privation I:22 [32] III:10 [266-7] types (minority of existence) III:12 [267-72]

10.2.                    G-d’s creation of……..(only the end of the sequence matters for the judgment of justice) III:19 [290-1]

10.3.                    all evils are punishment for sin and all pleasures are reward for mitzvah III:17 [285] divine providence is perfect protection from evil III:51 [389]

11.  Free will

11.1.                    nature

11.2.                    existence obvious I:51 [70]

11.3.                    who possesses – man has free will (contrast animals that have only will) II:16 II:48 [249] III:17 [282-8] Intelligences, angels II:7 [168-9]

11.4.                    relation to G-d’s providence – view of prophets and sages - free will, no injustice – all evils are punishment for sin and all pleasures are reward for mitzvah – no suffering in this world for reward in the next, III:17 [285] 

12.  G-d

12.1.                    no relation to any creature, hence no similarity to any creature, hence words that are used for creatures and for G-d are homonyms [even “existence” and “unity”] I:56-7 [79-81] I:57 [80-1] see also Attributes of G-d

12.2.                    impossible to understand how He moves the world I:72 [119]

12.3.                    unity I:58 [81-3]

12.4.                    absolute independent existence, implies unity II:1 [152-3]

12.5.                    will or wisdom I:69 [104] II:18 [183] III:13 [272-7] (will = for no purpose) III:26 [310]

12.6.                    first cause I:69 [102-5] (through intermediaries – including man’s free will; includes [all?] natural events) II:48 [249-50]

12.7.                    nature = His works, so “He did” may describe natural effect I:66 [98-9]

12.8.                    “do” = oseh implies pre-existing materials and existing result; “bara” = create may be either without pre-existing materials [as in the creation of the universe] or without existing result [as in privations like darkness and evil] so all His actions/creations are perfectly good III:10 [265-6]

12.9.                    we do not ascribe doing what is impossible, including making another like himself or changing, corporifying or annihilating Himself III:15 [279]

12.10.                all His actions are good = successfully producing an important purpose III:25 [307-8] the whole creation is the result of G-d’s wisdom [308-9]

12.11.                omniscience – doubted because of evil III:16 [280-2] III:19 [290-2] the nature of His knowledge III:20-1 [292-6] does not imply plurality [292] unchanging (foresees the future) [292-3] includes what is non-existent and the infinite [293-4] philosophers objections based on false assumption that His knowledge is like ours when in fact his knowledge is identical to His essence and unknowable (and yet we day it is one, unchanging contains non-existent and infinite etc – unless these descriptions are meant negatively) [293-4] He knows as Creator via knowledge of His essence (knowledge of produces vs. knowledge of observer of mechanism) [293, 296] His knowledge does not change the character of possibility for future events [294]

12.12.                providence – see Divine Providence

12.13.                love of G-d produced by knowledge of the truths of the Law including true knowledge of His existence III:52 [392 – compare/contrast yesodie haTorah

12.14.                sustains the creation I:69 [105] I:70 [105-7]

12.15.                III:53 [392-3]: chesed = no claim at all on the benefit; tzedaka = claim via good character of giver; mishpat = claim via zechus/din/what the recipient deserves (including punishment)

12.16.                Incorporeality

12.16.1.                      required for unity I:1 [13]

12.16.2.                      “Show me Your glory” = Yourself I:64 [96]

12.16.3.                      Category mistake of attributes with respect to G-d I:58 [83]

12.17.                names of Names of G-d I:61 [89-91] I:63 [93-5]

12.17.1.                      elokim = judge I:2 [14] II:30 [218]

13.  Heavens

13.1.                    unchanging I:11 [24] (opinions) II:13 [171-3]

13.2.                    general description I:72 [113-9] II:4-5 [156-60] (and relation to the earth) II:10 [164-6] II:11 [167-8] (size) III:13 [277-9]

14.  Intellect

14.1.                    essence/form of man I:1 [13-14], I:7 [20] I:70 [106]

14.2.                    limits of ability (due to connection to physical) I:31-2 [40-3]

14.3.                    relation to body I:72 [119]

14.4.                    source in the active intellect I:68 [100-2] II:4 [158] II:37 [227-9]

14.5.                    the active intellect is the link between man and G-d III:51 [385-6]

14.6.                    If the active intellect reaches only the logical faculty and not the imaginative, the result is wisdom; if it reaches only the imaginative and not the logical the result is statesmen, lawgivers, diviners, charmers and true dreams II:37-8 [228-30]

15.  Knowledge of G-d

15.1.                    Achieved via analysis of nature I:19 [29] I:34 [45-6] I;38 [54] I:55 [78]  I:70 [107]

15.2.                    via knowledge of attributes of action I:54 [75-8]

15.3.                    via negative attributes I:58-60 [81-89]

16.  man

16.1.                    free will (contrast animals that have only will) II:48 [249] III:17 [282-8]

16.2.                    naturally social II:39 [232] III:27 [313]

16.3.                    made in form and likeness of G-d due to intellect I:1 [14], I:2 [15] III:8 [261]

16.4.                    microcosm of the universe because of his intellect I:73 [117-9]

16.5.                    most compound/complex being, hence most individual variation II:40 [232-3]

16.6.                    failures due to his matter; merits due to his form III:8 [261-4] (material part blocks perception of abstract ideal) III:9 [264-5] III:12 [268-9]

16.7.                    goal/highest success = knowledge of G-d, angels and the rest of creation according to his capacity = being together with G-d III:8 [261-4] (perfection of soul = knowledge of all that is capable of being known and that does not include any action) III:27 [312-3] III:51 [384-6] even one who possesses knowledge of G-d must constantly focus consciously on G-d – if he diverts his focus he loses Divine protection but if he maintains the focus his protection is absolute III:51 [386-7, 388-90 – compare 285, 300] order of development: focus during shema and prayer; when alone; when interacting with others III:51 [387-8] we should be conscious that we are always in the presence of the king (= active intellect which is the link between us and G-d) III:52 [391-2] Man’s obligation is to be like G-d I:54 [78]

16.8.                    III:54 [393-7: chochma = i) knowledge of truths that lead to [and include] knowledge of G-d, ii) workmanship, iii) moral principles, iv) cunning; not= truths received by tradition – knowledge of the Law not= chochma, but the right order is to learn them by tradition first and learn to prove them later; Moses was the wisest of all men [Solomon only wiser than those in his generation]; four recognized perfections: possessions, bodily, moral [principles, knowledge of G-d – first three are external [in different senses]; [moral principles not the goal since they are for helping others and that presupposes some other ultimate purpose]; prophets agree with philosophers on this; verse in Jer. finishes that G-d desires that we perform the actions that He performs and loves

16.9.                    inter-personal evils due to ignorance (Plato) III:11 [267]

16.10.                Satan has no power over his nefesh III:22 [298]

17.  miracles

17.1.                     (only temporary changes in nature) II:29 [210] III:50 [382]

17.2.                    (cannot be explained figuratively) II:25 [199-201]

17.3.                     (unique miracles of Moses) II35 [224] Not all Israel saw the sun stopped by Joshua [meaning that although they saw the sun stop, they did not see that Joshua stopped it?] II:35 [224]

17.4.                    (the nature of man is never changed by miracle) III:32 [325]

18.  Metaphor

18.1.                    method – when applied

18.2.                    distinguished from allegory

18.3.                    examples I:54 [95-6]

19.  non-literal interpretation – principles –

19.1.                    instruction in theology via allegories and parables due to lack of fixed method, sometimes the lesson is only part of the allegory and sometimes divided between several allegories, Introduction [   ]

19.2.                    requires some explicit use of the non-literal meaning in some Biblical text I:1-49 passim

20.  Objectivity [mussar]

20.1.                    desires make objectivity impossible I:2 [15] I:5 [18-9] I:34 [47] II:23 [195] (bodily pleasures prevent prophecy) II:36 [226-7] III:8 [261-4] III:33 [327] (bodily desires prevent love/attachment of G-f) III:51 [390]

20.2.                    factors in opposition of I:31 [41] I:34 [47]

21.  Plato

21.1.                    theory of creation II:13 [172] II:25 [199-200]

22.  Proof

22.1.                    types

22.2.                    reliability – absolute I:31 [41] (implied superior to prophecy) II:16 [178] (demonstrative proof would require giving up Creation; but there is no such proof) II:23,25 [195],[200]

22.3.                    need to prove even obvious propositions I:51 [58-9]

22.4.                    necessary for real knowledge I:55 [78-9]

22.5.                    what is known by proof is equal to revelation II:33 [222] [[BUT note “…in this voice they perceived the first two commandments…[but not] in the same degree and Moses did.” unprovable – aspects of G-d’s knowledge III:21[296]

22.6.                    a miracle cannot prove that which is impossible III:24 [304]

23.  Proofs of G-d’s existence

23.1.                    methodology, via analysis of nature I:34 [45-6] I:70 [107]

23.2.                    via dilemma argument based on false assumption of eternity I:71 [111] II: Intro [145] II:1 [153] II:2 [154-5]

23.3.                    Argument from design III:19 [291-2]

24.  Prophecy

24.1.                    varieties of II:44-5 [240-5]

24.2.                    various opinions of – parallel to views on creation/eternity [?] II:32  [219-21]

24.3.                    absolute certainty of reality – compared to the certainty of perception and logic learned from Akeda III:24 [306]

24.4.                    G-d or angel speaking only in dream or vision II:40 [235] (hence whole sequence of events only in dream or vision II:42 [237-8] (events reported in prophecy concerning the prophet himself generally take place in dream/vision) II:46 [245-7]

24.5.                    provides knowledge beyond the natural II:38 [230]

24.6.                    requires courage and intuition in great measure II:38 [229]

24.7.                    requires control/suppression of bodily pleasures II:36 [226-7]

24.8.                    nature – through an angel I:37 [53] II:34 [223], active intellect + faculty of imagination (natural strength + training) II:36 [225-7]

24.9.                    language of (metaphorical/allegorical) II:29 [204-12] (including exaggeration, even in Chumash) II:47 [247-9] (according to the speech of each prophet) [204] Interpretation of prophetic text is correct just in case it was the intention of the prophet III:4 [257] (no prophecy of the end of the world) [204-10]

24.10.                uniqueness of Moshe I:37 [53] II:33 [221-3] (and uniqueness of Moses’ miracles) II:35 [223-4] II:36 [227] (only prophecy of Moshe reveals commandments – only he commanded others in G-d’s name) II:39 [231-2]

24.11.                Sinai – variety of perceptions with minority receiving real prophecy II:32 [221] only Moses heard the words – the people heard the voice/sound but not words II:33 [222-3] [[BUT see III:24 [305] below under “Trials”]], what is known by proof is equal to revelation II:33 [222] [[BUT note “…in this voice they perceived the first two commandments…[but not] in the same degree and Moses did.”

24.12.                necessary precondition for mitzvos/Law III:44 [355]

24.13.                III:51 [385]: “There are some who direct all their mind toward the attainment of perfection in Metaphysics, devote themselves entirely to God, exclude from their thought every other thing, and employ all their intellectual faculties in the study of the Universe, in order to derive therefrom a proof for the existence of God, and to learn in every possible way how God rules all things; they form the class of those who have entered the palace, namely, the class of prophets” [??]

25.  Possibility and impossibility

26.  Reasons for commandments

26.1.                    general principles - (correct beliefs and physical well-being) II:31 [219] II:40 [232-4] III:27 [312-3] (balanced – natural for persons of good character) II:39 [231-2] (every commandment has a reason though some are unknown) III:26 [310] (against those who say that if it has a reason then it is not from G-d since He is above all reason) III:31 [321-2] (to give reason = to show consequences for true belief or actions that improve society) III:28 [314] Law does not take into account exceptional circumstances III:34 [328-9] laws between man and G-d also affect other men but only after a long process III:35 [331] only showing purpose for law as in verses, not in Torah she baal peh III:41 [344] mitzvah that had meaning in specific historical circumstances are made permanent in order to recall those events in later times {and this might be a reason why sacrifices will be done even in the future when no one worships idols} III:46 [361] the Law uses safeguards III:48 [372] reasons only for general rules – details (e.g. of sacrifices) have no purpose (other than man’s obedience) III:26 [311-2]

26.2.                    threats concerning idolatry opposite of what priests of idolatry promised III:30 [321] III:37 [336-7] Severity of idolatry I:36 [50-2]

26.3.                    only gradual changes possible so impossible to abandon sacrifices entirely but they are very limited and downgraded by the prophets III:32 [322-6] (G-d does not change the nature of man in order to make actions possible [323-5]

26.4.                    reduce desires, personal decency III:33 [327-8]

26.5.                    killing animal that has killed a person or involved in immorality is a fine for the owner III:40 [342]

26.6.                    red heifer rules designed to find the killer III:40 [343]

26.7.                    severity of punishment according to greatness of the sin, frequency, amount of temptation, ease of doing sin secretly III:41 [345]

26.8.                    rules for zaken mamre and wrong psak {need clarification} III:41 [348]

26.9.                    death for any transgression does as a demonstration of unbelief III:41 [348-9]

26.10.                our object is to lead mankind to the service of G-d and to a good social order III:41 [350]

26.11.                explanation of Sabbath and holidays starts with physical and social benefits and only then to symbolism III:43 [352-3] the Law follows nature and brings it to perfection [352] the Sages [sometimes] use the text as poetry to express their own ideas – they are not interpreting the text – so midrashim not to be taken as interpretations III:43 [353-4]

26.12.                Since prophecy is necessary for the Law, and prophecy is received through angels, so belief in angels is necessary for the Law, so the keruvim!! {even though Moshe’s prophecy was not through an angel!?} III:45 [356]

26.13.                has no reason for table and bread in mikdash III:45 [356] and no reason for wine offering III:46 [366] and purification procedure from leprosy III:47 [370]

26.14.                the greater the sin the lower the species from which the sacrifice is brought III:46 [363]

26.15.                congregational sin offerings imply that we, our children and our children’s children owe atonement for our sin III:46 [364]

26.16.                the easier the diffusion of the uncleanness the harder and slower its purification III:47 [368]

26.17.                forbidden food is unhealthy III:48 [370] simanim are only signs of what is permitted, not the reason; forbidden to torture {even psychologically!} animals, these rules to produce kindness in people III:48 [371]

26.18.                circumcision reduces sexual pleasure III:48 [378-9]

26.19.                kesuba is like pay of harlot or hired servant III:48 [374-5]

26.20.                most of the mitzvos whose reasons are unknown were against idolatry whose past details are unknown to us III:49 [380]

26.21.                correct beliefs (theology only in general terms, to be expanded via knowledge of other science {implied in commandment to love G-d} and detailed beliefs that lead to good social relations),  III:28 [313-5]

26.22.                love and fear is the entire purpose of service/commandments III:29 [317]

27.  Scientific method

27.1.                    nature – simplicity etc II:9 [164] II:11 [167] (balance of evidence for and against) II:22 [194] II:24 [198] (kinematics vs. dynamics) II:38 [230]

27.1.1.  order of investigation Intro [4] I:5 [18] I:33-4 [43-9]

27.1.2.  character of investigator  – caution I:5 [18-9], restriction to appropriate subjects I:21 [30-1]

27.2.                    reliability

28.  Soul

28.1.                    relation to intellect

28.2.                    after death I:40-1 [55-6] I:70 [106]

29.  Subjects to be hidden 

29.1.                    includes natural science Intro [3], I:17 [27]

29.2.                    “secrets of the Law” (theological topics, “metaphysics”) I:33 [44] I:35 [49] I:62 [93] (revelation at Sinai one of the secrets) II:33 [223] (Incorporeality of G-d) II:47 [249] (account of the chariot) III:Introduction [251]

29.3.                    reason to be hidden

30.   “The Torah speaks in man’s language” I:26 [35] I:53 [73]

31.  Wisdom

31.1.                    value I:30 [39-40] I:42 [57]

Miscellaneous topics

Emes/sheker vs. /tov/ra I:2 [14-6]I:6 [19]

Male/female = form/matter I:17 [27]

Comparisons to Ramchal - superior value of hidden meaning Intro [6], justification for revealing: “time to do for Hashem” and pure motivation Intro [9], impossible to understand how G-d moves the world I:72 [119] prophecy is the highest human achievement II:36 [225] G-d does only good III:10

Onkelos method I:21 [31-2], I:27 [35-7], I:28 [38] I:48 [64-5] I:67 [98-9] II:33 [222-3]

Atheism I:36 not as bad as idol worship – only latter must be killed since they may mislead others III:51 [384]

Belief requires understanding I:50-1 [67-9]

Moses greatest of the wise, prays for guidance to govern I:54 [75-8] II:28 [204]

Knower = knowing = known even for people I:68 [100-2]

Knowledge of philosophy and science lost from Jewish People I:71 [107-8] II:11 [168] III: Introduction (account of chariot entirely Rambam’s own ideas) III: Introduction (scientific/astronomical knowledge – therefore appropriate to accept knowledge from others;

Text of prayers is source for positions of chazal II:5 [159]

The number four II:10 [166]

All languages conventional II:30 [218]

The nature of imagination II:36 [225-7]

The nature of possibility and Rambam does not know whether imagining establishes possibility III:15 [279]

“Thoughts of sin are worse than sin” because the thought contaminates the greatest part of the person, and similarly for low speach III:8 [263]

Holiness of Hebrew = no words for private parts/actions III:8 [264] III:48 [374]

Species have no external existence – they are only conceptual III:18 [289]

Objection: “G-d knows since He created the eye He will see etc.” implies that G-d must be physical. Rambam’s answer: creating the eye implies that He understands sight implies that He has all the knowledge that sight can provide III:19 [291]

The book of Job III:22-3 [296-303] Introduction is certainly a fiction [296] place of Satan is below, unlike other angels [297] Job and friends thought G-d and not Satan was the source of his suffering, wisdom is not ascribed to Job [297] order of suffering according to estimation of common man and no one can withstand too much bodily suffering [297] Satan = yetzer hara = malach hamves, many verses concerning Satan {perhaps Satan = matter hence vs. intellect = nefesh = form} [298-9] the key lesson: “As soon as he had acquired a true knowledge of God, he confessed that there is undoubtedly true felicity in the knowledge of God; it is attained by all who acquire that knowledge, and no earthly trouble can disturb it. So long as job's knowledge of God was based on tradition and communication, and not on research, he believed that such imaginary good as is possessed in health, riches, and children, was the utmost that men can attain: this was the reason why he was in perplexity” [300-1] opinions of the three friends = main positions concerning providence [301-2] the answer in the book is in the speech of Elihu in the metaphor of the angel’s intercession [302] also account of prophecy and learning through nature [302-3] principle lesson is that “management”, “knowledge” “intention” etc. has no common meaning between human and Divine [303]

Trials III:24 [304-7] purpose to teach man what to do or to believe [304] “to know” = “to make known” [304] a miracle cannot prove that which is impossible [304] revelation at Sinai prevents later false prophets since “If I had come as a messenger as you desired, and had told you that which had been said unto me and which you had not heard, you would perhaps consider as true what another might tell you in opposition to that which you heard from me. But it is different now, as you have heard it in the midst of the great sight."

Darkei haemori III:37 [334-5]

Mercy on sinners is cruelty to all creatures III:39 [341]

The words of the Law do not become unclean III:47 [369]

Every detail of the narratives of the Law is necessary to establish true belief or regulate actions and order society III:50 [380-4]

Details give credibility to narratives

War of four kings shows providence for G-d’s servant

List of families of Seir to identify Amelek

Kings of Edom to illustrate the usefulness of our law not to accept foreigners as kings

Jericho should not be rebuilt so that the vertical submersion of the walls should be permanent evidence that it was not conquered naturally

Miriam achieved knowledge and love of G-d III:51 [391]