Rabbi Sacks and How Not to Use Science

From the beginning of Judaism, a key educational challenge has been ensuring the Torah’s relevance to the people of the time. The Nevi’im were skilled at this- as Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said, “Prophecy…responds to the here and now of time and place”. Here and now, in our time and place, science is often seen as our most reliable source of truth about the world. Therefore, a great teacher of Torah must know how to use science well.

One recurring feature of Sacks’ writings is his use of science to enhance his arguments. Using science in this way is difficult, with modern science possessing a breadth and depth of information that prevents any one individual from mastering it. Consequently, even our greatest teachers will stumble from time to time. Sacks was no exception to this, and by examining where he misses the mark, we can learn a lot about the principles of using scientific ideas effectively.

In my view, there are three key principles of effective use of science in communicating Torah, which can be summarised as clarity, simplicity, and correctness.

Clarity

It is wise to avoid unnecessary invocations of science altogether. In one of his essays, Sacks sums up his approach to science and religion as follows: “Science is the paradigm of left-brain thinking: it is atomistic, it is analytical, whereas religion is synthetic and integrative, a characteristic right-brain way of thinking”.

This is an unnecessary invocation of science. Indeed, we can rewrite the sentence without the superfluous neuroscience, and have it still get exactly the same point across: “Scientific thinking is atomistic, it is analytical, whereas religious thinking is synthetic and integrative”. Furthermore, the analogy to sides of the brain only adds explanatory value for a reader who is already well-versed in neuroscience, for whom a comparison to the brain may help them get the point. Unfortunately, this reader will also recognise this metaphor as not being based on solid science, undermining that reader’s trust in Sacks’ accuracy.

Sacks successfully avoids this issue later in the very same essay. Here he summarises his view in a different way: “Science takes things apart to see how they work; religion puts things together to see what they mean”. This memorable syllogism communicates Sacks’ main idea using the fewest words possible. Note, importantly, how it doesn’t invoke science, and is all the clearer and stronger for it – sometimes, it pays to avoid using science altogether.

Simplicity

Even when invoking science is appropriate, is easy to slip from skilfully employing scientific ideas to merely inserting scientific-sounding vocabulary. For example, Rabbi Sacks describes the purpose of Chukim as being: “laws designed to bypass the prefrontal cortex, the rational brain, and create instinctive patterns of behaviour”.

Sacks’ overall point here is a good one. However, mentioning the ‘prefrontal cortex’ adds nothing besides a scientific air. Sacks’ argument here is based on his understanding of human nature, so using technical terms is liable to feel like a rhetorical trick, intended to give undeserved credibility to the argument. Technical terms exist to communicate complex ideas simply, and we should steer clear of using them for other purposes, lest we appear disingenuous.

Correctness

Once it is clear that an appeal to science is appropriate, and we have managed to avoid using unnecessary jargon, all that remains is to get the science right. To this end, there is a tendency to underestimate the importance of even seemingly trivial details, especially when outside of one’s own area of specialism.

Take a look at the following, from one of Rabbi Sacks’ essays: “Fatherhood is a cultural phenomenon. There is little in biology that supports pair-bonding, monogamy, and faithfulness in marriage, and less still that connects males with their offspring”. To some readers, this will seem like an entirely reasonable thing to say. However, in birds, pair bonding is common, and fathers are involved in rearing their offspring in 81% of bird species. Sacks’ claim, although well-aligned with common prejudices about the sex lives of animals, is not grounded in sound biology. This illustrates how challenging it can be to judge what is or is not a minor inaccuracy. Mating systems are a prominent topic in biology, so to a biology enthusiast, Sacks’ claims are jarring in their inaccuracy. Inaccuracies like this are harmless until repeated to somebody who knows better, at which point they can make the speaker seem ignorant and erode the listener’s respect for Torah.

Sacks also demonstrated how to prevent such issues. In one of his lectures, Sacks makes the same point, but without the jarring inaccuracy: “Hence the very rare phenomenon among mammals, of pair bonding, unlike other species.” By limiting his point to mammals, Sacks goes from being mistaken to correct, and somebody who repeated this to a biologist might impress them with their understanding of mammalian mating systems. This is also a good example of the correct use of technical vocabulary – the addition of the word ‘mammals’ has a substantial impact on the validity of the point, in a way the term ‘prefrontal cortex’ discussed above, did not.

This also demonstrates how important it is to understand what is and is not a minor detail – Sacks clearly knew that his point was limited to mammals, but did not consider this significant enough to mention in the former case. The level of precision required to get this right comes from a deep understanding of science, from being aware of our blind spots, and consulting experts where possible.

From theory to action

The three principles I have described can be expressed as three questions, which must be asked and answered by educators looking to make use of science:

1. Do I need to invoke science here to explain my point?
2. Am I using superfluous technical terms?
3. Do I know what the important points here are, and have I got them right?

By thinking about these three questions when using a scientific idea to teach Torah, we can show the ultimate unity of Torah and science, and make Torah relevant to the here and now of our time and place, walking in the ways of the Nevi’im.