Dr. Belkin, Honored Guests, Fellow Graduates, Friends: It is customary for the valedictorian to stress the idea that the class' four year stay at the college has been but preparation for later accomplishments; that the college has given the tools, but the actual forging ahead must come, as a result of individual efforts, in the years following, I find myself forced to adhere to this stereotype. Yeshiva, in the final analysis, is bound only to give us the raw materials necessary for that now-famous synthesis of Western civilization and Traditional Judaism which is the epitome of the ideals of this school. It is our duty to effect within ourselves this conciliation or harmony between the two cultures. It is generally conceded that one of the primary characteristics of Western civilization is science; that science, and especially technology, is the foundation upon which is built the edifice of modern Western civilization. Therefore, it becomes our interest to consider the juxtaposition of science and Judaism. However, I do not believe it proper to rehash, here, the ancient topic of science and religion. Much — very much — has been said, but little indeed has been done. Perhaps we should begin to emphasize the "doing” rather than the "saying”. The essence of Traditional Judaism, as we know it and as we would like to know it, is the Halacha. מיום שחרב בית המקדש אין לו להקב"ה בעולמו אלא ד' אמות של הלכה בלבד. "Since the day the Holy Temple was destroyed, the Holy One, Blessed be He, has in His world only the four cubits of Halacha”. And what is the Halacha if not the application of divinely revealed Biblical and Talmudic principles to empirical facts, to what William James called "the irreducible and stubborn facts" of Nature. As such, the understanding and correct practice of Halacha is necessarily dependent upon the development and success of scientific endeavor. Since the codification of Halacha, and particularly in the past on e hundred years, men have discovered more…

The success of my talk to you this evening is based on two things: the length of my mmemory and the shortness of yours. You see, after I had already notified your chairman that the topic of my talk would be, "Science and Judaism," or something of the sort, I remembered that about two years ago I addressed your Collegiate Group on this very topic, and by this time it was already too late to speak about something else since it usually takes me more than two weeks to prepare a good impromptu speech. However, I know very well that those of you who heard me then have conveniently forgotten the bill of goods I was peddling and, besides, I believe that I really have something new to tell you. Since then many of thetheories I expounded have materialised into practical affairs.The border between Sc and Re has been pictured as a very tight one, and an adventure in the understanding of their relations to each other is as bad as walking on a tight rope; you take the risk of falling, on one side, into the biting witticisms of cynical scientists and, on the other side, into the pious rebukes hurled at you by self-proclaimed indignant Protectors of the Faith.So, if for no other reason than that of a risky adventure, we should find it interesting to know something of what is going on in this twin-planet of Sc & Re.True, we may be getting into hot water, but I believe in occasionally gettinginto’ hot water - it keeps you clean.^8^‘**^5*1 5^^י^■ ^^hi*־M — י-'I- The Speculative Conflicts. Copernicus, Galileo opposed by ChurchA Darwin and j[,־w . ^ a^ fo(u»1« ^*di^j ^^ ^״ajxvu • -4»111ץgeology by Jews too^ Long history polemics. Neither side clear in details whichis most important. In fundamentals, can be no conflict. Reply from religiousside ranges from stubborn denial to move one inch, though giving more figurativeinterpretation to certain parts Bible not against Judaism - Maimonides, others.Others marked by complete submission to utterance of any scientist regardless reliabilit…

Perhaps the clearest and most concise way to illustrate the extent to which modern science agrees in its tendencies and conclusions with the ancient – yet ever-young – ideals of Judaism is to draw a sharp distinction between the science of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and that of today. The difference is tremendous – they represent two completely different states of mind. It is a startling and gratifying change – though many who think themselves “up-to-date” are, in fact, still 50 years behind the times.What the 19th-Century State of Mind WasIt was characterized by a near-religious belief in optimism and progress – the idea that science’s accomplishments would be unlimited, and that, given enough time and patience, man would force nature to reveal all her secrets. Science evolved from policy to creed, from method to faith. It was no longer science – it was scientism. Consider five features of this scientism:A. Science as a Way of Life Science, like religion, was expected to guide every aspect of human life – ethics, morals, behavior, and even thought. It monopolized every waking moment. In becoming so all-encompassing, it ceased to be science and became a faith – scientism. (See the parody “A Modern Version of the 23rd Psalm.”)B. The Promise of Redemption Science claimed it would solve not only disease and discomfort, but also psychological and spiritual ills. A “Science of Man” emerged, promising to condition future generations into moral and democratic beings – all through science. This was clearly a religious claim.C. A Priesthood The scientist became a priest – cold, rational, and infallible – the sole possessor of truth. The public invested scientists with a quasi-divine authority, making them the priestly class of modernity.D. Certainty There was no room for doubt. Once science declared a principle, it became dogma – matter could be destroyed, the sun was the center, atoms contained three particles. These were no longer theories – they were certain…

The challenge posed by the changing world scene to traditional Judaism in its philosophical aspects has been discussed by previous lecturers. The advent of modern science brought with it a new conception of the universe and of man’s place within it, and Judaism was required to respond. This philosophical dialogue is of great significance. But ultimately, Judaism’s survival depends on Halakhah. If Halakhah is not preserved, then no matter how successful the philosophical adjustments, Judaism will not endure. Conversely, if Halakhah can be preserved within the changing world, then philosophers may struggle – but they will have something of enduring value to reflect on.Just as the philosophies nourished by modern science conflicted with Jewish philosophy, so too the practical discoveries and inventions of natural science presented great challenges to the halakhist. And just as in natural science the science itself is primary and philosophy flows from it, so too in Judaism – Halakhah is the given, the primary datum, the raw material. Philosophy must grow out of Halakhah, not the reverse.Indeed, the modern age of science has posed mighty challenges to Halakhah:Artificial insemination (late 19th century – reproduction without copulation) Electricity, radio, television – including ethical questions of communication Halakhah had three options in response to modern science and technology:A) Succumb – argue that Halakhah and science occupy different worlds and Halakhah is therefore obsolete; permit anything new by default B) Ignore – retreat into the ghetto, declare all innovation forbidden C) Creative Response – treat the challenge of modernity as a catalyst for internal growthIt is a testimony to the inner vitality of Halakhah that it chose the third path.As one editorial in Science put it, “dither” – kinetic friction is better than static inertia. Halakhah has always existed “in a dither” – from the days of Moses until today – and it is precisely this tension that has kep…

Mr. Parker, distinguished guests at the dais, ladies and gentlemen. I am very grateful to you, Mr. Parker, for your introduction. I am reaching the end of that period when I can be introduced as a “new President." I think at the next Einstein affair, I shall probably qualify as an old President. I would like to add my congratulations to those already expressed by the Chairman to new members of the Board and to all members, professional and lay, of the Albert Einstein family. In an age when democracy is misinterpreted as that which sinks to the lowest common denominator, when "equality of opportunity" is misinterpreted as a kind of imposed but fictitious equality of talent, Einstein stands out as a brilliant exception. Its faculty and its student body constitute a genuine meritocracy in which you can get ahead only if you deserve it. Its lay leadership represents to my mind an authentic aristocracy of service, where only if you serve are you deserving of recognition and where you serve because you feel an inner compulsion to put your talent and your substance at the service of your fellowmen. So, to the entire Albert Einstein family here gathered, and to those who aren’t here as well, my warmest felicitations. Permit me a few words about the mission of this school in which we are all involved. In the past twenty-two years we have undergone a change of focus that speaks volumes about the whole nature of our enterprise and also tells us a great deal about sociological changes in the American community. One of the main purposes for founding a medical school under Jewish auspices was because many Jews could not find their way into the medical fraternity — neither as students nor as faculty — without great difficulty. We were guests who were tolerated — and sometimes not tolerated The Jewish community felt that the time had come when we had to have the kind of school where people would be accepted on merit alone — because they are of value to medicine and science and edu…

The existence of rational, sentient beings on a planet other than earth is declared a probability by an ever-growing chorus of distinguished astronomers and eminent scientists in all fields. Should the existence of life elsewhere be established, and especially if some contact is made with intelligent beings elsewhere, we will be confronted by as much of a challenge to our established way of thought as when the Copernican revolution displaced the earth from the center of the universe and set in motion a religious and philosophical upheaval that has but recently run its course. I admit this is the second most serious problem we face today. The first, most important is: is there any intelligent life on earth? There has been little if any serious Jewish thinking on the subject. Yet it is important to anticipate such revolutionary discoveries, and that for two reasons. First, we must anticipate such an eventuality and attempt to formulate a preliminary Jewish-religious conception of a universe in which man is not the only rational inhabitant. And second — perhaps first — the exercise itself will shed light on the fundamental Jewish Weltanschauung of Judaism on the role of man in the universe, irrespective of the actual existence of extraterrestrial life. Of course, caution must be exercised in accepting uncritically any extravagant speculation on this subject and, even more, the hasty philosophic conclusions some have begun to derive from such uninhibited conjecture. Indeed, drinking deeply from the heady wines of amazing hypotheses and fascinating theories, most of them not proven, a number of scientists have become intoxicated with the sense of their own unimportance. Never have so many been so enthusiastic about being so trivial. Nevertheless, the credentials of the scientists who believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe are impeccable and the weight of evidence they present is sufficiently convincing for us to take their conjectures seriously, …

In my twenty-six years as President of Yeshiva University, which of course includes the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, the science of medicine and delivery of healthcare have changed radically. Seventeen years ago, our Dean, Dr. Dominick Purpura, referred to the massive challenges suddenly facing society as a “healthquake” – a most felicitous neologism. This revolutionary development has had enormous consequences for medicine and for society, and its tremors are still powerful and will affect you, as well as your firture patients, financially and in the very manner and style in which you conduct your professions.You have been privileged to be mentored and trained by distinguished faculty who have tried to instill in you the values that will guide you throughout your personal and professional careers. Most of all, they have taught you to care as well as to cure. Tlie Oath of Hyppocrites and that of Maimonides add a humanistic attest to tliat sage advice.But there is more to it than tliat. Albert Einstein College of Medicine is a major institution of Yeshiva University, whose mission is expressed in tlie two Hebrew words Torah Umadda, the millenial, classical Jewish tradition with its rich and vast literature, and contemporary civilization with its powerful teclmological advances, its political ideals, and its social structures. This combination should hold true not only for Jewish students or only for religious people, but for all of us, because it bids us to the moral dimension of what we do consider at all times. Professor Einstein liimself gave his name and blessing to the medical school of Yeshiva University, and his moral stature has kept us attuned to the moral and ethical dimensions in your education. And that is what often agitates me and forms the cause if not substance of my remarks this morning.My concerns are tlie relations between medicine, science, and morality. The current controversy over tlie cloning of humans and stem cell research is but one…