Sir Isaac Newton and Judaism
7 min read
6 min read
20 min read
What if belief in God isn’t blind faith—but a logical conclusion drawn from cutting-edge science and ancient wisdom?
In Judaism, the very first mitzvah—to know that there is a God—doesn’t ask for blind faith, but for knowledge rooted in reason. As Maimonides famously emphasized, belief in God is not a leap into the unknown; it's a conclusion drawn from careful consideration, much like a verdict in a court of law—reached not with absolute certainty, but beyond a reasonable doubt.
This perspective stands in stark contrast to a popular modern narrative: that science and belief in God are fundamentally at odds, or that religious conviction is somehow intellectually inferior—demanding a kind of faith that science proudly avoids. I challenge that assumption. In truth, the belief in a Creator rests on solid, compelling evidence.
While the full range of arguments and evidence spans far beyond what can be covered here, what follows is a brief but eye-opening survey of modern discoveries and timeless arguments that point us toward a rational, deeply grounded belief in God.
Either the world is a random accident (materialistic explanations), or it was created with intent (design).
No one would seriously believe that an iPhone emerged by accident in the sands of a desert—yet modern science insists, with near-religious conviction, that life’s far greater complexity came into being without purpose or design.1
Many of the world’s leading scientific minds now acknowledge the sheer mathematical impossibility that our universe and life developed by chance.
It may come as a surprise to discover that many of the world’s leading scientific minds now acknowledge the sheer mathematical impossibility that our universe and life developed by chance.2
For much of the past 200 years, with the help of Darwin, evolutionary biologists and atheists have had a lot of confidence that materialistic explanations for the universe and life’s existence were well-supported by science. Therefore, the explanation of the development of life did not need God or other supernatural explanations. ‘Scientific materialism,’ as it is called, seemed to be supported by new theories and discoveries starting from the late 1700s.
But the scientific tide began to turn in the mid-1900s.3
Scientific discoveries over the past 100 years in observational astronomy, theoretical physics, chemistry, and biology have presented serious challenges to the materialist’s theories. We will review three areas:
A hundred years ago, most scientists believed the universe had always been here. If that were true, then we wouldn’t need to ask where it came from—it would have no beginning. Even Albert Einstein initially believed the universe was just sitting still, without growing or shrinking.
But then scientists made new discoveries. In the 1930s, a man named Edwin Hubble found that galaxies were moving away from each other—meaning the universe is expanding. This led to the Big Bang theory, which says the universe had a starting point. Hubble’s discovery convinced Einstein to change his mind and accept that the universe is expanding.Today, this is the main theory scientists accept and is considered the “standard model” of cosmology.4
If the universe had a beginning, that’s a big deal. It means that space, time, and everything in the universe didn’t exist forever—they had to come from somewhere. They couldn’t have made themselves.5
This beginning—what some scientists call a “singularity”—goes beyond what science can explain. Scientists can talk about how the universe grew, but not where the first “stuff” came from. That’s still a mystery.
So, how do we explain the beginning of the universe from “nothing”? If physics can’t explain it, where should we look?
Two approaches are given to explain this and the upcoming phenomenon: one by theists and one by materialists. Some people believe God created it (theist answer). As the Torah says, a Creator who exists beyond space and time made everything—from nothing.
Both materialists and theists appeal to something eternal, unseen, and uncaused.
Others believe it somehow happened on its own (materialist answer). Many scientists admit they don’t really know. Some, like Stephen Hawking, guessed the universe may have created itself by a random quantum event6: “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."7
What is fascinating is that both materialists and theists appeal to something eternal, unseen, and uncaused; and since neither approach can be proved, neither approach has a stronger scientific claim.
Even if we explain how the universe started, there’s another question: how did life begin? Scientists have discovered just how unlikely it is for life to exist at all.
Some scientists have characterized this remarkable phenomenon as a "Goldilocks Universe" because it's "just right" for supporting life.
Earth is in just the right spot to have water and the perfect temperature. That’s not true for most planets. And not just our planet—our whole solar system is in a ‘just-right’ spot in the galaxy. And our galaxy is in a good spot in the universe.
The universe is also finely balanced. If certain forces were even a tiny bit different, life couldn’t exist.8 Even small changes in these numbers would make life impossible. That’s why many call this a “fine-tuned” universe. The possibility of nature arriving at these numbers randomly seems to be mathematically impossible. Dr. Stephen Meyer, an American philosopher of science, author, and advocate of the intelligent design theory, explains what the odds are: “...the chances are 10 billion times worse than randomly searching for and finding by chance one specially marked subatomic particle in our visible universe with 200 billion galaxies, each with 100 billion stars.”9
“The origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”
Sir Francis Crick, who won a Nobel Prize as co-discoverer of DNA, concluded that “The origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”10
This is not an isolated opinion but a growing consensus. Sir Fred Hoyle (1915–2001), a British astronomer, physicist, cosmologist and atheist, was forced to concede the implication of design, as the fine-tuning could not be ‘cosmic coincidences.’ “A common-sense interpretation of the facts suggest that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”11
He offered his famous “junkyard tornado” analogy, stating that the belief that chemical (random) evolution could have produced the first cell from lifelessness is comparable to “the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747.”12
Another expert said the odds are like surviving Russian roulette 50,000 times. Not happening.13
Likewise, Stephen Hawking concluded that “Cosmological fine tuning seems more expected given the activity of a designing mind than it does a random or mindless process…”14
For scientists, this challenge is known as the ‘fine tuning problem’. As many have reluctantly arrived at the almost inescapable conclusion that the universe is designed by some kind of intelligence, the question is asked: whose intelligence?
Two approaches are given:
Theist Answer: A Creator/Designer God whose Intelligence is beyond our ability to grasp established finely tuned cosmological parameters.
Materialist answer: Some atheists concede the fine-tuning for life to be statistically impossible in our universe (which is the only one we know of), but then conjecture the possibility that there may be other universes: if there were an infinite number of universes beyond ours, that would allow for an infinite number of combinations, or ‘tries to get it right,’ - and so probability increases.
This is called the multiverse theory. But there’s no evidence for it.15
The third problem for materialists comes from biology.
Even if science could explain how the universe and simple life began, how did life become so complex?
Darwin’s idea—random changes plus natural selection—once seemed enough to explain evolution. But that changed when DNA was discovered.
In 1952, scientists found that DNA is not just chemicals—it’s a kind of code, like computer software.16 Darwin thought cells were simple. We now know they are super complex, with tens of millions of things happening in a single cell at any given time. And if cells are complex, DNA - the code at its core - is ridiculously so. Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, said, “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”17 A tiny bit of DNA holds more info than a tower of books reaching the moon—500 times!
So far, no scientific theory has shown how this kind of coded info could appear by accident. Materialist scientists do not have an explanation for how life developed DNA and ‘went digital,’ as Paul Davies calls it.18 In other words, the origin of DNA information is a mystery.
But even if they solved that one, they just get to the next monster problem. The theory of unguided evolution through minor random mutations followed by natural selection must also stand the test of statistical probability - and it is not holding up.
Most random changes (mutations) mess things up, not improve them. You wouldn’t want random edits in a computer program.19 David Gelernter, a Yale computer scientist, did the math and concluded that “The odds against blind Darwinian chance having turned up even one mutation with the potential to push evolution forward are 1040x (1/1077)—1040 tries…In practical terms, those odds are still zero. Zero odds of producing a single promising mutation in the whole history of life. Darwin loses.”20
Neo-Darwinian theory only explains how things adapt and survive. As one expert said, it explains “the survival of the fittest, but not the arrival of the fittest.”21 Biological evolutionary science has not accounted for the origin of information necessary to build new forms of animal life.22 When Darwin noticed the changes in a bird’s beak or color, he was observing small microevolutionary changes that we now know make use of its original genetic information. But to date, there is no evidence that that can be extrapolated to macroevolutionary changes, like the creation of new organs, wings, limbs, eyes, nervous systems, brains or new forms of animal life. These macro changes require the generation of new genetic information, and that has not been observed, demonstrated or explained by science.
Stephen Meyers concludes, “Thus, the information problem associated with the origin of the first life does not represent an isolated anomaly, but instead a fundamental challenge to the theories of chemical and biological evolution.”23
How do we then explain this design and development of complex life?
The God view: A Creator designed the world with a plan and gave it rules (natural laws) so life could evolve.
The materialist view: Some say perhaps aliens brought life here.
Sir Francis Crick suggested this unscientific “bold speculation” after he first admitted that, “An honest man (will conclude that)...the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going”24 But that notion just pushes the mystery back further. Who made the aliens?
We started with a simple idea: If you find an iPhone in the sand, you know it didn’t get there by accident. Science keeps showing more signs of intelligent design, from tiny cells to huge galaxies. Although many materialist scientists have labored to explain ‘design without a designer’ as Francisco Ayala said,25 the foundational questions remain unanswered.
Life exists in a universe so perfectly balanced that it’s mathematically hard to believe it’s just luck.
The universe had a beginning—but science can’t explain what made it.
Life exists in a universe so perfectly balanced that it’s mathematically hard to believe it’s just luck.
And complex life appearing by chance? Also nearly impossible.
The cumulative weight of these improbabilities points toward purposeful design.
One hundred years ago, Albert Einstein humbly concluded that the observable evidence points toward a Designer:
I am not an atheist... We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books…The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws.26
There are two main ideas about life, and even though we’d love a clear answer, neither one can be proven the usual way. Both theories are metaphysical because they are based on belief, not hard proof—they go beyond what science can physically test or show. Just like God is said to exist beyond space and time, the idea of a multiverse (many other universes) also can’t be seen or tested. Hawking’s co-author, cosmologist George Ellis, admitted that, “All the (proposed) parallel universes lie outside our horizon and remain beyond our capacity to see, now or ever, no matter how technology evolves.”27
Since neither side can be proven by science, some scientists say it’s a draw and just leave the question open.28
But can we still use logic to decide which idea makes more sense?
Stephen Meyer says that believing in a Creator actually makes more sense than saying the universe just popped into existence by accident and against all odds and for no reason. A finite beginning and complex life is a surprise for people who think nature explains everything—but it fits perfectly with what Judaism says: a Creator outside of time and space started it all.29
To me, the case for God isn’t just reasonable—it’s deeply compelling. The long-held belief that science alone - without God - can explain everything, is beginning to feel less certain. But now let’s open the Torah—and we’re in for some surprises. What once felt like a leap of faith begins to take shape as a meaningful and consistent picture of reality. As astrophysicist Robert Jastrow put it so well: “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”30
I found this article to be purely brilliant
Yes it is, according what I read in my newspaper or magazine science and religion are both in sync, the DNA codes and other codes in science proved there is a G _d, even the planets the way they are are exactly to sustain life on earth, the genius and scientist Albert Einstein said " there is no science without religion" meaning all the different codes in science proves there is a creator, also things written in the Torah written and oral shows evidence there is a creator, the first person to see there was a creator was Abraham by looking at nature, the way the world works people called it nature but in reality the creator is doing it, also the miracle of birth there must be a creator, also why can't people believe that the Jews got the Torah, and Shavout holiday just passed
How did we obtain our beliefs. Consider this: It’s so CONFUSING - and COMPLICATED. In reality - from the time we are conceived - throughout our lives - we are taught by those - WE ARE SUPPOSED TO TRUST - who have the access - and responsibility to teach us - what we should believe - is the TRUTH - and what we should DESIRE to do - to accomplish that goal. In the Jewish Talmud - we are told - "Desire - molds - what we believe to be - truth”. Though - In spite of - what may be - the ACTUAL TRUTH. Desire - often molds - only - what we are taught - and willing to believe - to be the truth - at the moment .More to follow.
This reminded me of Kacey Musgraves’ song “The Architect “. Was it by chance or a plan. Listen to the song. Very cool.
I have no problem is 'believing' in the potential of the Biblical G-d. But I am wholly septical that tradition has provided any insight into that reality. Like Christology, Torah development is an all too human theological construct on the prosumption that natural reason is capable of comprehending the mind of G-d. I doubt it!
Well said.
When religious leaders ask their followers to disbelieve their eyes and hard evidence, I think they undermine the belief that we can know anything whatsoever, even G-d. I believe it only reduces their followers to simply clinging to superstition and fear.
Judaism's tradition of thoughtful and careful examination, thorough questioning and knowledge for its own sake have been one of the great contributions to humanity, and have played an important role in our survival as a people in the face of significant animosity. I believe that to undermine this tradition is a threat to us as a people. It would reduce us into being hapless victims focused on our own history instead of active advocates of knowledge and understanding for the future of humanity.
How do you reckon with the fact that millions of Jews all claimed that they witnessed G-d at the foot of a mountain and passed this on to all generations after them? This claim has never been claimed before or anything close to it in any other system of beliefs.