To recall, both early modern Christian versions of the two books metaphor argue from the proven ability of suitably disposed readers to fathom the true meaning of Scripture to a promise of similar success to students of nature analogously disposed. Rabbi Berlin’s argument commences from exactly the same analogy, but runs in exactly the opposite direction, and with the opposite conclusion. Students of Torah, he argues, resemble students of nature (and not the other way around) not in the confidence they are justified to feel about their researches, but, on the contrary, in being persistently distrustful of the fruits of their efforts. This is because, just like scientists, students of Torah can never know if the understanding they have achieved is conclusive. Interpretations, convincing as they may be, will always be open to further questioning and to the challenge of alternative readings. More importantly, interpretations can never be proven true. The study of Torah resembles science, argues Rabbi Berlin, in that both undertakings lack criteria for determining either conclusiveness or truth!
According to Rabbi Berlin, Torah study and science are analogous because of the thoroughly pervading constructive skepticism that characterizes both undertakings. Unlike both early modern Christian accounts, for him, what religion and science have in common is a persistent uncertainty regarding the truth of their findings. Just as in science, so in the study of Torah, one can never boast knowledge of the truth, even locally. Torah is the revealed Word of God, of course, but interpreting Torah is always the work of human exegetes, and can, therefore, never transcend the boundaries of inconclusive human conjecture
. . .
he obviously draws the analogy between science and religious study with a view to promoting the latter, his text strongly suggests that in his opinion the perpetual uncertainty he associates with science and Torah study is not viewed as an impediment to their progress, but as the very reason for their great vitality and growth! Humbly aware of their own limitations, scientists and students of Torah become equally aware of those of their predecessors. Because they can never vouch for the truth and completeness of their researchers, all they can do is to criticize former efforts as best they can, with a view to presenting their own better alternatives, which in turn they genuinely hope their students will treat in similar fashion. Science and Torah–study, according to Rabbi Berlin, are both on-going, open-ended exercises in epistemic humility; consisting of creative, yet, at the same time, humbly self-doubting, cycles of keen trial and imaginative error