David, I may get back to this post up the thread and which I couldn't deal with before as I was too upset for more debate after what was said.

I am sorry if I was too abrupt with you at the end of the thread before this. I hope what I said wasn't as awful as somebody said privately to me that it was. I'll go back and revisit it sometime soon when I settle down a bit more. I guess I should have PMd you privately but I didn't think of it. Sorry.

quote:

If I might summarize briefly what we have been discussing here, in this thread, I think you will understand what was the purport of my response to you.

quote:

rereading of "The Lonely Man of Faith" by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik.

A Rosh Yeshiva I studied with for a short while (about 10 years ago) gave me a copy of this book. I found that I could not read it, but thought it seemed like a fascinating topic.

I asked my father to read the book since he has quite a vocabulary, and he needed to have a dictionary near by... after a few pages he put that down and went back to his Boggle game.

My rabbi said that he viewed Rav Soloveitchik's writings as a tragegy because there was so much wonderful Torah knowledge there, but his writing style kept it inaccessible to most Jews.

Trusting that you have understood it and shall be re-reading it, perhaps if it could be done in a way to do the book justice, you could write some commentary which explains it a bit, and thus make this particular book more approachable for those with access to your commentary? I would certainly appreciate the opportunity to be re-introduced to the book for the first time.

Eventhough you said you now have so little online time, perhaps you could start a new thread and write an introduction or overview of what the book is about? I don't even remember what were my expectations of the book.

Thank you Rob.

I will think about a commentary although simply discussing a person or a book is my idea of torture. And it frustrates me as I keep thinking of topics related to the subject of report but which fall outside the brief to just do a commentary. I prefer to relate material to a real life concern and to be free to pursue directly the search for truth and how to apply it. Then my interest is keen.

I certainly think Rabbi Soloveitchik's book is relevant to this topuc and which has recently stirred up such passion and debate. Thus it seems most appropriate to me at this time to mention relevant things said in the book that cast light on this troubling topic. Your father was right about the tremendous knowledge Rabbi Soloveitchik possessed. He is very impressive. And he didn't have just Torah knowledge. He was a leading authority on the meaning of the Jewish law and a leading intellectual figure in the effort to build bridges between Orthodox Judaism and the modern world. "The Lonely Man of faith" has been seen as the finest and simplest representation of his ground-breaking synthesis of Orthodox Judaism and modern philosophy. His goal is always to illuminate the practical role of the "man" of faith within modern society.

I personally didn't find the book to be hard to understand. His writing is clear enough, though it is at a high level so one can't expect to sit back and take it easy. But there is a fair bit of background material one needs to have mastered in order to understand what he is getting at. He knows philosophy very well indeed.

I have been doing philosophy for many years and a person of his depth of understanding in it is rare. Most philosophers are reporters and clever word smiths and have no real idea of what is really going on. I don't mean the big names, but many professors don't have a deep grasp of their subject matter as is evident from their writings. Most important to us, Rabbi Soloveitchik is also a very devout and learned Jew. So his insights into this topic with which we have all been struggling provide valuable input.

At the moment I will limit my use of what Rabbi Soloveitchik says in his book to the recent heated debate with regard The Argument from Design. Maybe we can go into other things later. For the moment, this thread has disintegrated into a sorry state and the matter being discussed was abandoned. I'm hoping we could at least find some sort of closure on the matter of The Argument from Design, but with no aim to get people to think alike unless it is to do with the basic tenets of Judaism, upon which we should (and I believe do) agree.

Throught his book, Rabbi Soloveitchik uses and the motif of the two types of Adam presented in the two Biblical accounts of the creation of man. He calls them Adam the first and Adam the second. These two adams have quite different characteristics, as Rabbi Soloveitchik elucidates throughout his book.

Essentially, the first Adam :

"is interested in just a single aspect of reality and asks one question only - 'How does the cosmos function?"...He raises not a metaphysical but a practical, technical "how" question....It is rather nurtured by the selfish desire on the part of adam to better his own position in relation to his environment." (1965, pp.13-14).

The first Adam is out to achieve, in Rabbi Soloveitchik's words, "dignity" (see p.15ff) and strives to achieve it through freedom of action and creativity of mind (p.15). He is

aggressive, bold, and victory-minded. His motto is success, triumph over the cosmic forces. He engages in creative work, trying to imitate his Maker (imitatio Dei)"..."He fashions ideas with his mind." (p.18).

"Adam the second is, like Adam the first, also intrigued by the cosmos. Intellectual curiosity drives them both to confront courageously the mysterium magnum of Being. However, while the cosmos provokes Adam the first to quest for power and control...Adam the second responds to the call of the cosmos by engaging in a different kind of cognitive gesture. He does not ask a single functional question. Instead his inquiry is of a metaphysical nature..." (p.21)..."He does not apply the functional method invented by Adam the first. He does not create a world of his own. Instead , he wants to understand the living, "given" world into which he has been cast...[he] explores not the scientific abstract universe but the irresistably fascinating qualitative world where he establishes an intimate relation with God." (pp.22-23).

-o0o-

Continued in my next post

Second part of Rabbi Soloveitchik's " The Lonely Man of God" re The Argument from Design
---------------------------------------

I could have skipped the details of the two adams and still drawn on " The Lonely Man of Faith" re The Argument from Design matter. But mentioning gives a fuller idea of what Rabbi Soloveitchik is trying to say in his book. And he talks basically in relation to the two Adams distinction all the way through the book. Hopefully it will all present ok as I continue.

Speaking of Adam the second, Rabbi Soloveitchik notes:

"Naturally, he is inspired by the great joy experienced when he gets a glimpse of the Truly Real hiding behind the magnificent cosmic facade. However, he is also tormented by the stress and exasperation felt when the Truly Real seems to disappear from the cosmic scene. Of course God speaks through hos works:..."The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth His handiwork." Yet, let me ask, what kind of tale do the heavens tell? Is it a personal tale addressed to someone, or is it a tale which is not intended for any audience? Do the heavens sing the glory of the Creator without troubling themselves to find out whether someone is listening to this great song, or are they really interested in man, the listener? I believe the answer to this question is obvious. If the tale of the heavens were a personal one, addressed to man, then there would be no need for another encounter with God. Since God in His infinite wisdom arranged for the apocalyptic-covenantal meeting with man, we may conclude that the message of the heavens is at best an equivocal one, " (pp47-48).

Thus, without uttering one philosopher's name or mentioning the Argument from Design directly, Rabbi Soloveitchik has sided with the views of Hume and Kant, with respect to saying that the Argument from Design does not prove the existence of God.. Please note this carefully. And , knowing who Rabbi Soloveitich is, it would be a bold person who suggested he, therefore does not subscribe to the standard Jewish tenets.

The message is that one must be very careful in drawing conclusions and must not use bad logic or overgeneralise. This takes practice and appropriate knowledge and is no easy task even then. So I'm certainly not putting anybody down who errs here. Just because Hume and Kant said, or were said (they were both so profound and brilliant that they are very often misunderstood, even by so called experts) to say, certain things that are incompatible with what is commonly taken to be definitive of Theism, does not mean they did not have some accurate perceptions to share. And the fact that somebody, eg, yours truly and(for which I earnestly thank
G-d), Rabbi Solovveitchik, sees some sense in some of what these great philosophers said, does not mean they are not Orthodox Jews or even good Jews at all. And it certainly doesn't mean they are followers of somebody they happen to think says some smart things.. How can that idea make sense ?

And so ends the validity of The Argument from Design as a proof of G-d's existence. Which doesn't stop people saying otherwise. And, if they want to, I am quite happy to let them. There are other things of more importance to deal with and the main thing is that we all know G-d exists and is intimately connected with us and the world, from moment to moment.

However, as Rabbi Soloveitchik said, and as I said during all our debating, observing the wonders of nature is certainly suggestive of the existence of a creator of the same. And, actually, Hume and Kant said the same thing in different words. And yet they are reported by people who either misunderstood or simply read what somebody said who misunderstood, as if they claimed the failure of the Argument from Design to prove the existence of G-d proved that G-d dis not exist - which they definitely did not.

Actually, if one was to read the much vilified Emmanuel Kant's works in toto, one, if one could understand what he is really saying, might get a big surprise. Kant actually says a number of things that support or point to the mystic's experience of God as showing to him or her that God surely is real. This is with regard the experience of Adam the second of Soloveitchik actually. And I may do a third posting with regard this next. But I have to stop for the moment and go out.

Quote "I believe the answer to this question is obvious. If the tale of the heavens were a personal one, addressed to man, then there would be no need for another encounter with God. Since God in His infinite wisdom arranged for the apocalyptic-covenantal meeting with man, we may conclude that the message of the heavens is at best an equivocal one,"

With due respect to Rabbi Solvietchik, I don't think his proof is conclusive. It would have to be assumed the whole reason that there would be an encounter with G-d is to prove that HE exists. But there could be other reasons why Hashem would make an extra encounter though His existence can be proved otherwise. Like to give the Torah in a way to prove that the Torah is G-d's will. Or to show the greatness of Israel, that G-d appeared to them. etc.

Even if it was to prove that G-d exist, it could be argued, that not because one cannot deduce from other places. Rather, even if it could be deduced from other places, but maybe not everyone would deduce it. Not everyone would be convinced of the argument (Though it would be sound, but many intelligent people disagree on whether something proves something or not (SO it's missing from the GAvra (person) and not the Cheftza (object, here the proof)). So HAshem made this encounter, so that those people may go to Him from a different vantage point.

Shalom Rav. That sounds very plausible.

Too bad it isn't like soving simultaeous equations when we can put the values we figured out, back into the equations to see if it really does work out. No wonder people keep arguing and arguing.

One could keep arguing of course, but personally I've had enough of that. I never did get a buzz out of arguing.

quote:

So HAshem made this encounter, so that those people may go to Him from a different vantage point.

B"H

Rosemary,

Could you please explain to us what you think Rabbi Soloveitchik meant by writing: "...If the tale of the heavens were a personal one, addressed to man, then there would be no need for another encounter with God."

By saying "another encounter with G-d," did he refer there to Mount Sinai, or to our encountering G-d after our deaths? The reason why I am asking, is because he makes his premise contingent upon what he called "the apocalyptic-covenantal meeting" between G-d and man that was to happen later.

At best, we are able to learn from the Psalm that Rabbi Soloveitchik quoted (viz., "the heavens declare the glory of G-d,") that any contemplative man will come to the realisation that they were created by a Higher Being (G-d), i.e. the existence of G-d. Most would agree, too, that since the heavens and the earth were designed in order to sustain life, that that G-d who made them had to be of a good nature. Otherwise, why would He want to sustain life?But who that G-d was, or what He expects from man in return, could not have fully been known until Mount Sinai. This, in my opinion, is all congruous to what we have been saying in this thread all along. Intelligent Design is, indeed, proof of G-d's existence. Yet, this is not saying that we know everything there is to know about G-d.

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

Shalom David.

Let us begin again, shall we ?

In "The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion" , for apocalypse,this dictionary says, among other things

a text that recounts divine revelations to human beings on such topics as the end of the world and the Day of Judgment, the fate of souls after death, the divine throne and the angelic hosts that surround it, and astronomical and cosmological phenomena...In some apocalypses, eschatology is the dominant concern, while in others it plays a smaller role..." (1997, p.54).

One thing I have come to see more clearly, through this difficult topic and the discussions, is how there does not seem to be a way to eliminate the presence of quite a number of differing opinions about a lot of things in Judaism (not all of course). I read somewhere in "The Oxford Companion to Philosophy" (1995) that it is a wise philosopher who realises that different opinions are possible.

One way to see that we seem to be stuck with the presence of differing opinions of merit (as opposed to nonsense) might be to do a historical survey of proofs in judaism for the existence of G-d.

The Bible takes the existence of G-d for granted , eg, ps.19.1: "The heavend declare His glory". Contact with the philosophical culture of the Hellenistic age seems to have resulted in Philo's suggestion that reflection on nature and on the human soul would provide evidence for the existence of G-d. In the Middle Ages, theological thinking under the influence of Arabic philosophy asserted the truth of the teleological argument that the design of cosmic order and its workings attested to the existence of G-d. However there were dissenting voices such as Hasda'i ben Avraham Crescas and Yehudah ha-Levi.The modern tone of discussion was set by Kant's critiue (some would say demolition) of the traditional medieval "proofs" (which are not proofs per se but reasoned assertions).

Going back to Yehudah ha-Levi, though he was an opponent of rationalist philosophy (believing in the superirity of Revelation over philosophy), he reached the same conclusion as Hume and Kant, in saying that belief in G-d, while not a matter of rational proof, was not contrary to reason.

And, usefully in relation to the statements by Joseph Soloveitchik as per your latest email, Yehudah ha-Levi held that essentially the evidence for the existence of G-d was found in (religious) experience, especially the historical experience of Israel during the Exodus and at Mount Sinai.

Am I right in thinking that this fits with what you said?

References:

The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion.,R Werblowsky & G Wigoder (Eds.)

Philosophy and Religion: from Plato to postmodernism, Max Charlesworth (2002)

Maybe an underlying cause of the difficulties we have been having in our discussions regarding the topic has been to do with the word "proof". I know I have been having conceptual problems with this word myself, including before this topic. I still do not know how to resolve this one sufficient to satisfy me.

I am now wondering if, since what we are talking about is rational argument, ie, philosophy, we should turn to philosophy for what philosophy has to say about proof. I've devoted some time to this tonight but haven't got far.

I have some more ideas at the back of my mind and some of this has to do with the remainder of " The Lonely Man of Faith" but it is too late here now, I have things to do, and I am too tired. Maybe later, if relevant.

All the best.

Rosemary

quote:

Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham:
B"H

Rosemary,

Could you please explain to us what you think Rabbi Soloveitchik meant by writing: "...If the tale of the heavens were a personal one, addressed to man, then there would be no need for another encounter with God."

By saying "another encounter with G-d," did he refer there to Mount Sinai, or to our encountering G-d after our deaths? The reason why I am asking, is because he makes his premise contingent upon what he called "the apocalyptic-covenantal meeting" between G-d and man that was to happen later.

At best, we are able to learn from the Psalm that Rabbi Soloveitchik quoted (viz., "the heavens declare the glory of G-d,") that any contemplative man will come to the realisation that they were created by a Higher Being (G-d), i.e. the existence of G-d. Most would agree, too, that since the heavens and the earth were designed in order to sustain life, that that G-d who made them had to be of a good nature. Otherwise, why would He want to sustain life?But who that G-d was, or what He expects from man in return, could not have fully been known until Mount Sinai. This, in my opinion, is all congruous to what we have been saying in this thread all along. Intelligent Design is, indeed, proof of G-d's existence. Yet, this is not saying that we know everything there is to know about G-d.

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

B"H

Rosemary,

If I might go back to the original question on this thread, "Is our faith logical, etc.?" I wish to speak out at random about this important topic.

Science has often (but not always) supported the record of human events bequeathed unto by Moses in the first Book of Genesis (Beraishis). That the earth was once covered over, entirely, with water is evidened by science. I, myself, have found sea-shells on the top of high, mountainous peaks in the Colorado "Rocky Mountains." Large, wooden-relics of some man-made structure, believed to be that of Noah's ark, have been found on an icey, snow-clad peak of Mt. Ararat in Turkey - where the ark came to rest after the Great Deluge!

Albert Einstein, with all his genius, knew that the earth had to have a creator.

The theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, once said: "The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the 'Big Bang' are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications." (from the book, "Finding Darwin's God," by Kenneth R. Miller, pp. 228-229)

Did you know, Rosemary, that if the energy levels in carbon and oxygen were only a fraction of a per cent different to what they are now, there would be no carbon in the universe and, therefore, no life upon this earth as we know it?!

Stephen Hawking also pointed out the fallacies of carbon-dating, saying in his own scientific way that the earth does not necessarily have to be millions or billions of years old. We, who are Jews, hold that the earth's age is only 5,766 years. (Based upon the calculations of Rebbe Yose in the book, "Seder Olam.")

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

quote:

We, who are Jews, hold that the earth's age is only 5,766 years. (Based upon the calculations of Rebbe Yose in the book, "Seder Olam.")

Shalom David:

Do you have any concern that Rav Aryeh Kaplan zt"l, deriving from a medrash on Divine Year, comes up with a calculation of 15 2/3 Billion years?

Or that Gerald Schroeder in his Aish tape comes up with a calculation, based on diminishing time of a second (something like a half-life -- or maybe its increasing that time is slowing down) of a similar figure 15 1/3 Billion?

{ or vice versa }

I have observed that the difference between these to values is approximately one part in 30, (half billion to 15 billion) which perhaps could be indicative of something related to revolutions of the moon around the earth -- which would be irrelevant from a sun-centric view, but would be relevant from an earth-centric view?

Where are the astrophysiciss when we need them!

Since both of these Torah geniuses have numbers which are close, but different, I would really hope to someday have Dr. Schroeder, since he is still with us, contrast his measure with Rav Kaplan zt"l's.

quote:

Originally posted by rob:

quote:

We, who are Jews, hold that the earth's age is only 5,766 years. (Based upon the calculations of Rebbe Yose in the book, "Seder Olam.")

Shalom David:

Do you have any concern that Rav Aryeh Kaplan zt"l, deriving from a medrash on Divine Year, comes up with a calculation of 15 2/3 Billion years?

No, Rob. I have no concern about this. Every man is entitled to his own opinion. However, the two views mentioned by you are not harmonious with that view of mainstream Judaism.

Sincerely,
David

B"H

Rob,

I almost forgot to add the source for our teaching of anno mundi 5,766. While it is the Tanna of "Seder Olam," see Rabbeinu Hananel's Commentary on the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 9b - 10a). This is the opinion commonly held by most Rabbis.

David

quote:

Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham:
B"H

Rob,

I almost forgot to add the source for our teaching of anno mundi 5,766. While it is the Tanna of "Seder Olam," see Rabbeinu Hananel's Commentary on the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 9b - 10a). This is the opinion commonly held by most Rabbis.

David

The Lubavitcher Rebbe also writes that the world is literally 5766 years old, but I did not realize that this is also the mainstream Orthodox view.

Dear David.

I made sure I replied to this before I go off to take my daughter to school and me off to my course which I hate . Unfortunately I won't be able to reply to the topic itself till I get home as I have only 15 mins (it is 7.45 am here).

I am touched by your sincerity and impressed by your dedication. I wish I could please you and say I am convinced.

I am reminded by a young xian man who many long years ago tried to convince me to be a xian by the same argument. He was so sweet and sincere but I just couldn't make the leap.

But I sincerely and passionately believe in God for other reasons and my heart always knew the truth, that God existed and is near (and far) and in a thoroughly convinced way. So don't worry, if you are. If I didn't believe in G-d, my troubles are so great that I could not have gone on. That is a story common to Jews over the centuries.

You and I are thinking and making sense of things in very different ways. what divides us, though not meaning one of us is not a true Jew, is a division in conceptualisation that has divided Jews since they were influenced by Greek philosophical thought. My approach is more Biblical but I am not putting that forward as an argument. My religious experience is strong: I know G-d is real.

But I do respond to the beauty and wonder of creation and know God created it. But I knew G-d's reality first. Then I knew He created it.

I hope we can be good Jews together, brother and sister, despite our differences.

Best wishes,

Rosemary

quote:

Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham:
B"H

Rosemary,

If I might go back to the original question on this thread, "Is our faith logical, etc.?" I wish to speak out at random about this important topic.

Science has often (but not always) supported the record of human events bequeathed unto by Moses in the first Book of Genesis (Beraishis). That the earth was once covered over, entirely, with water is evidened by science. I, myself, have found sea-shells on the top of high, mountainous peaks in the Colorado "Rocky Mountains." Large, wooden-relics of some man-made structure, believed to be that of Noah's ark, have been found on an icey, snow-clad peak of Mt. Ararat in Turkey - where the ark came to rest after the Great Deluge!

Albert Einstein, with all his genius, knew that the earth had to have a creator.

The theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, once said: "The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the 'Big Bang' are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications." (from the book, "Finding Darwin's God," by Kenneth R. Miller, pp. 228-229)

Did you know, Rosemary, that if the energy levels in carbon and oxygen were only a fraction of a per cent different to what they are now, there would be no carbon in the universe and, therefore, no life upon this earth as we know it?!

Stephen Hawking also pointed out the fallacies of carbon-dating, saying in his own scientific way that the earth does not necessarily have to be millions or billions of years old. We, who are Jews, hold that the earth's age is only 5,766 years. (Based upon the calculations of Rebbe Yose in the book, "Seder Olam.")

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

Shalom David.

Well, I'm back and dead tired and so sick of my course of study. But I am here again at GY and trying to see if there is a way I can reply well to this thread of topic.

I read back to where I last wrote and read to the end. I was rather confused about what was going on so I read back some more. What I realise was happening was your 2nd last post asked me a question and I put a lot of time into sincerely trying to reply. But you did not answer this. You gave some thoughts "at random". I read this far too quickly this morning. Now I realise I didn't notice enough the diversity of the ideas that were there . I really must give up trying to reply in the morning. It is too rushed and I should devote the time to other things. I was trying to reply close to the time people were writing, which is overnight here. But I obviously can't do a good job at it like this, and I think this goes for some other posts of mine. So I shan't go on the computer anymore in the morning before I go out. It is a shame we are on opposite sides of the world, more or less. Sorry if my reply this morning didn't quite fit your email.

About what you said in this last email, now that I have had a chance to try to consider it properly, I just don't know what to say. It just confuses me. I think I shall have to leave it to other people. Maybe you guys can kick ideas around and have fun. Me, I think I should be doing more study for my course.

But thank you for bringing up your challenges. I understand some things better now from trying to answer you.

quote:

If I might go back to the original question on this thread, "Is our faith logical, etc.?" I wish to speak out at random about this important topic.

quote:

I really must give up trying to reply in the morning. It is too rushed

I'm not suggesting needless printing out on paper, but perhaps if there are posts to which you want to post a reply after your studies, perhaps you can read them in the morning and save a copy of the text to a laptop you bring to your studies, or print them out and jot down notes of what you will want to say during the day, then post them later?

quote:

Originally posted by AharonBenjamin:

quote:

Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham:
B"H

Rob,

I almost forgot to add the source for our teaching of anno mundi 5,766. While it is the Tanna of "Seder Olam," see Rabbeinu Hananel's Commentary on the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 9b - 10a). This is the opinion commonly held by most Rabbis.

David

The Lubavitcher Rebbe also writes that the world is literally 5766 years old, but I did not realize that this is also the mainstream Orthodox view.

AharonBenjamin, what do you mean by "mainstream"?

quote:

No, Rob. I have no concern about this. Every man is entitled to his own opinion. However, the two views mentioned by you are not harmonious with that view of mainstream Judaism.

Sam: I think this quote from Reb David is the right source for the term mainstream Judaism in this thread?

David: So each of these modern Torah geniuses, one of whom surely a well-respected rabbi published under mainstream Jewish auspices, is showing a view different than this gemara?

In general what is the right way to consider well thought through chiddushim (novel thoughts) which are not completely harmonious with gemara?

quote:

Originally posted by rob:
David: So each of these modern Torah geniuses, one of whom surely a well-respected rabbi published under mainstream Jewish auspices, is showing a view different than this gemara?

Exactly! The Amoraim in the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 9b - 10a) have clearly adopted the opinion of the Tanna, Rebbe Yose, in his "Seder Olam," namely, that our world is only 5,766 years old. Of course, their focal point was the destruction of the second Temple in the 379 year of Alexander (68 C.E.) since the time of creation - i.e., how many years had actually transpired. Should not we accept their view?

As for your question, "how we should look upon innovations?" My opinion is that we should always stick as closely as possible to the teachings and beliefs of our ancients, without deviating from their path and instruction.

David

In all my years of studying Yiddishkeit, I have never once heard the two opinions that were brought down earlier in this thread by you, in the name of those two Rabbis or Torah scholars.

quote:

In all my years of studying Yiddishkeit, I have never once heard the two opinions that were brought down earlier in this thread by you, in the name of those two Rabbis or Torah scholars.

And I don't get out much!

The view of Rav Aryeh Kaplan zt"l is expressed near page 186 of my edition of his Sefer Yetzira, published by Weiser, 1990 edition. He derives it from a Medrash which I understand is printed in the back of Gemara Bava Kama I think which discusses tehillim on a Divine Year.

Toward the very end of this article:

http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Age_of_the_Universe.asp

Dr. Schroeder's calculation can be heard.

Apparently he discusses it in more depth in his 2nd book, "The Science Of G-d" which I have not yet seen.