|
Genesis, Darwin and Life in Two Worlds
 | A new science that sees consciousness not as an epiphenomenon, but as a building block of existence
174 Comments Posted
Is one meant to understand the story of creation as literally taking place? Or Jonah being swallowed by a monster fish ? How about the anthropomorphizing (ascribing human characteristics to something non-human) of G-d?
The Torah is not a scientific textbook or a great work of historical facts; rather it is an instruction manual on how to live a moral, ethical, and meaningful life in any society and under all circumstances.
Yevamos 24a states that “a verse may never be divorced from its literal meaning.” This statement should not be confused as espousing a strictly literalist approach to scripture becuase we find verses in Torah are interpreted metaphorically, such as instances where G-d is described as having human characteristics. “He ceased and rested” (Shemos 31:17) “G-d smelled the pleasant aroma” (Genesis 5:21) those are all obviously metaphors. If one took those passages literally they would be going against the Torah since we are forbidden to attribute human qualities to G-d.
Rather the statement “a verse may never be divorced from its literal meaning,” according to Midrash Tana’im, refers to cases where a point of practical observance (such as a commandment) arises from a literal reading of the text.
Thus, the directive to take things literally would not apply to narrative that is meant to teach us lessons in life. Therefore, biblical stories (stories that we don’t derive commandments from) do not have to be taken literally; rather they can be taken as cosmic metaphors with relevant messages to all humankind.
Since the Torah is by definition a spiritual document, the fact that some parts of it (with the exception of commandments) are only true from a metaphorical/spiritual perspective does not compromise that fact that the messages are still eternal.
Thus evolution and the Breisheis creation story are perfectly compatible !!! The Rambam in the second book of The Guide explicitly states that the creation story “cannot be taken literal in all it’s parts.”
|
The Torah provides a reason for keeping Shabbat: "For in six days did G_d create the heavens and the earth and on the seventh day He rested." Therefore, according to everything Anonymous of Milwaukee has written, we must take literally the six days of creation as six 24 hour days. Otherwise, this would severely affect the timing (and sanctity) of Shabbat.
In the Guide, the Rambam explains that if we have proof, logical or empirical, that a certain phenomena could not be, we must interpret it figuratively. He applies this to the anthropomorphism you mention. The science of his day stated that the world has already existed, but the Rambam refused to reinterpret "In the beginning G_d created the heavens and the earth"--because, as he states, "they do not know this as a certainty." Similarly, there is no way to know with certainty (or to falsify) that the world did not come into being in six days.
|
If 40 years in the wilderness purging out the less faithful for the eventual cross into the land promised isn't evolution then I'm not sure what is. The Hebrews who left Egypt were not the ones who entered the land flowing with milk and honey, they were the next generation, a generation forced to evolve away from the hundreds of years in Egypt in order to survive in the new environment. An environment that was only a distant memory of their past.
|
The problem lays in interpretations that pit G-d against science. Rabbi Freeman, may I commend you for putting it in terms 'could' and 'should'. At the risk of oversimplifying here, science tells of what we could (or can), while Torah tells us of what we should. Science has no 'should' or 'shouldn't'. It of itself has no inherent sense of morality. It is just a tool with which we can ask-'could we do that' ('can we do that')? But science in and of itself will not guide us as whether we should or shouldn't. We can all see that it is true that all of civilization is centered around the seven day week. We all share that in common as we do the seven noachide laws. This didn't come to us 'naturally' from science. It's not a matter of what we can or could do with science; yet all of creation and civilization as we know it; all of our lives revolve around it. Thus, it's not a matter of whether G-d created the world in six days (with a seventh for rest). It's a matter of should we.
|
Science and empirical knowledge shows us that all of creation was not accomplished in six days; however, all of civilization is built around the six days with a seventh for rest. Even today in America, where most people work five days instead of six, and take the weekend off, even that delineation of time has it's 'genesis' from the six days and the seventh decreed to G-d that starts written Torah. Why would G-d create, put us in the midst of this creation, and then not inform us how to re-create it into civilization? How much meaning can creation have without the civilization that has been formed from it? As clearly as written Torah starts, it is the 'blueprint of civilization' for all of civilization revolves around the week. The beginning of Bereshith describes how G-d created civilization from creation in six days; the Torah being the 'blueprint' of THAT creation.
|
Interesting explanation on the Ramabam Rabbi Freeman.
According to the Breishes account of creation, the sun and moon are not created until day four.
The first three days could not have been 24hour periods as we define them today because Jewish law defines a day based on the sun and moon.....Thus, the first three days were not necessarily 24hours periods they were probably (at least considering the scientific knowledge we have) epochs of time amounting to million if not billions of years......
|
This is an issue dealt with in the Talmud and by the classic commentaries, such as the Ramban (Nachmanides). However, back to my original point, if the days were not 24 hours, then we have a problem with Shabbos.
Nevertheless, we could look at it the other way around: Who says that the natural processes that take billions of years under current conditions had to happen that way during the six days of creation, when existence was only emerging? The same G_d who operates nature now operated it then in an "emerging modality".--just as a fetus develops much faster than a born child. See my article here, "How Old is the Universe".
|
What is the problem with saying that G-d created the world in 7 light-darkness cycles, first three of which would have spanned X number of hours/days/years, had there been a sun, and the rest spanned exactly 24 hours? (Not that it solves the problem.)
What is the problem of saying, "There were seven periods called in Torah symbolically 'days', and therefore in our times, when there are also cycles of seven periods each being called a day, we celebrate the seventh one as Shabbos." You can say that during the first billion-year period there was sphirah of Chesed, second -- sphirah of Gevurah, etc. Just like today, on Sunday there is Chesed etc.
Not that you HAVE to do this, but why can't you? (What about Shmitah, by the way?) Halachah of Shabbos is not based on the assumption that the first Shabbos was exactly 24 hours long. It is based on the explicit law given to Jews at the time when week had seven 24-hour periods.
|
This article is very well written and probably amongst the best I've read on Chabad.org however I would like to mention that Science, in its own right, has its valid uses for that which can be proven. The danger, is when scientific theory, is accepted as scientific fact based on circumstantially compelling evidence.
|
Quantum mechanics postulates that there is a very real connection between consciousness (observance) and the existence of matter/energy in time and space. Genesis teaches us that this is so. Is there a "real" universe before the evolution of a completed and full consciousness? At some point in time, homo sapiens, evolved full consciousness of self and an awareness of God. Adam'Eve were conscious of their limited and unlimited selves simultaneously, and the universe, as we know it, came to be.
|
The anology is quite appropriate but if taken to its logical conclusion , then the programme director can keep revising the contents to produce a masterpiece. Thus Darwinism or any genuine science can be true, and torah is truth. As a famous scientist said, science without religion is lame but religion without science is blind. Maybe the two can collaborate to attain CHABAD, with the lame climbing the blind's shoulders to see beyond the horizon. The problem is the 'popular' religions that seem more interested in blind competition than the pursuit of truth
|
Actually Science does not contradic the Account given in Genesis.
The works of Hugh Ross, and this work-Does Old-Earth Creationism Contradict Genesis 1, by Greg Moore, both whom are members of Reasones To Believe, go a long way in explaining many things in the Bible, and they usually show that there are no contradictions between Science and the Account in Genesis.
Annick De Souzenelle, the great French Bible scholar, using the Kaballistic point of view, greatly clarifies many of the hidden messages in the Bible and she shows many times the hidden depth of the Bible.
|
Rabbi Tzvi and the other authors at this website never cease to amaze me. It is very interesting, stimulating, and refreshing to read ideas which challenge mere materialistic mechanics while pointing out the pointlessness of so-called "Creation Science" which might better be called pseudo-science. The idea in this article which interested me the most was the one about conciousness being more than just an epiphenomenon, but as a building block of existence. It is consciousness itself -- the experience of having it-- of being aware of one's own existence and that of of one's environment -- which makes me contemplate the supernatural.
|
the title "Life2" is incorrect. Rabbi Freeman's point is that there are two levels of life, or two worlds, which need to be united. If you want to describe this unification using an algebraic expression, you would write "2 X life=2life" or "Life + Life = 2life." Thus, the title should be 2life.
If you davka want to use fancy characters, you can write Life2 with the two as a subscript. While in mathematics the subscript generally describes ordinal numbers (as opposed cardinal numbers) which would make a subscript inappropriate for this article, in chemistry subscript numbers do denote cardinality, so I suppose a Life2 in subscript would also be all right.
About one thing I am certain: the superscript gotta go. It makes no sense at all! Why are we multiplying life by life? (I suppose the expression "life raised to the second power" might appeal to some hassidics, but the mathematical meaning of that phrase is irrelevant to this article, as I explained earlier.)
Of course this is your website, and if you tell me to jump in a lake I'll understand, just I wanted to let you know what the title actually means.
Also, whatever I said about Life2 applies equally to Jew2, which is how Rabbi Freeman addresses his response.
|
Man, reading you is truly a Trippy experience. I feel you 'bring up' what's revelant then I feel you 'bring down' what I don't know then you graciously put it together, then you go deeper. Love it.
Okay, why can't I view Bereishis 1 like a Koan, or meaningful riddle? The answer to 'The sound of one hand clapping' applies to the human experience. Why would I have to disregard an Enlightenment commentary, which may speak to me over a classic that may not? If Torah is devine how does one filter falty commentary? Why do I have to listen to this guy not that guy? Lastly, what you write is so cool. But where is a Rashi style commentary from the Baal HaTanya? I'm not yeshiva educated but I believe "The Ari" didn't write much, his students did. Where's the cool stuff you're writing about available to us Baal Tshuvah? I'm searching for certian continuities the Torah is asking me to put together myself. I don't think I'd ever make it out of your library, is it all Chabad?
|
You should start with the Heaven Exposed series. I wish I could tell you to get the book, but it's out of print. B"H, most of it is online, however. Look here: www.chabad.org/443979
Everything that's there is firmly based on Kabbalah of the Ari and Chassidus Chabad--which is really just an extension and re-articulation of the Ari. But it's in an edutainment format for the modern reader.
|
Science continues to provide elegant answers about life and the universe while in the past, religious dogma, because of our lack of scientific understanding, was relied upon to provide answers.
Today because we know better through scientific inquiry and understanding, we shouldn't pretend to know things we don't know and especially that which cannot be proven.
|
Changed title to something that more directly reflects the contents.
|
Look at DNA. Computers and computer programs were made by intelligent beings. Computers use binary code, that is, zeros and ones with circuits or switches to describe words, pictures, videos. DNA uses base four. There are four types of chemicals with names adenosine, guanine, cytosine and thymine, usually abbreviated A,G,C,T. This was also made by an Intelligence, not developed out of nowhere all by itself. This Intelligence is The Almighty, blessed be his Name.
|
Why we are all on the other site instead of this one. It is because your posting is soooooo long and convoluted and confusing that it is nearly impossible to follow. Basically, I get a summary of "science is one world and religion is another and they exist side by side, with scientific reality being real to science, and religious thought being real to religion". Is my summary what you meant to say? Like I said, this is very, VERY confusing. I once went to a class regarding Genesis, where the teacher said there were TWO creations. One before the ice age, and one after the ice age. OK, this is all getting ridiculous.
|
regarding the lack of clarity in the article.
The concept of a natural versus transcendental order is well known theologically but suggesting a new science to account for both is absurd.
The Maharal was a remarkable man, I'm not clear on his scientific abilities but his disciples came out decisively in favor of Copernicus (a contemporary) and modern Jews can be proud of this.
I'm not sure what other scientific abilities the author is suggesting; vagueness can be useful.
There is a belief among Chabad that the Maharal created a Golem. This was discussed as recently as the late 1980s in the newspaper Kfer Habad in Israel.
If true, this might be an example of the new science that the author longs for.
|
says the original Genesis ACTUALLY said "In the beginning, God began to create", which leaves much room for science.
|
Yes, we need time to start a new, or maybe old, science where can be easily seen by anybody the lack of contrast between Torah and true science.
One urgency imho is to translate many excellent books (usually in English) about the failure of Darwinism dogma in the most widespread western languages.
|
You are kidding right? Living creatures are CONSTANTLY adapting to the environment, etc. Didn't you know you have a VESTIGIAL TAIL? It is called your "tailbone" because it USED to be a tail millions of years ago. It is also called the coccyx bone of the spine. Animals adapt to their environment and so do people. You must not know very much about science at all.
|
My suggestion of a new approach to science to accommodate the transcendental: Our current model is of a world built of matter, yet the definition of matter continues to elude us. As Max Planck wrote in his biography, "In the 20th century, matter transcended itself."
The ancient model, in general, was of a world in which intelligence was not an epiphenomena, but its fundamental essence. To Newton or Leibniz, matter may have seemed so much more a workable concept. Yet it has proved very much a red herring, especially useless when dealing with the "hard problem" of the qualia of consciousness.
My suggestion is that a synthesis of the two may provide a paradigm in which many of the quandaries of today's science can be solved. Furthermore, if the fabric of the universe is intelligence, the emergence of life and its taxonomy can be understood far more elegantly, and not as the statistic impossibility as it stands today.
|
Sorry for the controversy but besides mistaking my name you look a bit polemic in all your writings.
If you wish to know, science is my professional field (and yours?) and while details aren't so important, you should know that Darwin openly wrote his (not scientific) theories so that Torah's G-d was useless. And about how the life started and how the Man started, after 150 years his theories have failed always more. Study more and better pls.
|
Christian, sorry but you are not making much sense. Darwin's theory, of which incontrovertible evidence exists today as to be factual, has not failed the tests of science to date. It is a theory that has not been falsified; it is increasingly proving to be very factual. Read the literature.
Tzvi Freeman's idea above is an interesting one by considering intelligence as the fabric of the universe. This would have to be proven to be accepted and it seems to me that if an "intelligence" in this universe does exist, it would be readily apparent and not elusive.
BTW, life does not stand as a statistic impossibility when one considers the billions of galaxies in existence and the probability of multiple universes. In this light, life becomes statistically probable.
|
I decided not to comment on your first post because it was too vacuous, but your second installment prompts this.
Your original post didn't specify which books in English you would like to see translated and did not give any reason for discarding much of modern educated thought or any specific failures.
Karen responded with reasonable points in support of evolution and natural selection. Your reply suggested that only scientists are capable of responding to this issue, and you still have not mentioned any specific issues.
How can an intelligent person take what you write seriously?
The most interesting item however, was about the spelling of your name. It's possible that Karen made a mistake, but I'm surprised a learned man such as yourself wouldn't consider that this was intentionally spelled defectively as we see many times in the Torah. In this case, the omitted character is in the tetragrammaton twice, removing this may avoid blaspheming.
|
That was so nice of you to post in support of my post. Also, although I didn't consider the blaspheming idea, it may have been so in a roundabout fashion. You see, I had a stroke, and so sometimes, I will substitute words or phrases. For example, I couldn't remember the term, "Medicine Cabinet", so I substituted "Glove compartment of the bathroom" when telling someone where they could find something they needed. So, although I spelled Christian as Cristian, I think there was something in the back of my mind which said I didn't want to use the word "Christian" on this site. Interesting thought. Hmmmm. By the way, yes I was a school teacher in my working years. A really GREAT one, too, according to many of my students in special ed who have gone on to have wonderful jobs and careers. One even became a teacher because of how I taught using humor and fun.
|
I see I'm fighting with usual Darwin dogma, and woe to those who dissent !
I can give you books in English, certainly also by Jewish scientists, who prove it false when you give the book who are on the opposite side.
It's very clear that ALL the big questions as creation, life, consciousness and the missing link between man and apes are ever more missing notwithstanding Darwin's hope they could be found. And more, he tried to imagine that in an infinite time anything could happen but today we guess we know their age and so it's quite impossible that things went as Darwin said.
1 question: have you read personally Darwin's books and how he meant to discard G-D from this world as useless?
Btw if you speak my name defectively it's not my fault but yours; if you deem it necessary you should tell me it openly, I'm learned enough to know that a name with "h" or "hey" is peferctly acceptable in Jewish sites and people I know very well and with whom I write and speak with no name change.
|
The Torah when read on a level, one would find to be the absolute truth. Where science seems to contradict the Torah, then we must ask ourselves whether we really understand. Sometime I wonder whether the description of the early world, including the world of Noah, was not another earth entirely. It seems the Bible described another earth, and then the story moved on or was patched to the one for this earth in Genesis 11. This would explain why the fossil records are different, why a serpent spoke, and why Adam was probably reddish in complexion.
|
You have no vestigial tail? I don't care, BTW, what Darwin wrote about. He could say the moon is made out of green cheese, but his concept of evolution stands proven. Survival of the fittest? I think not so much. Maybe, survival of the smartest or fastest. I think living in Rome, Italy has taken a toll on your sense of reality and logic. What kind of science are you into, by the way? If you are a doctor, I would not go to you for treatment.
|
According to Isaac Asimov's timeline of scientific events, it took over 12,000 years between when animals first became domesticated and when Homo Sapiens became dominant. A human type of figure first walked upright at 4,00,000 BC. Stone tools were first used in 2,000,000 BC. We, humans, as Homo Sapiens, became dominant ove the animals in 30,000 BC. We named the animals in 350 BC. 1375 BC was the first year Monotheism was "invented". The system of numbering our years was developed in 240 BC. The seven day week was devised in 1800 BC. Whatever science discovers, I believe G-d created. It is the timeline that differs from the Torah's timeline. If it is true about Joseph interpreting dreams, then he began something later called Rational View of Dreams.In Italy, Galileo was forced by the inquisition to renounce heliocentrism in 1633. The Catholic church did much to try to stop the advance of science. Jews never did stop scientific advancement.
|
The notochord was found in all vertebrate embryos in 1828. We, as humans, have a notochord, as do all other animals who have a backbone.
|
MF, your diplomacy and tact is admirable.
My sense of R. Freeman is that he tells untruths.
In another article, he lists "falsehoods" in old earth theory. These include things like the amount of Radiogenic Helium in the Atmosphere, The Poynting Robertson Effect, etc.
These are all Young Earth Creationist smoke that might initially impress someone, but which turn into nothing with a little research.
Perhaps I give the rabbi too much credit, but it is difficult to believe he doesn't know that all of these concepts are lies. I don't mean to make an ethical judgment here, this is probably normal rabbinic behavior, my interest in this site is mostly sociological.
Karen, one point, intelligence is a selectable characteristic to some extent but it is often not an advantage. If it were, all animals would become increasingly smarter over time. Quite an interesting subject, there is a lot of research on it.
|
Insulting, letting me say things I didn't say, and inquiring about my field is all what you're able to say to prove (if ever possible) that Darwin's theories are trustworthy?
And living in Rome, with 3 mln people (often much smarter than ignorant people who boast just with empty words), is a honor, and btw my IQ according to MENSA International is 162. Hope not less for you.
Is well known how many Noble prizes and great scientists have come from Riverside, I just can't remember, sorry!
According to such rude ways, I'm afraid you're no more than president of "Darwin's best friends", but logic and behavior are very poor and not one of my questions has been answered.
|
A bit tired of polemics so unsearched but where I'm able to fight as much as needed.
For Torah and truth seekers, I suggest this easy (and not expensive) book from Lee M. Spetner, a jewish scientist: "Not by chance." On Youtube put his name and you're going to find something interesting.
Btw in my city, Rome (Italy) there are Chabad centers and, if any of the readers as excellent Tzvi Freeman has any connection, maybe I could translate it in Italian (free) for the sake of Torah.
Thanks
|
In fact, if intelligence were a factor in survival, we wouldn't have wars. It seems to be logical that wars would be illogical, and that sharing the earth in peace would be a survival instinct.
|
I'm not clear if Cristian is aware that his name is the same as a major religion.
In one of my favorite articles here, "Are Science and Torah a Contradiction by R. Nissan Dubov, an anonomous poster writes - "...Jews remain silent and leave it to chr*stians to defend the Holy Torah! "
I have no idea what this means but note the defective spelling.
This concept is not easy to look up but this might explain it...
"The possible halachic problem with writing Crist derives from the fact that "christos" is the Greek word for Messiah/moshiach. Hence some argue that writing the name Crist in full tacitly acknowledges (G-d forbid) that Jesus was the Messiah."
It takes a certain amount of Chutzpah for a non_Jew to come to a semi-Jewish site like this and lecture on this topic.
|
Thank you for your intelligent comments. I, for one, appreciate that your interest is sociological.
My interest is in intellectual honesty. What I have read in many of the articles at this site are virtually baseless claims with purportedly "accurate" information that is not substantiated by any peer-reviewed documentation.
Claiming to know things we do not know with high probabilistic certainty is a profound liability in our discourse and an insult to our intelligence as human beings. Again, I see much of this in most of the articles at this site. I do appreciate Josef and Karens intellectual honesty.
|
When I was a teacher, some of my Hispanic children had the name Jesus. I felt so weird thinking that parents had named their children what they thought was the name of G-d. It is pronounced, "Hay-Zeus", however, so they think it makes a big difference. I was embarrassed to tell Christian that his name was the same as the name of the religion that for the most part totally disrespects Jews and has caused us a lot of grief historically. Christian is not a Jewish name, by any means. The literal meaning of "Christian" is a person who believes in Christ, with Christ meaning SAVIOR, or messiah, as Joseph said. It made me feel funny, but I'm trying not to discriminate based on a name given at birth through no fault of his own. I don't think this is a quasi-Jewish site. It is TOTALLY Jewish, with room for individual differences of opinions.
|
I believed it was about Darwin and his theories but I still see that absurd polemics go on, and even more so in the wrong place.
One for all, or isn't he learned enough (see also inner.org)?, is that HaRav Yitzchak Ginsburgh has no problem at all adressing me with my real name, not your offensive way. And so does his secretary, Rav Moshe Genuth, so the halachic excuse is just not acceptable. If you are not only mistaken, but you want to be, don't write me, I'm not going to miss you.
Going back to the real issue, of course I must then agree with R. Nissan Dubov notwithstanding the missing letter, about Darwin's theories and who is here on Torah's side.
|
The liberties with truth is a great difference between Science and Fundamentalist Judaism.
This isn't a moral judgment, but just illustrates critical differences in world view.
This is a well known theological concept (Pious Fraud, Noble Lie) and has merit. Unfortunately a person who does this in a scientific discussion loses credibility.
In the Dubov article I've cited, the theory of the earth being stationary is refuted by Zvi, who after some research is Dr. Zvi Shkedi who is a Chasidic Jew living in Israel.
Shkedi claims the Rebbe understood that Einstein's theory of general relativity proves that the sun orbits the earth etc, but the Rebbe decided to not publicize this fact. Personally I have doubts that the Rebbe had this kind of knowledge but Shkedi may have known him.
Dr. Shkedi has several interesting articles on the web about Torah and Science, but I think the quality of his ideas degenerates quickly when he moves away from his specialty of Nuclear Physics.
|
The points raised are interesting and valid, yet I have to confess my motives weren't entirely pure and apologize for any annoyance I caused Christian.
My personal Halakha is not to say the last name of Jesus. This has been a tradition of mine for about 50 years, at least now I understand why I do it.
Asimov was an atheist, but his dates are surprisingly conservative, exspecially if he is talking about Judaism. eg, Monotheism , is almost universally considered to be post exilic (Babylonian). At 1350 BCE he is apparently saying it is Mosaic.
Galileo made a hideous error by saying that the tides prove the earth moved through space, his trial was largely based on this. I think this is a case where we could cut the church some slack.
We can all be proud of our contributions to science. These seem to be a direct consequence of the Enlightenment, which resulted in the breaking of Rabbinic authority over ordinary Jews.
There are many different ways of looking at reality.
|
Anyway, if anybody wants to discuss relations among Jews and Christians or related subjects, I would be glad to share my opinion but in the right place, certainly not this one. (Rabbis, simple Jews and learned scholars btw have never had such a problem with me).
Thanks
|
Without insulting others or accusing them. It's nice to read intelligent discourse. Also, thanks to MF in Los Angeles. Once in a while, appreciation is appreciated. (Smile). also, thanks to those of you who noted that I sometimes have typos, and overlooked them.
|
The article's main purpose is to show that Torah and science can exist simultaneously, and one does not cancel out the other.
|
Not being a native English speaker Christian, you may not know that "Darwinism" is an insulting term. Eg. "The term Darwinism is often used in the United States by promoters of creationism, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement, as an epithet to attack evolution as though it were an ideology (an "ism") of philosophical naturalism, or atheism."
"Dogmatism" can sometimes even be a compliment in a religious context, but here is also an insult, and totally unmerited.
Your own comments about Darwin's religious beliefs, etc. seem untrue, he appears to have been reasonably religious when he wrote Origin and later became an agnostic. From what I've read, he seems slightly more religious than me. We should all keep in mind how other people will interpret our remarks; if he is so evil, then how evil am I?
Regarding "Dogmatic Darwinism" consider the underlying nastiness these two words have and the anguish they may cause people with quite reasonable opinions.
|
I was wondering why I felt verbally attacked by Christian. Now I know. He does do personal attacks on this site.
|
Josef, your statements are very accurate and well versed. Darwin was quite a religious man until he finished his work after 20 yrs of analyzing and studying data from his 5 yr voyage. Alfred Wallace came to the same conclusions independently at about the same time.
Darwin and Wallace were far from evil. They gave us the foundation of evolutionary theory that has stood the tests of scientific falsification. "Dogmatic Darwinism" is an unreasonable term to use today, not to mention ill-conceived.
|
As in any theory, OTHERS can take it and run with it, changing it up or down. Although Darwin believed that people should help each other and the stronger should help those who are weak, people who came after him used his ideas to create the "master race" idea. The term Darwin Dogma is used to connote racism in humans. As far as Darwin's so called atheism, this is not true. He was a Christian until his daughter Annie died, and then became agnostic in his grief. He said, verbatim, he was not an atheist because he still believed in G-d. Science has ADDED to the Darwinian theories of evolution as science became more evolved. Darwin, himself, suffered from a genetic disorder. He was highly college educated, and did extensive research of animals. So, Darwin, scientific knowledge, and new facts which are uncovered daily, do not negate religion. I, personally, cannot see the Torah as being a scientific instrument. It is purely religious, theoretical, and mythological.
|
You are spot-on with your info about Darwin. Thank you for educating this forum, it is very much needed.
I'm not certain he was suffering from a genetic disorder. His physical illness was never accurately diagnosed but many have made educated guesses.
Science has no application to the Torah and vice versa. The Torah is dogmatism that lacks the evidential support all sciences require. Remember, the Torah was written in the pre-scientific era.
|
So nice to see that discussion is back to the subject.
Needless to say, to me Torah and true science agree 100%.
|
I hadn't heard this idea before "people who came after him used his ideas to create the "master race" idea."
I think this is not true, Darwin is not mentioned in Mein Kampf or any Nazi propaganda. The Master Race concept also suggests that different humans come from different species which is false.
This leads me to think it is a fabrication from the usual suspects.
Probably this is a good opportunity to mention that R. Freeman did not write "dogmatic darwinism" in this article. When writing my previous post, I thought he had.
|
Thank you for your postings. Christian, I totally LOVED how you stated your position in an emotionally neutral manner. You ABSOLUTELY have the right to believe what you believe. I would say that most Orthodox Jews would totally agree with you. Please understand not all postings on this or other Chabad sites come from Orthodox Jews, and we do all have the right to our opinion without being castigated. So, keep up the kind way of posting, and I look forward to hearing more from you. MF, did you know that as a child in an Orthodox home, I was relegated to Kitchen Duty for most Holy Days, while the men and boys got together in the living room with their very interesting conversations? Girls were not supposed to be with the men to discuss these ideas. Now, as a Senior Citizen, I can post on these sites, and I feel much more "equal" with the men. Women are not stupid, after all. In fact, there are more girls in science and math arenas nowadays.
|
It's an awful shame you as a female could not take part. Unfortunately Orthodox Judaism and other religions, most notably Islam, is still very gender divisive and male centric (who wrote the Jewish laws? Males wrote them in their best interest). BTW, I'm a male.
Back to the subject at hand, Torah and Science CANNOT co-exist. Either you trust science or believe the Torah. One cannot have both even though many have attempted unsuccessfully to reconcile them.
|
It would be very interesting to share (with such kind people!) more on the relation between Torah and science(s).
Aren't they coming from the only One?
I would love to share with whoever looks for Truth, Orthodox or not, Jew or not.
Btw I've read (on this site) many interesting articles the Rebbe wrote about such subject.
|
Actually, G-d wrote Jewish laws. I know, He is a He and stuff, but I wouldn’t call him male.
|
Christian, there is no relation between Torah and Science... If someone thinks there is such a relationship, fine, but it is not a universal Jewish view.
Maimonides writes "Do not ask me to show that everything the sages have said concerning astronomical matters conforms to the way things really are." (Guide III.15,p459)
The sages are considered authorities only in matters of Halakha.
A problem with fundamentalist Judaism (as opposed to Orthodox) is that its concept of the authority of the sages is mixed up.
I've been reading the articles and posts here for several years and haven't seen a single convincing example of anything scientific in the Torah.
|
Moses (and some say others) wrote the 613, after having had them handed down verbally over many generations. Actually, I think it is AWESOME that so many of the ideas in the Torah were on target, such as the statement "All life began in the seas". No, I take science as being science, and the Torah and other parts of the "old" testament as being for spiritual growth.
|
Certainly Torah and science must be studied each in its own way.
But coming from the only G-d, can they have no relationship?
I, for one, have changed my mind over the past few years. Besides this site, a site like inner.org (whose rabbi has a degree in maths) shows many interesting links and stuff that lets us think.
Probably the "sod" level of Torah is the most important to consider when deciding about such a relation, if any.
|
Karen, do you know where the Torah says that life began in the sea? I've been unable to locate anything like that.
I like your post Christian; my opinions also change over time.
I think the question we are discussing here is whether a literal interpretation of the creation (and flood) myths is plausible.
It is not.
Both Saadia Gaon and Maimonides teach that we must understand Torah in a way that is compatible with science.
The articles here switch this around, in the current case R. Freeman says we must understand science in a way that is compatible with Torah.
Regarding divine inspiration, I wonder if the Scary Movie series was divinely inspried.
In Scary Movie 3, Brenda says: "I just got a weird feeling something bad is heading my way. Like when you see an Asian person behind the wheel of a car."
This is how I feel when someone from Chabad interprets Maimonides.
|
Read that scripture about life beginning in the sea, but I remember it stuck in my memory. Now, I can't find it verbatim right now, but if you read Genesis chapter one, you will see the progression of creation which does NOT YET include man. In fact, mankind is not created until Genesis the second chapter. In chapter one you can find information alluding to scientific knowledge that didn't show up until millions of years later. The fact that first was G-d, then the universes and stellar things. In fact, Heaven is defined as a separation between what could be the solar systems. Solid matter was created after the gases ("waters"). Light and dark can be talking about our sun's rays. then the waters on the earth, with reference to movement of seas which made bigger seas. Then, the dry land and plants. Then, life with all that moves or crawls beginning in the seas. After that, the birds and then LATER the mammals. In chapter two, humans are formed. See my next post.
|
If the Holy Scriptures is written about the same way as the "Old Testament", you will see that mankind was created last, after the moving and crawling life in the seas and also after the flying and moving and crawling life on the land. Man was an "afterthought", so to speak, as a means to care for the earth and the animals that G-d created. There is a discrepancy, though, in Chapter two. There, there is a reference to G-d having rested from all the work He did; however, then it goes on in verse 4 talking about a different TIMELINE (generations instead of days). In verse 6 is a reference to the water cycle (clouds pour the rain, then rain evaporates into the air). Verse 7 alludes to what could be a poetic way to describe mankind before G-d breathed a soul into him. The "dust of the ground" could have been the generations when man was evolving. Remember, here it talks generations and not days. See my next post.
|
So, in between Genesis 2, verses 7 and 8, there is a phenomenon happening. Man BECOMES a living soul. The word "becomes" signifies a PROCESS. If it did not, the word would have been, ""and man WAS MADE A LIVING SOUL". The Torah does not say was made. It says became. In my mind, verse 8 through 18 signifies when morality and conscience came into play, separating, in my mind, man from wild beast. I don't know what scientific significance can be found in G-d creating woman AFTER man, so as far as I'm concerned, at this point, the stories begin which can be told to children in order to give explanations for questions they ask. So, what is awesome to me, is that in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, there are allusions to scientific knowledge that was not discovered until fairly recent times.
|
That was interesting. I lack the originality to make up my own interpretations and have to read commentary.
Genesis 1 says the waters were created before dry land, this is false, the exact scenario is unclear, but most probably water was delivered by extraterrestrial accretion such as by comets when the earth was already about 1.5 billion years old
This suggests that life was not created in the "seas". A rough estimate for the first appearance of life is about 800 million years after the earth was formed.
In academia, Genesis 2 is almost universally considered as having a different author than Genesis 1. These are conservative people BTW.
Adam's rib is interesting. Man is missing a bone that most mammals have, the baculum. I think this may be what it means.
but this is also absent in equids, marsupials, lagomorphs, whales, etc.
Your theory is better than many, it is surprising that such an important subject generates so little interest.
|
Karen, your position is part of a theological discipline called Concordism.
This has been around for over 1000 years, so it is very difficult to come up with anything new. Especially on some verses in the Torah that everyone has read.
There is nothing in Genesis 1 or 2 to suggest scientific knowledge that was not known at the time of its writing.
Re. the origin of life in the sea, this is known to be a very old theory, from at least the 6th century BCE. Also, as I pointed out before, the sea as the origin of life is not neccesarily true.
Your theory shows an instinctive understanding of many concordism issues but is faulty, mainly because countless intelligent people have been considering the same issues for over a millenium and you are not familiar with their work.
One problem with interpreting day as epoch, etc. is that the multilevel interpretation of Torah (as Christian suggested with his Sod allusion) is ignored; this is a theological faux pax.
|
Of course, when people study and make theories, then others study their theories and add to or subtract from them and come up with new ones. I see a lot of "spin doctors" trying to justify how the Torah relates to science, and because I see myself as an equal, I feel that my theories are just as valid, and equally unable to be tested. So, in my MIND, I can justify the term "waters" as not being H20, but being any chemical type of non-solid. Could be a gas, or other vapor. Didn't one celled creatures begin in the seas? Then, two celled creatures, etc. Even the differences between the sexes had to evolve. There are animal species which are dual gender, and some which reproduce by dividing. What is amazing to me is that there are some animals able to REGROW limbs. Can you imagine if science can some day figure out how humans can do that? Anyway, I was just theorizing on how we can combine Torah and science.
|
Generally it is wise to stay away from specific scientific theories in Concordism, mostly to avoid looking really silly if the theory is refuted or changed, but this doesn't happen much.
This seems widely ignored for the big bang, it probably won't be refuted of course and it suggests the universe is finite which theists love.
The Torah says plant life began on land (3rd day), and animals in water (except birds-5th day).
Water is considered important for the formation of life. Darwin thought shallow pools; the nature of earth's early atmosphere bothered people, so the ocean seemed resonable. These are all guesses, my guess is that the atmosphere wasn't poisonous to the first life forms.
Clearly the writers of the Torah had no idea that microscopic life existed.
The creation story seems to take place on earth, even light. "Now the earth was formless and empty.... 3 God said, "Let there be light,".
This makes a claim of it talking about the big bang etc a tough sell
|
There is a difference between a person SAYING let there be light, and a person then aftewards turning on the light switch. So, too, I can see theoretically, G-d SAYING let there be light, and creating a BIG BANG, after which there was light (or after which, there were stars which then had revolving planets and were considered solar systems). It is a sort of good FEELING to feel that for all the scientific events which happened, there was someone who WANTED those things to become. Sort of like a giant child creating a playground. Oddly enough, some of the stories depict G-d as a spoiled, angry and vengeful child who does things in anger and then has to apologize (ex: the flood).
|
I have to agree with Josef's insightful comments, he is correct.
Karen, wanting to believe something doesn't necessarily mean it is true. Intellectual honesty and rigor is what is needed here.
Today, millions of followers of Sathya Sai Baba believe in his miracles because they WANT to; it brings them comfort. This does not mean he has miraculous powers. Even though his miracles have been proven deceptive, millions STILL believe in him.
We must be careful about what we want to believe because it brings us comfort and what is actually proven to be true.
|
Well, at least I am honest in claiming that what I believe is NOT true and can never be proven. I KNOW it isn't true. I'm also saying that BELIEVING it makes me feel good. It makes me believe that MAYBE there was a reason behind the big bang and all the factual beginnings of planetary events and how people evolved. How could it ever be proven if G-d does or does not exist? It is just as difficult to prove LOVE does or does not exist. I believe, too, that G-d IS love and love SHOWS G-d's goodness. Is this a fact? OF COURSE NOT. It is a belief. And, it makes me have strength to know that G-d is alive INSIDE me, and that gives me strength to persevere through rough and tragic moments in life. Science and facts could never do that for me. So, I believe. Why? Because it HELPS me through life. What I was saying to Christian was that EVEN THOUGH I believe in what Darwin taught, I STILL believe in G-d.
|
I acknowledge thankfully to your words.
I can add on my side, that even if (G-D forbid) I was atheist I couldn't believe in major Darwin's theories like Man descending from apes.
Certainly for me a great help to better understand (as remembered by Josef Friedman) has been starting to know about the deepest level of Torah.
|
You didn't descend from an ape. You descended from a common ancestor. This is a frequently misunderstood concept.
|
I've had an interest in mysticism since college in the late 60s. My thumbnaill assessment that this is a great way to get high without drugs, is one of my few early conceptions that has stood the test of time.
There is an article here, Something From Nothing by Jacob Brawer, which he could have copied (and saved some space) from Through the Looking Glass...
A comment goes "Alice is disturbed by a puffing sound in the wood;` it`s only the Red King snoring` said Tweedle Dee----`he is dreaming now said Tweedle Dee, and what do you think he is dreaming about?` ` Nobody can guess that`said Alice`.` Why, about you` Tweedle Dee explained `and if he left of dreaming about you--- you would be nowhere, why? you are only in his dream, if the King was to awake you would go out--bang--just like a candle`
If someone asked me how to go about studying Kabbalah, I dont think Chabad would be my first recommendation. Still Christian, good luck on your voyage through Wonderland.
|
What a CREATIVE mind you have! Who would have thought to compare the Torah to "Through the Looking Glass". Hahaha. I'm also happy that people who post here are ending up being friendly rather than enemies in theoretical thinking, It's always good when we can agree to disagree ! By the way, Yahoo news is reporting that science has discovered over a billion new stars they couldn't see before with their telescopes and other machines. I wonder how Orthodox Judaism will react if and when life is found on other planets.
|
This would undoubtedly have been my best post on here, but unfortunately, someone else wrote it. I'm not sure what the identiical stories means, perhaps not to take ourselves and those who aspire to be our spritual guides too seriously.
A doctoral dissertation on Carroll and Kabbalah is an idea. He loved the number 42 (from the 42 letters in the name of God - ana bekoach...) which was made even more famous in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Carroll himself dismissed his work as nonsense, but many scholars quote him in the beginning of their articles on Kabbalah.
A few years ago, I had a discussion with someone on a related site who claimed that water would never be found away from earth... seems he was wrong, but I probably share some of the blame for the discussion becoming heated.
Alien life is one thing, but the existence of parallel universes is also a great danger to fundamentalist orthodoxy because it suggests the universe is infinite. The response - ignore it.
|
Who, even in recent times, believed men did NOT walk on the moon. They said that Hollywood invented it with special effects. There is a woman I knew, also, who didn't believe men and women have an equal number of ribs (science is wrong, she said), because in her mind, if G-d took a rib from Adam to make woman, it is JUST LOGICAL that in generations to come, ALL men have one less rib. When you come across people like that, there is no explanation or "posting" on a site which can change their minds. You are very correct. They ignore science and anything science comes up with as a fact, actually, even if it smacks them in the face.
|
God and the Genesis .
Fundamental Theory 0f Existence
1. The infinite/ energy vacuum: T=0K,
2. The particle: C/D = pi, R/N= k , E = Mc^2 = kc^2 , h = 0 , i^2= -1
3. The spins: h =E/t , h =kb, h* = h/2pi ,
4. The photon, the inertia,
5. The electron: e^2 = h*ca, E = h*f , electromagnetic field
6. The gravitation, the star/ planet, the time,
7. The proton,
8. The atom(s),
9. The cell(s),
10. The Laws:
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/mass
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
11. The test.
Every theory must be tested logically ( theoretical ) and practically
a) Theory : Dualism of Consciousness: (consciousness/ subconsciousness)
b) Practice : Parapsychology . Meditation
|
Well, I really don't know why studying Torah and Kabbalah should resemble old or new movie on Alice.
To me it's triuer than life...
Maybe just a joke, or has anyone found something better?!
Btw, Happy Pesach everybody :-)
|
I didn't read the posting on how Torah/Kabbalah resembles Alice in Wonderland, but come to think of it, that is a GREAT analogy. To Israel in Israel, WHAT IN THE HECK are you talking about? Please dumb down your equations for us poor, ignorant folk.
|
Joseph Friedman is either insincere or too dogmatic in his atheism. First he asserts the Torah says nothing of life beginning in the water and when Karen Joyce provides the evidence of this knowledge from Genesis verse by verse , he changes tune and says life did not necessarily start in water but probably in other substances extant in early universe. The question begs why living matter (cells) are over 80% water or why other planets in our own solar system saturated with other chemicals or non liquid water cannot support life.
|
Bob Dylan is a more modern figure who some argue is tied to the Kabbalah.
In his song Stuck Inside of Mobile with the memphis Blues Again... one verse goes
Now the rainman gave me two cures
Then he said, “Jump right in”
The one was Texas medicine
The other was just railroad gin
And like a fool I mixed them
And it strangled up my mind
And now people just get uglier
And I have no sense of time
40 years ago, I thought this might be a warning against mixing amphetamines and barbituates but now I wonder if we can interpret this in a more Jewish way.
In this case, rainman may be someone with Messianic ambitions. Texas medicine is the Talmud, and railroad gin is Kabbalah. People getting uglier is the declne of the generations (yeridat ha-dorot), and no sense of time refers to the 'absolute, permanently flowing' time (etsem hemshekh ha'zman) of Hasidic philosphy.
If this interpretation is correct, Dylan is observing that these concepts are dubious.
|
I don't think that it is atheistic to have a rational view of Jewish Theology and history. But I've been called worse things with less justification..
You are correct though in detecting some issues in my replies to Karen.
After I sent my first reply I realized that I hadn't read her first post very carefully. This embarrassed me, and affected my second reply. For all that, I hope I didn't say anything too crazy.
Regarding the water, Karen was talking about Seas and Oceans. We both overlooked that plant life was created on land on the third day, which I pointed out in my second message.
David Shatz,professor of philosophy at Yeshiva University; IS THERE SCIENCE IN THE BIBLE? AN ASSESSMENT OF BIBLICAL CONCORDISMsays,
specific "concordist readings fail because, for example, the Bible puts forward a sequence of creations that does not match the sequence asserted by contemporary science. ... attempts to finesse these objections are not successful...
Is he an atheist?
|
Attempts which bring harmony and answers to the person who is thinking can't be considered right, wrong, silly or useless. Maybe different, but not wrong. In fact, since NONE of us can go BACK in time to find out the facts, then we must rely on scientific evidence plus some HINTS in the various bibles of all the world's religions and mythologies to see WHAT, if any, of the old time stories can be FITTED into scientific facts. Calling it concordism is like calling an idea wrong, silly, or useless. Calling names won't change someone's ideas. My thought was that IF you needed to believe in both science and religion, then HOW CAN THAT BE MADE TO BE harmonious in my mind? My idea and theory was to find out the scientific facts, read the bible, and see what, if any, phrases can be an analogy to reality. Much of the bible is POETIC, which means there are metaphors and similes. Man became a this, the whole world was that; those phrases are poetic. The term "animals" can include amoebas
|
"Technically, it's somewhat true (G-d created man of dust) because life began with the mixing of 20 amino acids, and before that, it's an anaerobic environment on Earth with mostly just dust, water, and heat."
|
I agree that one way is to look at science, first fact and then theories, and to see if Bible agrees.
But I try also the opposite, I look to Bible and its best and deepest studies, and then look which scientific theories seem fit.
In this very site (www.chabad.org) there are many interesting articles about such deeper links between Torah and science.
|
Christian (& Karen). Have you actually found any examples of this? Can you state them?
|
I cited numerous examples from Genesis ch.1 and 2 where there are metaphors and analogies. Ex: life began in the seas, etc. "Waters above from waters below" could mean vapors/gases, "Heavens" plural could mean galaxies, etc. Lots and lots more. Also, man BECAME can indicate a PROCESS of becoming; otherwise would have said Man Was. Lots more examples.
|
Rav Ginzsburgh has an article here (Where Kabbalah Kisses Science) and anothe with the same name as the title at inner.org.
"According to string theory, all of reality exists in (exactly) ten dimensions."
Amazing, the ten sefirot, our ten fingers, ten toes...
Unfortunately this is not (exactly) true. The number oif dimensions is more commonly considered to be 11, although a case can be made for 10 (as Calvin says, it takes a lot of math).
He also states: "The letter yud is the first letter of God's essential Name Havayah (whose full value equals 26, the sole other possible number of dimensions of the universe according to string theory)."
This deserves another *, "Flat space string theories are 26-dimensional in the bosonic case, while superstring and M-theories turn out to involve 10 or 11 dimensions for flat solutions. In bosonic string theories, the 26 dimensions come from the Polyakov equation."
Flat space string theory implies an infinite universe. Ouch.
|
No, a lot. But, I'm sure my grown sons would understand it. Can you "dumb it down" for us poor ignorant folk, please? Put it in layman's terms.
|
Ginzsburgh tries to explain string theory in a manner consistent with Kabbalah.
Christian said "In this very site (www.chabad.org) there are many interesting articles about such deeper links between Torah and science."
This is a possible example, which MF asled for.
I pointed out a few issues with Harav's reasoning, but maybe that's just me.
His article is dependent on gematria (like yud = 10) so even if we accept his assumptions, I'm not sure what is proved.
I also don't have a good understanding of String Theory which is why I used quotes. If your sons understand, I'm impressed.
Doing research based on what I read here is interesting and I'd like to think I'm getting better at it. Happened to find these articles today looking into the number 236 which is the value of verav koakh (and mighty in power) Psalms 147:5.
Sorry if some of my previous comments have made you feel bad. If I thought they were going to have that affect I wouldn't have made them.
|
There is nothing for which you need to apologize, as your comments don't make me feel either good or bad. I just totally love debating, that's all. As far as numerology, I do not believe in that, period. Chabad does, although the Rabbis do not call it numerology. I stay away from that, as it is like sorcery to me. Same with magic and magicians. Please NEVER refrain from stating your ideas. As long as you are not personally attacking someone, but just merely stating a rational thought, it is yours. You own it, You have the right to say it. In fact, if you say that what I said was silly, that is still not a personal attack. When someone says "YOU ARE silly", that is a personal attack. So, continue posting. I enjoy reading what you write.
|
Well, besides this chabad.org site and the excellent inner.org already mentioned, I suggest:
arniegotfryd.com/
and
kabbalahsecrets.com/?page_id=1302
where you can download the free 127 pp. book: there's nothing random about the universe.
WOW
|
Kabbalah Secrets is pure numerology without any basis. One can find many common mathematical inferences and assertions if one looks hard enough. It is pure bunk and casts aside intellectual honesty that is lacking in this forum.
This reminds me of "The Bible Code" that posits prophetic statements that are purportedly mathematically hidden in the Torah by special sequences of repeated occurences. This has also been proven to be pure bunk; no future occurences have ever been found in the Torah (but should be easy to do so by this method) and the same logic can be applied War and Peace with the same results.
Let's cease to be naive. I suppose astrology and horoscopes are factual too?
|
R. Freeman is absolutely correct that the 6 days of creation,in Genesis 1 is a critical element.
Genesis 1 to 2:2 was written around the Babylonian exile when the Sabbath and seven day week became part of Judaism. The rest of Genesis 2 was written earlier.
The most striking feature showing the two different authors is the use of Elokim in Genesis 1-2:2 and ykwk in the rest of Genesis 2 for God's name. The 6 days of creation, etc was inserted into the creation myth to support the concepts of the 7 day week and Sabbath..
It is important to understand that a Habad worldview is very different from a normal modern one, and it is not good different.
This world view is fascinating but frankly, it horrifies me to see parents have their children taught these beliefs without them understanding the implications, especially when the kids actually believe it.
I think the academic understanding of the Bible, Talmud, etc is far superior to that of modern rabbis in every way.
|
When my sons were small, I told them Bible stories of the heroes, and always added, "No one is ever totally good. These Bible stories are just to let you know there is a G-d. No matter what you go through in life, G-d will be there for you." When they asked if this or that story was true, I said, "Probably not, but there is a lesson to be learned, just like in Aesop's fables." In fact, I also read them Aesop's fables, and from event to event, pointed out how people in the Bible handled those life events. It made for a great discussion with my sons and me, and they turned out to have tremendous verbal and cognitive abilities. They were both tested and found to be geniuses, and were put into special classes. They have chosen not to follow one religion, but they accept they are Jewish by birth and will pass that on to their children. They have chosen not to follow the Holy Scriptures or Torah, and I accept that totally. It is their lives, after all. They are both almost 40 y.o.
|
When light came into the universe time began. The separation of the light from the darkness was day one. Time is just the three dimensions of space all squared and all of them together raised to power half, all divided by the speed of light.
|
I totally don't understand it, but the words are poetic and metaphysical, and have esoteric connotations.
|
I just want to mention that Gematria is part of the Jewish Torah while numerology, Greek or else, is not.
|
and Freemasons. It is said Gematria IS Cryptic Numerology of the Cabala.
|
Freemasons are often used to study Jewish knowledge, but as anybody studying Gematria knows well , there's a lot of difference between Pithagora's ways and Torah's. Besides it, there's also a rite, very near to Freemasonry, that is about Egyptian ways to numerology, but -as expected- they aren't so near to Jewish wisdom.
Maybe everybody should know that also the great Rashi wrote about Gematria.
|
Some people I know really like Gematria.
I remember a book I read as a kid (by Singer I think). The hero's father was a "follower of the commandments" very religious but not a Hassid. He didn't believe in Gematria though... funny what we remember. I think it's optional.
My father was a mason in Palestine in the 1920s and also joined the Masons at some point.. His father settled in Bnei Brak after WWI, quite religious but not Hasidic... too late to ask him about that part of his life.
Mark S. Smith is a Jewish Studies professor at NYU, and is maybe the world's greatest authority on Canaanite religion. He has a book (from 11/2009) called The Priestly Vision of Genesis I, where he discusses the creation story in depth.
He's quite conservative, but of course, doesn't take the story literally. I like the references to other parts of the bible, it's a great way to build knowledge, even if one doesn't agree with everything.
|
"A Stranger Among Us", where Melanie Grifith has to pretend to be Chassidic/Ultra Orthodox? It shows vividly the beauty of the traditions, but the part I really loved was when the male lead said, "It is written in Kabbalah that G-d counts the tears of women". That was really touching and beautiful, and shows a part of Judaism that can't be proven, yet touches the heart. It is in this way I read the Bible. I look for passages which touch my heart. Science can never do that. To me, it is VERY easy to separate science from religion. One is fact based, and one is emotion based. They shouldn't talk badly about each other any more than American and Israeli Jews (in my high school, the Israeli Jews said they were more Jewish than we were). We are all different. Science and religion are different, and any metaphors we can take from the bible regarding science are not facts. They are poetry. Doesn't make them true or untrue. Just a part of our souls and minds.
|
In most Chumash editions there's Rashi's commentary "Baal Haturim" where Gematria is the most part.
Of course I'm not saying it's mandatory (or not), I just believe it's a Kosher method even if somebody can use it the wrong way.
|
Just a little joke Christian.
I made another little joke when the Lewis Carroll point was made in the Brawer thread discussed earlier.
They say a 5 year old can understand Torah by studying Rashi, just like a 5 year old can understand Kabbalah by studying Lewis Carroll.
The literature discussing this includes the works of "Dr. Abraham Ettleson's Alice In Wonderland: The Secret Language of Lewis Carroll Revealed and Through the Looking-Glass Decoded, wherein he finds the book an elaborate code for the daily and holiday rituals of Orthodox Judaism."
His insights include - if you read "Jabberwocky" in the Hebrew manner, from right to left, you get Ykcow rebbaj, or Rebbaj Ykcow, which of course is Rabbi Jacob. This seems to be a reference to the Baal Shem Tov - Rabbi Israel.
He also mentions that if you hold "jubjub" (as in jubjub tree) to a mirrror it becomes "judjud" (jewjew) although this is not exactly true.
|
That movie wouldn't win many awards for accuracy.
The Hasidic community takes in a young women who is homeless, a drug addict, and probably not even Jewish; she gets engaged to a Torah scholar, and winds up killing her fiance for money. This is precisely why Hasidic communities won't take in women like this.
The quote is actually from the Talmud I think...
Rab said:
"Men should be careful lest they cause women to weep, for God counts their tears."
Baba Metsia 59a
Not to throw a wet blanket on the beauty of this, but some Talmudic comments about women aren't so complimentary.
|
You are correct. My bad. Meo Culpa.
|
... is very often useul and interesting.
Thanks
|
I was hoping that we all could "get along" on this site, even though we sometimes disagree. This is so ASTOUNDING and wonderful!
|
Thanks Karen for your comment. There are problems in communicating here so I am just replying.
I want to see the story of Adam and the woman this way. Adam was not the first human being, but the first to be made in the image and likeness of G-d. The hebrew word Tselem for image is very similar to the word usually translated rib in the English Bible and sometimes translated side, that is Tsela'. So though Adam was not the first human being G-d built a woman from mankind and brought her to Adam, this might be why Tselem is used for image while Tsela' for "rib." The more I look at the Torah the more I am confounded by how accurate it is and how much science follows it. But my explanation of Tselem and Tsela' here would have to be confirmed by Hebrew scholars since I am not one but I hope to be.
Also I think sometimes we might want to tilt to side of science since we see all the beautiful gadgets that it produces but we must remember that most ideas of science came from the Bible.
|
Your post is interesting, but I'm intrigued by your statement "but we must remember that most ideas of science came from the Bible" and also how science follows the Torah. Can you expound and support this? Thanks.
|
The Torah I have found by experience is the ultimate truth from which all other forms of truth are included, but could be seen by inspiration. Most of the ideas of science, perhaps al,l have come through the influence of the Torah.
Look at it this way, the Torah influences people's behaviour and through the behavioural change they are more able to think "outside the box" and this thinking "outside the box" is also influenced the Torah. I am sure if you take a statistical survey of major ideas through history you would find that the Torah has influenced science one way or the other.
I am not not saying it may have influenced everybody directly. Some are influnced indirectly. Take for example a person who has been influnced by the Torah to be different and to think outside the box. He comes out with a major discovery, do you know that this also influeces others to think outside the box .This is just one example of how thTorah influnces science. There are countless other examples.
|
I'm still not quite sure what you mean. Science is not Torah and Torah is not science. Many of the greatest scientific discoveries were by individuals who have never studied Torah.
You are making some very bold statements without supporting them.
|
Mostly a sociological observation. In scientific word definitions, what you said is not proof. It is only observation. That doesn't make it wrong, though, or even right. It is just your opinion. There is just supposition to support that science came from the Bible. Whatever we can site, it is our opinion.
|
What Mr. Omotayo says is very interesting.
If I remember correctly even more directly was the influence of Torah on the discoveries of Newton and Faraday.
I'm not surprised.
|
One feature of science that contradicts the linkage of the Torah with science is the principle of falsifiability.
"Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment."
This is logically incompatible with how the the Torah is viewed, and seems to be a totally unsound argument from a theistic viewpoint.
Newton and Faraday were deeply religious but their acheivements weren't based on the Torah.
Newton did some work with bible codes and the book of Daniel, but that isn't why he is famous.
I mentioned before that the clearest scientific statement in the Torah might be that the sun revolves around the earth. I'm assuming that is an accurate statement because they go through quite a bit of trouble to prove that this is possible on here (unsuccessfully).
|
In my opinion, there must be a difference (and both should be serious) but anyway can there be any opposition coming both from the only and one G-d?
Many scientists, like Galilei and Newton, and the majority of the most famous, found no problem in living both sides, as eg. A. Einstein. Many of them wrote how their faith became a strong push in their scientific activity.
|
I want to say just as Daniel influenced Knowledge in Babylon, going by the Torah, many times science has been influenced by poeple with the knowledge of the Torah, indirectly or directly. Reality, that is hidden truth or wisdom, is many times found by people who can compare one house of the letter Beth with the other, thereby giving great insight into knowledge. Many times this is not possible for someone who does not know the Torah, but for someone who does, this is easy.
Those you say have not been influnced by the Torah, I want to say in many places Jews have been in History, there have always been remarkable advancement in knowledge and science. Europe is one example. If I might add, I think I read somewhere that most of the inventions in history are actually influnced by the Jews. And Mikhail Gorbarchev would hardly let the Jews leave Soviet Russia because he felt they were very important for Soviet science. So, many times the Torah has influenced either directly or indirectly.
|
Though my observation could be somewhat sociological, how would someone explain the vast contribution Jews and then later Christianshave made to knowledge, especially science. The only conclusion one would reach is that one way or the other they have been influenced by the Torah.
And then, if I believe in a G-d and I believe that G-d influences all knowledge, and that G-d revealed the Torah, then it could not be very bad or should I say far from the truth to infer that the Torah has actually influnced science throughout the ages. This apart from other circumstantial evidence, even personal.
|
By people who have never studied Torah; but, that means, some have been made by people who have studied Torah. Omotayo is also correct in that IF we believe in G-d and that G-d created intelligence, then it follows that all intelligent discoveries are from G-d whether or not they have studied Torah, and whether or not they, themselves, believe in G-d. In fact, when some of my more radical Christian people tell me they won't go to a doctor because they believe G-d will heal them, I respond G-d GAVE the docs their knowledge, so if they go to a doctor, G-d will be healing them. After all, we on earth are G-d's hands, eyes, ears to do good and to help heal the world. G-d uses people and gives them their talents. We each play a part in one big family, if we can view it that way. In fact, if we could, there would be no wars, right? Only scientific discoveries and awesome inventions.
|
These are pleasant thoughts, but at some point we can get to a place where we can analyze the data.
Eintstein was not exactly a Torah Jew. In 1954 he wrote, "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
In 1998 the National Academy of Sciences did a survey and found 7% of scientists were believers, 20.8% were agnostic, and 72.2% were disbelievers.
Regarding religious scientists, it is peculiar that there seems to be no memorable Jews who weren't rabbis until the mid 18th century or so. My guess is that has something to do with the strict religiousness that dominated Jewish life until then. Those days are over to the sorrow of some rabbis. This is why it distresses me to see Jews embracing this culture without understanding it.
|
I have been reading comments here off and on without wishing to become involved. I have seen that one commenter implies that the author is a liar and that this is common for rabbis. That type of ad hominem attack does not create a pleasant ambience for discussion.
Nevertheless, once he writes that "no memorable Jews who weren't rabbis until the mid 18th century" I must jump in. What is his point? An educated Jew was generally a rabbi. What do you want them to be? The fact that Maimonides was the greatest doctor of his time, Rabbi Levi ben Gershon contributed astronomical tools and charts as did Rabbi Moshe Zacuto, that it was principally Jews who brought Plato and Aristotle to the backwards Christendom of the Middle Ages,...I'm not going to suffer you with all the names and credits--Jews throughout the history of Europe were an educated class to whom others turned for knowledge of philosophy, mathematics, literacy, science, medicine...
See hebrewhistory.info for more
|
Well stated Josef, I agree with you.
The very small percentage of scientists who believe a diety exists without being able to provide repeatable valid scientific proof is worrisome. They are in essence saying that Hawking and Einstein are blundering idiots.
Omotayo, I still fail to understand how Torah has influenced science in any manner. You have not provided any convincing evidence, but I respect your opinion.
|
www.einsteinandreligion.com/godcomments.html
Einstein was no Orthodox Jew but certainly didn't like atheist, imho he was religious in many ways.
Btw I believe that there are very different positions among different branches of sciences, eg. physics are much more religious than biologists.
|
I know at some point in reading our posts, you must be gritting your teeth and wringing your hands. I empathize with you and realize how hard you try to not get involved. At some point, however, when the balance of responses becomes too uneven, and/or verbal attacks are made and/or personal accusations are made, it is IMPERATIVE you become involved. So, I appreciate your stepping in. We do have atheist Jews, agnostic Jews and Jews who believe in all sorts of different passions of interest. It is important to keep these postings balanced. Otherwise, they become like my surgery support groups without a moderator. That is, they become "bitching (complaining)" sessions with no positivity for balance. I walk out on those support groups. Ewww.
|
"In politics a noble lie is a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably, of a religious nature, knowingly told by an elite to maintain social harmony, or the social position of that elite."
My suggestion was that you may have known that some things you quoted weren't true.
My statement about the lack of famous Jews who weren't Rabbis before 1750 was bold, but I think reasonable. Ashkenazi Jews were quite repressed until the Haskala, "the Jewish Enlightenment, was a movement among European Jews in the 18th-19th centuries that advocated adopting enlightenment values, pressing for better integration into European society, and increasing education in secular studies."
Your reply implies that the Jewish contribution to Science before this was equivalent. This is difficult to defend.
Rabbi Zacuto's accomplishments were impressive but he went to a secular university, this wasn't possible for an Ashkenazi.
The presence of Greek influence in Judaism is an interesting subject.
|
Thanks. You see as I have said before reality many times is very difficult to prove even though it is there. This is because it is hidden. G-d throughout the ages has used the Jews to influence many areas of human achievement. The Jews are the custodians of the mysteries of G-d.
I also think Einstein was definitely influenced by the Torah. This is because to date nothing different has been found in his brain, and one would then relate his extraordinary intelligence probably to other influences, taking his Jewish background into consideration.
It was G-d that made Daniel different in Babylon. Could we say the astrologers and magicians also did not benefit from the knowledge derived from the Torah in this indirect way? I believe the case of Daniel has been reocurring throughout history by various other "Daniels." As I said or alluded to before the only way one can prove this is by comparing one house of Beth with the other.
|
I tkink that the most severe difficulty is not about harmony between (true) Torah and (true)science but because of the many different ways of all of us meeting here.
Imho deep knowldege of one or the other -or for the most blessed of both- could help a lot, but with patience and utmost respect of each other we can all go 1 or 2 steps more ahead. Who knows or understands everything?
|
Einstein's brain scan images showed he did not see things as normal people do. Most of us see little things and put them together. His brain saw the end result, the big picture, and then broke them down. The colors on the brain scan were different than normal people. This would explain why he FAILED in math classes during school years, and yet became one of the greatest scientists ever. Still, one can say that G-d created Einstein's unique brain.
|
Karen thanks for this information on the difference in Einstein's brain. I think I came across some information one time which said his brain was not found to be different from the normal brain, but from what you just said maybe they did not have all the full information.
|
You'll see it was wider than normal in the math section, and has some other anomolies most people don't have.
|
I will check the site immediately. Thanks again for the information.
|
It is G-d who makes ALL of our brains and since we are each unique, I would imagine that if ALL of our brains were scanned, different areas would show up as being more developed. An artist's brain would have one area more developed and a scientist's brain would have a different area more developed. So, in fact, there is no such thing as a normal brain. Normal would signify we are all the same. I think. Did you mean "average"?
|
Though portrayed as an atheist, I think he was only anti-smallgods (idols) that people believe in. In that manner he was an unbeliever. Proof: his quotation "Science without religion is lame, but religion without science is blind."
|
Yes Karen, I think maybe I should have said average. The researcher said there was nothing different in the brain of Einstein than the normal brain.I have not been able to check that site you recommended due to problems from here.
I should be able to access that website soon.
|
OK...So, as far as arguments for a 5000 year-old Universe are concerned, this argument isnt bad. If the world was created to appear as being much older, then there is no way to tell otherwise. But, if that's the case, people should not be faulted for seeing the preponderance of data and concluding that the world is very old.
My biggest problem w/ this article is the ignorant attack on evolutionary theory. Unfortunately, the author, like most people who attack evolution, knows nothing about the topic. When he argues about a pile of mud turning into a spaceship, he is only disenfranchising his scientifically literate readers and misleading those who don't know better. Modern evolutionary theory is a huge triumph of science, whether or not he choses to accept it.
In short, one need not insult and misrepresent science to promote faith. As an observant scientist and a Jew, I expect better from my own people
|
The Universe ca not be 5000 years old. Neither the Torah nor science supports this. And the Torah is not against Evolution theory. I agree completely with you. Though, the article was insightful.
|
That men did NOT walk on the moon. They say it is all Hollywood special effects. They do not believe in the space shuttles or space station. They say it is all bunk. If someone could prove to them it is real, would they stop believing in G-d? It is the same with other scientific facts and even theories which are based on sporadic evidence and also on watching NEW solar systems being born. So, when was the first universe "born"? (made) Is it possible that G-d has been in existence for FOREVER and that G-d was never created Himself? If so, then He has been creating forever. He is still creating The question is about the day of rest. Creation NEVER ceases so when did the Sabbath come about? I think that creation comes in waves, with waxing and waning. When the "waves" pull back and it appears that nothing is happening, this could be how we have characterized the Sabbath. Sabbath is important for mankind's survival. It is a time of rest & recuperation. Maybe not scientific, but needed
|
I find it interesting that you equate scientific methodology with people who don't believe we landed on the moon. Science, while by no means perfect, provides us with the best possible tools to validate or falsify claims about how the world works, and overcome our own biases and preconceived notions.
I am not claiming that Torah is incompatible with science. But, I am claiming that science has revealed serious evidence about how the world works, and should not be ignored merely because it doesn't conform to a particular literal reading of the text. We have a rich tradition of non-literal readings of Bereishit in Talmud, Rambam, Rashi...
It's one thing to chose not to believe science. It's another to suggest that the quality of that science is bad, without even knowing what you are talking about. I highly recommend anyone to really thoroughly learn science before the claim to know what's wrong with it.
In any event, time for Shabbos. Shabbat Shalom!
|
I think man's sabbath is fashioned after God's own, not necessarily the same, or the same duration or length. I completely agree with you on what you say about the sabbath, it is completely necessary for man. We just cannot do without res.t
|
Please re-read my post. I am equating people who do NOT believe in scientific methodology with people who do NOT believe we stepped on the moon. You sort of twisted my meaning to be the opposite. To make it more simple, I am saying that people who are firm believers in creationism to the EXclusion of the Big Bang theory are like ostriches with their heads in the sand. I, personally, do not take the Torah stories literally. To me, their beauty lies in their metaphors and lessons in how to live a holy life (which I also take as metaphors and not really laws). People who are very heavily into the Chabad theories and Orthodox take the Torah much more literally, sometimes to the exclusion of science. Tzvi touched upon something QUITE AMAZING and open minded for someone in Chabad. He said that IF there was a Big Bang, then G-d created THAT. This puts science and spirituality together in beautiful harmony.
|
Ooops! My apologies Karen. We agree, then.
Although, I would caution you about the open mindedness of this article. The description and critiques of evolutionary theory misrepresent the theory and contain factual inaccuracies indicative of someone of a less than open mind on some subjects.
|
Hi R' Tzvi, I would like to give some thoughts regarding the conclusion.
First and foremost, Strict materialistic reductionism is not an assumption and it is certainly not some sort of intense ideological belief for most scientists. In fact it is an strict materialism is not a scientific position. Science is about understanding those things in the world that can be explained in materialistic terms, not about pre-suposing that everything is. Since there is no way to know what is physically explainable, most scientist take the attitude, "why not try"?
What you are asking for in a "new science" are things science cannot be. You're basically saying, "the discipline of making observations about measurable things in the physical world should include more studies of immeasurable things that are not-definable." It's a contradiction. I think what you're looking for is a new science that fits better w/ your preconcieved ideas and science isn't in the business of telling us what we want to hear.
|
In our Jewish calendar, there is the beginning of the material year, and another beginning of a spiritual year. Chabad Rabbis deal with the spiritual year and R. Tzvi is trying to reconcile the spiritual answers to scientific questions with the actual, scientific answers to scientific questions. The only conclusion he could come to, if he stays Chassidic, is to "give in a little" and conclude that whatever science discovers, G-d created FIRST. So, G-d comes first. I have read many of R. Tzvi's articles and do realize he often "rambles", citing this or that "expert' in religion, to rationalize science. I cut him slack, because I understand and empathize. It is HARD to remain Orthodox and Chassidic and at the same time be extremely intelligent in this time frame of actual knowledge. We all know emphasizing materialism (putting things above G-d) is not wise. Chassidic thinkers group progressiveness, women's rights, etc., in with materialism. Unfortunate.
|
Hi Rabbi Tzvi,
I must again point out that evolutionary theory does not in any way abrogate the "law of entropy". I assume you are mistakenly referencing the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You should know that the earth is not a closed system (it receives tremendous energy from the sun), and therefore entropy does not have to increase. Also, you may be confusing entropy with "disorder".
I was curious if you could elaborate on the "outdated mechanics" upon which you think evolutionary theory is based? Does that include genetics, bioinformatics, or evolutionary-algorithms? Or are you referring to the tenants of complexity theory, such as cellular automata? I dunno, these don't seem particularly "out-dated" to me....
One final point, I can think of no aspect of evolutionary theory that suggests a spaceship can emerge from mud. You might want to check that. Straw men arguments will only confound matters and anger those who know what evolutionary theory actually says.
|
But, Matt, what is a Straw Man argument? Please elaborate.
|
A straw man is a purposeful misrepresentation of a position that one is arguing against. A person creates the illusion of defeating another's position by arguing against a superficially similar but "dumbed-down" version of their opponent's view.
In this case evolutionary theory is being reduced to the utterly incorrect notion that a spaceship will emerge from mud. Referring to evolutionary theory as "Darwinism" and accusing it of being "outdated" is also a strawman. Evolutionary theory has progressed far beyond its 19th century origins with Darwin. It's as absurd as calling quantum mechanics "Newtonianism" and then arguing that it is an outdated theory. Breakthroughs in genetics and computational biology are astounding, and merit far more than off-handed dismissal and disregard.
|
Thanks. And, may you be inscribed for a good year.
|
Explain to me, then: We start with a "primordial soup" and end up with spaceships. The process? Evolution.
How is this different than saying what is written in this article?
|
Advances in scientific inventions is totally not the same thing as how humans were formed. It's talking apples and oranges. Are you saying G-d was a scientist and experimented on creating things until He finally figured out mankind was the highest of His creation? Ethically, when I read Genesis, it appears we are NOT the highest at all. In fact, we were an afterthought, meant to be caretakers of G-d's greatest creation, which was the universe and all that existed before mankind. Because G-d created INTELLIGENCE, and gave us a brain, THAT is why we have come up with scientific inventions such as space ships. Space ships were not an outgrowth of any kind of soup.
|
R' Tzvi,
Spaceships do not emerge from primordial soup. That is not predicted or described by the theory of evolution.
The more problematic part of the article the incorrect statement that evolution "abrogates" the law of entropy?
And, again, please explain to me what you mean when you say that evolutionary theory is based on "outdated" mechanics?
|
One thing at a time--I'm trying to arrive at some clarity. If I'm wrong, I need to see clearly that I'm wrong.
We start with a primordial soup and some energy. Amino acids emerge, eventually proteins, organisms...until we arrive at human beings who then build spaceships.
What did I get wrong?
|
There are two things "wrong" (opinion). First, there are always new theories. One even says life probably originated outside of the earth's atmosphere. Weird, huh? The second thing was your use of logic to jump from one area of science (biology) into a different area of science (technology). If those were people and animals, you'd say that people can't beget animals. The same as saying biology can't beget technology. Technology does not happen because biology gave biological birth to it. People DISCOVER technology and people CREATE technology BASED on their intelligence, but they don't physically give birth to an inanimate object.
|
You're description in the comment above is vague & incomplete, but not wrong. You can't really reduce it all to 3 sentences.
Perhaps, I misunderstood: I thought you were arguing that a spaceship could spontaneously emerge from mud. A lot of folks use sloppy arguments like that to try to imply that emergent complexity doesn't make sense. Unfortunately for them, emergent complexity has solid mathematical and experimental foundations. However, this complexity can only arise under very particular circumstances, so analogies about watches or rockets assembling themselves are false analogies.
Again, my biggest issues are 1) with your "evolution is outdated" argument, 2) the thermodynamically incorrect statement about entropy 3) your misinformed claims on probabilities, and 4) purely subjective statements about particular theories being "atrociously deficient"? Really? Do you feel you know enough about these theories to say that? In what respect are they deficient?
Shana Tova!
|
There is no conflict between the Torah and modern science, it just takes us having a deeper look at the Torah.
|
I’ve “retired” from this forum mostly because many articles and comments have high degrees of intellectual dishonesty and self-deception. I would be surprised if the Rabbi responds to your last comment.
The vast majority of the population do not understand (or are willing to study and comprehend) the sciences, especially evolutionary biology for which incontrovertible evidence exits. Spreading incorrect and misleading information will always be believable to the misinformed lay person; but it is very pernicious because it fosters a life of self-deception and allows one to psychologically cope with life and death. Anything and everything can be true in religion because proof and falsifications are not required. You’re trying to fight a losing battle my intelligent friend.
|
Could meet at one location. In fact, I love Chabad and go when I am able, but JUST because of the family atmosphere and belonging. Yes, I believe coping with life and death issues is one of the reasons for religion. However, within Chabad there is a great discrepancy of individual beliefs allowed. Why I love Chabad is that people ARE able to discuss these issues, such as science and Torah,, and still be considered family. Please don't "retire" from this forum. On these forums there are NEVER final answers. Only individual opinions. That is what makes us Jews, after all. It's one reason we are special. I used to attend churches, and mostly there is NEVER discussion such as we have on these blogs. They are taught to think ONE WAY ONLY. It's almost like cult thinking. In Judaism, what I love so much is that we can HAVE DIFFERENT ideas and still remain brothers and sisters with love. No, you won't convince any rabbi, Tzvi or other, to change. Was that ever an expectation? Tsk, tsk.
|
I appreciate the thoughts, and I'm glad to know I'm not alone! To be fair to the Rabbi, he actually has been in contact with me offline and I feel that I've gotten some constructive responses. He even fixed an error in another article.
I don't expect to change the world view of Chabad, though mine's different on matters of science. But, I feel they can make their arguments on the basis of meta-scientific considerations (like G-d violating the constancy of natural law), WITHOUT attacking the integrity of scholarship of the science or insulting their readers' intelligence by claiming that there is no evidence to be found. That is where I draw a *strong* line.
I'd also like to point out that Chabad doesn't speak for all traditional Judaism in this matter, and I highly recommend you check out the writings of guys like R' Aryeh Kaplan, who present a very different model for science and orthodoxy.
Gmar Tov everyone!
|
On the contrary, the dialog has been very rewarding. By now, I would sincerely like to rewrite the essay, this time taking the arguments of materialist evolutionists more seriously--and with proper review by those with expertise in the fields mentioned.
Finding the time to do so is another matter.
|
Fair enough. Thank you for the responses.
|
After all, this blog represents how you WERE thinking before the dialogue, which is also ok, and which probably represents MANY Jewish people. In fact, the article, to me, is AWESOME in its liberality and breaking with the "G-d made man out of sand and that's that" philosophy. At least you were willing to open your mind to consider science, and you are breaking a mold so to speak, among the older type traditionalists. On some of your blogs, you filibuster and sometimes the effort to "pad" the article comes across as a little thoughtless. However, if you do "fix" this article, PLEASE send it on to me, as I would LOVE to continue the dialogue. G-d bless you to have a long, healthy, happy and successful life. Those who know you are blessed for being in touch with you. So, I feel blessed.
|
I totally enjoy your intelligence!
|
Tzvi,
very Berkley-ish.... nice to read.
Thank you.
|
Maybe: In Genesis, a newborn baby first sees light (it was dark in the womb), then sees stuff around him, then, finally, gets a notion of his parents existing: Adam and Chava. Genesis as "the way it looks to YOU". Maybe.
Is the world 6,000 years old? The PLANET is milllions of years old, but the HUMAN WORLD, the present human conversation, is indeed only 6,000 years old. As you say, two truths co-existing. We know NOTHING about cultures' thinking, before ancient Babylon. But the 360- degree circle, 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, all highly artificial, still in use, all Babylonian.
A man cheers as his son learns to use his advanced power tools - that's G-d's view of scientific advance. G-d is rooting for man, a proud father. G-d GIVES PERMISSION for science, and discoveries need a grateful blessing. Observations need a praising blessing.
G-d is not a humanities major who doesn't know science. A scientist's life: six days FACTS, 7th day, TRUTH. Avoid literalism.
|
It reinforces my belief that even Orthodox believers and traditional thinkers CAN have open dialogues with scientists. The fact that Rabbi Tzvi is WILLING to change the article when he has the time is AWESOME and miraculous to me. You guys who are totally intellectual scientists really are adding to my own level of understanding of physics and issues surrounding astronomy, biology, etc. Thank you EVER so much!
|
working in laboratory can I help their lab results concret when a couple needs a blood test for marriage or should I just let them go about their lives or just consider it a private matter when I throw up my defenses?
|
i happen to be a scientist and I am very much Jewish at heart, in my beliefs, in my upbringing and in what I have transferred to my grankids and kids.
So the answer is yes, we can combine both, and just look at them as different things that your mind can learn and how great that is, cheers.
|
Just read my post on Evolution and Creationism. All that has ever happened under the sun, except the evils that are the absence of goodness, has happened because there is a Being! As for the evils, they are a non-being. They include the efforts of the mad scientists who deny God!
|
Yes, we do separate our minds into various areas. In fact, we have a left and right brain thinking. One is literal and scientific, dealing with math as well. The other is creative, dealing with the arts and philosophy. The only time they come together is when there is brain damage to one of the halves, and then the other half takes over and has to do the work for both. In psychology and sociology, there is a tenet of a healthy human being that the person has a well rounded life. That is, the person is able to be a worker, a spouse (if that is the case), a parent (same), have hobbies, have faith of some kind and belief in an unknown factor which helps him or her to face tragedies in life and have inner strength of character. Those who can not reconcile scientific facts with religion close off a whole half of their brain. This is sad.
|
She would say that before G-d created the Heavens and earth, there was gournished. Nothing. Then, she'd say, Oh, feh, who cares. That would be the extent to which many Jewish people go in considering this issue. So, it appears we are all schizophrenics with dual personalities: seeing the beginning of the earth as being a religious idea, and seeing the beginning of the earth as being scientific and not at all anything to do with G-d. I can, personally, live with being schizo in this way. Hahaha. A little humor is always good, right?
|
|
| |
|
LOGIN
ASK THE RABBI
Read this article
