For millennia we were ridiculed for believing that the world began, cause and effect are not inherently linked, a whole is greater than the sum of its parts, the human psyche is multi-layered...
124 Comments Posted
I think Kabbalah, Quantum Physics, and psychology all speak about the same thing, but from different disciplines. I am writing my PhD dissertation on this subject. Any feedback or dialogue would be greatly appreciated. G-d Bless.
|
באמת זה מדהים עד כמה יסודות של תורת הקוונטים
משמשים כלבוש ליסדות האמוה לפי החסידות והקבלה
שלושת היסודות של האמונה
אחדות
אני ה' וולא שניתי
אין עוד מלבדו
ניתן ל"הסבר" לפי פיזיקה מודרנית
אני כבר עשרות שנים מתבונן בדימיון הרב וכל פעם חווה מחדש
הייתי מעונין מאד לראות את התזה של דוד גילמן בנדון
בבברכה
שמריהו
|
"Torah relies on witnesses and observation over intuition. Today we call this objective empiricism. It is what distinguishes the scientist from the Hellenist or medieval philosopher."
The statement made, implies that God can be found through rational thinking, or logic. Through personal expereince, I have found that with logic such as the cosmoligcal argument or the argument of design; it proves that God more than likely exists (by odds of more than a billion to one). However, there is a more efficient method in finiding ultimate truth; that is to assume the premise that everything in the Torah is truth and deduct from what has been stated, to further explain what has been hidden within the Torah. This is similar to the method of the Zohar. This is a more effiecient method than the emprical or rational methods claimed by the secular world. As proof, the Zohar is still years more advanced than modern physics.
|
"A matter so simple a child might understand, yet has confounded the wise of the World"...
From ancient times up onto the present, it has been the aspiration of the Philosophy, Mathematics and Science, to realize a solution for the unity that abides within and throughout the manifold Nature. Out of those earlier observations came the studies of Geometry. Pythagoras then collected and distilled, from the then known knowledge of geometry, the sure & unrefutable Elements of Natural Geometry. Those Geometric Elements, continue to reside at the Foundation of, and are the stable footings, upon which much of the Edifice, of both early and modern Science rests. Pythagoras realized & organized many things, yet his aspiration to discover the origin of and/or a clear method of association (a common denominator) between all the elements of Natural Geometry, was not realized in his day.
|
Mosaic Law is based on a complete knowledge of the Laws of nature, therefore, conception of the sole ultimate power is related to the creation and the Law is derived from it. Contradictions with the scientific establishment stem from the fact that in the absence of the unified theory facts are being misinterpreted by scientists. Compromises ,unknowingly ,allow misconceptions to be absorbed. The world may wish for compromises but humanity's survival is dependent on the truth.
|
The use of this concept is misapplied here since it does not state all mankind came from the female but that the mitochondrial DNA is passed through the female and not the male. In fact, there are new theories being worked on which suggest each race evolved within their own areas and that humans did not all come from a central point.
|
The story of the creation is actually consistent with science.
First, most striking is that the first physical manifestation is the appearance of light. All known physics are based on light.
Second, the order of creation is linear from there on – there are three contexts in this description that are noted – first the physical: appearance of light, and then two degrees of separation of matter – water from gas , and then liquid and solid. The second context is astronomical: stars, planets and the third is biological: plants, then aquatic life, reptiles, birds and then land animals last is human. All this is consistent with our scientific evolutionary view. It reads as a concise form of a guide to creation from physics to cosmos to biology, and should makes perfect sense to any 20th century scientist.
|
Ok, let's do some maths here:
Unified Field Theory = (UFT)
Torah = Rules of the engagement (R)
Human stupidity = Chaos Factor (C)
Science Establishment = Problem (P)
Nature = G-d's expression (one of them) (N)
So, we have:
N+R=Perfect Equilibrium (PE)
PE+C+P=P on 13
Implies that:
(C+P>N+R+UFT)
secret revealed, pass along...
|
"Science" is first and foremost a methodology, rather than a collected body of what is considered known. Primary among that methodology is the recognition that ideas have to be subjected to experimental validation and that alternative explanations MUST be considered.
Since "Torah" is about revealed truth from an unchallengable Source, it can't be in accord with "science" as a method.
How about this: I don't see any statement at all in Torah that the Earth goes AROUND the sun. The story of Creation strongly suggests a belief that the Earth is the center of the universe, and that everything else was put here for us. Any evidence at all to the contrary?
|
If you've ever learned Talmud, you will see that methodology and a critical approach are very much a part of Torah. True, there is an acceptance of absolute truths, but even these have a reasonable basis.
Concerning geocentricism, there is really no conflict here. The Torah is describing the human experience, which is central to halacha. No one will call you a Neanderthal for saying how beautiful the sunrise looks.
Aside from this, if we discount inertia, the principle of relative motion allows for both views.
|
I don't know the reference, but I was told that in a discussion of the length of the moon's orbit around the earth in the Talmud where the correct solution was given to six decimal places (29.5... and so on days) - a feat only replicated by modern science in the '60s. How could the Talmud have this information so accurately centuries before the technology existed to make such a measurement unless it came from G-d?
|
I think the mabul (flood) is a story, and not an historical event -- this make me think that the Torah is perhaps written by G-d, but that, like a parent speaking to his young child, has stories that are for the good of us, but not to be taken literally at all.
I often hear parents tell their small children things that are not true in order to get an outcome the parent seeks.
any comment on this would be appreciated.
|
I think you mean well, Rabbi, but you are missing a key point about the scientific method: the scientific method relies on, and insists on the possibility that a hypothesis not only be experimentally verifiable, but that it can also be falsified.
If the nature of a proposition is such that it can not conceivably be falsified, then the investigation of that proposition CANNOT be scientific.
There must be, at least conceptually, some imaginable experiment that could potentially lead to confirmable data that would falsify the propoistion.
Torah study doesn't allow this.
|
But the "theory" of the Torah could be falsified - if, for instance, Mashiach never comes, or if teshuva went unheeded. Judaism holds itself up to those sorts of tests. Indeed, the way to detect a false prophet is to see if he prophecies aright or not. G-d doesn't ever ask us to accept on faith, He says, nu, look around you, is what I say right or wrong? Invariably, of course, it is right. The fact of the matter is that Torah can never be falsified because none of it is false. BUT, that's not the point, the potential for it to be falsified does exist, which is your definition of scientific, is it not?
|
Masicach returning is not a theory, it's a promise. Promises can NEVER be falsified, because a believer can always say the promise will happen LATER.
I can falsify the proposition that the Moon is made of green cheese, or at least conceive of an experiment that would do so. By your reasoning, Christianity is scientific too; Jesus MIGHT not return one day.
|
Rabbi, you say: "Torah relies on witnesses and observation over intuition. Today we call this objective empiricism. It is what distinguishes the scientist from the Hellenist or medieval philosopher."
Sorry, but you cannot witness or observe the alleged events on Sinai, as just one example. Those claims are far from being empirical. If you want to compare them against other alleged historical events, that isn't comparing them against an empirical or scientific standard, so don't try it-it's a false comparison.
|
Look: if you want to profess your faith because it sings to your soul and infuses your life with meaning and purpose and discipline and passion and peace, then let the poetry of it be enough.
But it is a false marketing claim to proclaim Torah/Judaism as being any more rational or "scientific" than any other faith. That "Unique Selling Proposition" doesn't hold water against any intellectually rigorous examination.
|
I don't see in the article where I made any link between this concept and Sinai. It's a principle in halacha.
It's not fair to ask for the same kind of proof for historical facts as we ask for in the natural sciences. Historians can be rigorous and examine evidence critically, but they can never provide the same sort of proofs that a physicist, chemist or biologist can. See Can I be called to the Torah if I am a skeptic?
Nevertheless, I do not see how you can so easily discount the populist nature of the Jewish account of our origins. This is certainly unique among religions. No other religions claims its origins in the experiences of an entire nation.
|
Rabbi, you said "Torah". That encompasses more than halacha; it also encompasses the physical world view of the Torah, including the Creation story, the story the Sinai revelation, etc.
And halacha ultimately, Tamudic discussions notwithstanding, when all is said and done, boils down to "Do it because G -D commands it". There is no empirical investigation you can do on the merits of not blending wool and linen in a garment.
|
No, empirical observation is not the basis of Torah. Torah begins with a set of axioms. How many and exactly what they are is a matter of debate. "G_d is good" is one of those axioms, and I don't believe that can be empirically proven.
Once those axioms are accepted, when a halachic ruling is made, empirical observation and critical reasoning are applied.
This is not so different from any other field of inquiry. Axioms are unavoidable. The difference is that in other fields, the axioms can be changed if the outcome is not desirable. In Torah, you're stuck with immutable axioms.
|
"In Torah, you're stuck with immutable axioms."
And THAT ultimately is why Torah can't be in agreement with science; science takes all axioms as subject to change and/or improvement as new paradigms come along to better explain both old phenomena and new. Einstein didn't disprove Newton, but offered a more comprehensive explanation.
This is where your arguments about Torah and Science MUST fall to the ground
|
No clue which arguments you are talking about. In this essay? This essay has nothing to do with proving Torah. It's just about instances where Torah and contemporary science are in agreement.
BTW: Your example of Einstein/Newton is not a good match. Einstein did not reject any of Newton's axioms--and that was his brilliance. Galileo's ingenious refutations of Aristotle would be a better example of axioms subject to change.
|
I seem to be following Rebbe Freeman about, but I really comment on what he declares, it's a coincidence, really~!
But, to Science and Torah!
The Bible and /or Torah is NOT to be viewed as a Scientific book, or an argument against Scientific thought, but, when and where the Bible (Torah) speak on a given scientific subject, it is Torah that proves to be saying the absolute truth.
Thus, when it is said, "There exists ONE who is above the 'circle of the earth' above those who are as grasshoppers"...the Bible is correct, is it not, and Mr. Columbus would have saved us a lot of time and energy with the flat-earth society peoples of the earth back then!
When Torah declares the that "G-d is dynamic energy...is that not true, that it took untold tons of ENERGY to create what is taken for granted.
Nuclear Physicists have even adopted the "Jehovah" theory when the question was asked;"what was before the 'BIG BANG' "? On matters of science, Torah is correct, not man! So, why bother?
|
Richard opined:
"Thus, when it is said, "There exists ONE who is above the 'circle of the earth' above those who are as grasshoppers"..
Richard, do you know the difference between a circle and a sphere? If you are telling me this is a literal statement of fact, then Torah is wrong; the Earth is not a two-dimensional circle. There is no "above" the Earth anymore than there is a "below"". Is God sitting on top of the North Pole, the South Pole, the Equator? See my point?
".the Bible is correct, is it not, and Mr. Columbus would have saved us a lot of time and energy with the flat-earth society peoples of the earth back then!"
No, the Bible is wrong. The Earth is not a flat circle that you can get "above".
|
I'm at a loss to see how you can claim any intellectual honesty and not see how you twist and distort fact to fit your claims. Not to mention sloppy language, ill-defined definitions, and a willing suspension of any critical thinking.
Where on the electromagnetic spectrum is "dynamic energy', Richard? This is the sloppy thinking on your part that just doesn't pass muster.
|
The complex bacteria which turns the foof we eat into energy is from our mothers by the unbibical cord and could only have come from the first worman. I do not think mankind can create them in the same ratio that is in each of us and could only have been put there by Almighty God!
|
i think that a quran is more scientific than the bible
|
Sorry mohamed - the Bible is at least 800 years older than the quran!~ - Covers much more history of mankind!
|
John, the Rig Veda, Bhagavad Ghita, Upanishads and other Hindu texts are older than the Bible.
Age proves nothing. The notion that that the age of something proves or even indicates value of any kind is nonsense.
Rabbi, with intellects like this defending your position, may it is time to change your position.
PR
|
Oh! Dear Mr. Ross, did I not use a scientific aide in getting to my explanation of the Torah, the" circle of the earth", "dynamic energy" and other symmantics that I used.
When I try to explain any matter, sir I wasn't aiming my answer at you, so if you made no sense of what I said but decided to make mockery of it, rather than take the point and accept or reject it.
I suppose that you did not appreciate my dealings with "Dynamic Energy", sorry, but it was the Torah that described G-d as being "dynamic Energy", so I used it in my theme and in my quotation of the passage.
If I don't choose to pick Astro-Physical grammar for you, I certainly do apologize, but it was NOT my intention to be your court jester, I was stating my belief in what G-d had inspired the prophet to say, and if it took "Dynamic Energy" of any sort to cause the "BIG BANG", the the Jehovahists are correct, for before the BIG BANG, there was nothing , just as the Bible had said.
So, excuuuuuuuse me! {picky~!]
|
Today is Mr. Darwin's 200th birthday. Whenever I ruminate on Darwin and his discoveries, I find myself recalling an inadvertently hysterical line from the imperishable A.B. Rotenberg song "Atheist Convention in L.A." In the song, three men, traveling by plane to the convention, say:
That we all once were primates is our motto
And the Big Bang's not a theory but a fact!
The line is funny because only an ignoramus would imagine that an atheist might deny that we are still primates and also because of the familiar way it misuses the word theory. In our vernacular a "theory" is an imperfect guess. In science, a "theory" is a set of ideas devised to explain a group of facts. A theory can be debated and modified. Facts usually, aren't.
Evolution is both a theory and a fact (Stephen J. Gould said it first) Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair.
|
Demolishing dumb arguments (The mass revelation argument for the Torah's Historical Veracity)
The fact that Judaism in ancient in times regarded the Torah as having been the product of a divine revelation is taken by many as proof that the revelation occurred.
In a 1999 paper titled "Recent Common Ancestors of All Present-Day Individuals," Joseph Chang, a statistician at Yale University, showed how to reconcile the potentially huge number of our ancestors with the quantities of people who actually lived in the past. More recently, researchers determined that about 3.5 million of today Ashkenazi Jews are descended from just four women.
As impressive the idea of millions of independent family traditions stretching back to Sinai may seem, the reality, based on this research into genealogy, is that there probably aren't more than one or two: all Jews alive 1000 years after Sinai likely shared the same small handful of ancestors; all the other lines having died out over time.
|
Sorry mohamed - the Bible is at least 800 years older than the quran!~ - Covers much more history of mankind!
Wrong!
As the Quran was 800 younger it is in fact more scientific, due to the fact that more was known about nature that at the time of torah.
|
Also about the Big Bang: Let there be light, and there was light, and it was good!
About living things: first there were plants, then other animals, then humans, in Torah and in scientific writing.
Bats are not kosher, In translations of Torah, the bat is the only bird that is not kosher. But bird can be translated as flying animal, so this is not incorrect.
The tabernacle: what an engineering feat!
And much much more.
|
Hi,
I've just read this book and it's written by a Jewish quantum physicist. Everything in science appears to be consistent with Genesis according to this guy and certainly very interesting especially the 6 days and the reference to G-d's time frame in Einstein's laws.
|
Time and space and action and things are a creation of perception.
|
Look guys,
The creation story of Genesis is inconsistent with multiple scientific disciplines, including geology, biochemistry, genetics, paleontology, etc. etc. You can't explain the fossil record of our pre-human ancestors, plate tectonics, etc etc with any of this nonsense.
It's a myth. Accept it. Noah didn't bring dinosaurs on the ark, man wasn't created out of the dust, the fossil record isn't a lie, the bones weren't put there by Satan, etc. etc.
Grow up.
|
Ok, please explain how Torah is consistent with THIS science:
(
(news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/06/100621-lucy-early-humans-walking-upright-science/ )
On what day did G-d create these? Did Noah take them on the Ark? How did the story that Adam already knew horticulture-he tended the Garden- that Cain already had mastered agriculture, and that Abel had domesticated animals, when we know that these discoveries are actually fairly recent in our human history?
You can't just focus on physics/the Big Bang etc and ignore the rest of the sciences? How about plate tectonics and the fact that the continents were once joined? C'mon..
|
In an era yet to come, thinking people will look back at the science of the early 21st century with astonishment and say, "How could they have believed in such a simplistic, impossible narrative for the emergence of our reality?" To them, all of this will be "just another myth."
Only that this myth will be a useless myth. From the creation story, we know how to treat our fellow human being, our responsibility to the planet and the awe we must feel. From the narrative of today's materialists we know none of this, not a thing.
The science is good science--for the devices we have now. In that sense, it is true. The paradigm, the model of reality, the narrative of the past--I'll take Genesis over it any day. It has survived every era until now, it will survive this one as well.
|
Peculiar you should bring up Lucy--the evolutionists I know are wracking their brains trying to figure how to fit this into their model of gradual evolution. It just doesn't work.
Concerning plate tectonics, this is implied in the text of Genesis: Initially, there is a single ocean, then many. Take a look at the text.
The question is how to read the story. Science is useful in this regard, in that it may assist us in understanding the narrative's mysteries.
After all, this is a narrative known through divine revelation, written in words that were never truly comprehensible to any era. Such a narrative may take a few thousand years to unravel.
|
"Peculiar you should bring up Lucy--the evolutionists I know are wracking their brains trying to figure how to fit this into their model of gradual evolution. It just doesn't work."
You don't understand the time frames involved.
More to the point, how do YOU explain Lucy? How does Lucy, Ardi and the rest of the pre-hominid ancestors of man fit in with Genesis?
You've got the much harder time explaining this.
|
"In an era yet to come, thinking people will look back at the science of the early 21st century with astonishment and say, "How could they have believed in such a simplistic, impossible narrative for the emergence of our reality?" To them, all of this will be "just another myth."
That's your fantasy projection. You don't think Adam naming the animals as they were brought before him is an utter myth without a shred of evidence ever possibly confirming or falsifying it?
|
There is a tremendous insight in the story of Adam naming the animals. The Torah tells this as part of the creation narrative. It is telling us that our act of observation and speech is not a passive act, but rather actually brings the universe into sharper focus, so to speak. Or, in the language of modern physics, "collapses the wave function."
On the matter of pre-hominids, volumes have already been written and I do not wish to re-hash all of that here. Suffice it to say that the Torah's assertion that all of humanity is of common descent from a single individual is slowly finding support in empirical data. The details have yet to fall into place.
As for the "fantasy projection"--are you asserting that our current concept of the universe is the final word, the absolute truth? Or is it possible that it too may be drastically revised by coming generations?
|
Torah makes no sense in many areas. Which proves that the rational mind can only go so far. The rest is another dimension. Science today relies solely on logic and reason. Therein the dilemma. I reckon if science would put things right side up and start with the premise that God exists mankind would be far ahead scientifically.
|
Torah also tells us the earth is round and is in orbit.
|
You write that, "For millennia, we were ridiculed for believing the world began."
Who was doing all this ridiculing? Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, and most African and Native American societies, and in fact, nearly all the cultures and religions among whom Jews lived shared this belief. (Certainly Christian Europe shared that belief...since Christianity is honors the "old Testament").
So, with the overwhelming majority of Jews living among people who share that belief over the past 2,000 years...who on Earth do you claim was ridiculing them?
I know that every group likes to feel that it was a lonely voice in the wilderness, defending the truth in the face of doubters. It's human nature. But in this instance, all western cultures were pretty much in agreement since the Fall of the Roman Empire. So the concept of being ridiculed is absurd.
|
I understand the eagerness to reconcile Torah and Science. And I am not a theologian, so I bow to your superior learning in that regard. But most of the scientific ideas presented here range from the superficial to the flat wrong.
An example of superficial is citing agreement between Jewish ideas of charity and education with sociologists endorsing those ideas. EVERY religion, plus secular humanists, have always endorsed those ideas.
An example of a glaring error is the claim that genetic evidence points to a single ancestor, as does the Torah. No mainstream biologist or geneticist would agree. And if you honestly think biologists believe that, you've completely misunderstood biology.
And your suggestion that Abriaham inspired Einstein is just chutzhpah, considering that Einstein 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."
|
The essay is not meant to cover any particular issue in depth, and so I've left myself quite open to attacks on each one. I'll try to very briefly address a few of your points:
Charity and education: Historically, these are Jewish contributions. There are no ancient texts from any part of the world that parallel the call of the Jewish prophets --beginning with Moses--for every private individual to care for the impoverished, the downtrodden, the orphan and the widow.
Creation: The intellectual world for 2,000 years was dominated by Aristotle, who believed in the eternity of the cosmos.
Einstein: Seems to have said different things to different journalists--either that or they got it all wrong. An eye-opening collection of quotations can be found at nobelists.net. At any rate, my assertion here needs none of this. Abraham entered into a world of increasing polytheism and asserted a unity behind all things. He was the watershed event that eventually made Einstein's work possible
|
I appreciate your thoughtful answer to my comments (civility and thoughtfulness being two qualities often missing from internet comment pages).
I suppose the problem I have with your explanations is that they seem to rest on the circular logic of citing the Torah as the earliest examples of these qualities, yet the only source for that early attribution is the Torah itself.
Most of the admirable beliefs for which you praise Judaism, such as charity, are equally a part of Taoism, Jainism, and Hinduism -- all of which believe that their faith is as old or older than Judaism.
In an objective view -- looking only at verifiable claims and actual existing documents -- there is no reason to give the Jews' claims to having first developed these ideas any more weight than the other claims of being first.
|
Scanning the article again, I don't see mention of charity. The words are "public education, popular involvement and constitutional governance."
I also don't see any claim of exclusivity. Nevertheless, I do believe these to be principally Torah contributions. I am ready to concede, however, if you can show me ancient texts from another people discussing:
--an obligation for all parents to teach their children literacy.
--a call for social justice, and for every man and woman to be involved in such--as we find repeatedly in the Chumash, the Prophets and the Psalms.
--the constitutional basis of an egalitarian society. To explain what I mean by this, please see Joshua Berman article, Is Torah Egalitarian?.
|
I have worked/and studied bacteria and other illness agents. And, to my surprise, one avoids so many illnesses, even today by following these laws!
Examples,
Oysters, clams, contain (frequently) a bacteria called Vibrio vulnifcus, today if you are infected, you will probably end up in the ICU of some Hospital, but for all these years an ICU is something New, Illness caused is is in the same family as Cholera but worse. (you could eat contaminated and not get infected but that is a lottery i will not enter.)
I see I have a limited number of characters left, so over to general biology, not eating top predators like eagles, birds of prey, or top carnivores, reduces the possible poisonous substances that you ingest, because poisonous substances, say a bird of prey has eaten 50 slightly poison containing chickens then all that will, or diseases will collect in the bird of prey or scavenger. So if you eat the chicken instead you only get 1/50 the load of poison, out of space, could go on
|
Science is all about how we acquire knowledge, at least as much as it is about the knowledge and technology that result from it. Torah is about the knowledge, or the halacha, and what to do.
The scientific method, observation, theory and test, is itself one of the products of science, and perhaps its greatest product. Perhaps, newer ideas about what we can know will be nearly as important.
A scientist almost by habit, is always asking what do we know? how do we know it its corrrect, or more accurately, how can we test it? Feynman perhaps referered to this when he wrote that the greatest contribution of science is doubt.
Do we find something like this in Torah? You betcha!
The almost identical same questions are found by a novi (prophet). How do we know that what he says comes from G-d? And the answer is: if the prediction does not come true then he is killed asa false prophet.
The method is science-like, but the purpose is to determine and apply a halacha.
|
Because the Torah reports that G_d first made man and then from him, made a woman, we should conclude that a man was in fact before any woman. IF we look at DNA, we see that it appears As If a woman came first. That is only because when you go back to Noah and the Ark, Noah's 3 sons all came from his DNA while Noah's wife and each of the 3 other wives came from other DNA sources. So, it only appears that at a certain point in time, that man's DNA only goes back to Noah while the DNA of 4 women all go back to earlier DNA sources. So, Which evidence do you want to believe? G_d's Torah, or man's evidence through the DNA? Don't remember where or when I heard this, but I can't forget it.
|
Torah and science are both correct. The Earth is both 3.7 billion and 5771 years old; the universe began 13.7 billion years ago and 5771 years ago. Quantum physics postulates that all material existence is in a state of potentiality until observed by a fully conscious entity of which only humans qualify. Therefore, until Adam/Eve,the first apes with fully evolved consciousness, the world/universe as we know it did not exist. But the universe did exist in a partially conscious form, evolved as Torah (and Darwin) explains through the sudden creation of light (the big bang)and the evolution of species (the containers of consciousness)whose reality (as we define it)was totally dependent on it's being realized by human observation. Reality is a paradox and Torah pierces this paradox for us and science is catching up. This reality is constructed, with all it's history, continually in the present, giving the potentialities of time and space material existence.
|
Reading these heartfelt posts, and the original essay, I see people straining mightily to reconcile science and religion because reason tells them that the logic and evidence of science is solid, yet their hearts are unprepared to let go of stories and beliefs their trusted parents fed them from birth.
The result is people twisting themselves into philosophical pretzels to say that the 4.5 billion-year-old (not 13.7 billion, btw) didn't fully exist until humans appeared.
Or, as the original article does, pounce on points where Torah and science happen to agree (like the concept of synergy) or, with some fancy footwork, SEEM similar (equating "the word" in Torah with energy).
But a few points of agreement don't reconcile them. (Mullahs & Hasids both protested Jerusalem's Gay Pride parade, but that hardly makes them allies.) And the ability to find intellectual loopholes to explain away basic conflicts can't hide fundamental difference in the way religion & science see the world.
|
we are at odds here -- i do believe that somehow the orthodox literalist view is not capturing the true simple (perhaps divine) Torah we read.
I feel bad about it. we are these modern Jews, and we want to find meaning, and we encounter a religion that is ours that is, I think, very rich, no?
And instead, we are caught in this bind -- and the most Torah scholarly we know just send us into tailspins as they tell us it is all simply, literally, the way we read it on the page.
i have been thinking about Judaism for many years, and I have always been washed away in this sea of simple thinking that (I feel in my heart) is somehow not real.
What is a Jew to do? I have never figured out where to go with this kind of pain -- I suppose when we pass from this earth we will gain some clarity.
I like the idea -- have always felt -- that the wonder of Torah is in its mysterious past. even as a kid, I understood this feeling that there is a truth, but that we are not privy to.
|
Time is not a constant thing, i.e if I drove my car at an average speed of 100 mph from the Florida panhandle to Chicago. Due to physics, I would have experienced, something like .001 seconds less than the people waiting for me in Chicago, thus they would have aged approx .001 seconds more than I had.
|
In reconciling the Torah with Science I have a few rhetorical questions. The first is the disparity between year 5771 and the scientific account of having the earth around for billions of years. Here I do not see any problems at all, for what if a day to G_D is not necessarily a day to us. Before there was an earth to rotate our 'days' could not be anywhere. What if the day in Genesis, when the animals are created, this happens for one day in His terms when G_D creates new species, lets others die out, and only when we get to mankind, does mankind decide the length of a day, a month, a year. So when G_D hands it over to man, it has been there for a few G-D days which to humans is millions of years as they were the last created.
How were they created, the animals, through evolution or maybe, complete as they were, I have no doubt that there is yet so much to unearth, or that it was by a creator.
Mathematics says its possible to have happened on its own
Statistics says that possibility is so remote, so G_D and Science can intersect.
What if what we take for constants such as time, the rotation of the earth, really are not?
|
i loved this article and all the passionate responses.
WHY? It clearly highlights one of the most interesting dilemmas of the modern scientific world. One of the challenges facing educated but non observant Jews.
The current world view or scientific world view claims if you can't prove it, its wrong, or doesn't exist. Therein lies the fundamental error.
To all Jews on this post , keep halachic Shabbos, Kosher and all the other mitzvot , open your hearts and experience being an observant Jew. experience it and maybe a new dimension can be added to how you "decide" whether something is true or not.
"Facts" and "proof" are only one part of the puzzle.
From this post it is clear that the scientific worldview is fundamentally limited.
The age of the earth is a hardly a reason to claim conflict. The earth will age exponentially the further away from source. Is it not possible that it is not age science is measuring is not in fact decay?
|
Very valuable and very informative article! Light to us all! Thanks!
|
I don't agree that science says, "if you can't prove it, it's wrong." Rather, I think science looks to concepts that are evidence-based. There are things we can't YET prove, but the tangible evidence is clear. (And of course, many concepts like evolution that have often been proved.)
Your comment that facts are only part of the puzzle illustrates the fundamental difference between science and faith. Science agrees that we don't know all the facts. But it assumes that the facts indeed exist, whether we've found them yet or not. Religion, by contrast, is content to do as you suggest: to believe that there are supernatural parts of the puzzle based in tradition.
That indeed makes science more limited: limited to reality rather than myth; limited to what IS rather than what we wish.
That's why I disagree with the article's argument that science & religion are compatible. I believe they are not, even if we yearn to reconcile our ancestral traditions with the evidence of science
|
The latest scientific conjecture is that the Earth is approximately 4 billion years old and the universe 14 billion. But, actually that's irrelevant. The basis of Judaic thought is that, "God is One." If you accept that "premis" then science and God are the same thing in different forms.
|
Recall that the question is "How scientific is Torah?" The is not like asking whether Torah and Science agree. In fact, it's more like asking how green is a waltz.
To undertand this, and answer the question, we first need to be clear about what is science and what is Torah.
Science is a method of inquiry that produces and tests hypotheses. The arbiter of truth in science is observation and the goal is to make a better or more useful model of reality.
Torah describes itself first and foremost as a body of laws (see Rashi on Bereshis). The laws are received by prophecy or enacted by rabbonim. Rather than test an explanation, we try to arrive at a decision; is the apple permitted or not? What if the apple has bugs that we can see only with a microscope?
Torah can use the scientific method, but up to a point. A lot of halacha is about what meets the eyes.
That i believe answers the question close to as best as it can be answered.
|
The dietary laws protect from not all forms of worms (roundworms, tapeworms, etc.) but most of the ones that can cross the basement membrane in the intestine and get access to the blood stream. Yes, the same symptoms would have accompanied the acute phase, so without modern technology who would have known to stay to the safest animals to eat.
More on things like shrimp & lobster: Seafood allergies is what they commonly cause; though an allergy to fish is possible, i have never heard of a case of fish with scales causing Anaphylaxis. The Torah really started the RSPCA. Determining food to be Kosher is to a great extent what the FDA (US) food and drug admin is supposed to do on many levels.
Creation, a day of God cannot, by its very placement, refer to an earthly day, because on the first day the planet had not made a single orbit, or had a sun to orbit, or turned around its own axis, who knows maybe the animals were driven to 'evolve' by G_D, who controlled this, feedback please.
|
You're quite right on the age of the universe vs. the age of the Earth. I didn't read your original posting closely enough; I was thinking it a reference to the age of the planet.. Apologies.
It's true that the basis of Judaism is that "God is One." But, to use your terms, I not accept that premise of a God. To me, God is no more real than Harry Potter (and, having read both Torah and Harry Potter, I find the latter a more likeable character).
Attempts to reconcile God and Science -- such as calling them the same things in different forms -- are, to my eyes, simply the intellectual gymnastics that people go through when they are unable to shake the fantastical indoctrination of their youth, yet can't deny the obvious evidence of science.
|
Many of your points are excellent, about health concerns and observations of ancient peoples being codified as a set of dietary rules.
But it is actually an argument against religion, since it suggests (and I agree) that many of the Torah's rules and restrictions -- like those of other religions -- have roots in living conditions and were later imbued with spiritual & mystical mumbo-jumbo as a means of enforcing and passing them along.
Kosher laws may have been a good guide before people knew about bacteria, allergies, and viruses. But now we DO know of those things and more It's time to leave ancient myths behind. We understand that cooking pork eliminates the disease threat. It's sad to stick with primitive taboos now that we understand the real cause & prevention.
There are indeed many details of life on which science and religion happen to agree. But some shared opinions cannot mask the fundamental differences in how they attempt to understand and analyze the world.
|
Sorry but Kosher is much more involved that simply germs or health.
It's more about ingesting the spirit of the animal. You will notice all Kosher animals are domestic while non kosher are often wild animals of prey.
Also Kosher meat is drained of all the blood.
Kosher is quantum physics at its best, in that it is very detailed down to amounts that the eye can not see.
|
"To me, God is no more real than Harry Potter (and, having read both Torah and Harry Potter, I find the latter a more likeable character)."--Paul in NY
This comment caused me to ponder. Paul, you've "read" the Torah? Is the Torah a book that you read? Yes, there are the Five Books of Moses--but that is only the raw material, or at least a representation of such. It's been almost 3300 years since that work was completed, and in that time the Jewish People have unfolded and processed Torah in accordance to a divine recipe into many ingenious and deep forms.
Perhaps I can compare you to a man you walks into the chef's kitchen, tastes a raw, muddy potato, apprehends the raw, red meat, chews a hard, raw barley seed, spits it all out and snorts, "I would rather eat a rotten fish than this chef's food!"
|
@Paul
Kosher laws are what Robert Anton Wilson would call "game rules". They describe the rules you have to follow when you play the game, "I am Jewish".
They are neither true nor false. They have no more verifiable truth value then the rule, "If you land on a Hotel on Park Place in Monopoly you have to pay the owner $5,000".
It's when people confuse game rules with objective "TRUTH", and when that confusion is encouraged as a way of enforcing the rules of the game, that trouble starts up.
Thje game rules of "orthodox judaism" are different from those of "reform juidaism". Ironically the more stringent and difficult the game rules, the more loyal the follower tends to be and the more they will delete out any objective evidence or methodology that would show their game rulea are only that: game rules.
|
I think your analysis that kashrut represents the "rules" you need to follow to be Jewish is a useful way to look at it. That's precisely why I am happy to declare myself an atheist and reject those rules.
If I play Monopoly, which you compare to it, I'm doing it for fun, and everyone recognizes that the rules are arbitrary and simply to give the game structure. But observant Jews will tell you that when God weighs your life in the balance, he considers whether you have followed those rules. And that following them is doing a mitzvah, and will bring the messiah sooner.
That's a lot more than a friendly game of Monopoly.
What does it say about traditional Jews that they believe the Supreme Being invented arbitrary rules with no intrinsic value, yet expects us to follow them blindly to be part of the tribe. What a depressing thought.
|
Citing my comparison of Torah & Harry Potter, you asked if I read the Torah, and whether I read the centuries of commentary.
Yes, I have read most of the Torah. And I have read some of the commentaries of the sages. I also worked closely with Lubavitcher rabbis, who shared their insights. I am not a Talmudic scholar, but the more I learned the less I liked.
I think your comparison of me to one who tastes a raw potato and can't imagine it cooked is poor (though clever).
You sell the Torah short if you consider it but a raw ingredient. It's more cooked than that. It tells stories (many quite disgusting). It celebrates horrendous events. And it introduces a vain, Zeus-like creator who demands praise and obedience. (Significantly, His first 3 commandments are about people recognizing his dictatorship, NOT about doing good or leading moral lives.)
Besides, if the underlying story is fiction, the sages are merely literary critics. Interesting, but with nothing to tell us about reality.
|
I think I did not make one thing clear and that is that I believe it would have been difficult for people until modern times to link the disease, and health say Pig vs. Cow and then to codify them according to their observations, so they must have been given by someone with a light microscope, or better. They had no double blinded random trials, of their foods. In the interest of space I cannot give examples, to show what I mean in their entirety, but for many of these diseases there is a lag period from infection to disease, so it would be more like asking someone a year later to list all they had eaten or had close contact with in that entire year and try to link disease agents to the disease. And what animals are raised on a single farm, on another dimension determines the development of certain other diseases, who are then carried by insect vectors. Look up neurocystecircosis, and you can see that the Torah is written to caution as well, to live healthy. And there my space is up!
|
I sincerely understand your viewpoints regarding Torah and science as I had those same views for many, many years. What opened my eyes to Torah's deepest meanings was extensive meditation/contemplation on "God is One." This is an extremely subtle concept, and probing it's depths led me into territory only Torah and the Lubavitcher Rabbis who were/are kind enough to guide me, could, finally, allow me my "Ahha" moment. Every Jew is seeking union with God, some choose strict observance, some Torah study, some atheism and agnosticism. Yes, you are seeking God and any Jew as passionate as you are about your quest, will surely succeed. My best wishes for you on your wonderous journey.
|
The enthusiasm is very nice. But there are couple of things that perhaps need to be said clearly.
If you are Jewish, you are Jewish even when you do not play by the rules. Don’t let anybody tell you different. (The converse is also true, keeping kosher, shabbos, etc., is not going to make you jewish if you are not). But if you are Jewish, playing by the rules is going to improve your connection to G-d and it is going to improve you as well.
Kosher is not about health or food safety. If you eat in enough kosher restaurants and homes, you will eventually see this for yourself. Kosher is foremost about obeying mitzvahs. Further, the Torah speaks about not intermarrying, about being holy, and about being a lamp unto the nations and distinct from the nations.
Sources for all the above are in Torah, and easily made specific.
|
I appreciate the kind spirit evident in your message, and your eagerness to share the passion you've found. Clearly, faith and involvement in Judaism is an important part of your life. It is a wonderful thing that you found it.
But, I can't agree that I too am seeking God. I have no yearning for a religious "aha" moment. I feel no desire for such an awakening. And in truth I find the concept of a supernatural deity unpleasant in the extreme, certainly not something I would welcome. A universe ruled by a God would horrify me.
If belief gives you joy and warmth, I celebrate that. To me, the idea of God is repugnant.
When my mother was on her deathbed, a well-meaning nurse tried to console her by saying that soon she would rejoin my late father. When the nurse left, my mother shook her head and said, "who would want to die with a fairytale?"
We all think that others share our yearnings--that our desires are universal. With age I've come to learn that's not true. I am on no "quest."
|
Paul's and Rabbi Freeman's debate has been running for about two years. That's a lot of effort in the interest of disbelief.
One theme seems to be whether the Torah is authoritative, or wrong on the facts, and another seems to be whether it is reasonable to think the universe is a creation rather than an accident or necessity.
Everybody has heard comments of people like dawson, coyne, and so forth. But notice what sort of concept they have of G-d. A typical line might be "things evolve, therefore G-d doesn't exist". I think those kinds of arguments are not fair or honest, and really not very smart.
There are in fact, legitimate scientists who are more open minded about the proposition, and there are some who are also Torah scholars. They don't get the same amount of press.
Here's a thought: if you were G-d, and you want creatures that make choices, would you make it possible for them to prove that you exist?
|
Thank you, Mr. Katzenelson. Your posting expresses very eloquently everything that I dislike about religion.
The clannish, ethnic tribalism that says you are Jewish -- part of the tribe -- whatever you believe or however you behave. The irrational subservience to ancient dogma that says the rules are about "obeying" mitzvahs rather than doing anything that is objectively good, helpful, kind, or useful. The distrust and dislike of "the other" that preaches against intermarriage. The self-righteousness by which one group elevates itself to be "a lamp unto the nations" rather than recognizing that all peoples have so much to contribute and so much to learn from each other. The aloofness that says we are "distinct from the nations" rather than embracing our common humanity and universal values.
You have beautifully expressed all that I reject, all that is most destructive, boastful, and intolerant in so much of organized religion and ethnic identity. Thank you.
|
Paul, we haven't had anyone around here who can be so frank, honest and articulate about his contempt for our beliefs while remaining so coldly benign. Not a single ad hominem yet! I'm impressed.
|
Paul: I kind of like your stuff -- and I am not religious much.
Your last piece here though that makes very strong generalizations about Judaism...there are definitely good solid scholars who would argue your characterizations.
Some part of me (maybe you too?) finds AMERICAN flavor of orthodox culture off-putting. but maybe try the Jews from India, , or Israel -- and maybe not the black hat guys, but the ones with knit kippot who join the army.
there are other flavors. that's all i am trying to say. and the "american" thing is not as much there. You might be impressed with their humility. their regularness.
|
Well lets take it point by point (in 1,000 words or less).
If you are say... eskimo; that's an objective fact of your existence. if you're a puppy dog, same thing. Embracing your common humanity (or animalness) may sound nice, but it doesn't erase your heritage or species nor make you functionally interchangeable.
"Irrational subservience" is a big assumption about how i came to be observant of jewish laws and traditions, the nature of my observance, and also of the level of my education, training, and mental disciplines.
Your assumptions about mitzvahs, our views, and etc., are similarly, all incorrect; not even close to the facts, but clearly disposed to imagine the worst (point by point here is irrelevant for the moment).
What you want to reject comes with three thousand years of scholarship and experience. It might be a good guess that you do not yet know enough about it to reject it an intelligent way.
I am curious why you have so much bias.
|
A great Rabbi once told me, "If you ever find the courage to know what you truly love, just see what your attention is on." You have so much attention on the "non-existent" God. Did you ever consider that one who consciously, deliberately does mitzvahs and follows hallachah to the best that this life allows them has a lot of attention on God? Just like you.
|
First, a slight correction: My debate with Rabbi Freeman hasn't been running two years. I joined this page two weeks ago. (I see that someone named "Paul Ross" posted comments two years ago...but that is a different Paul.)
On the meat of your posting, you mischaracterize the position of Dawkins et al. It is not even remotely that ""things evolve, therefore G-d doesn't exist."
Rather, it is recognition that there's ample physical evidence and experiments to substantiate evolution, while there is no tangible evidence for God and no available experiments to test the claim.
As people grounded in evidence-based understanding or our world, the choice between one answer supported by evidence and another claim that's not is a no-brainer.
I believe your concluding question is beside the point. Presumablly, you don' believe in Leprechauns, Fairies, or wood nymphs--all of whom have ample reason to hide evidence of their existence. Lack of evidence is surely not evidence!
|
Believe me that I have no contempt for your beliefs. I don't share them. But I respect the passion & good will behind them.
I seek conversations on this site NOT because I want to change your mind, but because I believe all of us spend too much time surrounded by like-minded people.
It's natural that we gravitate to those who share our beliefs and values. But that makes it easy to: 1) forget that our own beliefs are not universal, that there are many honest and good people who feel differently; 2) loose sight of the idea that people who disagree with us are not "bad," they just see things differently. This same narrowness has infected politics, where opponents are often demonized as unpatriotic or "hating America." I miss the old-fashioned concept of the "loyal opposition."
I think it is healthy to spend time talking to people who view things so very differently. And I am VERY appreciative of Chabad's willingness to host an open, honest, diverse, and spirited exchange of ideas.
|
I like that rabbinical quotation; and I agree that what one focuses on is revealing.
Interestingly, though, I would NOT have characterized myself as focused on the "non-existence" of God. Rather, I would describe myself as interested in the value of decisions and actions based on evidence and reason rather than tradition or custom. The existence or non-existence of God is irrelevant to me. The question is simply not part of an evidence-based conversation about the world.
The point you raise, though, reminds me of a debate that flourished a few years ago: an attempt to find a new word to replace "atheist." Many objected to being characterized by what they didn't believe in (God), rather than by what they DID believe in (evidence & observation). Many complained that i was if Jews were called "non-Christians," or Muslims were called "not-Hindus."
So, I would see myself as focused on understanding my world. As, probably, do you.
|
The gist of an often proffered evolution argument is in fact, "things evolve therefore there is no G-d". Agreed that "there is no need for G-d to explain the existence of species", is better but it still shows a narrow view of things.
As of yet, we still have no explanation for the existence of the universe as a whole. When we do, most likely we will have only kicked the can one more step down the road. This of course is still no proof that G-d exists. It does suggest that we are not in a position to prove the reverse either.
(We do however have some evidence for "little people" and even giant apes. i don't know enough about traditions on leprechauns and yeti to comment on them.)
As to Okham's razor; it is a method, not a proof. Newton's gravity and Galileo's relativity at an earlier time satisfied this criterion.
If you want real evidence that G-d exists, then what you need is a good solid miracle or prophecy.
|
That you can explain evolution in terms of specific physical mechanisms says that G-d is not logically necessary to understand that body of phenomenae, c.f. that G-d is not currently seen to materialize new species into existence. Big deal. To go beyond that you might just as well argue that you see little evidence of gravity in the krebs cycle.
Rather, if you want be scientific about it, you would first figure out exactly what is the G-d hypothesis, what does it explain, and how can it be tested. Perhaps your G-d hypothesis still needs some work.
|
And I appreciate the opportunity to face those differing views in an atmosphere of mutual respect.
|
Michoel makes a good point in suggesting that evidence of evolution is NOT evidence that there's no God. I implied a connection between those ideas. That was my error.
The two questions are separate. Many devout people (the Pope, for instance) accept evolution and believe deeply in God. One doesn't negate the other. I shouldn't have mixed the two topics.
So, to treat the two separately:
My acceptance of evolution is based on mountains of evidence and a century of tests.
My lack of belief in God has nothing to do with that, but rather is based on discomfort with the concept of God (and intense dislike of the idea of prayer), an unwillingness to adopt what seems the most outlandish answer when there's nothing to support it, and a recognition that being convinced of a particular religion's "truth" depends mostly on where you were born and who had access to you when you were young and impressionable.
|
i find religion hard because i learn things that i don't necessarily agree with and suddenly i feel this feeling of being stuck with a belief that doesn't feel proved, or correct, or necessarily so...
I was a person who naturally accepted the mystery of life, and the mystery of the origins of the universe. Even accepted that the bible (what I called it back then) was a bit of a mystery -- so powerful and important through the ages.
Then I got involved in learning about Judaism, and that was both interesting and then really difficult.
I went from feeling ok about the mystery to disturbed by the teachings that I was suddenly taught constituted authentic Judaism.
It's been a difficult rollercoaster since. Sometimes I wish I'd never been introduced to formal religion at all. Many times.
But I am learning still -- and have actually been able to embrace or at least find understandings that don't make me feel misery about my religion.
Academically study Judaism- more flex than thought
|
When you consider the universe as a whole, with us in it, you might feel that the probabilities involved in its existence are staggering. It is not so eay to say that "there is a G-d" is any less probable than "it just happened by itself". In fact, one proposition has a prior intelligence, the other has to give rise to intelligence by accident.
The difficult point is that no matter how you answer, you have the same question again. For example if you say "it just happened", then you ask "in what?" and then again you ask "where did that come from?". Ultimately you need something that simply exists (as in the verse "i shall be that i shall be").
As to comfort or discomfort with things like prayer, perhaps you can investigate those questions in turn rather than let them prejudice your thinking at the start.
|
Paul, I'm not sure what is so outlandish about the idea of G-d. Perhaps the dualist concept of G-d fits that description. The concept that pervades most classical Jewish thought is quite monist: The idea of G-d can be translated as a statement: The core-essence of reality is intelligent, deliberate and purposeful--and transcends that as well.
You may wish to read my essay, What is G-d?
|
What is wrong with Kosher laws working on multiple levels? Elevating one's existence and avoiding illness, while widely different, are not mutually exclusive...
|
what is actual orthodox thinking is also something that is not (no pun intended) black and white. A lecture from a Yeshiva U Rabbi, or a REITS Rabbi might surprise you -- it might sound like it deconstructs some of the Hasidic philosophy.
Some of your internal debate is externalized among orthodox thinkers.
It might, might be more a religion you can relate to than you might, might think at first.
|
I appreciate your points, Michoel. But I think all of us may have gone off track by linking conversations about evolution with conversations about whether there's a God. Those are distinct questions, and many (most?) who believe in one also believe in the other. (Every observant Jew I know personally accepts evolution; the Catholic Church & Episcopal Churches accept evolution; Hinduism & Buddhism are ok with it, etc.).
As to ultimately needing something "that simply exists," that seems to me an unanswerable question. Either option -- that something sprang from nothing, or that something preexisted for infinity -- is equally beyond my ability to understand, and beyond our ability to find evidence.
However, presupposing a being that simply exists doesn't actually answer any questions, because the next question is where that godlike entity came from. It's an endlessly recursive loop: whatever came first, you can ask, "yes, but where did THAT come from?"
|
Thank you for your work and words.
Your spiritual brother, Richard
|
and endings are part of Time! Time is a creation. G-d exists outside and separate from time. We can't understand this because we live inside time. We think everything needs a beginning, but perhaps beingness is the true reality.
|
I don't understand the phrase, "beingness is the true reality." However, the idea that there was no defined "beginning" is not confined to religion. That in many ways is the core of physicist Stephen Hawking''s thesis, expressed most famously in his 1980s best-seller, "A Brief History of Time."
But I still stick by the observation that the origin of the universe and the existence or non-existence of God are entirely off-topic for a conversation about the evidence for Evolution or the validity and source of other scientific ideas.
|
Thanks for your note, Rabbi Freeman. At your suggestion, I read your essay, "What is God."
Your analysis offers an interesting insight into the concept of God as synonymous with existence, with the conclusion that asking if He exists is like asking, "Does existence exist?"
I have two problems with this, however. The first is that it defines God so broadly as to be meaningless. If God is just a synonym for existence, then why not just use the word "existence" or "reality" when describing the world and not get caught up in burdened words like "God"?
The second problem is that there is the leap from this mild idea that God just mean existence to the notion of a personal God, with a consciousness, involved in human affairs and setting rules. That's too great a disconnect for me.
|
Your comment included the revealing point: "The idea of G-d can be translated as a statement: The core-essence of reality is intelligent, deliberate and purposeful--and transcends that as well."
Perhaps that's the root of our differing views. I see no evidence that reality is intelligent, deliberate, and purposeful. Quite the contrary, I see all around me that reality is the consequence of natural forces, free of intelligence or purpose, and I feel no need to anthropomorphize nature by trying to imbue the world around me with emotions and desires and purposes as if it were a person (or, by extension, a personal God).
On a minor side note, your essay on God says, "Hebrew was the first language we know of to be written with symbols that represent sounds." Archaeologists generally credit Proto-Sinaitic (ancestor of Phoenician, and later, its younger sibling Hebrew) as the first alphabet.
|
scientists will agree that a lot of science is theoretical and constantly changing.
secondly belief in Torah does not contradict possibilities of science. I just attended a lecture on thursday by Rabbi Akiva Tatz where he cited biblical sources that claim that the earth may be 14 million years old.
You will find Judaism highly practical and logical. Judaism does not tell us to switch off our brains. Being religious does not mean that we can not be aware of new developments in science etc. I believe Ramban was a doctor to give one example.
I see science as a developing art and Torah too is a living mystical text from which we constantly learn new insights and truths.
I can be religious and read science documents I do not see a contradiction. just answered questions, but let us be patient , mysteries are constantly revealed to us.
|
I agree that Torah and science are not incompatible (though a literal reading , as done by "young Earth creationists," is incompatible with science). The denominations to which a clear majority of Christian and Jewish Americans belong, for instance, embrace Evolution -- just one example of the fact that the two aren't contradictory.
I also agree that much of Judaism is practical and logical, as is much of Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism, Shinto, Taoism, and other faiths. Their philosophy and basic values are remarkably similar, only dogma and rituals differ (suggesting these values and practical aspects are universal human traits, not the property of any one "holy book.")
Regarding science being "theoretical," the word "theory" has a completely different meaning in science than in layman's English. As for it constantly changing, that's it's greatest strength over religion: the requirement that it abandon outdated beliefs when new evidence comes to light.
|
I learned something. What does theory mean in science jargon? Yes, it may be a strength that science is constantly changing but it also implies that a theory may prove to be complete bollocks. eg food biology
I believe Torah deals with a deeper reality, one that science is only now starting to get a small handle on. Just to give one example. We say the Shema, stating that G-d is One. Up until recently duality has been core to materialism and science. The fact that all is One and that we have a Unified source has always been reality, only on a deeper level that science only recently started to catch onto.
The problem with being stuck on science is that one fixates on these ideas and says " see, see, the bible is wrong, where is evolution, where are the dinosaurs?" Rather one should adopt the attitude that science is a developing art and does not yet have all the facts in place.
Likewise our understanding of the deeper realities of Torah are sometimes limited by our puny minds.
|
mind-body dissociating drug, perhaps cheating at the test, but i saw how the ark could have greater dimensions inside than out, i could see things that could never be rendered in three dimensions, yet i have no proof, but i know what i have seen, even if just an hallucination, or so, i could not begin to draw any of it. ---hmm maybe i'm insane
|
In scientific terminology, "theory" is an idea that has survived rigorous testing to be come the accepted explanation.
The scientific process is an orderly series: you gather evidence and data, formulate a hypothesis that explains that data, and then subject that hypothesis to rigorous testing. If the hypothesis survives the tests, it becomes accepted as theory--meaning it is adopted as the accurate explanation.
So, for example, we have gravitational theory (the accepted explanation for why stuff falls); the germ theory (the accepted explanation for diseases); aeronautical theory (which explains why planes fly); etc.
In layman's English, folks often use "theory" to mean "hypothesis." In science, the two are quite different.
As for science constantly changing: theories seldom are struck down. (I can't think of single example!) Change usually involves refinements and tweaks to improve a theory, not a wholesale change.
|
I agree with you, raziela, that there is much of value in the Torah. I read it as I would read any great philosophy book that has stood the test of time, including Aristotle, Kant, the New Testament, Buddha's Eightfold Way, and countless other works that collect the wisdom of great sages and offer insights into human nature, values, morals, communities, our relationships to each other and to the world.
But I would not confuse any of that valuable philosophy with an actual understanding of the natural world and how it works. Plato had precious insights into society. But he knew bupkis about the solar system, geology, infectious disease, or DNA. Maimonidies was a great sage but, though he was a doctor in his day, I wouldn't let him near me with a scalpel. His lack of accurate scientific knowledge (like the Torah's) doesn't diminish his value and wisdom. But it should caution us not to look to such ancient sources to understand our physical world and how it works.
|
Thats marvellous. I don't find the different proportions hard to swallow at all. there exist different realities, simple as that. not sure if its our eyes that deceive us or what?
I had a similar experience to u ( although I was completely sober ) and I saw this reality "collapse" I would love to hear more about your story.
|
Do not always dismiss extraordinary perceptions as hallucinations. Just imagine: your eyes, retina and vision centers of the brain are suddenly and spontaneously able to see atoms as well as dark matter and energy. The universe would suddenly be seen as a single, unified mass of particles/energy and empty space. The definitive "forms" we now see that composes our universe would appear only as various and myriad fluctuations in energy/particle density, but still contiguosly integrated with the Whole. Would this be a hallucination? We know from science that the chair I am sitting on is actually composed of wave-like particles and mostly empty space and yet I don't fall to the floor. Perhaps the universe as ordinary humans perceive it as a collection of separate, unique and independent forms is the hallucination.
|
Your observations about the nature of what we see and what we perceive are certainly intriguing and thought-provoking.
However, hallucinations do indeed exist. So I suppose the question is: can we distinguish a hallucination (for which there are many causes) from simply an unfamiliar view of the world and atoms and other forms around us?
It seems to me that two key tests are "consistence" (under the same circumstances will you see the same thing), and "repeatability" (will other people see the same thing under similar circumstances).
To use your chair analogy: it is indeed just atoms and empty space. But we can be quite sure that every time you see the same atoms, you'll see a chair. And that if your neighbors visit, they'll see a chair too.
The tests of "did only you see/experience it" and "did it just happen once" are key questions for a rational distinction between reality and hallucination.
|
I agreed with John and neither of us said it was an hallucination? Did you misunderstand us or am I misunderstanding you?
|
I think you have misunderstood Rabbi Freeman's article (s). If your read more articles on this site you will find that Judaism talks about 2 realities, the natural order and the path of Torah (the transcendental order).
Maimonides himself wrote a work dealing with this concept. You will find many great Torah sages who also studied the top natural sciences of the day. In other words they were Masters of the Torah but still were learned in the science available in their day.
Lastly I don't know all the philosophies you mentioned as intimately as I do Judaism and I am sure they all have truths to teach, however from the knowledge I do have of these other disciplines I would loathe to compare them to the narrow path of Torah.
|
My apologies, it does seem that John thought he may have been hallucinating. I know I wasn't.
|
I appreciate your thoughtful analysis. Perhaps I have misread Rabbi Freeman's article (I will re-read it after the day's work deadlines). But I think it more likely that I didn't misunderstand, but simply disagree.
I don't accept the idea of two realities. I feel that the "transcendental order" of the Torah, like other religious traditions, is just a holdover from an ancient society, the legacy of an ancient culture that lacked the skills, tools, knowledge, or cultural mindset to explore and understand the natural world.
I've always found the division of belief into two realities simply a gimmick by which people reconcile the obvious conflicts between science and faith. It offers an easy "out" letting one hold two contradictory view.
In my years working with the Lubavitchers, rabbis often spoke of faith and science as coexisting, one dealing with the natural and supernatural world. I can accept (and prefer) only the natural wold.
|
that is very interesting. I appreciate your differing view, however let me reiterate something I said a while back on this post. The transcendental order is something which is either believed through faith OR through fine tuning your mind to grasp subtler realities and thereby experiencing the transcendental. This has been my personal experiences time and time again. For me it is not a question of faith as I have experienced the higher realities on so many different occasions. To me it is not a question of does it exist but rather how do I make it part of my experience all the time. As King David said " to live in the Presence of G-d all my days."
|
I may be a gentile, but I have a comment for you to post. So far, everyone I have mentioned this to has never heard it thought this way.
It would seem reasonable to consider that when our Creator first thought His thoughts and then created, His thoughts were first purely thoughts, and then His thoughts became what we call terra firma. To us, we and matter are solid. However, to Him, we are "a figment of His imagination." We are HIS WILL IN ACTON. Re the 2 realities, HE is outside of our reality, and WE are inside of His reality.
Once we contemplate this, it should be much easier to consider how truly easy it is for Him to be in charge of everything.
|
You explain the concept very succinctly and clearly, and the logic is straightforward.. Hats off to you. (Well, except for the Orthodox readers of this page, of course, who probably prefer to keep their hats on!)
In a general sense I agree with you. Although, of course, as an atheist, I'd reverse the proposition, suggesting that instead of us being "a figment of HIs imagination," He is a figment of ours.
|
Judaism teaches that we are indeed willed into being constantly by the thoughts of G-d. This is a central Jewish teaching.
|
If G-d created the world, then Science is just one part of it...
|
One of the things I find most odd about this discussion is that various postings continually refer to science as if it were a tangible thing. But science is not an object, or a being, or a an entity, or even a body of knowledge that can be created.
Science is an attitude, a way of looking at the natural world, a methodical process for examining evidence and testing hypotheses to see if they hold up.
|
What "pulls it all together" regarding reality v hallucination is agreement. What we define as physical reality is the product of our (yours, mine and whoever else wants to play with us)that the chair is solid. Reality is agreement.
|
So, even assuming a creator, where is the "science" to prove that he's Ha-Shem/Yaweh, instead of Odin or Chthulu?
|
I'm afraid I don't share your Zen approach, that reality is subjective and simply a question of perception.
Perhaps I'm just pleadingly unimaginative, but I see us as physical beings living in a physical world that has identifiable and measurable (and to a large extent, understandable) attributes.
Abstract philosophical questions -- such as whether a falling tree makes any sound if nobody is there to hear it, or whether, as you suggest, reality exists simply because we agree it exists -- can be fun and can make for merry conversation. But for me, at least, they are just airy musings and have no practical value in actually understanding and interacting with the world around us.
I guess I'm not cut out for the life of the Zen master or the hermit philosopher contemplating abstractions.
|
Most people find it easy to dismiss other people's religions as absurd. We laugh at "primitive" people who worship volcano gods or perform bizarre rituals. But we take our own culture's equally bizarre rituals and equally outlandish supernatural beliefs seriously because we've been taught to accept them for as long as we can remember.
Richard Dawkins said it best: "We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
|
Much of recent "scientific" speculation has all to do with airy musings and contemplating abstractions. What else can we consider the "scientific" hypothesis that the essential particle of all matter is a string of energy, vibrating at a frequency that determines it's attributes and doesn't even exist in a definite time and space until someone observes its manifestation as a "quark." The greatest scientific "discoveries" of the last hundred years were postulated by theoretical physicists (very imaginative "scientists")I do understand and appreciate the view that if you can't see, hear, taste, touch or smell it, it doesn't exist. And how the tree in the forest conundrum is resolved simply by ackowledging that, by definition, "a sound" takes two components; a vibration in the air and an ear. And the Jewish mystics predate the Zen mystics; "....and Abraham sent from his children with Hagar as emmisaries to the east to proclaim to them the Oneness of God." Thanks Paul, I am enjoying this.
|
Irving, your point is well taken. Much theoretical physics has a lot in common with philosophy. That probably explains why I have so little interest in (or so little understanding of) theoretical physics, and so little patience for the airy abstractions of Zen or Jewish mystics.
I suppose I'm just a plodding observer, or too dense to appreciate the cleverness. (I also disagree that a "sound" by definition takes both a vibration and an ear. I prefer to use the straightforward definition of a physical phenomenon rather than an egocentric, anthropomorphic view that sound doesn't exist just because we don't hear it. I'm not so vain.)
But what do these musings, interesting though they may be, have to do with the topic of this discussion page? Just because there are some theoretical branches of science that can get as abstruse and philosophical as religion doesn't change the fundamental incompatibility between they way science and religion view the world and how they arrive at conclusions.
|
|
LOGIN
ASK THE RABBI
Read this article
