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...
33 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.
|
|
LOGIN
ASK THE RABBI
Read this article
