Why We Believe

Re Transcript I'm sorry, no transcripts are available at this time. Reply

Is there a transcript available? This talk (or these talks, I should say) are superb. Is there a transcript available? Rabbi Kaplan's lecture especially would be an excellent text for learning with others, or as a handy personal reference. Reply

On logic Fascinating how people can enjoy the rationale of science and immediately make the simplest and most crucial mistakes against the very nature of an assumed "survival-centric" species. Logic has no less to do with our behavior, than emotion or faith. Both can be equally skewed towards our motives (philosophically enlightened Nazi Germany for example). It's understood then that logic (not to be confused with our subconscious) is only there to facilitate and guide our emotions (not to be confused with faith) which express our inherent beliefs. This is what Rabbi Kaplan intends to bring out with the idea of the "pintele yid" (not to �be confused with Freud's Id). Certain beliefs are inherent, just as certain truths are self evident. Torah then is the inherent belief of an ultimate truth. Reply

Response The primary point in this discussion is that "science and logic does not supersede Torah and faith."

"It's meaningless whether Newton or Einstein were believers": There is a fine line between atheism and agnosticism. Here we deal with atheism in the sense that there is no G-d. Which logically is a very risky and shaky assessment to make. We know that empirically we cannot prove a negative only a positive. Thus, while just one event can prove that there is a G-d, absolutely no amount of research can epistemologically conclude that G-d does not exist.

"Seemed more interested in personalities": Dumbroff's interest in personalities is not to theorize in thought but to show how thought itself is subjective and how scientific logic is not so cut and dry. There are always professors who can argue a better argument. What he points out though, is not to be so single-mindedly impressed with the IQ the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens, when you have others such as Hoyle and Einstein to the contrary. Reply

Logical fallacies As a 40+ year Jewish atheist I enjoyed this talk. However it does engage in a number of logical fallacies. First it's meaningless to the argument whether Newton or Einstein were believers. It's interesting, but it has no bearing on the proof either way. The fact that you cannot image infinity (argument from ignorance) has no bearing on whether there is a god or not. You believe in an infinite being, as I guess you were saying just as unimaginable as an infinite universe. But here I have to go with Occam's Razor. Of course it too is proof of nothing, just a general tendency.

In regard to Rabbi Kaplan's comments he engages in a analogy that is frequently used by Joavah Witneeses': The knocked over inkpot, the exploded letters turning into a dictoionary. And this you say is the same as a random universe. Again this is saying that because you can't understand how something occured, it did not' occur.

I am a proud member of our local Chabad and appreciate everything you do. Reply

Corrections The Khazar fictional story was written by Rabbi Yehuda Halevi. This was purposely written as fiction as an exposition on Jewish conversion. There is limited recorded history about the Khazari, but there are a number of sources that mention them including; Jewish, Muslim, Kievan, Byzantine, Georgian and Armenian. Reply

igonorance The story of the Khazar and the rabbi is fiction. The only evidence that the Khazar existed is from Hasdai Ibn Shaprut who heard about them. These types of talks discredit believers. Reply

Why we believe? Very disappointing talk. Did not engage with any of the atheists key arguments - seemed more interested in personalities, and wooly arguments. Reply