We've debated Intelligent Design on this forum. Most of the religious participants in those debates seemed to reject ID as a movement, but stated that they believed in "theistic evolution", i.e. that evolution is in some way implemented and/or controlled by God. (I know this is a 'nutshell' version of that position.)
My questions are for the religious-and-scientifically minded among us. (Like the "theistic evolutionists".) Does this "god behind the science" belief extend to other scientific theories as well? For instance do you believe in the "Big Bang" and that God used it to create the universe? Do you believe in the current theories of planet, star, and galaxy formation, which (at face value) do not require a devine hand for their explanatory value, with the additional belief that somewhere God's hand is the impetus or controlling factor that uses these methods to create the universe we see?
The prevailing theories about the formation of the universe point to a "big bang" start and a finish of either a "Big Crunch" (where everything evenually collapses back on itself) or a "Big Freeze" (where eventually the universe plays itself out, expanding and expending energy until all is cold and dead). Do any scientific theists here believe these scenarios? If so how does God fit in here? Or if you reject these scenarios, what do you believe is the ultimate fate of the universe?
Do you believe in "miracles"? That is, do you believe that God, at times, intervenes by suspending natural law? Do you believe The Flood, or the parting of the Red Sea, or turning water into wine literally occurred?
These aren't meant to be leading questions. I understand how people might be completely scientifically minded, yet still believe in some sort of God. But the gods that I see fitting that sort of bill begin to look very different from the God of mainstream Christianity, or what I know of mainstream Judaism or Islam (which is admittedly limited).
Let me add here a request that we all please keep this discussion (if there is one) civil. Let people express their beliefs without ridicule. I'm not asking this in order to challenge anyone's beliefs, but to understand them myself.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I will read with interest. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
As will I.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I believe in the miracles laid out by Karl, I don't consider myself to have scientific rationalizations for HOW they occurred. I'm satisfied that they did, and that's enough for me.
Of course, I never claimed to be a scientific theist, so maybe I'm not the person to be addresssing.
What about a belief in a god of miracles clashes with what you know about the Christian, Muslim, and Judaic God?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: For instance do you believe in the "Big Bang" and that God used it to create the universe?
I don't believe in the "Big Bang" theory, but I recognize that it and it's kin (like the ever expanding and contracting, but never quite making a big bang universe) do the best job of describing what we see.
quote:Do you believe in the current theories of planet, star, and galaxy formation,
Again, I don't believe in these current theories as correct. In fact, I'm sure they are not completely correct. We'll making more observations and getting more data and we'll revise these theories appropriately. That's how science works.
But I think that there is truth in these theories.
Of course, there was truth in Newton's theories, even though the argument could be made that they were completely wrong. After all, at no point do they accurately and completely describe anything.
Unless you're an engineer, and then they are certainly true enough.
quote:which (at face value) do not require a devine hand for their explanatory value, with the additional belief that somewhere God's hand is the impetus or controlling factor that uses these methods to create the universe we see?
I believe that the power of the divine, whatever you call it (the hand of God, faith, etc.) is somehow, in a way I don't comprehend, behind all those things, and behind all of the natural laws that we observe. It is behind the law of gravity that causes my other shoe to fall when I drop it.
But the fact that in my view it is tied to God does not preclude me from studying it in a naturalistic fashion. The study of the Bible alone is not sufficient to teach me how to build a bridge. I need to study the natural laws as I observe them, not as I think they should be because of my faith.
In other words, I believe that science and faith don't compete with each other at all.
Including with evolution. Whether or not evolution happened (and there's know way to know), whether or not the earth is actually millions of years old, they both appear to be true. And I'll glady study why they appear to be true, and what their ramifications are, even if I have some reservations about their factual truthfulness because of my faith.
quote:The prevailing theories about the formation of the universe point to a "big bang" start and a finish of either a "Big Crunch" (where everything evenually collapses back on itself) or a "Big Freeze" (where eventually the universe plays itself out, expanding and expending energy until all is cold and dead). Do any scientific theists here believe these scenarios? If so how does God fit in here? Or if you reject these scenarios, what do you believe is the ultimate fate of the universe?
I think I mostly answered this. I do not believe in any of them. I reckon that the ultimate fate of the univers is probably one of the places where science is least likely to give us an accurate picture. After all, it's the ultimate extrapolation.
But that said, unless things drastically change in the universe (which seems very plausible to me), it sure seems like a big crunch (or something like it) or heat death of the universe is inevitable.
But as to what will actually happen, I really don't know.
quote:Do you believe in "miracles"? That is, do you believe that God, at times, intervenes by suspending natural law? Do you believe The Flood, or the parting of the Red Sea, or turning water into wine literally occurred?
Yes, I believe that miracles literally happen. I have no way of knowing, but I don't think that these happen by suspending natural law. My belief is that other, more fundamental natural laws are probably being implemented in ways that we normally do not observe.
quote:These aren't meant to be leading questions. I understand how people might be completely scientifically minded, yet still believe in some sort of God. But the gods that I see fitting that sort of bill begin to look very different from the God of mainstream Christianity, or what I know of mainstream Judaism or Islam (which is admittedly limited).
How many times in the last few weeks have I been told that the God I worship is fundamentally different from the God of mainstream Christianity? One more time.
Feel free to ask me follow-up questions, Karl. You've always shown the ability to discuss things like this with sensitivity and respect.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I personally believe that we still don't know nearly as much as we think we do about the cosmos. This, to me, it excellently illustrated by the recent observation that matter in the universe is traveling away from other matter at an exponentially faster and faster rate--something that shouldn't happen unless there is a force pushing matter apart.
Do we understand this phenomenon? Not remotely. I find it fascinating, but I certainly don't understand it.
I believe that science reveals truth, but I also believe that we have a lot less of the truth than we often suppose, and therefore our theories tend to be faulty because we draw faulty assumptions.
As for the fate of the actual universe, I don't know. Of course, I believe in the theology in which I have faith, but the theology I believe in is far from clarifying what will happen to the universe--at least the way I interpret it.
One thing the theology I believe in makes clear is that there are existances that are eternal in nature. Certainly the universe we observe now does not *appear* to be eternal in the sense of unchanging. I don't know how the observation and the belief reconcile. But again, I believe we are far from having all the info.
As for a God of miracles, I believe that all miracles can be explained by natural law. Just as advanced technology always seems like "magic" to those who don't understand it. Basically, I believe that God "knows" a way to rearrange the matter in water to become wine--and that it has something to do with "commanding" the matter and it obeying--and that this is a natural, repeatable process.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:do you believe in the "Big Bang" and that God used it to create the universe?
It’s pretty hard to find evidence that disproves the Big Bang theory. So it must have happened, but something had to have caused the Big Bang. Was it God that caused it? I think that’s very possible. Or God may have constructed an even more extensive and complex system which resulted in the Big Bang and the creation of our universe. (something like the Bubble Universe idea)
quote:Do you believe in the current theories of planet, star, and galaxy formation, which (at face value) do not require a devine hand for their explanatory value, with the additional belief that somewhere God's hand is the impetus or controlling factor that uses these methods to create the universe we see?
Yes, kind of. God may have created the rules that dictate the formation of everything, but I don’t think he is a necessary factor in the continual and future growth and formation of the universe.
quote:The prevailing theories about the formation of the universe point to a "big bang" start and a finish of either a "Big Crunch”… or a… "Big Freeze”. Do any scientific theists here believe these scenarios? If so how does God fit in here? Or if you reject these scenarios, what do you believe is the ultimate fate of the universe?
I believe that without intervention the universe will conclude in one of the two mentioned scenarios, and only a god could be powerful enough to intervene in something like this. Although, there is much to be learned about dark energy and dark matter that might influence our current theories of the fate of the universe.
quote:Do you believe in "miracles"? That is, do you believe that God, at times, intervenes by suspending natural law? Do you believe The Flood, or the parting of the Red Sea, or turning water into wine literally occurred?
Yes, kind of. I’m not sure about the literal interpretation of some miraculous events, but I do believe in miracles. I don’t think a miracle requires God to violate any laws of nature, rather, I view it as a manipulation of other existing laws. In other words, a miracle is only a miracle because we don’t understand how it happened, or we may not have the ability to recreate it. I can’t really think of a good example to describe what I mean. Maybe like how magnetic levitation is possible because electromagnetism is powerful enough to negate the forces of gravity, but to someone that is unaware of electromagnetic fields, it would look like a miracle.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I am a scientist (well, an engineer) and a theist, so I guess I fit the criteria. To start I'd like to say I appreciate the respectful tone Karl struck. I hope all posters (including myself) can be similarly respectful, regardless of viewpoint.
I believe in miracles. I literally believe in the parting of the Red sea, water to wine, and others. I believe that God works within natural laws, and it's man's lack of complete understanding of natural laws that ascribes a "supernatural" element to miracles. Thus I think that Christ was working with physical laws which are not yet understood when he healed the blind and caused the lame to walk.
I accept God as the creator of heaven and earth and all things in them. I haven't thought deeply about reconciling the big bang and astrophysics with my belief in God, but I suppose my feeling would be similar to what Karl stated. I accept that God is creator first; if I become convinced scientifically that worlds and galaxies came about as the result of specific natural laws, then I must view those laws as the vehicle through which God accomplished his creation. I think that your assertion that these things don't require a divine hand to explain them is untenable. I could say the existance of natural laws is evidence of a creator, for how can anything (including laws) exist without being created. That natural laws can exist independant of deity is not a fact it's just a belief (I'd say a misapplication of Occam's razor).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It’s pretty hard to find evidence that disproves the Big Bang theory. So it must have happened
I disagree with this. Just because we haven't come up with a better explination yet doesn't mean that there isn't one.
quote:I’m not sure about the literal interpretation of some miraculous events, but I do believe in miracles.
That's a good way of putting it. I don't know which miracles seen by the ancient Hebrews would look like a miracles to us if we saw it today, as some of them could quite likely have non-miraculous explinations. But I nevertheless believe that miracles do happen.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
<derailment> Can I nominate this thread for "Longest Average Post" award? </derailment>
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Apparently you haven't been around long enough to take a proper sample of Hatrack threads. Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
I do believe in the current theories about the Big Bang and the formation of stars, the elements, and planets. But I do believe God set the whole thing in motion. Part of that is faith. But part of it is my own understanding of the 20-or-so cosmological constants (ratio of gravity to strong nuclear force, fine structure sonstant, G, electron mass, planck's constant, etc- see http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980308a.html for a simple rundown) and my belief that if those were changed even slightly, life would not be possible. For example, small changes in the ratio of gravity strength to strong nuclear force would affect the lifespan of stars and the amount of heat/pressure to start fusion in the first place. And since all necessary elements are created inside stars, that would be changed, and most likely not be possible. There's more, but that should suffice. Not really interested in an argument.
Anyway, as for the universe's end, I'm not sure. My religious beliefs imply the universe will never end. Modern physics demands that big crunch or big freeze (though, IIRC, didn't recent findings lend credence to a rather even distribution of mass (and the resulting flat shape of the universe) so that the universe will continue to expand infinitely, as opposed to the situation where gravity overcomes the big bang's rate of expansion, resulting in the big crunch?) The scientific theories seem sound, so I'm not really sure. I'll have to wait and see.
And yes, I believe that miracles have happened in the past.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Senoj - By asking the question, you brought the average down, and now it is no longer eligible. Way to go. Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
I came up with a wierd idea the other day. It like theistic evolution tries to combine God with science.
In this theory what if the world was created 6000yrs ago and the rest is backstory. when OSC writes a story he doesnt start at the beggining of creation he starts at a point in the timeline of his new world. So at the point of its creation OSC world is already millions of years old. WHy couldnt God do the same thing. What if the dinasours and the evolution is just the back story that came into being when God started his story.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
IanO -- what are your feelings on the anthropic principle?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I think the Big Bang is plausible (that is to say, I think it's the best idea so far), but regardless of big bang or steady state or oscillating universe, I believe you still run into uncaused first cause issues.
I believe in miracles and, even if the parting of the Sea of Reeds was caused by tidal waves from Santorini it's still pretty darned miraculous timing. In fact, C. S. Lewis wrote an entire book (Miracles) about how the miracles of Jesus signify the legitimacy of Jesus's claim to Godhood... that he refused to make stones into bread (which would have been arbitrary) but he made bread into more bread, fish into more fish, and water into wine... all things that happen naturally as well.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
*sad* Beverly hurt my newbie feelings *sobbing* Oh wait, there's a happy graemlin after the post. Nevermind.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:that he refused to make stones into bread (which would have been arbitrary)
I believe Jesus refused to do it because it would have been a misuse of His power (the reasoning being selfish), not because He couldn't.
In Mormon canon, there is a scripture that says everything God does is for the benefit of mankind. If it isn't for mankind's benefit, God doesn't do it.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
SenoyRetep
We really do have some doozie of discussions here, but they happen in cycles.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>> If it isn't for mankind's benefit, God doesn't do it.
I know a fig tree that has some issues with this. . .
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I know a fig tree that has some issues with this. . .
Really? What's his name?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Scott, I just happen to believe that it was done for the benefit of the audience, both at the time and the readers of scripture.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Scott R,
quote:What about a belief in a god of miracles clashes with what you know about the Christian, Muslim, and Judaic God?
Nothing. I don't know how that assumption could be gathered from what I wrote.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Well, truthfully, I think it's kind of a cop out. For a long time it bothered me, logically speaking, but I couldn't put my finger on why. I mean, yeah, Hawking said that the Anthropic principle might legitimately apply to the galaxy or our galaxy cluster, but not the whole universe. But to me, that counter-argument seemed (and still seems weak.)
But it wasn't till a couple years ago that I finally was able to figure out why it bothered me, from a logical persective.
It's a reason not to look for an answer. Period. Yeah, there are differing versions of the principle. But ultimately, they are reasons why there is no answer to that question.
To me, the equivalent would be if explorers in a jungle came across what appeared to be writing on a stone outcropping. That writing is not decipherable, but they have characteristics of being unnatural. And then one explorer says, 'No, it is natural. It's just natural erosion that produced something looking like writing. In all the jungles in all the world, do you not think there will be one where erosion creates what might appear to be writing?' 'But why does it look designed? This shape is repeated here and here, there is another one. The spacing is regular. That can't be natural.' 'No, it is. Look, if it didn't look like writing, we wouldn't even be hear asking about it.' Which sidesteps the whole issue.
That's how I see. The universe is the way it is because if it wasn't we wouldn't be here asking about it. Cop out.
FWIW.
Ian
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Can you explain this statement, Karl?
quote:I understand how people might be completely scientifically minded, yet still believe in some sort of God. But the gods that I see fitting that sort of bill begin to look very different from the God of mainstream Christianity, or what I know of mainstream Judaism or Islam (which is admittedly limited).
Maybe I misinterpreted.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The anthropic principle seems to break one of the basic rules of science -- don't try to explain why, just explain how and what.
It seems to me that the anthropic principle was just created in order to combat the, IMO, very persuasive argument that you put in your first post, IanO.
Which, in my mind, makes it bad science.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I don’t think belief in a Big Bang-style timeline and belief in creation by God have to be mutually exclusive. I do believe that God organized the universe according to natural laws.
The difference, I think, between “mere” science and a creationist view for me is purpose. The universe exists and was created for a purpose, and it is more than just a sum of its observable parts.
An inadequate analogy, but hey. At one point our backyard was composed of dying grass and tall weeds, basically following a natural, unorganized course. Wanting a nice place for our kids to enjoy, we began digging up the weeds and wresting the lawn into shape. We rototilled a large section of our backyard and covered it with woodchips. Then we set a swingset on the spot. We put in a sandbox and some other toys. Although we still have lots of work to do, things in the backyard have begun to take their natural course only as we allow them now. The kids enjoy playing back there now. There is a purpose to the way our backyard is organized now, and that purpose gets fulfilled each time the kids run back there to play.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Scott, that statement is apart from my questions about miracles. I would think that from that you might glean that I see a potential conflict between scientific theism and miracles than between miracles and mainstream religion.
In other words, I see no conflict between a belief in miracles and mainstream spirituality in general. I also see little or no conflict between some theistic beliefs and science. However, thus far as I have explored theistic beliefs that see no conflict with science, I have run into issues that I do not quite understand. In fact, I'm going to reply shortly with some follow-up questions that I hope might clarify my position on this.
(Shortly = after lunch. I appreciate all the replies thus far and find them very interesting. I do have follow up questions for several of you. Thanks for giving me your time.)
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Bev... it's not that he *can't*, it's that he *doesn't*.
Check the book out, I think you might enjoy, and I don't think there's anything in it you would find objectionable.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I've never read anything by Lewis that I found objectionable, even though I've read stuff of his that I completely disagreed with.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I don't think I've read it yet, and I enjoy C.S. Lewis a great deal. I would love to read it. Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote: The prevailing theories about the formation of the universe point to a "big bang" start and a finish of either a "Big Crunch" (where everything evenually collapses back on itself) or a "Big Freeze" (where eventually the universe plays itself out, expanding and expending energy until all is cold and dead). Do any scientific theists here believe these scenarios? If so how does God fit in here? Or if you reject these scenarios, what do you believe is the ultimate fate of the universe?
Did anyone correct this yet? The prevailing theory no longer anticipates the possiblity of a Big Crunch. The latest is that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, so that it will not ever come back together again.
I believe in miracles, but I don't think they're suspensions of the laws of physics, rather I believe God understands physics far better than do we. So the healing of the ten lepers is a miracle in the same way that a telephone is a miracle. When you understand the universe that well, because you organized it, then you can make it behave in ways that seem miraculous.
I think God takes care not to reveal himself too plainly, as a courtesy to those who would find his very existence to be oppressive and coercive. So that every act of God in the universe will have both a natural cause and a "because he wanted it" cause.
For instance, quantum mechanics tells us that there are constant random quantum fluctuations in the vacuum. Chaos theory tells us that the butterfly effect can magnify tiny disturbances into huge macro-world effects. One way God might influence macro events is by knowing and inputting the exact quantum flucutaions required to butterfly-effect themselves into physical responses on the macro scale. Nothing in that would violate the laws of physics as we know them today, and that doesn't even count the fact that there's a lot we don't know yet about physics.
It's unclear how thoughts and memory work physically. One speculation is that the brain is a quantum computer of sorts. If that's true it would mean a brain was an ideal tool for translating minute quantum effects into real world thoughts and dreams, and action. In fact, we use them ourselves, to translate our desires into actions, and I would not know how to make this flashlight raise one foot off the table if I didn't have a brain to tell my hand to reach out and pick it up. So it's quite possible that God could give us nudges, sudden thoughts, dreams, odd connections, through this means.
Science is an immensely powerful tool, and I love it and take it very seriously. But it is totally silent on many subjects. By definition it excludes every observation that's not repeatable and objective. This means that for a long time science was unable to recognize, for instance, the fact that stones occasionally fall from the sky as meteorites, or the existence of "sprites", atmospheric phenomena that pilots occasionally witness above the clouds, or ball lightning. Science isn't even sure if blue looks like the same color to me as to you. There's just no way to compare, to know for sure if my blue doesn't look just like your orange. Subjective experience is by definition outside the bounds of science.
That is why there is something more than science to be learned, and so naturally our methods of learning it have to be a bit different than scientific methods. The "scientific method" of religion is "study, ponder, pray". It's "ask and ye shall receive". It's about feelings and conscience, receiving revelation, being lost and encountering this rope or lifeline, this gift, and then accepting it.
[ September 16, 2005, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: It seems to me that the anthropic principle was just created in order to combat the, IMO, very persuasive argument that you put in your first post, IanO.
The problem is that we're inside the system, and so we know we DO exist. Whether our existence is unlikely or not is actually impossible for us to calculate fairly, therefore.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:The latest is that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, so that it will not ever come back together again.
I mentioned this, but no one seemed to notice. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
AVR you have a very good point. Science in its purest form, does not care about the "why" just the "how".
Theologists in their purist form do not care about the "how" but only the "why".
"Do not care" is not really correct. Scientists realize they can never prove or disprove "why" and theologists already have the answer to "how"--because God wants it that way.
ID people see evolution as threatening the importance of "Why" while scientists see the ID people as threatening the importance of "How".
As far as my belief--I don't think there is a difference between the "laws" of nature and God's will, between miracles like the flood and miracles like a child's birth. Our understanding of how the Universe runs is really just a deeper understanding of God's will.
You are right though. There is a big difference between a God of the Old Testament, who revolves the universe around a few thousand people, a dozen or so tribes, in a corner of a continent on one lone planet, and a God who creates the universe of millions of galaxies with millions of planets with untold numbers of beings all important to him.
The first God is one of fear and awe, but the second is beyond my abilities to truly appreciate.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
I agree with you, Porter. That is the problem with the Anthropic principle. It's a reason to not look for an answer.
BTW, I like how you and Beverly articulated your beliefs about the ending of the universe in relation to faith and our understanding of science.
Yes, according to our most current understanding, there must be some type of end to the universe. Energy isn't free and eventually, left to itself, the energy driving the universe will be 'converted' to inert matter. Left to itself. But that's where belief in things that ARE eternal step in and where we believe that that may not necessarily mean the end.
In many ways, I have thought of life as the opposite of the entropy. Yes, I know that the entropy of the entire system is increased when an organism organizes material into more complex structures. But it still seems like it acts like the opposite of entropy, the life principle. And I often wonder if, billions of years in future, life will somehow be used to act on the universe to counteract the entropy that will be increasing. Not necessarily a 'galaxia', a la Asimov, but something. Then again, something else might be possible. But my beliefs tell me the earth will last forever (despite the apparently sound science explaining the sun's going nova in 5 billion years).
So I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote:Originally posted by beverly:
quote:The latest is that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, so that it will not ever come back together again.
I mentioned this, but no one seemed to notice.
Sorry, bev! In typical fashion, in my eagerness to tell my view, I skimmed too quickly over the comments so far. I will go back and read more closely.
Edit to extend apology to IanO as well. Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The latest is that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, so that it will not ever come back together again. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mentioned this, but no one seemed to notice.
As did I.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:And I often wonder if, billions of years in future, life will somehow be used to act on the universe to counteract the entropy that will be increasing. Not necessarily a 'galaxia', a la Asimov, but something.
I forget. How did that short story end?
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
It was 'Foundation and Earth'. And it didn't. It ended with the main guy (can't remember his name- It's been 11 years) realizing that he sided with Gaia (with Galaxia to be the next step) because he realized that the galaxy had to be united when it faced threats (external)- then he looked at the a-sexual being for Solaris (or whatever) and thought, 'or internal threats'.
Olivaw came up with the plan because it got rid of the nebulous term 'humanity' and made it easier to help mankind when they were one organism. Kind of dumb. But the idea of a large scale organism has stuck with me.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
I think that nothing is inherently contradictory between true religion and true science, but that says nothing about the muddle imperfect understanding can make of the two.
I think that my view of things like the big bang etc. are similar to the beliefs several others have posted- the scientific theories may be partially correct or wholly false, but I don't think that they have gotten it completely right. However, even if they are wholly correct, I figure God has to have used some sort of process in everything he does which physically affects the universe, so in that sense there must be some theory which can come close to explaining that process.
On the topic of miracles I have a different view than most people. I think that humans have much more power to affect things than we can currently credit, and that while mentioned in the scriptures, this power is part of the innate nature of mankind. I further think that the understanding of true principles is requisite for this power of ours to be used.
As a simple, scientific example of what I mean, a famous quantum physics experiment showed that a human observer can retoractively determine the path of a photon which affects the way it traveled over billions of miles simply by how we choose to observe it. I think that humans have the ability to affect even larger-scale reality in much the same way. The scriptural corollary to thi sis that through faith humans can literally move mountains.
God comes into the picture in allowing humans to tap this potential by giving them the knowledge or understanding which is required to do it. Another way of viewing this is that in order to change reality in this way one must be absolutely capable of viewing the new reality, or the effect on reality, before it actually occurs (referred to as "eyes of faith" in the scriptures). Human minds have problems with this, so God provides the necessary views.
To sum up the obvious conclusion of this way of viewing things- I think that miracles exist, but they are almost universally a result of human will coupled with divine understanding.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
No problem, ak. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Oh, we're thinking of different stories, IanO. Asimov wrote a short story about a series of computers over the centuries, each one more advanced, each one trying to solve the problem of how to reverse entropy. I don't remember how it ends.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Nicely put Jacare. Nice to see you around again.
Didn't realize that, Porter.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
It ends with the last computer, alone in a dead and dark universe, saying--"Solution complete. LET THERE BE LIGHT!"
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Sounds like a typical Asimov ending.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I remember reading that! Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
I'd be interested in reading that book.
There was also "A Timelike Infinity" by Stephen Baxter considering the end of the universe. The characters were lame. The SF was cool, though. It dealt with people (Friends of Wigner) who believed that the universe was in the same state as Shroedinger's cat- still an uncollapsed wave probability function. And that some observer at the end of the universe (God, for lack of a better terms) would be able to choose which 'version' he wanted by 'observing' it. But humanity was on the verge of exinction by these aliens. so they wanted to preserve the memory of earth to the end of the universe by creating a black hole that would swallow it. Somehow, that information (even genetic) would still exist to be 'read' by the god and he would have a better chance of chosing an universe where earth flourish. Thankfully, they fail.
The main character is somehow stripped out his body and his mind becomes a quantum wave function wandering the universe. Eventually he speeds to the end of time (since he can traverse space-time at will) to see what happens and no god shows up. Those fanatics would have killed everyone for nothing. Instead the universe is cold and lifeless.
I think that's how it ended. Kind of interesting.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
IanO- Thanks. I pop in from time to time to post on interesting topics. this one certainly qualifies (kudos to Karl)
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
That's an interesting idea, Jacare.
So are you saying that humans have the ability to alter reality or move mountains by means of faith, understanding, and will? Is this ability inherent only to humans? What is behind this power or ability? Is it simply the mind, or some connection that we have with the universe?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Another recent idea in string theory is that all the independent constants of nature, light, gravitation, etc. exist as a sort of multidimensional surface, and universes that exist tend to slide down into minima on that surface (minimizing the energy). Our big bang universe is likely to be one of untold trillions, all with different physical laws, that happens to be tucked into a pocket of this manifold. The exact pocket we inhabit is what gives rise to our particular set of constants.
It's possible that other big bangs could come into existence inside ours, without any problems of displacement. Since space itself expands to hold it, it doesn't take up any of OUR space.
It's also possible that when we become advanced enough both spiritually and scientifically, some of us will be involved in organizing our own new universes, new big bangs, with our own billions of spirit children to evolve, and become embodied therein.
From a scientific standpoint, of course, all of the above is pure speculation. Nobody would have any reason to believe this over any other possibilities unless they had, perhaps, some additional source of information outside of science. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: My questions are for the religious-and-scientifically minded among us. (Like the "theistic evolutionists".) Does this "god behind the science" belief extend to other scientific theories as well? For instance do you believe in the "Big Bang" and that God used it to create the universe?
I'm unconvinced of the Big Bang. There are other explanations for the observed red shift. That said, I don't have a problem with it, either.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Do you believe in the current theories of planet, star, and galaxy formation, which (at face value) do not require a devine hand for their explanatory value, with the additional belief that somewhere God's hand is the impetus or controlling factor that uses these methods to create the universe we see?
Again, I'm not convinced by the prevailing theories regarding planet and star formation. I think there is a growing body of work that suggests that electrical effects have had a much greater influence than gravitational ones.
But once more, regardless of which is which, I don't have a problem with it from a religious point of view.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: The prevailing theories about the formation of the universe point to a "big bang" start and a finish of either a "Big Crunch" (where everything evenually collapses back on itself) or a "Big Freeze" (where eventually the universe plays itself out, expanding and expending energy until all is cold and dead). Do any scientific theists here believe these scenarios?
Not I. They seem unlikely. But who really knows?
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: If so how does God fit in here? Or if you reject these scenarios, what do you believe is the ultimate fate of the universe?
Happily ever after?
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Do you believe in "miracles"? That is, do you believe that God, at times, intervenes by suspending natural law?
Yes and no. Judaism teaches that things that seem to be suspensions of natural law were actually set up by God during creation. Sort of like a trick pool shot. Everything else came about through natural means.
But look... I don't think it matters if God sits back on a throne and snaps His metaphorical fingers, or if He uses natural means to achieve the same thing. Quantum physics has so much indeterminism built into it that there's ample room for God to manipulate things within the bounds of natural law.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Do you believe The Flood, or the parting of the Red Sea, or turning water into wine literally occurred?
The first two, yes. The third, no. <grin>
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: These aren't meant to be leading questions. I understand how people might be completely scientifically minded, yet still believe in some sort of God. But the gods that I see fitting that sort of bill begin to look very different from the God of mainstream Christianity, or what I know of mainstream Judaism or Islam (which is admittedly limited).
Indeed. The Jewish view of God is vastly different from those others. Actually, God is explained in different ways in Judaism, depending on level and audience. I know that what I know about God wasn't taught in the Orthodox high school I went to.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Let me add here a request that we all please keep this discussion (if there is one) civil. Let people express their beliefs without ridicule. I'm not asking this in order to challenge anyone's beliefs, but to understand them myself.
I agree. And if anything I say seems off-putting to anyone, please let me know either on the board, or by e-mail, and I'll correct it.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I, too, in case it isn't clear already, believe that religion and science don't contradict. I believe something even stronger than that, really. I believe scientific and engineering advancement are as important to our religious life as spiritual advancement. That's why we're told to learn everything we can about everything possible. Because we need to know it.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: So are you saying that humans have the ability to alter reality or move mountains by means of faith, understanding, and will? Is this ability inherent only to humans? What is behind this power or ability? Is it simply the mind, or some connection that we have with the universe?
I f this ability truly exists (and quantum physics seems to indicate that it does, to some extent) then it needn't be limited only to humans, though humans are the only creatures I know of which are capable of visualizing the world as differently than their senses tell them it is. I think that this ability also carries with it the inherent danger of being able to completely deluding oneself into believing all sorts of silly and fanciful things, but in my formulation this is the price to be paid for the ability to change the world.
As to the physical mechanism for why this should be true- I admit that I haven't the foggiest notion, though I have a fanciful theory. This theory runs something like this-
all particles of matter, whatever they may be, have a bit of information associated with them. This information is something really simple such as a position and a velocity. We know that we have access to this information through a number of different measurements performed in the lab.
However, on a simpler level, the mere fact that we can access the world through our senses shows that we have access to basic particle information through non-laboratory means. For example, the sense of sight conveys information to our brains through a complex chain of events that includes light reflecting from a multitude of different molecules and being captured by pigments in our eyes which convey information via ionic and chemical reactions about the state of those molecules.
Now, combining the idea that our senses convey to us information about the state of molecules with the idea that senses like vision function in the realm of quantum effects (e.g. single photons can elicit a response) and the idea that in the realm of quantum physics measurement inherently affects the thing being measured, we can postulate a feedback loop where seeing a thing changes the nature of the thing seen.
The real question is whether we can function as a sort of consciously controlled massive parallel photon detector. In the quantum experiment I mentioned earlier, a photon detector was used to determine the past path of the photon. The human eye (or any other eye, for that matter) is a massively parallel photon detetcor. So when we visaulize something differently than it is, can we actively set off a chain raction which ends in a change in the way photons are detetced (and by extension the past history of the photon, the interaction of photon with molecules and so on)? And of course this example includes only vision. There are many different effects which control things on a small enough level to effect quantum change. For example, the human mind itself. Thought on the physical level consists of moving ions back and forth across a membrane. This creates magnetic and electric field which interact with the world around us. Different though patterns must necessarily change these magnetic and electric fields, which in turn have an effect (however slight) on all charged particles such as protons and electrons, and of course movement of charged particles involves movement of mass which can effect other particles thorugh the other forces (strong, weak and gravitationsal). Obviously any effect of a single mind on the surrounding physical world is infinitesimal. But, what if such an infinitesimal change can be propagated through the system to effect massive change? It is the same idea as the butterfly effect.
edited to add- of course humans have no way of calculating the effect any given thought pattern or visual pattern would have, and random patterns would tend to exist in a system as white noise. But given access to information about the way to propagate an infinitesimal effect into a large one, it could be conceivably achieved. And this is where God comes in. Presumably God has the necessary information available, and so by aiding a human to achieve the proper pattern of fields the change could be made.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Quantum physics has so much indeterminism built into it that there's ample room for God to manipulate things within the bounds of natural law.
I have often thought this as well. Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
I found the manifold (membrane) idea of string theory interesting. However, as you said, it has to become as much an article of faith (or philosophy) as God is, until there is some way to test it. Indeed, String theory, as powerful and elegant as I think it is, is still in the early stages where the technology is not able test some of it's predictions.
That said, I share your viewpoint on science and religion, Anne Kate (and the brain as a quantum computer is intriguing). It's part of a vaster framework regarding our universe and our place in the universe that we may eventually understand, if we use the appopriate tool for the appropriate task.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Plus, God understands a lot more about physics than we do. Perhaps that indeterminism isn't so indeterminate to him.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
I have often thought that it is quantum uncertainty that breaks us free from the shackles of a physically deterministic universe. I even suspect that human thought, at least at some level, somewhere in that uncertainty so that our decisions, at some point, are not BECAUSE anything, but because we chose to. When I realized that, Quantum uncertainty no longer seemed to appear to be simply due to our physical limitations (where underneath the level we observered, things were smooth and deterministic), but seemed to be absolutely necessary for our minds to exist. And I marvelled at what I believe God had done, and how he had structured the universe from the beginning so that he could create beings completely (since I don't believe in uncreated spirits) and they still truly have free will.
I still marvel at it.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I guess I'm a theistic scientist, or a scientific theist.
I'm orthodox on Christianity (God made the world, and does miracles), and on science (Big Bang, planetary formation, evolution). I'm uncomfortable saying "I believe in the Big Bang"; I might say, "I believe in it till something stronger comes along."
As a silly analogy: Jesus ascended into heaven. Do I believe it? Yes. Does it violate the laws of physics God made? No. I suppose he can when he wants. But *I* ascended into heaven, last time I went to the airport.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: I, too, in case it isn't clear already, believe that religion and science don't contradict. I believe something even stronger than that, really. I believe scientific and engineering advancement are as important to our religious life as spiritual advancement. That's why we're told to learn everything we can about everything possible. Because we need to know it.
hear hear...
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Jacare, Thanks for the detailed response. It's a very fascinating idea.
IanO, Wow, I've never thought of Quantum uncertainty in that way and how it relates to free will.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Anthropic principle: I think this is just saying that whatever theories we build about the universe must be consistent with the presence of carbon-based life forms! You *can* use it to end debate, but it needn't. If you generate a theory that makes carbon-based life forms impossible, or very, very unlikely, I'd be less likely to accept the theory than one that allows for our existence!
[ September 16, 2005, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Scientific theories come and go... This one will likely turn out to be very successful but also flawed in significant ways - since that's the typical end result for so many scientific theories.
As for whether or not it is actually true, I think we will never know if it is, unless God does exist and tells us. Other than that, how could you find out? Even if you could time travel, it'd be impossible to go back and observe the Big Bang without being destroyed.
And as for its consistency with God, I don't think there's much of a problem, unless you believe the Bible completely literally - and even then only if make certain assumptions about God's not having designed the universe in such a way as to trick us.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I don't believe it is correct to say "science and religion don't contradict each other." One can say "science does not contradict my beliefs" (or even "my religion"), or even "true science and true religion do not contradict" as someone above said, but it is a demonstrable fact that scientific "knowledge" does contradict the religious beliefs of many people. Of course, I don't have this problem because I don't have any spiritual beliefs, per se.
Also, I fully recognize that current "prevailing theories" of science are not complete and are subject to change and modification. That is one of the greatest strengths of science, in my opinion. So when I ask "do you believe in the Big Bang" I don't mean "do you hold it as sacred cannon, immutable and everlasting".
SenojRetep:
quote:I think that your assertion that these things don't require a divine hand to explain them is untenable. I could say the existance of natural laws is evidence of a creator, for how can anything (including laws) exist without being created. That natural laws can exist independant of deity is not a fact it's just a belief (I'd say a misapplication of Occam's razor).
I don't think the assertion I made is untenable. I think you are confusing it with the assertion "These things require that there is no creator" which isn't what I said, of course. Those theories accept the possibility (though they don't require it) that random factors lead to planetary formation, etc. By entertaining these possibilities, a creator isn't required. (Note again I'm not saying one isn't possible or even that accepting randomness as a possibility constitutes any kind of evidence against a creator.)
To ask "how can anything exist without a creator" is to beg the question of who created the creator, does it not?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I'm sorry, I got so excited writing what I wanted to write that I misinterpreted what you said. Rereading I realize I was responding to what I thought you said, which wasn't what you said at all. I have often heard expressed the idea that since current theories of creation don't require a creator, the creator must not exist which I feel is logically untenable. Again, sorry for the miscue.
As for the who created the creator logical loop, I believe God was himself created in a creation external to ours. And his creator likewise. And so on to infinity.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
SR, are you LDS by chance? Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
*Waits for Tom to come in and say "It's turtles all the way down."*
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I have often thought that it is quantum uncertainty that breaks us free from the shackles of a physically deterministic universe."
What is very interesting to me is that quantum uncertainties arise, not from physical interactions, but are due to underlying mathematical structure. It seems to be a fundamental characteristic of the universe that things are uncertain, rather then a problem with how we can observe the universe. Even if we didn't require photons to bounce off of particles in order ot measure their momentum and position (For example), and could somehow measure the momentum and position of the particle without interacting with it in any way, there would still be an uncertainty in the measurements.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I was gonna say that... (I love turtles)
Re: uncaused first cause-- *something* must be self-existent from eternity... the question is whether it is personal (as in Christianity) or impersonal (as in Pantheism or an oscillating universe)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Jim-Me -- not necessarily, time may not be infinite.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Paul, to me that's still more of a shortcoming in our own measurement and conceptualization abilities than an unsolvable uncertainty built into quantum particles. I imagine it is either theoretically possible to eradicate the uncertainty with proper observation techniques, or to reach a point where we understand why the uncertainty exists in the larger context.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Beverly-
By choice, not by chance Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
AFR- We might be able to come to the point where we understand why the uncertainty exists in a larger context, but it doesn't seem to be possible to eradicate the uncertainty with observation techniques, as the uncertainty arises from the commutator of the quantities involved. Its purely mathematical, so far as we can tell right now, and not physical.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Can you take another run at that for me Paul?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Paul---is this uncertainty a big barrier in physics right now? What would removing the uncertainty yield?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Apparently, the uncertainty is pretty much built into the universe. I've read some things which say that no matter how good our equipment gets, there's a certain number, which equals the uncertainty in a particle's velocity times the uncertainty in the position, and we can't do any better than that.
So...if God is omniscient, does that include knowledge of a particle's exact location and velocity? I personally think that it would be pretty horrible to be completely omnicient, with nothing new to discover. I could see designing a universe like this one just to see what happens.
Also, I think that the anthropic principle applies pretty well to the earth. It's harder to apply to the universe because we only know of one. But if there really are many universes, then it might well apply to our universe as well.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I'm sorry, I got so excited writing what I wanted to write that I misinterpreted what you said. Rereading I realize I was responding to what I thought you said, which wasn't what you said at all. I have often heard expressed the idea that since current theories of creation don't require a creator, the creator must not exist which I feel is logically untenable. Again, sorry for the miscue.
As for the who created the creator logical loop, I believe God was himself created in a creation external to ours. And his creator likewise. And so on to infinity.
No worries. These subjects are so fraught with pat answers that it's easy to overlook what's actually being said.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Yeah, from what I've read, that seems true, Paul. Things at that level themselves exist as probabilty waves (perhaps superpositions over multiple parallel universes- a notion I'm not sure I buy). Moreover, they occupy states that have no analog to our understand (as in wave/particle duality). The Heisenberg (sp?) uncertainty principle seems to indicate that our observation interferes with objects at that level. But I think it goes deeper than simply because, for example, we can't 'see' a particle unless we RAM a photon into it, thus interfering with it's direction and speed. I think the uncertainties are built into the fabric itself. (If anyone saw "The Elegant Universe" on PBS, the image of the chaotic, random quantum fluctuations of space-time is apt).
Too, some fluctations seem to occur with no observer, as in virtual particles, ghostly particles (and their anti-particle mate) coming into existence and then anhilating eachother briefly, costing zero net energy to the system (unless it occurs on both sides of an event horizon, making anihilation impossible, and manifesting itself as Hawking radiation.)
Again, I marvel at the relative stability of our universe, that all of this (and relativistic effects, as well) could go on from the beginning of the universe, and yet we have no clue until this last century. And yet such randomness, as I said before, sets us free from a 'billiard ball' view of the universe where the physical laws describe every particle's actions (far in advance), including those that make up our brains, effectively removing free will.
It truly amazes me.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Can you take another run at that for me Paul?"
I can try
Basically, when you take two quantities, and multiply them together, and then reverse the order you multiply the quantities in, and subtract those two results, you get zero... the commutative principle.
With certain quantities, when you do this for the full expanded matrix form, you do NOT get zero. There's a little tiny bit left over.
Heisenbergs uncertainty principle says that this little bit left over is the uncertainty that exists in the structure of the universe, and that when two quantities, such as momentum and position, have a commutator that is non-zero, then the two quantities cannot be perfectly known simultaneously.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:With certain quantities, when you do this for the full expanded matrix form, you do NOT get zero. There's a little tiny bit left over.
Are you talking about multiplying matrices together? If so, that's just because multiplying matrices does not mean the same thing at all as multiplying numbers.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Could it be a shortcoming of our mathematical model? Is that even possible?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Of course, if it weren't it wouldn't be science.
We're pretty darn confident its not just a shortcoming of our mathematical model, though. For one thing, the uncertainty principle is very useful for explaining why our universe actually works.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
The other part: how is uncertainty solely mathematical and not physical?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Yes, mph, its not the same as multiplying numbers. But that doesn't mean there's no significance.
I should clarify that we're talking about the operators that go along with the observable quantities (the position operator, and the momentum operator, do not have a zero commutator).
Incompatible observables (two observables for which the commutator of the operators is non-zero) do not have a complete set of shared eigenvectors, and the matrices representing incompatible observables cannot be simultaneously diagonalized.
Compatible observables share complete eigenvector sets, and the matrices can be diagonalized.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
I don't think he meant it was solely mathematical. Just that the underlying mathematics predicts an uncertainty that is observed in the physical universe.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Is that the story Paul? Are you saying the uncertainty is a product of the math or the physical universe?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
What I'm saying is that the uncertainty principle is a theoretical limit, not a practical limit.
The uncertainty results from the physical universe, obviously, but its a mathematically derived uncertainty.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Well, I can't answer for Paul, necessarily. But mathematics are based on our understanding/observation of the physical universe. From there, the logical rules of mathematics branch into entirely new realms, sometimes purely theoretical- that is, until some physical process or practical application can be found for it that makes it not so theoritical (such as imaginary numbers and electronics).
But mathematics do not affect the physical universe except where we (or other entities) use such mathematics to *do* something on the universe.
So mathematical uncertainties cannot be anything but mathematical descriptions of physical truths. They cannot create the quantum uncertainties we observe in the universe, at least not as we understand it now. They can only describe (or even predict) them.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Thats a good answer, IanO.
Once we have a physical descritpion of something, the rules of mathematics take over. We can manipulate the mathematics, and find a new equation, based solely on the logic of the math. If that new equation tells us something new about the universe that our first mathematical description didn't, then we've discovered something new about the universe through the applications of mathematical logic.
Thats sorta what happens with the uncertainty principle.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I will number myself among the theists in this thread, though it's a bit iffy with me.
quote:Do you believe in the current theories of planet, star, and galaxy formation, which (at face value) do not require a devine hand for their explanatory value, with the additional belief that somewhere God's hand is the impetus or controlling factor that uses these methods to create the universe we see?
I won't use the word "untenable" but you have asserted something as being essentially self-evidently true, which I think is not. The fact that many people believe these theories do not require a divine hand does not mean that they do not. Frankly, these things are a big part of why I still do believe in a divine creator. (I don't think I'm misreading your intention here. I realize you are not asserting that they do require the nonexistence of God. I think I understand where you are coming from and simply disagree with it.) I don't think we can convince each other on this one, but I simply want to move the line as it were . . . I think scientific theists disagree with you from further back than you realize.
(I don't know how successful I was in communicating myself there. *sigh* If I see that I was not successful, I'll try again.)
-o-
With the typical caveat that scientific theories are subject to revision, I will say that I believe completely in the scientific method, and--again, attempting to avoid the imprecision of language which Karl has pointed out--I will say that science is incapable of being at odds with my spiritual beliefs, because my spiritual beliefs incorporate a scientific worldview.
Having said that, do I believe in miracles? I thought, meditated, and prayed on this for some time and I have concluded that I do. I would agree, however, that my personal conception of God is pretty different from the traditional Judeo-Christian ones (my apologies if that phrase makes anyone cringe) I have encountered. For that matter, I have not yet found a satisfactory fit in the non-Western religions either, though my search has been by no means exhaustive. The issue of how active God is, and how humanlike in His actions, motivations, etc., has been at the heart of my religious difficulties. Ultimately, though, it only makes sense (to me) that if God set the world in motion, He will continue to have both the power and inclination to interact with it again. So I *mostly* reject the idea of a clockmaker God.
Before reading this thread, when faced with the question of whether God suspends physical laws or not when He does something miraculous, I would have responded that the question was merely semantic, since I believe the physical laws reflect what God created. But I like the p.o.v. that has been stated here a few times already, that He is not violating those laws, and we would see this if we knew the workings of the physical universe well enough (The magnetism analogy, especially).
Many people here (including those who have rather different specific beliefs than I do) have said things that I believe better than I think I can state them. In particular, Tatiana's posts here have rung rather true to me.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I thought aspects of the uncertainty principle could be observed--like the single particle that passes through both slits at the same time. That is a physical phenomenon.
So the math supports what we observe? I was unaware that this happened in math. I thought math was "perfect" and didn't have any of the "messiness" found in reality.
Edit: Perhaps my comments come a bit late. Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
I don't think wave-particle duality is a manifestation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. I believe that was you can know a particle's position or you can know a particle's speed/momentum/direction (can't rememeber what it was), but you cannot know both exactly. Because the more exactly you know one through observation, the more you have interfered with the particle, so you the other's uncertainty increases.
When you think about it, it makes sense. 'Seeing' is merely the reception/interpretations of photons as they bounce on an object and return to us. Using sub-atomic particles (which, for example, in the case of electrons actually absorb photons and go to new energy levels) the 'collision' (difficult to understand with massless photon- but photons DO have momentum, so there is an impact, nonetheless) will affect the particle. When we get the photon back and interpret it (sort of) we have a better idea of the position, but we have changed it's speed/trajectory. so it's a trade off, the more we know about position, the less we know about the other, and vice versa.
Something along those lines, anyway. Observation itself physically interferes with the objects we are interfering with.
While observation seems to collapse a photon (or electron, etc) wave function into a particle, it is not, I believe due to Heisenberg. (Someone correct me if I am wrong). It's due to something else (can't remember). But it's an additional uncertainty. Add to that, the existence of virtual particles, quantum tunneling (a function of wave particle positional distribution) and you have a truly uncertain world, at best.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:I don't think wave-particle duality is a manifestation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. I believe that was you can know a particle's position or you can know a particle's speed/momentum/direction (can't rememeber what it was), but you cannot know both exactly. Because the more exactly you know one through observation, the more you have interfered with the particle, so you the other's uncertainty increases.
I thought it related because if we try to observe it as it is happening, it will only pass through one or the other. But if we leave it alone and only observe the after-effects, we can see that it passed through both.
quote:While observation seems to collapse a photon (or electron, etc) wave function into a particle, it is not, I believe due to Heisenberg. (Someone correct me if I am wrong). It's due to something else (can't remember). But it's an additional uncertainty. Add to that, the existence of virtual particles, quantum tunneling (a function of wave particle positional distribution) and you have a truly uncertain world, at best.
I guess I get the two mixed up. Or, in my mind, they seem like they ought to be related. Kinda like the different forces are supposed to be related. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm just bookkending the thread here- to answer Karl's initial question- Yes. Your overview of a theistic cosmology describes my belief pretty well. I don't go as far as Sterling McMurrin, a quasi-famous philosopher and cultural Mormon who said Mormons don't believe in the supernatural in the same sense that other religions do. Well, more later.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
AFAIK, they are not related. Could be wrong, though. Anyone else know?
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Warning: there's one D-word in that comic and a subtle dirty joke in the punchline.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
lol
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I hope the following is an easy and semi-accurate depiction of the uncertainty principle:
In quantum mechanics, any state of an object can be expressed as a sum of other states. We describe a state by giving its value for an observable quantity, like position. For instance, a particle in the state |5 inches to my left> will certainly be 5 inches to my left if I measure its position.
But it could also be in a combined state (superpositions is the technical word) like |5 inches left> + |5 inches right>. When this happens, there's some chance it will end up to the left and some chance it will end up to the right, if measured.
Position and momentum are conjugate observables; as Paul has said, they don't commute. What this means in practicality is that any particle with a definite state of position is in a combined state of momentum, or vice versa. Mathematically, this just amounts to another way of writing out the particle's state. For example, we might have
|5 meters/sec> = |left> + |right>
Thus, any particle that is definitely moving 5 meters per second must be in a combined state of being on the left and on the right. Saying that it's in a specific state of motion is the same as saying it's in a combined state of position. So if we know how fast it's moving, we can't know where it is. The theory has no way of describing a particle with both a specific position and a specific momentum. This is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
What about wave-particle duality? This is a related idea. It also has to do with the fact that particles can be in combined states. Let's say we send a particle in the combined state
|left> + |right>
at a pair of slits in the wall. If the particle is on the right, it goes through the right slit; if it's on the left, it goes through the left slit. But as you can see, it's neither on the left or on the right. It's in a combined state. So it ends up in a combination of the state where it goes through the left slit and the state where it goes through the right slit. When it's measured, it takes on one of those two states as usual.
If you measure it before it goes through, on the other hand, it must take on either |right> or |left> -- and this happens before it hits the wall, so it only goes through one slit.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
It's also worth noting that what it means to "measure" something is a big mystery.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Do you believe in "miracles"? That is, do you believe that God, at times, intervenes by suspending natural law?
Yes and no. Judaism teaches that things that seem to be suspensions of natural law were actually set up by God during creation. Sort of like a trick pool shot. Everything else came about through natural means.
"Judaism" does nothing of the sort! You are citing the rationalist position (exemplified by the Rambam(Maimonides)). But you completely ignore the mystics and Kabbalists (such as the Ramban (Nachmanides)) as well as those who take a more central position (like the Maharal).
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Wow, Rivka has over 15.5K posts! Okay, so the measurement thing... I was thinking about how sig figs can really screw measurements up. Like I can have two apples and add them to two apples and I now have four apples, but if I go by weights something very different might happen. In fact, the chances of me winding up with a total weight twice the weight of the first two apples gets less the more precise the measurement.
The art of measuring seems nearly to be comparing two things until a difference is found.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That's hardly a sig fig issue. That's a problem with deviance from the mean.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Good post, Bob. You lost me somewhere around the middle, with all the talk about whether we would be the species that would achieve this unity or not, though. Species pride is not very integral to me, so I don't care much about our place as a whole. What I care about is what happens to me as an individual. I believe in some sort of eternality of the soul (in at least one direction; I am undecided as to whether the soul existed eternally before birth, or, for that matter, whether there is reincarnation). My conception of togetherness with God is joining in His presence, and having perfect love and perfect or near-perfect knowledge. Actually joining in the Godhead in some sort of way might be nice, but is not particularly central to my beliefs at this point. (Maybe because I spent so much of my life in a faith where that was a heretical notion. )
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If human free will is important. And God is using the natural laws to create a partner (a joiner, not just a worshiper)...maybe we aren't it. Maybe we're an intermediate form.
I absolutely love the idea that God might be trying to nudge us towards creating unstoppable, artificially-intelligent war machines, which themselves will achieve perfect enlightenment thousands of years after they've killed us off. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Do you believe in "miracles"? That is, do you believe that God, at times, intervenes by suspending natural law?
Yes and no. Judaism teaches that things that seem to be suspensions of natural law were actually set up by God during creation. Sort of like a trick pool shot. Everything else came about through natural means.
"Judaism" does nothing of the sort! You are citing the rationalist position (exemplified by the Rambam(Maimonides)). But you completely ignore the mystics and Kabbalists (such as the Ramban (Nachmanides)) as well as those who take a more central position (like the Maharal).
Wow. No need to yell. In the first place, maybe ask me what I'm citing, rather than telling me. As it happens, you're mistaken.
"Ten things were created on the eve of Shabbat, at twilight. They are: The mouth of the earth; the mouth of the well; the mouth of the donkey; the rainbow; the Manna; the staff; the Shamir; the alphabet; the inscription; and the Tablets." --Pirkei Avot (Chapters of Principles) 5:8
Now, it's true that the Rambam says there will be no miracles in messianic times, and that he is not the only view on that question. Was that what you were alluding to? Because I agree with you about that.
With regards to Kabbalah, I accept your point. When I was thinking about miracles, I was thinking about things like what it says in Pirkei Avot, and not practical Kabbalah. I regard such things as Elisha making an axe head float and Rav Hanina and Rav Oshaya creating a calf and eating it (as described in Sanhedrin 65b as a type of science. In each case, they made use of properties of reality to accomplish something. To the extent that this is viewed as miraculous or magical, it's really just Clarke's Law in action.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You think there's a scientific principle that would allow anyone -- if they knew the trick -- to make a cow?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I do, and we are starting to already. Genetics has made some amazing strides.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Using an exclamation point is yelling? *blink* Ok, I'll try to remember that is your interpretation and post accordingly.
As far as your citation from Pirkei Avos, that verse is exactly where the debate begins, not an answer to it. (And you are completely ignoring the verse previously, which mentions the miracles done for the Jews in Egypt.) What does it mean for those things to have been created in advance? What about all the other miracles? Shemesh b'Giv'on (the pausing of the sun mid-sky) immediately comes to mind.
Well, Rambam says it was pre-programmed in like the others (although it is not not on the list, which he says is simply some examples and not exhaustive); Ramban says it involved a temporary alteration in the laws of the universe; and the Maharal mentions both those possibilities and gives his own preferred one: the miracle was actually in the eyes of the beholders, and did not affect the larger universe.
All are compatible with traditional Jewish thought, which makes absolute pronouncements on very few matters of philosophy. Which was precisely my objection to your post. If you had qualified by saying that "one view in Judaism teaches" I wouldn't have made a peep.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I think the question (or in her case pronouncement) starLisa brings up is if there is such a thing as the Jewish religion anymore, outside of historical relationships? I have heard it said, although where I am not sure, that modern Judaism is about questions and not answers. A not so nice way of putting that, and I have heard it in similar terms, is that Judaism is a spiritually dead religion as you can believe anything you want short of Allah and Jesus Christ.
I guess that is relates to my own personal problems with Judaism (and to be fair some libral Christianities). A religion without some form of set beliefs is, in my mind, simply philosophy that mentions God.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I guess that is relates to my own personal problems with Judaism (and to be fair some libral Christianities).
Even without addressing whether this is accurate (I expect people more qualified than I will do so), I don't think it is a fair comparison. You break off the portion of Christianity that posseses this trait and compare it to the whole of Judaism, when it's fairly clear that at most this description can only apply to portions of Judaism.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I do, and we are starting to already. Genetics has made some amazing strides.
Under slightly different circumstances, don't you think? There's a bit of a distinction between breeding a cow and creating a cow.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You think there's a scientific principle that would allow anyone -- if they knew the trick -- to make a cow?
Define science. <shrug> Judaism has a cosmology that goes beyond the physical world we generally perceive. There are techniques that can be used to perceive areas outside of what we normally do, and there are techniques for manipulating reality in ways that you can't do with a hammer or an IC chip.
I won't quibble with those who want to call that magic or miracles, but I see it as just another way of working with the world God created.
Now... could I create a calf? Nope. Nor would I risk my life and soul trying it. It definitely falls under the "kids, don't try this at home" category.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: All are compatible with traditional Jewish thought, which makes absolute pronouncements on very few matters of philosophy. Which was precisely my objection to your post. If you had qualified by saying that "one view in Judaism teaches" I wouldn't have made a peep.
I accept your criticism. I should have said that. One set of views in Orthodox Judaism teaches what I said. As a further clarification, when I talk about Judaism without a modifier, I am talking about Orthodox Judaism. But as you point out, there are numerous valid views within Judaism.
Edit: to make it 100% clear, what I said is not the only valid view in Orthodox Judaism, and rivka was correct in calling me on it. I'm grateful to her for doing so.
[ September 18, 2005, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: starLisa ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I think the question (or in her case pronouncement) starLisa brings up is if there is such a thing as the Jewish religion anymore, outside of historical relationships? I have heard it said, although where I am not sure, that modern Judaism is about questions and not answers. A not so nice way of putting that, and I have heard it in similar terms, is that Judaism is a spiritually dead religion as you can believe anything you want short of Allah and Jesus Christ.
I guess that is relates to my own personal problems with Judaism (and to be fair some libral Christianities). A religion without some form of set beliefs is, in my mind, simply philosophy that mentions God.
I think this is an excellent question. There are many, many Jews, particularly (but not exclusively) in the United States, who have created what I would call "watered down" versions of Judaism. Judaism-lite, so to speak. Their adherants would be livid to have their heterodox movements described as such, but in truth, what you posted describes them even better than I could have.
The very idea of God, as in the Creator of the World, being active in the world... well, it's downright embarrassing to most of them. They view it as primitive.
Not only have they cast off the yoke of Heaven (the obligation to keep God's laws), but they actually take pride in the idea that "anything goes".
I was raised in one of these movements, which calls itself the Conservative Movement. Ironically, that name is a kind of doublespeak in practice. What happened was that a movement called the Reform Movement broke away and was abandoning God's law faster than some of its adherents felt comfortable with. So those people broke off of the Reform Movement and started a more "conservative" movement that would flee at a somewhat slower pace.
When I got to college and had a chance to do some studying on my own, I found out about the richness of the religion that God gave us, and much to the annoyance of my family (though they've pretty much come to terms with it), returned to authentic Judaism.
In my opinion, and I know that the average Jew in the US will burn me in effigy for saying it, you were describing these movements accurately with "Judaism is a spiritually dead religion as you can believe anything you want short of Allah and Jesus Christ". The mistake you made is simply that these movements are not authentic Judaism. Merely a modern, "skin deep" version. What some of us call "bagels and lox Judaism".
Real Judaism is far more substantial, and in a way that makes Christianity look almost skin deep itself by comparison. I say this not to step on any Christian toes here, at least no more than you posted what you did to step on Jewish toes. That's simply my perspective as a knowlegeable Jew. I recognize that Christians feel otherwise.
Basically, anything you read about Judaism, you have to ask: "Is this Orthodox Judaism?" If it isn't, don't trust it to be describing anything other than one of the heterodox movements, none of which are older than about 200 years.
Now... to the meat of the matter. There are variant views of things in Judaism, and that has partially to do with the nature of the system given to us by God, and partially to do with the fact that the Romans (Christians) dissolved our system of courts some 17 centuries ago and made it a capital crime to reconstitute it. In the relatively short time since Jews were sufficiently concentrated in Israel to be able to work towards that end, it's been rough going. A provisional Sanhedrin has been set up in the last year under the leadership of many great rabbis in Israel, but we're only starting to heal from what the Romans did to us.
I'd be happy to elucidate if anyone is interested, but perhaps it should be a new thread. Or private e-mail.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Lisa, thank you. That was very graciously said. And I apologize if if I came down too hard initially; we covered this not long ago in the Maharal class I attend, so I am particularly aware of the various options.
Occasional, to elaborate on what Lisa said, Orthodox Judaism (and she and I agree that is what "authentic" Judaism is, although we may disagree on some of the specifics of what it is comprised of) is pretty clear on what one should do (or not do), but is far more open in terms of what one should think.
There are some basics which are pretty much agreed upon. The Rambam's 13 Principles are a good summary of those. But you will notice that many are fairly open-ended: resurrection of the dead is a basic belief, but exactly how it works and under what circumstances it will/can occur is debated. And you may also note that miracles are nowhere on that list.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Rivka, I am comfortable with the idea of basics that are agreed upon, and yet pretty open to discussion. As a Mormon that is a general idea for most doctrines. After all, we believe in an open canon<sic> where the "mysteries of G-d" can be reinterpreted or further explained.
My problem is with those who don't hold to basics to begin with.
quote:Real Judaism is far more substantial, and in a way that makes Christianity look almost skin deep itself by comparison. I say this not to step on any Christian toes here, at least no more than you posted what you did to step on Jewish toes. That's simply my perspective as a knowlegeable Jew. I recognize that Christians feel otherwise.
I am not sure what you mean by this, and yet I find myself in agreement with the sentiment. I am at least somewhat familiar with Judaism, if still on the ignorant side.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:Under slightly different circumstances, don't you think? There's a bit of a distinction between breeding a cow and creating a cow.
Well, as for Mormon doctrine on "Creation" I would say the difference is a matter of degree than kind. Although the degree difference is exceptional.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" I have heard it said, although where I am not sure, that modern Judaism is about questions and not answers."
I don't think this is modern judaism. At least, not unless we define modern as "last 2300 years." Judaism has always had a very rich tradition of questioning, and not settling on a specific answer to the question. The entirety of the Talmud is open ended debate, for example. There are no conclusions. No real, firm, established answers.
After Rambam's 13 principles, pretty much everything is up for debate.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Rivka, I am comfortable with the idea of basics that are agreed upon, and yet pretty open to discussion. As a Mormon that is a general idea for most doctrines. After all, we believe in an open canon<sic> where the "mysteries of G-d" can be reinterpreted or further explained.
My problem is with those who don't hold to basics to begin with.
quote:Real Judaism is far more substantial, and in a way that makes Christianity look almost skin deep itself by comparison. I say this not to step on any Christian toes here, at least no more than you posted what you did to step on Jewish toes. That's simply my perspective as a knowlegeable Jew. I recognize that Christians feel otherwise.
I am not sure what you mean by this, and yet I find myself in agreement with the sentiment. I am at least somewhat familiar with Judaism, if still on the ignorant side.
That quote was me, actually.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
If that is the case, than I would have to question Judaism as a religion. However, I don't beileve that is true Judaism. I count "true Judaism" as Torah and Ritual. I am agreed that Talmud was a presidence for modern Jewish thought. But, for me the Talmud represents a loss of religious identity during the time of Roman conquest. Of course, I recognize that is partly my Christian beliefs showing. (edit: I'll go so far as to say that is partly my Mormon beliefs about Christian development during the Roman era showing.)
I know starLisa. My quotation placement was bad. My confusion on meaning still stands.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: " I have heard it said, although where I am not sure, that modern Judaism is about questions and not answers."
I don't think this is modern judaism. At least, not unless we define modern as "last 2300 years." Judaism has always had a very rich tradition of questioning, and not settling on a specific answer to the question. The entirety of the Talmud is open ended debate, for example. There are no conclusions. No real, firm, established answers.
After Rambam's 13 principles, pretty much everything is up for debate.
With all due respect, Paul, using "Judaism" as meaning "Orthodox Judaism", your statement isn't true. The vast majority of Jewish law is absolutely settled. There is no legitimate view that you can eat a cheeseburger. There is no legitimate view that you can light a fire on Shabbat.
The areas in which there are differences of opinion are few and relatively minor, and even those only exist today because the mechanism by which Jewish law is supposed to be decided authoritatively is currently (and temporarily) broken.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: If that is the case, than I would have to question Judaism as a religion. However, I don't beileve that is true Judaism. I count "true Judaism" as Torah and Ritual. I am agreed that Talmud was a presidence for modern Jewish thought. But, for me the Talmud represents a loss of religious identity during the time of Roman conquest. Of course, I recognize that is partly my Christian beliefs showing. (edit: I'll go so far as to say that is partly my Mormon beliefs about Christian development during the Roman era showing.)
I know starLisa. My quotation placement was bad. My confusion on meaning still stands.
I think you're mistaken about the role of the Talmud in Judaism. And it is far more than ritual. Look... I'm going to start a topic called "Torah 101". This thread has been hijacked for long enough, and I think it's time to return it to the issue it started with. I hope that's okay with you.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
The question is, is it OK with OSC. I don't have a problem with you starting a new thread on the subject.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"If that is the case, than I would have to question Judaism as a religion. However, I don't beileve that is true Judaism. I count "true Judaism" as Torah and Ritual."
*Shrug* Then you've got pre-formed opinions that aren't really accurate. Judaism involves Torah and Ritual, and they are a large part of judaism. But there hasn't been judaism that doesn't involve rabbinic interpretation of the torah for a dang ole long time. Even orthodox judaism is rabbinic.
"With all due respect, Paul, using "Judaism" as meaning "Orthodox Judaism", your statement isn't true"
Of course, I'm not going to accept that statement. Orthodox jews don't have a monopoly on the religion. I know its popular amongst many orthodox jews to think this, but its a stupid statement. Once you cull out the conservative and reform jews, then you'll move onto culling out the orthodox jews who wear their hair wrong. You simply don't LIKE conservative and reform judaism, because they are a threat to your form of the religion.
"The vast majority of Jewish law is absolutely settled."
Many of the laws are settled. But not the theology, and the theology is what is important. And not even all laws are settled.
Laws are different then theology and religious doctrine, and what the rituals should be. And while judaism is a religion based on law, any religion is defined by its rituals, theology, and doctrine. And those are largely open ended questions in judaism, and always have been.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "With all due respect, Paul, using "Judaism" as meaning "Orthodox Judaism", your statement isn't true"
Of course, I'm not going to accept that statement. Orthodox jews don't have a monopoly on the religion. I know its popular amongst many orthodox jews to think this, but its a stupid statement.
Sorry, Paul, but there are red lines, and those movements have crossed them. Even the Conservative movement, which is the most "observant" of all the breakaway movements, permits things that are explicitly forbidden by the Torah, such as the prohibition of Kohanim marrying divorcees and lighting fire on Shabbat.
In any case, if you want to contend that your movements are forms of Judaism, rather than new religions that broke away from Judaism, that's certainly your right. As is mine to disagree.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Once you cull out the conservative and reform jews, then you'll move onto culling out the orthodox jews who wear their hair wrong. You simply don't LIKE conservative and reform judaism, because they are a threat to your form of the religion.
That's childish. They're a threat in the same sense that the Baal worshippers, the Sadducees and the Karaites were in their time. The fact is that God gave us the Torah, and He gave us a task, and while I understand why a lot of American Jews decided to abandon that responsibility, and while I understand even more how creating movements that told them it wasn't really wrong was an unsurprising psychological coping device, I'm going to continue relating only to the Torah that God gave us, and not count the movements that don't even believe He did.
If you don't accept the basic raison d'etre of the Jewish people, then what you have isn't Judaism. It's just Jewish-style.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Real Judaism is far more substantial, and in a way that makes Christianity look almost skin deep itself by comparison. I say this not to step on any Christian toes here, at least no more than you posted what you did to step on Jewish toes.
The problem with this is that it does the same thing in reverse that Occ's post did - compares one particular branch of Judaism with the positive trait (of substance) to an amalgam of Christianity. Both Catholicism and Protestant Reformation theologies (these are the two I know best, I'm not excluding others necessarily) are incredibly deep, in ways not necessarily appreciated by more casual practitioners or many non-practioners.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Sorry, Paul, but there are red lines, and those movements have crossed them. Even the Conservative movement, which is the most "observant" of all the breakaway movements, permits things that are explicitly forbidden by the Torah, such as the prohibition of Kohanim marrying divorcees and lighting fire on Shabbat."
Interesting. I haven't seen any conservative jews lighting a fire in their hearth. The line from the Torah reads "You shall kindle no fire throughout your settlements on the Sabbath day." You know what is NOT kindling a fire? Turning on an electric light, or creating any other spark through electrical usage. Why? Because its a totally different physical and chemical process then kindling a fire.
And here's the really interesting thing: Dating back 2000 years, the prohibition against kindling a fire has been understood differently by different Jews. The REAL prohibition is against work. "You shall do no work on the sabbath." In exodus 35, kindling fire is introduced as an example, although in other places, we're told not to do work. (Repeatedly, actually).
So... when the torah was first given to us, did people cook food on the sabbath, or not? Cooking food is not considered "work" generally speaking, because its not connected to the building of the Mishkan. The prohibition against cooking food on the sabbath came much later, and not all jews followed that prohibition when it was introduced, some saying that as long as the fire was lit before the sabbath, cooking is permitted. Others said no fire may be used.
Basically, what I'm driving at, though admittedly poorly (I'm sick and I just spent 5 hours trying to do math I forget how to do and can't concentrate on because I'm sick) is that even the laws in the torah are sometimes open to interpretation. You've chosen as one of your examples a law that can be obeyed in a variety of ways. Dating back more then 2000 years, that law has been understood to mean that we can do things on the Sabbath that many orthodox jews do not currently believe we can do. If traditional judaism is the only real judaism, then you're not following the laws correctly, either, and aren't really jewish. Do you follow the laws of the talmud? Or the laws of the torah? Do you seethe a kid in its mother's milk? Probably not. But thats not a prohibition against a cheeseburger... we just interpreted it to mean that its a prohibition against a cheeseburger. Several centuries after god told us not to seethe a kid in its mother's milk. (He never told us not to eat beef and dairy together, just goats in the milk of their mother, and in fact then, we're just not allowed to COOK the goat in its mother's milk. So why do you prohibit eating cheeseburgers? Because you've chosen ONE possible interpretation of god's commandment to us, and are following it. That doesn't mean other commandments are invalid. It means you've chosen one because it fulfills your understanding of what the Torah means.
There's a very real argument to be made that jews who have stopped adapting the laws of torah to current life are not following jewish tradition, moreso then jews who actively adapt and reunderstand what we do in light of the torah. After all, thats how the laws of kashrut were developed... a constant process of re-understanding, and re-adapting, what we do, in light of the living tree that is the torah. Along with all the other laws you follow. Too bad you stopped re-examining them, and decided what was good enough 500 years ago is good for today. Judaism never operated that way until recently, so, perhaps, it is you who are breaking with tradition, and not those jews who honestly try to live life by the torah, but do not feel the need to be encumbered by overly strict interpretations that don't have good textual support.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Real Judaism is far more substantial, and in a way that makes Christianity look almost skin deep itself by comparison. I say this not to step on any Christian toes here, at least no more than you posted what you did to step on Jewish toes.
The problem with this is that it does the same thing in reverse that Occ's post did - compares one particular branch of Judaism with the positive trait (of substance) to an amalgam of Christianity. Both Catholicism and Protestant Reformation theologies (these are the two I know best, I'm not excluding others necessarily) are incredibly deep, in ways not necessarily appreciated by more casual practitioners or many non-practioners.
I imagine they are. And I admit to a certain prejudice that might be influencing my estimation of Christianity in general. To me, Christianity is still just a minor Jewish heresy that got out of control. And the only similar heresies that I'm immediately familiar with are so incredibly shallow that I may be guilty of transferring what I know about them to my opinion of Christianity. I'll try not to do that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:Judaism never operated that way until recently, so, perhaps, it is you who are breaking with tradition, and not those jews who honestly try to live life by the torah, but do not feel the need to be encumbered by overly strict interpretations that don't have good textual support.
Do you mean reinterpreting the Torah for modern usage, or do you mean rejecting the Torah so that it doesn't interfer with modernism? I don't have nearly the amount of disgust with the former as I do with the latter. The problem is (and it goes with liberal Christianity just as easily) when some confuse the latter FOR the former. The former might be arguable (such as trying to understand the Creation in relation to Evolution), but the latter is simply agnosticism with a religious nametag.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Karl,
I don't mean to be rude or disrespectful, but I have to say that the first picture that flashed into my mind upon reading the thread title was the scene in "Grease" where the angels were singing "Beauty School Drop-Out."
That is all - carry on.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Sorry, Paul, but there are red lines, and those movements have crossed them. Even the Conservative movement, which is the most "observant" of all the breakaway movements, permits things that are explicitly forbidden by the Torah, such as the prohibition of Kohanim marrying divorcees and lighting fire on Shabbat."
Interesting. I haven't seen any conservative jews lighting a fire in their hearth.
Who said anything about hearths? You do know what an internal combustion engine is, don't you?
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: The line from the Torah reads "You shall kindle no fire throughout your settlements on the Sabbath day." You know what is NOT kindling a fire? Turning on an electric light, or creating any other spark through electrical usage. Why? Because its a totally different physical and chemical process then kindling a fire.
Indeed. But turning on and off electrical devices is not forbidden on Shabbat because of the prohibition of lighting fire. Sorry to disappoint you.
Yeah, when I was growing up, my Conservative teachers also told me that was what it was based on. They told me some outrageous whoppers about Orthodoxy, probably designed to keep us from ever taking an honest look at it, but this was a minor one.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: And here's the really interesting thing: Dating back 2000 years, the prohibition against kindling a fire has been understood differently by different Jews.
No, it hasn't. Unless you count the Karaites, who disposed of the Oral Torah for political reasons and reinterpreted it to mean that you couldn't even have fire burning on Shabbat if it was lit beforehand.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: The REAL prohibition is against work. "You shall do no work on the sabbath." In exodus 35, kindling fire is introduced as an example, although in other places, we're told not to do work. (Repeatedly, actually).
In fact, we're never told anything of the sort. We are told to refrain from "melachah", which is a technical term that does not equate to the English "work".
And since we're not Karaites, and we do respect the entirety of the Torah that God gave us, we use the definition of melachah that God included in the Torah.
Melachah, for those who are interested, is the set of creative activities which find their paradigms in 39 categories of activity that were necessary for the building of the tabernacle in the desert. Lighting a fire is one of these. Weaving is one. Writing is one. Cooking is one.
The 39 principle categories have derivative categories as well. For example, building is a principle category, and it includes a derivative category called "a hammer blow" (makkeh b'patish), which is a final act finishing the building of something. This applies to many types of fixing things that are broken (and conversely breaking things that are not broken).
Such as an electrical circuit. If you know something about the way electricity works, you'll be aware that a "broken circuit" is not merely a metaphor, but an accurate description.
Incandescent lightbulbs have an additional problem, because heating a solid to incandescence is hardly new, and while I can't offhand remember if it's a derivative melachah of cooking or kindling fire (I think it's cooking), it's forbidden on Shabbat in either case.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, Paul, and a little knowledge is really the most the heterodox movements ever teach.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: So... when the torah was first given to us, did people cook food on the sabbath, or not?
Sure people did. We didn't, though, because God said not to.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Cooking food is not considered "work" generally speaking, because its not connected to the building of the Mishkan.
Here is a great site that discusses the 39 melachot. If you check out number 11, you'll see that cooking is certainly one of the melachot, due to the cooking of herbs to make the dyes used in the Mishkan. Incidentally, for those who don't recognize the word "Mishkan" is the Hebrew term for the portable tabernacle we carried around in the desert.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: The prohibition against cooking food on the sabbath came much later, and not all jews followed that prohibition when it was introduced, some saying that as long as the fire was lit before the sabbath, cooking is permitted. Others said no fire may be used.
I understood that this was what you were driving at. But you're mistaken. It was not a late prohibition, but one given with the rest of the Torah. It is not rabbinic in nature, but Sinaitic.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Basically, what I'm driving at, though admittedly poorly (I'm sick and I just spent 5 hours trying to do math I forget how to do and can't concentrate on because I'm sick)
Sorry. I hope you feel better.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: is that even the laws in the torah are sometimes open to interpretation. You've chosen as one of your examples a law that can be obeyed in a variety of ways. Dating back more then 2000 years, that law has been understood to mean that we can do things on the Sabbath that many orthodox jews do not currently believe we can do.
That's untrue. It was never permissible to cook food on Shabbat, except for very sick people who needed cooked food when there was none pre-prepared.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: If traditional judaism is the only real judaism, then you're not following the laws correctly, either, and aren't really jewish.
Paul, do you see what kind of conclusions you reach from faulty premises?
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Do you follow the laws of the talmud? Or the laws of the torah? Do you seethe a kid in its mother's milk? Probably not. But thats not a prohibition against a cheeseburger... we just interpreted it to mean that its a prohibition against a cheeseburger.
Hmm... you should bop on over to the Torah 101 thread. The Written Torah has never been the source of Torah law. The law that God gave us was that we cannot cook the meat of a beheimah (certain types of land animal) in the milk of a beheimah. And that we cannot eat such a cooked mixture. And that we cannot derive benefit from such a cooked mixture. And the Written Torah includes the line about kids and mothers milk three times as a mnemonic for those laws. But the law was never limited to kids and their mothers milk.
Now extending this law to include the meat of a chayah (other land animals, such as deer) and ofe (poultry) was definitely a rabbinic enactment, but we're very specific to differentiate between this rabbinic extension and the original law, which is as I described above.
Paul, we aren't Karaites. We do not learn Torah law from the Written Torah. We never had literal lex talionis, and we never cut off a woman's hand for grabbing a guy between the legs to stop him from attacking her husband. The text of the Written Torah doesn't mean what any Joe Blow might think it means. It means what God told us it means.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Several centuries after god told us not to seethe a kid in its mother's milk. (He never told us not to eat beef and dairy together, just goats in the milk of their mother, and in fact then, we're just not allowed to COOK the goat in its mother's milk.
I can see that the remainder of your post is just additional repetitions of the same mistake.
See, one of the laws in the Torah is that we're not allowed to add new laws and attribute them to God. That's why we're so careful to distinguish between d'Rabbanan (rabbinic) laws and d'Orayta (Sinaitic) laws. Chicken parmesan is a rabbinic prohibition. Veal parmesan is a Torah prohibition.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: There's a very real argument to be made that jews who have stopped adapting the laws of torah to current life are not following jewish tradition, moreso then jews who actively adapt and reunderstand what we do in light of the torah.
Yes, Paul. As I said, I grew up Conservative. I know the whole party line. It doesn't work. We do, in fact, adapt the laws of the Torah to current situations. What the Conservative movement doesn't like is that we don't necessarily do so in a lenient direction. There hasn't been a single divergence by the Conservative movement that hasn't been in the direction of breaking the bounds of some Torah law or another. If they were honest about adapting, you'd expect to see one or two adaptations in the direction of stringency as well. But you never do. It makes their claims a bit suspect.
The fact that their statement of principles (Emet v'Emunah) denies that the Torah (even the Written Torah) was given by God at Sinai pretty much settles it.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: After all, thats how the laws of kashrut were developed... a constant process of re-understanding, and re-adapting, what we do, in light of the living tree that is the torah.
I understand that this may be what you were taught. I'm telling you that you were taught falsely. I was taught that both Conservative and Orthodox Jews held that the Oral Torah was created by human beings, and that the only difference was that those funky old Orthos, for whatever reason, decided to freeze the process back around the year 200 CE, while the modern, liberal, wonderful Conservatives were continuing an age old tradition.
When I found out that they'd lied about Orthodox beliefs in such a self-serving way, I was quite angry. But I was younger then. Now it just makes me sad.
The truth is that Orthodox Judaism has been adapting continuously over the years, and the Conservatives want to dismiss all of that change and start over from a point in the past. And in truth, even that is giving them more credit than is proper. This movement is purely demand-driven. What the congregation wants, the congregation will eventually get. They decided to allow Kohanim to marry divorcees despite the explicit prohibition both in the Written and Oral Torahs, and they did it because it was losing them a lot of big money donors, who just would have skipped on over to the Reform movement if their choice of a mate got balked.
That's not serving God, Paul. That's serving themselves.
But back on the topic of religion...
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shan: Karl,
I don't mean to be rude or disrespectful, but I have to say that the first picture that flashed into my mind upon reading the thread title was the scene in "Grease" where the angels were singing "Beauty School Drop-Out."
quote:Judaism never operated that way until recently, so, perhaps, it is you who are breaking with tradition, and not those jews who honestly try to live life by the torah, but do not feel the need to be encumbered by overly strict interpretations that don't have good textual support.
Do you mean reinterpreting the Torah for modern usage, or do you mean rejecting the Torah so that it doesn't interfer with modernism? I don't have nearly the amount of disgust with the former as I do with the latter. The problem is (and it goes with liberal Christianity just as easily) when some confuse the latter FOR the former. The former might be arguable (such as trying to understand the Creation in relation to Evolution), but the latter is simply agnosticism with a religious nametag.
Occasional, I just want you to be clear that Paul is expressing a view that would have been utterly unrecognizable to any Jew even 200 years ago. It's a modern invention.
The way in which the law gets adapted to current situations is not like understanding creation in relation to evolution. Let me see if I can give you a few examples...
Okay, deaf-mutes. Torah law originally treated deaf-mutes as belonging to a similar category with minors and the mad. Basically, people who are not considered to be competent adults in the eyes of the law. This consideration applied mostly to exemptions from obligations, and not being able to fulfill obligations for those who are considered competant.
Now, for most of history, deaf-mutes have been unable to learn. It's only relatively recently that the development of hearing aids and sign language and the like have changed this.
So we were faced with a question. Is the definition of a cheresh (normally translated as "deaf-mute") someone who cannot hear or speak, or is it someone who cannot learn because he cannot hear or speak?
It's a valid question. And it does involve a situation that is new. But we have principles, and we have a living Torah that was given to use by an omnicient Creator who obviously knew that this situation would arise. And it was ruled, by using the Torah according to the Manufacturer's instructions, that deaf-mutes are only incompetant if they're incompetant. And that it's not determined solely by the ability to hear or speak.
There is also a level of compassion built into the law. For example, if someone takes a chicken to a rabbi because they see something that they're not sure if it's kosher or not, the rabbi has some degree of leeway in the answer he gives. There are lenient positions that are acceptable if there's a serious need, and that might be applied if the person asking the question would otherwise have nothing to eat. Again, this is built into the system.
In today's materialistic world, things are binary. You might think that something is kosher, or it's not. But that's not always how Torah law works.
Another example. If I'm making a pot of beef stew and a bit of milk falls in, what do I do? Well, if the amount is small enough (the ratio is given in our sources), it doesn't matter. The milk is nullified by the much greater quantity of meat.
But suppose I deliberately drop the same amount of milk in, intending to nullify it as above? In that case, the pot of food is no longer kosher.
Anyway, I've gone on long enough. Suffice it to say that it's not just a game that gets played. We follow God's will and His laws in the way He instructed us to. What we don't do is accept every cultural fad that comes along. And that's what movements like the Conservative and Reform object to.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Thanks to everyone who has responded thus far. I appreciate the detail and sincerity of your answers. Returning a bit to the original topic with some follow up questions:
Many of you have stated that there is no conflict between "true" science and "true" religion. It is easy to see how someone can use their religious worldview to inform (for good or ill) their scientific worldview. Do any of you feel that your scientific worldview has influenced, informed, or otherwise altered your religious worldview?
To illustrate the difference: Some people believe in a literal 7-day creation. (Some interpret this in light of a 1 divine day = 1000 human years time scale). Many who so believe approach scientific findings indicating a much older Earth by variously clinging to and over-inflating inherent scientific uncertainty, (e.g. "That's just one interpretation of the facts"), rejecting the experiments (e.g. "Carbon dating is flawed"), or attacking science itself wholesale (e.g. "Scientists make mistakes all the time" or "Science is reversing itself all the time"). In short, where they see a conflict, they put the doubt on the science in light of the "truth" of their religion.
On the other hand, some people believe that science is largely correct about the origins of the Earth and the vast number of millennia needed for life to arrise and evolve to what we see today. For many this causes them to re-assess their religious views. Some question traditional interpretations (e.g. "'7 days' really means '7 periods of time'. We don't know how long they were"), exchange literalness for metaphor, or appeal to the humanity of the source (e.g. "The prophets were imperfect human conduits of divine truth.)
I chose creationism as my topic in the examples because that is widely debated and I've heard all the justifications I've noted and more. Do any of you have any other examples of ways in which your religion causes you to reject any widely-held scientific beliefs? Or ways in which your scientific understanding has moved you to re-interpret your religious understanding?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Do you mean reinterpreting the Torah for modern usage, or do you mean rejecting the Torah so that it doesn't interfer with modernism?"
I mean reinterpreting the torah for modern usage.
Lisa is wrong about conservate and reform judaism when she says " What we don't do is accept every cultural fad that comes along. And that's what movements like the Conservative and Reform object to.". There's an honest, sincere effort to understand the torah and apply it to modern light. Her prejudices are just that... prejudices.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Do any of you feel that your scientific worldview has influenced, informed, or otherwise altered your religious worldview?
It influences it certainly, but mostly in a way to keep me constantly aware that I don't necessarily have a handle on what is Truth.
Let's take human civilization*. From what I can understand from my scriptures, it sure looks like man has been on earth for approximately 6,000 years. Science tells us that human civilization (not to mention humans at all, which I'm mentioning by saying to not mention them at all) as been around for a lot longer than that.
What does this mean to me? Nothing more than I know that my interpretation of scripture doest not agree with the commonly accepted interpretation of the physical evidence in the world. So whenever I'm studying the scriptures and this topic shows up, I'm always wondering if my interpretation is correct, and looking for ways that my understanding might be incomplete. Likewise, whenever I'm studying ancient cultures, I'm always thinking "I wonder if they are really that old..."
To tell you the truth, it's not that big a deal. After all, how much of a difference does it make to me in my life? Not much. It's not a question that deals with how to live a moral, charitable life, which is what I believe the purpose of religion is.
To put it into Mormon nomenclature, it doesn't affect my eternal salvation, so it doesn't really matter.
*I chose not to use your example of the creation of the earth since being LDS, it's not nearly as much of a problem. When I look at the creation story found in the other (LDS) scriptures besides Genesis, it seemps pretty apparent that we haven't been told exactly how long the creation took place.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Just wanted to say that Destineer's explanation of uncertainty and wave-particle duality was pretty cool.
carry on.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Who said anything about hearths? You do know what an internal combustion engine is, don't you?"
Yes, I do. You do know how an internal combustion engine is started, don't you? Its certainly not "kindling." Which is basically my point, here. You've chosen an expansive definition of kindling and fire, and thats fine. But the prohibition on the sabbath is against work. Kindling a fire was part of building the Mishkan, and so considered work. Driving to temple on saturday morning is not work... its the opposite. Its doing what is required to do what the sabbath is there for: worship, study of torah, ritual, and contemplation.
"Indeed. But turning on and off electrical devices is not forbidden on Shabbat because of the prohibition of lighting fire. Sorry to disappoint you."
Before this prohibition came into effect, rabbis were asking physicists whether an electrical spark was fire. When the physicists gave them an answer the rabbi's didn't like, they went off in search of new ways to prohibit turning on an electrical light. I don't consider the sophistry the rabbi's went through in order to ban the use of electrical lights on the sabbth to be any more legitimate use of judaism then you consider reform and conservative rabbi's making decisions on law that contradict the talmud.
That said, clearly electricity cannot be used on the sabbath for certain purposes.
But those purposes are what I dispute the ancient rabbi's have a monopoly on understanding.
"In fact, we're never told anything of the sort. We are told to refrain from "melachah", which is a technical term that does not equate to the English "work".
And since we're not Karaites, and we do respect the entirety of the Torah that God gave us, we use the definition of melachah that God included in the Torah.
Melachah, for those who are interested, is the set of creative activities which find their paradigms in 39 categories of activity that were necessary for the building of the tabernacle in the desert. Lighting a fire is one of these. Weaving is one. Writing is one. Cooking is one.
The 39 principle categories have derivative categories as well. For example, building is a principle category, and it includes a derivative category called "a hammer blow" (makkeh b'patish), which is a final act finishing the building of something. This applies to many types of fixing things that are broken (and conversely breaking things that are not broken).
Such as an electrical circuit. If you know something about the way electricity works, you'll be aware that a "broken circuit" is not merely a metaphor, but an accurate description.
Incandescent lightbulbs have an additional problem, because heating a solid to incandescence is hardly new, and while I can't offhand remember if it's a derivative melachah of cooking or kindling fire (I think it's cooking), it's forbidden on Shabbat in either case.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, Paul, and a little knowledge is really the most the heterodox movements ever teach."
And a little interpretation is also a dangerous thing, and then excluding other interpretations is even more dangerous, because one isolates oneself.
As you say, the prohibition is against doing what is required to build the Mishkan. (Work is a close enough translation that I'll continue to use it). Look at why you argue an electrical circuit can't be used on sabbath... not because the prohibition is in the torah, but because the rabbi's say building includes striking a hammer blow means finishing a work which includes closing an electrical circuit which is prohibited because of the Torah's prohibition against building.
So you've closed off an entire set of activities that can be completed, based on the Torah's prohibition against building.
This is my argument: That to close off the usage of electricity (whether through the prohibition against kindling a fire, or the prohibition against building) is interpretation. If someone interprets the kindling of a fire, or prohibition against building, to mean that the use of electricity is allowed (a ridiculously easy interpretation to make based on the textual evidence), then it is not the orthodox jew's place to decide that the interpretation is not jewish. It might not be judaism as practiced by the orthodox jew, but thats not the same as not being jewish.
"The fact that their statement of principles (Emet v'Emunah) denies that the Torah (even the Written Torah) was given by God at Sinai pretty much settles it."
For someone who complains about a sect of judaism being "lied" about by other sects of judaism, you do a good job of mis-stating what conservative jews believe. Perhaps you should stop being hypocritical?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:To tell you the truth, it's not that big a deal. After all, how much of a difference does it make to me in my life? Not much. It's not a question that deals with how to live a moral, charitable life, which is what I believe the purpose of religion is.
To put it into Mormon nomenclature, it doesn't affect my eternal salvation, so it doesn't really matter.
This is a common view I encounter among religious people. It seems to me to lead to the question, then, is scientific inquiry important at all?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I have a second question today but I'm having difficulty formulating it concisely so please bear with me.
Science knows that it doesn't know everything. Science is continually evolving, refining, and sometimes reversing its previously held notions. While individual scientists sometimes cling to inaccurate or downright wrong notions about the world, the institution as a whole largely moves toward greater, more correct understanding of our world. Science looks at the past with a sort of benevolent amusement at "scientific" beliefs we now know are dead wrong.
My question for the scientifically minded theist is, does your religion allow for new knowledge? I don't mean "new to you". I mean knowledge that your particular sect didn't have before but does now. If it does, are there any examples of this new knowledge invalidating or changing anything your sect once held as "true" in the past? Do you entertain the possibility that your sect might gain new knowledge in the future that might invalidate some currently accepted religious "knowledge"?
Additionally, science arrives at "knowledge" for the most part by common concensus and independant validation. If two scientists disagree on what is true, they devise experiments to determine which, if either of them is correct. If these experiments are to be accepted as valid in the community at large, they must be repeatable with the same results. Any individual scientist with the appropriate resources should be able to perform the same experiment and discover the same facts.
Do you believe that there is any analog to this as it applies to religious knowledge? If you do not, do you believe that the word "knowledge" applies differently to the two fields? How?
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Question for Paul:
(And I'm not being a wise-ass...this time)
I can sort of understand the light-switch as work/hammer_blow/fixing_a_broken_circuit.
But what about transistors? What about hall-effect switches, which do not physically close a circuit or cause a spark (or electron) to jump across a gap? In other words, if I leave my Palm Pilot on all weekend, can I use it on the Sabbath?
(Just checking out the limits)
--Steve
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Better to ask lisa. I think its the purpose, not the activity, that makes something "work."
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Who said anything about hearths? You do know what an internal combustion engine is, don't you?"
Yes, I do. You do know how an internal combustion engine is started, don't you? Its certainly not "kindling." Which is basically my point, here. You've chosen an expansive definition of kindling and fire, and thats fine.
I've "chosen" nothing of the sort, Paul. I understand that it's important to you to label others as observing Judaism according to what feels good to them, because it supports your own choice to do only that which feels good to you. But I assure you that you don't know what you're talking about.
The fact that you don't know how such determinations are arrived at doesn't justify your making erronious claims. I know quite a bit about the Conservative movement, having grown up in a Conservative family, having gone to a Conservative synagogue, having spent 9 years at Camp Ramah in Wisconsin. I almost went to JTS. I know what I'm talking about. You don't have any similar basis for discussing what Orthodox Judaism is or what it does. You are merely parroting the misinformation taught by the Conservative movement.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: But the prohibition on the sabbath is against work. Kindling a fire was part of building the Mishkan, and so considered work. Driving to temple on saturday morning is not work... its the opposite. Its doing what is required to do what the sabbath is there for: worship, study of torah, ritual, and contemplation.
The Torah doesn't bar work on Shabbat. It bars melachah. And that means what God told us it means. Not what you choose to consider it as meaning.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Indeed. But turning on and off electrical devices is not forbidden on Shabbat because of the prohibition of lighting fire. Sorry to disappoint you."
Before this prohibition came into effect, rabbis were asking physicists whether an electrical spark was fire.
Well, of course they were. Most of the applications of electricity were very similar to those of fire. Cooking, lighting. It was a matter of due diligence to go to the experts to find out whether the same mechanism was in use. That's the first thing a responsible Jew would do.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: When the physicists gave them an answer the rabbi's didn't like, they went off in search of new ways to prohibit turning on an electrical light.
That libel is the sort of thing that's taught in the Conservative movement. But it's utterly untrue. In fact, major efforts have been made to come up with ways around the prohibitions for emergency purposes. The grama switch was a particularly elegant solution. It gets around the problem of direct makkeh b'patish, leaving only the rabbinic prohibition of grama, which can be applied more leniently.
For those to whom this is all gibberish, a brief explanation. I already explained the issue of makkeh b'patish and why it makes flipping an electrical switch on Shabbat a prohibited act.
Since, contrary to Paul's misconceptions, we are interested in finding ways to make life easier when possible, and since we know that loopholes must be legitimate, since God is omniscient and could hardly have made loopholes possible inadvertantly, some rabbis/scientists looked into the issue of switches.
What they came up with was the grama switch (pronounced GRAH-mah). Grama means causing something to happen indirectly. And here's how the grama switch works.
Inside the switch, a circuit is set up that is constantly opening and closing. Automatically. You can do that; set something up before Shabbat and let it go by itself on Shabbat. Now when you press the button on a grama switch, it moves a physical blockage in the way of the inner switch closing. It doesn't break the circuit, but the next time the circuit tries to close, it is prevented. What you did when you pressed the button was the cause of the circuit not being completed, rather than directly breaking it.
It's a cool solution, and it's an example of the energy put into finding useful ways to make things better. A Conservative solution would have been to just say, "Hell, if you need to use the phone, use the phone!"
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: I don't consider the sophistry the rabbi's went through in order to ban the use of electrical lights on the sabbth to be any more legitimate use of judaism then you consider reform and conservative rabbi's making decisions on law that contradict the talmud.
You call it sophistry, but I contend that you lack the requisite knowledge of the field to make that judgement. Also, I gave examples of laws that the Conservative movement dumped that are explicit in the Torah itself, and not only in the Talmud.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: That said, clearly electricity cannot be used on the sabbath for certain purposes.
Why not? Once you throw away the Torah system, any decisions you make are purely subjective.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, Paul, and a little knowledge is really the most the heterodox movements ever teach."
And a little interpretation is also a dangerous thing, and then excluding other interpretations is even more dangerous, because one isolates oneself.
Right. We probably should have embraced the Hellenists and the Sadducees and the Karaites. Tell me, Paul, do you celebrate Hanukkah? Perhaps you should consider whose side you would have been on.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: As you say, the prohibition is against doing what is required to build the Mishkan. (Work is a close enough translation that I'll continue to use it).
I didn't say that. I said that they are related to those categories. Surely going to the bathroom was a necessary activity during the building of the Mishkan, but it's not one of the 39 categories. The source of the 39 categories and the fact that they can be related to the work done for the Mishkan is in the Oral Torah.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Look at why you argue an electrical circuit can't be used on sabbath... not because the prohibition is in the torah, but because the rabbi's say building includes striking a hammer blow means finishing a work which includes closing an electrical circuit which is prohibited because of the Torah's prohibition against building.
No. Makkeh b'patish is forbidden from the Torah. But again, we aren't Karaites. The Torah is not limited to the Pentateuch.
God gave us principles and data, and a system by which to apply them. That is Torah.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: So you've closed off an entire set of activities that can be completed, based on the Torah's prohibition against building.
No, those activities are d'Orayta (Torah) prohibitions. Not rabbinic extensions.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: This is my argument: That to close off the usage of electricity (whether through the prohibition against kindling a fire, or the prohibition against building) is interpretation.
Yeah, Paul, I get that. I just don't understand why you consider yourself able to make that claim. I mean, I wouldn't dream of arguing something in the field of medicine. Particularly not with a physician. I have more self-respect than to argue about physics with my friend the brilliant physicist. I can understand (barely) why you might want to make claims about what the Conservative movement does. But man, you are so dead wrong about Orthodox Judaism.
You think things are in the text of the Torah that aren't there. You think things are rabbinic extensions of the law that are Torah law.
You keep talking about the Mishkan, but surely you realize that the same rabbis who pointed to the relation between the Mishkan and Shabbat also say that makkeh b'patish is a Torah prohibition. So essentially, you're picking and choosing. Doing the very thing that you're falsely claiming we do.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: If someone interprets the kindling of a fire, or prohibition against building, to mean that the use of electricity is allowed (a ridiculously easy interpretation to make based on the textual evidence), then it is not the orthodox jew's place to decide that the interpretation is not jewish.
Paul. It is the role of those who stand in the line of transmission of the Torah from Sinai onwards to use the Torah as God told us to. Your movement denies that the Revelation at Sinai even happened. Please spare me the adolescent rebellion stuff. It is only the Orthodox Jew's place to determine what views are a part of Normative Judaism and what views are not.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "The fact that their statement of principles (Emet v'Emunah) denies that the Torah (even the Written Torah) was given by God at Sinai pretty much settles it."
For someone who complains about a sect of judaism being "lied" about by other sects of judaism, you do a good job of mis-stating what conservative jews believe. Perhaps you should stop being hypocritical?
Hey, I spent a whole Shabbat last year talking with Rabbi Neil Gilman of the Jewish Theological Seminary. You know the Conservative rabbinical school. Poor guy... he's truly lost, and incredibly depressed about it. The Conservative movement does not accept literal Torah miSinai, and perhaps if you read the literature of your own religion, you'd be aware of that.
As to what individual Conservative Jews believe, well, the vast majority of self-identifying Conservative Jews do not keep kosher and do not keep Shabbat, and almost none of them keep the laws of family purity. Are you sure you want to define your movement on the basis of the rank and file?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: My question for the scientifically minded theist is, does your religion allow for new knowledge? I don't mean "new to you". I mean knowledge that your particular sect didn't have before but does now. If it does, are there any examples of this new knowledge invalidating or changing anything your sect once held as "true" in the past? Do you entertain the possibility that your sect might gain new knowledge in the future that might invalidate some currently accepted religious "knowledge"?
While I object to the term "sect", I'll assume that you didn't mean it in an offensive way.
Yes, in Judaism, this is possible. In some areas. For example, smoking was not prohibited a hundred years ago. Today, it is forbidden to start smoking (according to all authorities), and an obligation to quit according to many. This is due to discoveries in the field of medicine.
But it doesn't go all that far beyond that kind of thing. Deaf-mutes were treated one way in the past because of the limitations they had learning. Things have changed now, and they are treated differently in Jewish law.
But the principles behind each of these remain the same.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ssywak: Question for Paul:
(And I'm not being a wise-ass...this time)
I can sort of understand the light-switch as work/hammer_blow/fixing_a_broken_circuit.
But what about transistors? What about hall-effect switches, which do not physically close a circuit or cause a spark (or electron) to jump across a gap? In other words, if I leave my Palm Pilot on all weekend, can I use it on the Sabbath?
(Just checking out the limits)
--Steve
You can't use it. And actually, even with transistors, closing a circuit is a reality. Something makes electrons flow or not flow, after all, right?
Now... if you leave it on all weekend and it's got a wireless connection and is constantly updating with information that you can see on the screen without you acting on it in any way, there's nothing to stop you from looking at the screen.
In theory (in theory only), you can leave the television on all day so that you can watch it on Shabbat. We don't do it in practice, because it's considered improper, but it isn't actually forbidden.
During the first Gulf War, I was living in Jerusalem. We needed to be able to hear the incoming missile alerts so that we could know when to put our gas masks on and when we could take them off. So the rabbis ruled publically that everyone had to leave a radio on in the house for the entirety of Shabbat. There was one radio station that broadcast dead air the entire day, except for during incoming missiles. So I went to sleep with a little bit of white noise in my ear, and woke up in the middle of the night when Saddam shot at us again.
quote: From the book From Our Sealed Rooms: Friday, January 25, 1991 As a service to the religious community, the Israel Broadcast Authority is keeping one radio station silent except in cases of emergency, when it will start broadcasting. What a new concept in Judaism--Shabbat radio!
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:While I object to the term "sect", I'll assume that you didn't mean it in an offensive way.
I certainly didn't mean it offensively. I guess I could have said "denomination" but I don't think that's precisely the word I wanted. Does anyone else take offense at the word "sect"?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I know now why Jesus' movement was popular in its day. He was advocating then (to the Pharisees, who are the fathers of the current rabbinic tradition) the same things that Paul is saying now. In fact if you take out the "Jesus is God" issue, you end up with about where Paul Goldner is.
AJ
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Oh, he's gonna hate that. But it's true. Among the first changes that took place in the early Church were mixed gender prayers and a de-emphasis on ritual and law.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Well I believe Jesus wasn't the only "reformer" of the jewish faith around at the time either. He just ended up being the most widely known, because of the whole "God" thing. But being raised conservative Christian, you can't read the new testament without getting "scribes, pharisees, hypocrites" ingrained into you, even if it was a poetic device of the author and nothing more.
AJ
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I don't think it was just a poetic device. I think it really indicated a distaste for the intricacies of Torah law and a desire to chuck it all and be more immediately responsive to what people wanted.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
starLisa, I believe that the sentiment was there in Jesus' words, however the repetitive nature of the quotation in Matthew 23 definitely seems to be somewhat poetic as well.
Sure, that's true. It just sounded as though you were labeling it as only poetic. Every charismatic leader I've ever heard of had set phrases that were used over and over. Catchphrases, I suppose you could call them.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Actually, I don't believe he ever existed. I think he's a fictional character; an amalgam of several messianic figures we know about from around that time.
We know of a Yeshua the Notzri who lived about a hundred years before the character of JC, and he had 5 disciples, some of whom had names similar to some of the 12. Notzri didn't mean someone from Nazareth, though. There's no evidence that there was ever a city called Nazareth until Queen Helene dropped by to find historical sites from the Christian scriptures.
No Orthodox Jews consider him a prophet. Not one. Those who think he existed consider him to have been either a bad person or a person who tried to be good in the wrong ways.
We don't even consider him to have been a knowledgeable teacher, let alone a prophet.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Sort of like Paul. Paul here, not Saul/Paul. Some people just don't want to be constrained by the law, so they rebel. And since they don't want to feel guilty, they construct a framework in which the law is guilty and they aren't.
Come to think of it, Saul/Paul fits that as well.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Something tells me starLisa has never read the New Testament; although read plenty of people's opinions of it, including popular secterian interpretations. Why do I think that? Because, just like she said about my understanding of Torah as less than stellar, I think her understanding of Christianity is surface.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I am so glad that I'm not a member of a Judeo-Christian sect. Y'all crazy. Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Ok, and starlisa and bannoj have no clue about what I'm talking, which probably means I'm not clearly making my point (though I've given up on lisa. Saw too much of her on ornery, and then the terrorism thread, to give much credence to the possibility she has an open mind. Thats probably offensive, but so be it).
My point isn't that there should be a de-emphasis on law and ritual. My point is that simply because one interpretation of the law became dominant in the years preceeding and following jesus's life, does not mean its the only possible interpretation. Reform and conservative judaism try to understand ritual, and the law, through the torah (both oral and written), and have come to different interpretations then whichever orthodox sect Lisa belongs to.
The fact lisa claims that hers is the only legitimate sect DOES NOT MAKE THIS TRUE. In fact, it probably makes her wrong, since the judaic tradition has ALWAYS questioned the text, and tried to understand current practices in light of the torah.
Lisa's claim that conservative and reform jews have never interpreted torah in a strict fashion is downright false. There are literally hundreds of thousands of american jews who stay in reform or conservative congregations all their lives, and as they get older, interpret the law to mean that they should do more then they did as children within their family context.
Law and ritual are IMPORTANT. But the orthodox jews do not have a monopoly on what the correct laws and rituals are. They've stagnated. Reform and conservative movements brought some much needed life to jewish debate. Lisa's statement that reform and conservative jews are as dangerous as baal worshippers is simply ludicrous.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Sort of like Paul. Paul here, not Saul/Paul. Some people just don't want to be constrained by the law, so they rebel. And since they don't want to feel guilty, they construct a framework in which the law is guilty and they aren't."
It doesn't matter to me, personally, either way. I think religion is dumb as nails, regardless of the religion. I'm not going to feel guilty regardless of whether I eat a cheeseburger, drive a car on the sabbth, or whatever. I'm not going to be restrained by Judaic law no matter who is doing the interpreting. So your statement about my motivations is wrong. Kindly don't speculate on my motivations again.
But its not dumb as nails to a lot of people I know who are conservative or reform, who do their utmost to understand the law god gave us... and don't think orthodox jews are even remotely correct in interpreting that law, because in their view, the law as interpreted by the orthodox community distances us from god, rather then drawing us nearer to understanding god.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Something tells me starLisa has never read the New Testament; although read plenty of people's opinions of it, including popular secterian interpretations. Why do I think that? Because, just like she said about my understanding of Torah as less than stellar, I think her understanding of Christianity is surface.
I think you'd be surprised. When I went off to college, I decided to look into it. It wasn't that I had any reason to think there was anything to Christianity. But you know, there are a lot of y'all. And I certainly wasn't going to hear anything positive about it in school or at home.
It's interesting. One of the things that sharpened my interest in Judaism was this professor I had for Jewish History from Antiquity. He was so offensive, with his JEDP sources and all, that I felt compelled to argue with him. And since I didn't want to make a fool out of myself (and on the off chance that he had a point), I spent a lot of time in libraries boning up on the material.
Something similar happened with Christianity. Every spring when I was in college, a group calling itself Jews for Jesus [sic] showed up trying to convert Jews. Washington University in St. Louis had about 5000 undergrads, about 2000 of whom were Jewish. If the J4J were mice, we were a big pile of cheese.
I spent a lot of time doing battle with them. I remember once, the Hillel House did a "brown bag lunch" with a discussion on the topic of "The Jews' Rejection of Jesus". I nearly failed a Chem exam that evening.
The J4J showed up to heckle, which they did in the back. At the end, a few of us stuck around to argue. All of them, I mean, but a few of us Jewish types. After about an hour, all of our people had left except for me and this guy who'd gone to Wash U and then went to Israel to learn in a yeshiva (seminary). He was just back visiting.
Two hours later, he begged off as well. The J4Jers... well, there were 7 or 8 of them, as I recall, and they played it tag team. Two or 3 of them in the room at any given time, trading off to stay fresh, and to force us to redo points we'd already covered.
The thing was, not one of us had throught to bring a book. Not a Bible to be found. Not them and not us. So we were doing this all from memory.
I'll never forget one particular half-hour stretch when they were throwing quotes from Paul at me, and I was batting them down with quotes from the Gospels. Ah, those sweet college days...
Anyway, it doesn't pay to assume, Occasional.
Mind you, I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with Christianity if it didn't claim to be coming out of Judaism (to say nothing of "fulfilling" it). There are very few things more horrifying to the human psyche than a near duplicate of ones own self that has grown malignant and deadly. You must understand that that's what Christianity has been to us.
And just like Paul's Conservative Movement, it never met any of the criteria from within. In Paul's case, it substituted numbers. They figure that if they have a lot of members, it doesn't matter whether they ever made their case. In the case of Christianity, pretty much the same thing was done, but they had more than just numbers. They had a lot of swords as well.
Swords can be very convincing, you know. But we're a stiffnecked people. For good and for ill. They just weren't convincing enough.
Just to reiterate, never assume that just because someone disagrees, they must not know enough. I drew that conclusion about Paul because I was Conservative and I know a ton of Conservative Jews, all of whom have been maleducated as Paul has been. The quotes I posted... I can virtually guarantee you that Paul had never heard that stuff before. And that's not his fault. It's the fault of his (mis)leaders.
You don't know me well enough to draw such conclusions about me.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Sort of like Paul. Paul here, not Saul/Paul. Some people just don't want to be constrained by the law, so they rebel. And since they don't want to feel guilty, they construct a framework in which the law is guilty and they aren't."
It doesn't matter to me, personally, either way. I think religion is dumb as nails, regardless of the religion. I'm not going to feel guilty regardless of whether I eat a cheeseburger, drive a car on the sabbth, or whatever. I'm not going to be restrained by Judaic law no matter who is doing the interpreting. So your statement about my motivations is wrong. Kindly don't speculate on my motivations again.
Thanks, Paul. I couldn't have said it better myself.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In the case of Christianity, pretty much the same thing was done, but they had more than just numbers. They had a lot of swords as well.
In the beginning, they weren't the ones with the swords. And the swords didn't work on them, then.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Thanks, Paul. I couldn't have said it better myself."
You probably couldn't have, but that doesn't mean you understand. I don't think you do.
" I drew that conclusion about Paul because I was Conservative and I know a ton of Conservative Jews, all of whom have been maleducated as Paul has been. The quotes I posted... I can virtually guarantee you that Paul had never heard that stuff before. And that's not his fault. It's the fault of his (mis)leaders."
Wrong on all counts. I wasn't raised in a conservative home, I was raised in a non-religious home that became reform, and as of may my mother is an ordained rabbi. And I've seen almost all the quotes you've posted.
And, like you, I may have been misled by my teachers. My teachers, however, are the actual texts and my own brain, rather then teachers. Whats your excuse for not having a clue on what conservative judaism is?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I'm seriously considering changing the thread title to more appropriately describe the current conversation, but all the good titles I can come up with are really snarky. I'm not sure I want to be as snarky publicly as you guys are making me feel.
Possible new titles:
"Condescension Smackdown 2005" "Torah Wars" "I Know Your Religion Better Than You Do"
Any suggestions?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I really liked this thread at the first, but sadly
quote:Let me add here a request that we all please keep this discussion (if there is one) civil. Let people express their beliefs without ridicule.
was too much for some people.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:In the case of Christianity, pretty much the same thing was done, but they had more than just numbers. They had a lot of swords as well.
In the beginning, they weren't the ones with the swords. And the swords didn't work on them, then.
You do realize that they were persecuted in the beginning, not as Christians, but as a troublesome group of Jews. Right?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: And, like you, I may have been misled by my teachers. My teachers, however, are the actual texts and my own brain, rather then teachers. Whats your excuse for not having a clue on what conservative judaism is?
How can you say that I don't have a clue about what the Conservative movement is when I say they don't believe in the revelation at Sinai, and you do, and then I bring actual written proof that you were wrong?
Is this an alternate reality kind of thing?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I apologize, mr_porteiro_head. I would have been fine had Paul not first started making claims about Judaism.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, God forbid someone make claims about Judaism. Literally. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
This orthodox/reform argument in Judaic thought actually has a lot of parallels between the fundamentalist/liberal argument in modern Christian thought. In fact some of them almost feel "fill in the blank" and you could swap it to the other religion.
AJ
P.S. Tom... I got a Chick Tract from my Uncle in the mail yesterday. I'm saving it for your file.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Any grandma letters recently Banna? It's been a while since I've heard you mention getting any, but I could have just been in the wrong threads or something.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Yeah I've been getting them. Just coping better. And she hasn't been writing it out herself, just mostly underlining the inserts, which are getting increasingly acerbic.
AJ (the last insert from her, was a flyer on "apostates are going to hell") (it originated from these lovely folks: http://www.swrc.com/subscriptions/po/ )
[ September 20, 2005, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Yeah, God forbid someone make claims about Judaism. Literally.
Oh, stop. I mean that he was making claims about Judaism when he was only talking within the context of a breakaway movement that's barely a century old. If he wants to talk about his movement, fine. But since that movement has a track record of lying to its members about the Judaism it broke away from, it'd be better if he didn't make claims about that.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
That's too bad Banna--I hoped that she was letting up a bit. Glad to hear that you're handling it better though.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
How many times in the last few weeks have I been told that the God I worship is fundamentally different from the God of mainstream Christianity? One more time.![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
but you have asserted something as being essentially self-evidently true, which I think is not. The fact that many people believe these theories do not require a divine hand does not mean that they do not. Frankly, these things are a big part of why I still do believe in a divine creator. (I don't think I'm misreading your intention here. I realize you are not asserting that they do require the nonexistence of God. I think I understand where you are coming from and simply disagree with it.) I don't think we can convince each other on this one, but I simply want to move the line as it were . . . I think scientific theists disagree with you from further back than you realize.