tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337887555862662350.post7775948679416878946..comments2024-01-18T07:59:31.728-08:00Comments on The Second Son: Search Judaism – A Critique: Part Two (III)G*3http://www.blogger.com/profile/06104739087560005056noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337887555862662350.post-48364392198898586142010-01-20T09:16:57.244-08:002010-01-20T09:16:57.244-08:00Thank you.
I've never been on a debate team. ...Thank you.<br /><br />I've never been on a debate team. I just have a liking for logical consistency and penchant for precision that tends towards the pedantic. (And I like alliteration.)G*3https://www.blogger.com/profile/06104739087560005056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337887555862662350.post-26524024918470455272010-01-20T09:05:24.658-08:002010-01-20T09:05:24.658-08:00G*3, This post as well as your response to shalmo ...G*3, This post as well as your response to shalmo (among other blogs I have seen you post on) is fantastic. I really appreciate your ability to articulate your position. It is very presise and convincing....ever on a debate team? (dont all yeshivas have debate teams? :)ksil lo yavinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337887555862662350.post-4367339738443038182010-01-20T08:47:40.414-08:002010-01-20T08:47:40.414-08:00I would like consistency. And I would like to see...I would like consistency. And I would like to see the religious "why" questions be legitimate and get answered. But, I like truth more. <br /><br />Besides which, there's no such thing as "Dawkins science." Science is science; it's the use of experimental method. There is just an accompanying worldview that either recognizes this as the one best method we have to gain knowledge of the universe, or a worldview that also admits faith/tradition/transcendent experience/whatever. The former worldview far precedes Dawkins et al.JewishGadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03531540800635608198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337887555862662350.post-90431312721561879972010-01-20T08:32:03.671-08:002010-01-20T08:32:03.671-08:00JG
> The one you are responding to here is so b...JG<br />> The one you are responding to here is so bizarre it's almost hard to believe someone wrote it.<br /><br />To be fair, he didn’t actually articulate this argument. It was just implied by the section title and the quote he used. Pretty clearly implied, but still…<br /><br />Shalmo<br />> Both books address the how science has now reached a conundrum where its impossible to avoid the question of why the universe is made just right to support life-forms.<br /><br />It’s not. To use Douglas Adam’s example, imagine a sentient puddle looking around and marveling at how well the depression it sits in is molded to its form. We evolved to fit the conditions that exist, not the other way around.<br /><br />> More to the point you use the word "science" too generally without defining what you mean.<br /><br />“Science” is the pursuit of knowledge using scientific principles. If you could point out where I use the term “too generally” I’d be grateful for the chance to correct it.<br /><br />> Until the 17th century when ideas from the muslim world instigated the scientific revolution in Europe<br /><br />That’s a gross oversimplification. The golden age of discovery in the Islamic world ended in the 1200s when fundamentalist clerics rose to power.<br /><br />> the question of God and science being seperate was not even considered… And in all this science God was still part of the equation.<br /><br />So? Through the middle ages, a geocentric universe and Aristotelian physics were also part of science, and were not questioned – in fact, those that did question these principles were often persecuted. Science moved on. <br /><br />> So the idea that science still has to prove God, much less that God is not a part of science is in itself a relatively new idea.<br /><br />So are electric lights. What’s your point?<br /><br />> Take chinese medicine. Many of the practices associated with it such as conceptions of chi and so forth do not match any known empirical methods. And yet chinese medicine has been known to cure ailments western empirical based techniques could not.<br /><br />No. Just no. “Chinese medicine” is folk medicine. Chi has never been shown to exist. Many folk medicines have effective therapies that use herbs. The herbs have the same active ingredients found in modern pharmaceuticals. The difference is that there is no way to determine the dose when using the raw plants, as opposed to extracting the active ingredient and turning them into pills. Other parts of Chinese medicine, such as acupuncture, gain their efficacy through the placebo effect and regression to the mean.<br /><br />> Humans cannot put their faith in malleable values. <br /><br />Isn’t it fortunate then that science doesn’t operate on faith.<br /><br />> Humans need consistency.<br /><br />Humans want consistency. Want it very strongly. So what? I already addressed why an illusion of consistency doesn’t equal objective truth in the last post.<br /><br />> Who are we? Why are we here? What is our reason for existing? Where do we come from? Where are we headed?<br />These are not pseudo-questions. These are geniune questions that must be answered. Science does not answer them. But religion and philosophy very much do.<br /><br />First, I don’t know that they “must” be answered. We would like answers. Second, the answers may well be that there is no “reason” for our existence, that we come from chance encounters of molecules and are headed for oblivion. Third, that religion has answers doesn’t mean those answers are objectively true. No answer is better than a wrong answer, for all that the false certainty of religion is comforting. And fourth, philosophy, not religion, is best equipped to answer these questions. Religion’s answer to everything is, “God did it.”G*3https://www.blogger.com/profile/06104739087560005056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337887555862662350.post-38927497514489118392010-01-20T06:07:41.690-08:002010-01-20T06:07:41.690-08:00Finally you seem to already have addressed that sc...Finally you seem to already have addressed that science itself is indeed pretty malleable. And there is the problem right there. Humans cannot put their faith in malleable values. Humans need consistency. <br /><br />Who are we? Why are we here? What is our reason for existing? Where do we come from? Where are we headed?<br /><br />These are not pseudo-questions. These are geniune questions that must be answered. Science does not answer them. But religion and philosophy very much do.<br /><br />Quote: "I would love to know the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything."<br /><br />case in point!Shalmonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337887555862662350.post-56930348495899758412010-01-20T05:44:19.984-08:002010-01-20T05:44:19.984-08:00There are plenty of scientists in the world who be...There are plenty of scientists in the world who believe the evidence for God from science is astronomical.<br /><br />-"The Language of God" written by a believer<br />-"The Goldilocks Enigma" written by a disbeliever<br /><br />Both books address the how science has now reached a conundrum where its impossible to avoid the question of why the universe is made just right to support life-forms. Intelligent design no longer comes of as pseudo-science, rather its seems militant atheists are avoiding the questions brought from the other side. And science is all about answering questions.<br /><br />More to the point you use the word "science" too generally without defining what you mean. Your claim that science still has to prove God would only work if your science being described from a Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens perspective.<br /><br />Until the 17th century when ideas from the muslim world instigated the scientific revolution in Europe, the question of God and science being seperate was not even considered. "Newtonian synthesis" where Newton brought heaven and earth under a common physical microscope remained the leading scientific paradigm all the way from the Renaissance to the 19th century. And in all this science God was still part of the equation.<br /><br />So the idea that science still has to prove God, much less that God is not a part of science is in itself a relatively new idea. And nor is it something that even enjoys support in all western academia.<br /><br />And that is the crux right there. Even if you could make the argument that western science has no room for God, you miss the mark that not all of science is western science. <br /><br />Of course you may now take the approach that anything that is not part of western science is wrong. But consider this. Take chinese medicine. Many of the practices associated with it such as conceptions of chi and so forth do not match any known empirical methods. And yet chinese medicine has been known to cure ailments western empirical based techniques could not. Which at minimum would show that the naturalistic/empiricism alone paradigm that defines western science is not the only paradigm we must consider for ascertaining truth.Shalmonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6337887555862662350.post-84010905913799376242010-01-20T00:14:13.950-08:002010-01-20T00:14:13.950-08:00I've enjoyed watching you succinctly and clear...I've enjoyed watching you succinctly and clearly debunk these arguments. The one you are responding to here is so bizarre it's almost hard to believe someone wrote it.<br /><br />Of course, there's also the question of whether or not science could ever "discover that God exists," given that most definitions of and claims about God are designed to be totally untestable, unverifiable, and with no truth conditions. So the most the argument could claim is, maybe at some point in the future science will reach some problem for which it cannot even imagine any natural solution, and that will make scientists go, "it must be something supernatural." And on that note: Yeah. Right. People keep bringing this kind of argument from ignorance in favor of supernaturalism for all kinds of things. For example, moral behavior--but we have pretty good ideas how that works. They bring it up for religious impulses--but we're learning more and have testable theories explaining that as well. Naturalism has a darn better explanatory track record so far than supernaturalism, in short. It's a pretty safe bet.JewishGadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03531540800635608198noreply@blogger.com