SharaChana,

Teaching "Intelligent Design" will lead to Christianity just as much as Judaism or Islam. There are no theological problems with the "theory". I find some scientific problems with it. But if they had the benefit of our tradition, I believe they could come close to a scientifically viable theory.

While it's a Christian project, that doesn't make it bad. At this level they are monotheistic and they are using the same source material we have except without the Oral Tradition (they miss a lot this way).

So I find no problem with it theologically but scientifically it's iffy.

Very nice, Moshe. I like that presentation very much. Neat!

quote:

Originally posted by MosheYisraeli:
David, Rob, Rosemary,
We are having issues of nomenclature here. First of all, "Intelligent Design" is a flegling theory. But "intelligent design" is also a concept. Oftentimes people are talking about the concept and others assume they are talking about the theory.
The theory, at this point, is iffy. There are some problems with the premises of the theory although its promulgators are well meaning. The concept, on the other hand, is very much vibrant and I think ultimately it is the one we will end up "proving".

As for faith; the Jew's faith is different from the faith of a goy. The faith of a goy hopes for things unseen and has an element of uncertaintly to it. A Jew's faith is different in that a Jewish neshama already knows what to believe because the Kadosh Baruch Hu imprinted it. So it already knows. To a Jew faith is the process of bringing out that knowledge.
So is faith logical? Absolutely! Can reality be proven? Not in our current paradigm because we are "veiled", so to speak. We don't have the tools to establish "proof".

" Real education must ultimately be limited to one who insists on knowing; the rest is sheep herding" Ezra Pound.

That is, real education does not follow the teapot theory of education: Just pour in.

This fits with what you are saying, Moshe. It is the underneath thinking that counts, not some xian iteration and mindless absorbtion (how authoritarian and arrogant or pathetically broken and submissive to what should not rule!) of credal and dogmatic assertions, etc.

quote:

Teaching "Intelligent Design

Yes, true, but not always. A failing paradigm creates a stimulus for the innovators to find an effective one. The old adherents of current paradigms typically hang on till their death, ever intransigent and hanging on to their motivating reinforcements, trapped by their conditioning. But bit by bit, like a snowball, a more effective paradigm may win out, starting with the open minded and novices. It depend, of course. There are many forces at play, many variables, in complex, multi factorial situations. As A N Whitehead noted in "Adventures of Ideas", ideas may just have to wait till their time has come, relative to the opposing forces. This could take a very long time, eg, centuries and come out from the "underground" of ideas present - never quite vanquished despite the attempts of those who would have their paradigm win out (and power is very mighty so the previous winners can have a lot of clout).

quote:

That's why the consesus almost always rules against the paradigm shifts.

Rosemary,

We are probably in agreement but talking past each other. Whenever the consensus concurs with the paradigm shift, it's no longer a paradigm shift. It becomes mundane. So by my definition, the paradigm shift stops shifting when the critical mass of acceptance has been achieved within the consensus.

You are saying the same thing but you see only the shift of ideas, not the shift of consensus. In my view consensus almost always rules against the paradigm shift of ideas. The moment the consensus concurs with the shift, the shift ceases.

So an innovator shifts the idea paradigm, then consensus resists that paradigm. And, as you noted, that generation will go to its grave holding on to the old paradigm. The younger generation, which is flexible, will have an easier time embracing the new paradigm and a generation later the shift is completed. Sometimes the shift happens very quickly. World War II caused some major paradigm shifts in social, economic, religious and politics issues in the world in a very short period of time.

The Lubavitch are a good example of a bunch which was considered rebels during its day. The acrimony between the Hassidim and Mitnagdim was quite heated until the "Enlightenment" came along when the reformist movement was so pathetic that the Hassidim and Mitnagdim recognized correctly that their rivalry was silly. Today, the Lubavitch have grown in numbers and influence to a point where they define Jewish orthodoxy. Founders of the Lubavitch movement would be shocked at how their movement has basically eclipsed everything else in Jewish orthodoxy. Now that's a paradigm shift that took a few generations.

[quote]The moment the consensus concurs with the shift, the shift ceases.

I think you are just confusing the issue unnecessarily. Your wording, and our agreement, would be clearer if you said things mor specifically, like innovator of paradigm b; innovator of paradigm c, etc . Me, I was just saying the simple thing, talking of the birth of one new paradigm. Sure, new paradigms are on the boil all the time. The innovator of one paradigm, if he or she lives to see it become the dominant paradigm, then becomes a die hard of the newly winning paradigm.

So I think we do basically agree on what is going on re paradigmatic change. Some people just don't get it at all.

quote:

He concludes by saying that every Jewish person is required to contemplate the heavens and their bodies, in order to enhance his own belief in G-d.

I have no problem with the quote above, David. Note the word "enhance".

Maimonides is very special of course, but he is not the only "fish" in the sea. Focussing solely on him means one can't see the forest for the tree.

quote:

Originally posted by Rosemary:

quote:

He concludes by saying that every Jewish person is required to contemplate the heavens and their bodies, in order to enhance his own belief in G-d.

I have no problem with the quote above, David. Note the word "enhance".

Maimonides is very special of course, but he is not the only "fish" in the sea. Focussing solely on him means one can't see the forest for the tree.

Rosemary, Shalom!

Maimonides, if I am not mistaken, was only quoting words from the prophets (neviim). I would think that if a prophet of Israel said these things, he would have known what he was talking about. The universe is a good focal point in helping us derive at, or come to, a rationalized consensus about G-d.

Moshe, you wrote: "Today, the Lubavitch have grown in numbers and influence to a point where they define Jewish orthodoxy."

I think this is basically true about the Lubavitch in America. It is less true about the Lubavitch in Israel. There are just too many vying Orthodox groups.

David

David,
You are correct about the Lubavitch being "insignificant" in Israel. However, in the galut they are basically becoming the only game that counts in Judaism of any brand. Fifty years from now they will eclipse everything. Indeed some traditional orthodox communities are shrinking.

Most of the baale tshuva are returning through the Lubavitch. They make aliyah and continue to have a loyalty or sympathy with them even in Israel. They teach their children etc. So Lubavitch is here to stay and it's also very adaptable. Even though many are messianists a la Schneerson, a few more years from now, they will have adapted to the reality of Rebbe not being Moshiach.

Shalom Alex. I am giving a final input into our discussions re "The Argument from Design". Then I shall have to leave it. I have pressing other things to attend to. My responses to what you wrote are in blue.

quote:

when pressed about this issue, she later


I have stated in forums previous to this one that I believe G-d is the Creator.


claimed that she believed that G-d designed all things. She "believes" without drawing any connections between the two.

I don't have to see an interdependence here. I would be interested in hearing you argue logically that I do.

In her own words: "Of course I believe God designed everything. I just don't think The Argument from Design proves this."

Throughout our discourse on this subject, when our

"our" ? What are you implying here, David?

sole (Really?) objective was to help her and others see the logic behind "intelligent design," she repeatedly cited examples from others

"Others" is such as venerable Rabbis and towering philosophers (who are also cited by Rabbis).


to the effect that "intelligent design" was a flawed theory or premise [According to David].


She used these arguments to keep herself at bay,


What does "keep herself at bay" mean? I would have said they buttressed my argument. And it did not seem to me that you countered these arguments. Rather you are surely accusing me of some (implied by you as unjustifiable) "keeping at bay" tactic. You are using words to emotive effect. This is not an argument or logic on your part.


without understanding the connection between the created and the Creator.


I did not say that. This is how you are twisting it. This is a very illicit move


Now since it is one of our principles of religion to believe in "intelligent design,"


It is not one of the principles of our religion to believe "The Argument from Design" , which is an argument from Western philosophy, as I pointed out many, many posts back. See Maimonides Thirteen Principles of Faith at Ask Moses.com (See http://www.askmoses.com/qa_detail.html?h=422&o=510) (


just as Maimonides writes in his Code of Jewish Law: "It is the most basic of basic principles and a support for wisdom to know that there is something [namely G-d] that existed before anything else did and that He created everything that there is. Everything in the skies, on the ground and in between exists only because of the fact that He created them."


Note the word "principles". I do not disagree with this "principle". I disagree that "The Argument from Design" is a valid argument. It is merely suggestive.


Maimonides did not speak about "proof," per se. He rather spoke about our "knowing." "Knowing" has the connotation of applied reason, that is, of using our faculties of reason and being convinced of a certain thing that either was, or is, or that is to be, without entertaining doubts about that thing.


So? What are you implying here? This does not prove the validity of "The Argument from Design"


Did you not notice that a Rabbi and certain other people have said you are wrong in your conclusion regarding my faith?

I will give the final word to AskMoses.com - see http://www.askmoses.com/qa_detail.html?h=422&o=395 :

"Is there absolute proof that G–d exists?
No. There is no absolute proof for anything at all. One of the conditions of intellect is that anything that can be intellectually proven can also be questioned. To put it another way, if it cannot be disproved, it is not an intellectual argument.

This “Principle of Falsification” was demonstrated by the great British philosopher, Karl Popper, and is generally accepted in scientific and philosophical circles today. It is also in consonance with the Talmudic position.


Furthermore, every intellectual argument requires axioms, which themselves cannot be proven. This was demonstrated in the 19th century by Karl F. Gauss, called by some the “greatest mathematician who ever lived,” who began to question the absoluteness of Euclid’s axioms. Later, in the 20th century, American mathematician Kurt Gödel demonstrated logically that no system can be proven without evidence from beyond that system. His paper was hailed universally as one of the most outstanding contributions to mathematics and philosophy in history.


In sum: Human logic cannot prove anything absolutely. For absolute knowledge, you’ll have to find some other tool."

Which is what various people have been trying to say to you in one way or the other Better to just let it go, don't you think? Lets just agree to differ? Differences of opinion are endemic in Judaism and that's fine, isn't it?.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Gila,

You also said "The universe is a good focal point in helping us derive at, or come to, a rationalized consensus about G-d". " Good" ? Why ? "Rationalised" = ? and why and how? "Consensus"? Why? How? Possible? please argue, justify and give relevant references.

Cheers.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Gila,

B"H
My dear Rosemary,

If you should have the time (when it is not too pressing), please define for me the meaning of "Intelligent Design."

Your sincere friend,
David

quote:

Originally posted by Rosemary:
You also said "The universe is a good focal point in helping us derive at, or come to, a rationalized consensus about G-d". " Good" ? Why ? "Rationalised" = ? and why and how? "Consensus"? Why? How? Possible? please argue, justify and give relevant references.
Cheers.

Rosemary,

Maimonides answers all of these questions quite consummately. Did you understand the import of his message?

David

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Gila,

David & Rosemary,
I believe I gave an explanation earlier. David, I think the fundamental problem you are having is that you draw your conclusions from the Sages of Torah and Rosemary draws hers from intellectual discourse. I really don't see you being too far apart. You are just misintepreting each other.

"Intelligent Design" - the theory, is a recent innovation by Christian "scientists" to prove that all our reality was designed therefore created by a creator. While the intentions are good, this theory is scientifically very iffy.

However, there is "intelligent design" - the concept. This is a concept with which we all agree. This is the concept that the Kadosh Baruch Hu created everything. However, it's not proof of anything. Believing in the creator and designer is no proof. It's a concept we "know" because it was imprinted in the Jewish soul. But that's no proof. Claiming that it's not proof does not take away from our "knowledge" (faith) that the Kadosh Baruch Hu created it nor does it make one a min. All it means is that science and our "knowledge" have not yet been reconciled. I'm not even sure they will ever be completely reconciled in our current paradigm because there is no such thing as objectivity. Only someone outside our reality can be objective.

So when Rosemary says she does not see any connection between faith in HaShem and His creation and proof of "Intelligent Design" it's quite logical.

Thank you Moshe. I just had a peek to see what you wrote. I am sooo busy at the moment!!

I see what you are getting at and I think you could be on the right track to a point.

I'd like to add though that , despite how it may appear, I am a big lover and reader of Torah and the sages and was brought up on Torah (and loved it) from babyhood, by my mother, a very devout and prayerful woman. I read at an early age and had actually read the Tanach several times before I was 10. And it was no chore. The scrolls of the Torah just "grab" me - the world just disappears. Also, like my mother, I have a prayer life, etc and have since I can remember. Again because of my mother. It has never been just recitation, etc, to me. It is far, far more. I don't want to go into it here, but I have alluded to mystical experience and it has always been a part of my experience. Some people don't seem to have this dimension apparently. I think they are the real intellectuals. It is , as I have said in this topic and elsewhere, the solid basis of my faith. And I mean rock solid. It is from all this that my faith develops, not from intellectual discourse . People don't always realise this as I have made it a lifetime project to balance heart with head. To be frank, I have always been very wary of unbridled "heart" though it is my prime "mode", if I can put it that way. So I have made myself think things through and to seek wisdom of very good quality. It is possibly this that saved me from falling for other religions before I found my way back (actually I believe Hashem led me back).

The thing is, in this topic, we have not been discussing deep experience. But it doesn't cease to exist. It is also notoriously hard to talk about.

I think it is, from what is apparent in this topic, from how we conduct our intellectual life, that David and I differ very much. I have no idea of his background. Me, I am an older, quite educated (including self-educated and all in an ongoing way), widely experienced, professional. As I said in the previous paragraph, I have a lifetime behind me of striving for wisdom. My mother's mother taught me to read by about 3-4 and I was a frequent library borrower since then. And i am very curious and a big explorer. All this makes a difference.

Anyway, I'm getting off the merry go round we have been on. Enough is enough for me. Now where is that stray cat I'm going to feed?

quote:

Originally posted by MosheYisraeli:
David & Rosemary,
I believe I gave an explanation earlier. David, I think the fundamental problem you are having is that you draw your conclusions from the Sages of Torah and Rosemary draws hers from intellectual discourse. I really don't see you being too far apart. You are just misintepreting each other.

"Intelligent Design" - the theory, is a recent innovation by Christian "scientists" to prove that all our reality was designed therefore created by a creator. While the intentions are good, this theory is scientifically very iffy.

However, there is "intelligent design" - the concept. This is a concept with which we all agree. This is the concept that the Kadosh Baruch Hu created everything. However, it's not proof of anything. Believing in the creator and designer is no proof. It's a concept we "know" because it was imprinted in the Jewish soul. But that's no proof. Claiming that it's not proof does not take away from our "knowledge" (faith) that the Kadosh Baruch Hu created it nor does it make one a min. All it means is that science and our "knowledge" have not yet been reconciled. I'm not even sure they will ever be completely reconciled in our current paradigm because there is no such thing as objectivity. Only someone outside our reality can be objective.

So when Rosemary says she does not see any connection between faith in HaShem and His creation and proof of "Intelligent Design" it's quite logical.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Gila,

quote:

Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham:
B"H

Rosemary,

I agree with you that we should stick to the topic for which this thread was started.


On one hand you said to me:

quote:

"I would like you to post that message here on this thread as it is actually a continuation of the debating that was going on before, with me included. This debate is a public thing and belongs on GY."

Next, you turn around and say just the opposite. Using your own words: "You have made far more public than I ever did. Now you have admitted authorship to the ideas I was addressing. Initially I did suggest you write to me at GY. Then I had second thoughts about this. I thought I could save you from having to do so."

I changed my mind.


Let us discuss this subject without casting affronts at one another.

Agreed.

I will not rail on you (unless it is in a Private Post).

Please do not abuse me in private. If you do, I give you warning that I will make it public.

David

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Gila,

B"H
Moshe,

Moshe, you wrote: "David, I think the fundamental problem you are having is that you draw your conclusions from the Sages of Torah and Rosemary draws hers from intellectual discourse."

Maimonides (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon) happens to be the biggest "fish" so far discussed on this thread. His words carry a lot of weight and cannot be slighted.

One of our responsibilities as Yeshiva students is to cultivate good Torah discussion, and we cannot do this without showing a minimal respect to our teachers.

Moshe, I have never seen or read a xian book treating on the concept (or subject) of "Intelligent Design." The first that I've heard about this concept, although it was not unknown to me, was through Rav Chaim on this thread. This prompted me to read more about the subject, where I found Maimonides had also mentioned in his "Guide" the subject about our universe and design. It seems, somehow, that "xian paranoia" has slipped into this thread and it is keeping us from looking at the subject matter objectively.

Your friend,
David

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Gila,

quote:

Moshe, you wrote: "David, I think the fundamental problem you are having is that you draw your conclusions from the Sages of Torah and Rosemary draws hers from intellectual discourse."
Maimonides (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon) happens to be the biggest "fish" so far discussed on this thread. His words carry a lot of weight and cannot be slighted.

David,
What you say in the quote above is exactly what I mean. We all do it in the Torah world because the Sages are our nomenclature. However, to a person where the Sages are not one's nomenclature, intellectual discourse is all one has. We cannot force a person to accept that the Rambam is the biggest fish until the person can realize it intellectually. We've got to allow a person to "own" her Judaism. But before realizing that the Rambam is the biggest fish, the person's arguments are still valid. So the Rambam may have given the best intellectual discourse of all time, but until Rosemary realizes it, her own ideas and arguments are not any less valid. It's not fair to say anyone who does not see or understand the Rambam's arguments and their implications is not in the game of human intellectual discourse. Indeed, the Rambam can and should be challenged, that's how we test his authenticity and value.

You are saying, "the Rambam 'thunk' and concluded an idea and we must accept it."

She is saying, "I don't "know" that. I have to find out for myself."

Both these arguments are valid, good and necessary within the Jewish paradigm. But one has to be where she is before one can get to where you are. Through intellectual discourse she will eventually convince herself that the Rambam is the biggest fish. But until then, we cannot deprive her of her journey.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Gila,

quote:

Originally posted by MosheYisraeli:
David,
You are correct about the Lubavitch being "insignificant" in Israel. However, in the galut they are basically becoming the only game that counts in Judaism of any brand. Fifty years from now they will eclipse everything. Indeed some traditional orthodox communities are shrinking.

Most of the baale tshuva are returning through the Lubavitch. They make aliyah and continue to have a loyalty or sympathy with them even in Israel. They teach their children etc. So Lubavitch is here to stay and it's also very adaptable. Even though many are messianists a la Schneerson, a few more years from now, they will have adapted to the reality of Rebbe not being Moshiach.

I take it you don't visit Lakewood NJ, Monsey NY, Williamsburg Brooklyn, Boro-Park Brooklyn, Flatbush Brooklyn. These are by far the largest charedie communities in the USA and in fact outside of Israel. Labuv-who??? They barely exist in these large communities. Monsey they have a stieble about the size of an average house, Williamsburg >10,000 haimish jews and no Lubavitch. I am sure they have somthing in Boro-Park, but I never noticed it when visiting. I did notice that giant Bobov Shul packed to overflowing, Ger, Viznitz, Satmar and many others all full.
Chabad is big wherever there are no charedim. It's a nice thing that they do. But outnumbering all other groups, it does not seem that way.

Thus you need to go to the beginning of the posts, where after intelligent design, then we can put together Judaism.
Since Judaism is the only religion that claims a mass revelation, instead of one or two, or even ten people. Also, we're claiming we're the descendants of them and this is what our fathers told us, how can you introduce that to a body of people without it being true?