Go to Our New Site
| Go to Our New Site
|
Read-Only Topic|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
  |
A member of Global Yeshiva said the following:
our faith (as all major religions), is not rooted in logic and/or physical conrectedness - in Platonical terms. See post of Ahuvah, 7 Feb,06 of "Is there a current darkness of human souls?". Would anybody like to comment on this? |
||
|
Technical Support  |
So what is our faith rooted in?
I would say our faith is logical. We can ask questions and get answers, we are not required to make blind leaps of faith. Comments, questions or suggestions for the Global Yeshiva? Please send me a private message. |
|||
|
|
|
Rosemary, I think Rav Amnon Yitzhaq quite consummately disproves that. On the contrary, our faith is indeed based upon logic. He gives many proofs to that effect, which I am loathe to begin writing about in this thread. Sincerely, David |
|||
|
Volunteer  |
Why are you loathe to do so? |
|||
|
GY Teacher |
There is logic in our faith. First we must ask, can someone come to a logical conclusion of a G-d? This would seem, as of the many proofs, the simplest would be intelligent design. One can logically conclude, due to the extreme complexity to anything in this world, with all them combined would be complexities upon complexities, it would be mathematically impossible that it came by itself, thus someone must have to designed it, which is obvious G-d. There are volumes written on intelligent design and other proofs of G-d, so I don't need to write pages on it. So at this point we'll assume the existents of a god. (though one will say that there are professes and other intellects who are not convinced of intelligent design. There are the same types of people that are not convinced that the Arabs were the guilty party of 9/11 and we are the victims. they feel it could be the other way around. So like in all these questions, go by your common sense and don't get bogged down with the "intellectuals.")
Once there was a designer then we can conclude that there is a purpose of the design. Things aren't designed for no reason. So our next task is to find out the reason. Religion, when claimed that it came from G-d is the reason of creation, since G-d himself is telling you the reason that for this is the reason he created the world. So the very fact we concluded that G-d created the world for a reason and he must had revealed that reason, and that is through a religion that claims that it was revealed by G-d, our next task is to fine that religion which is true. Since Judaism (among other reasons, which there is volumes on) is the only religion who boasts a revelation before the masses (more than a million people) which most religions can't boast more than before one or two, or at most a hand full, thus it would be the first logical place to put our faith. ____________ http://limudtorah.jewishweb.org Please help the Global Yeshiva to continue spreading high quality Torah by sponsoring a Shiur in the "Understanding Mishna Brurah" forum. All sponsorships are tax deductible. |
|||
|
|
|
Sam, Rav Amnon Yitzhaq brings so many indisputable proofs, certainly capable of alleviating all doubts, but it would take me quite a while to write them all down. It was also 1 o'clock A.M. (in the morning) when I made that statement, and simply wanted to get some rest. Blee Neder, if I have the time, I shall bring a few of his examples. David |
|||
|
|
|
I would welcome, for myself, just being pointed where to go. Could you mention some books I could read on this. I know it is very time consuming to actually talk about the topic so I do understand the problem there.
|
|||
|
|
|
I have always believed in G-d at heart level. But I could never believe proofs like intelligent design. They just didn't make sense to me, and I have studied philosophy. It wasn't until experiences of what seemed like proof (maybe using "proof" in a different sense) came into my life, that I felt an assurance that made me immune to accusations that I was crazy to believe in G-d. But I never believe any nonsense about the guilty party of 9/11.
|
|||
|
|
GY Teacher |
Quote “But I could never believe proofs like intelligent design. They just didn't make sense to me, and I have studied philosophy. “
OK, so educate us, why doesn’t it make sense? Here, I’ll give you a question that I have and you’ll answer it. How could it be that, something that supposed to come from a pure accident (starting of life) yet, with all our technology (we’ve been flying for a century now) and we know what it’s made of, why can we not make out of raw materials (protein) a living orginism? |
|||
|
|
|
I am sorry to have encountered your important question just when I am about to drop my daughter at school and go off to a course (it is 7.30 am here). But I will get back to this important question better when I get home, if I can squeeze it in before shabbat (it is Friday here). This is so I can give your question a more philosophical think.
But the main reason I could never believe that matter is simply that I could not- and could not, and could not. I never could. I have always been struck by the wonder, incredible complexity, and stunning beauty and of our world and existence. It has always stirred me deeply. But I could never make the connection between it and G-d. Something is missing in the argument. maybe it is too human and rational and therefore limited. My heart said yes; certain experiences suggested yes;but my head said blank (not no), with regard this argument. I don't know if this fits or is acceptable to you, but something I read last night (before getting your post, which came this morning). seemed suggestive of my experience here. It is that in the Bahir the disciples ask,"From above to below we know. But from below to above we do not know." (see "Sefer Yetzirah", Aryeh Kaplan, p.17). I haven't thought through all this yet though. Sounds very interesting. Sorry. Must rush. Your post was 2nd in my inbox and I must go now to do outside things. I should add perhaps that I can't recall that my philosophical investigations into proof of G-d came up with any proof, only assertions of proof and debates. I would have remembered if it had. I just need the time to remember how to explain from a philosophical perspective and which is not in my consciousness at the moment.
|
|||
|
|
|
Shalom Rav'
Well, I'm back, and with almost no time left before shabbat. I'll try. I've been trying to get my mind into suitable philosophical gear. With your question in mind. I believe that what is wrong with this way of looking for proof of G-d's existence is that it assumes that, because things we design need a designer, that therefore the universe needs a designer. It is looking at G-d anthropomorphically and this is not good. G-d is far more than we ever could understand. We can't start with us to get to an understanding of G-d. This kind of reasoning has all sorts of flaws and weaknesses (for example, other possible analogies can be used, apart from the analogy based on the assumption that everything needs a designer), as the philosopher Hume conclusively explained in his posthumously (for good reason) published "Dialogues" of 1799. Personally, I don't think this problem with proving the existence of G-d from the Design (or any other, eg, the Cosmological - causal ) argument matters. I think I was actually on the right track in my previous reply to you: We humans just cannot expect to be able to argue rationally about certain things. That's fine as Judaism is a revealed religion, not a natural religion. There is an awful lot of logic in Judaism (it's so smart and logical !) but logic doesn't come in essentially to do with its beginning as we were shown the basic truths for us. We knew because G-d showed us. Even more than this, because we aren't tied to try for impossible proofs and which assume (pride?) humans are more than they are (ie, like G-d in their ability to understand) , we can look at what adds up and/or is accepted by us as true to us and focus on this. I think there are actually different kinds of tests (if "proof" is the wrong word) for experientially gained convictions (ours and others, eg, the Prophets, and ways of analysing these profitably. And the ultimate test is how our lives go with all this in place and whether we are happy with this. We live to our satisfaction, not in relation to the approval of people who think differently. Tertullian (an early Xian) realised this way back, looking at things the other way around. He said "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" We don't need to be other than what we are. Any other questions and I'll be glad to try to answer tham.
|
|||
|
|
|
Rosemary:
Is there a difference beteen "designed" and simply "being"? In our terms things purposely put together for a purpose must be designed. However a Flawless Omnipotent Omnipresent Omniscient Creator just wills into being creating in perfect position exactly as a thing should be? |
|||
|
|
GY Teacher |
Quote “. I believe that what is wrong with this way of looking for proof of G-d's existence is that it assumes that, because things we design need a designer, that therefore the universe needs a designer.”
Let’s take this a step further then, what makes you assume that things we design need a designer? Maybe only the ones we personally experienced that was made in the factory can we assume was made in a factory. If we see random cars on the street we should have the same question, 50-50 chance that they came by themselves or were manufactured. The answer is simple. Our experiences that all things that have a design that we know the origins of has a designers. If there were things that has a design that were being randomly put together, we would have noticed it. It even goes further than that, since we could also logically conclude why things just don’t happen, since it takes an awful amount of planning and know how to make something with design, the more complex, the more planning and intent is needed. If there would be things that we experience that happen by them selves, then this would be all moot. But putting these 2 factors together, it still makes more logical sense that designed things don’t happen by themselves. It reminds me of a “Calvin and Hobbes” comic strip where Calvin complains that his mother didn’t accept his excuse. “Just because she never had her gravital force change direction she thinks it can’t happen to anyone else.” To sum up my point, it's not just an assumption based on limited experience, but rather it's the whole experience of life shows only one way and not the other and the logical reason why it is that way But wasn’t even my question My question was........ That how can something, in which with intent of people with great technology, cannot put together, though they have many samples to study how to put it together, yet it came around through a random accident ? |
|||
|
|
|
Sorry, I didn't realise when you initially asked me that question that you seriously wanted me to answer it: I thought it was rhethorical emphasis than a move to engage me in a Socratic dialogue.
I have no idea of how it came together by random accident. Nor do I think that anyone could (even if it happened - which I myself don't believe, by the way); or that it matters matters ;or is relevant to the essential topic we are on. I don't think I need to be able to answer this to refute philosophy's classic argument from design, which is what you are really trying to get me to accept (and you won't be able to because I have thought it all through carefully and it doesn't add up to me). Secondly, the thought of people now with their technology being able to create what you are suggesting seems a big ask (ok, I mean impossible). We are still amazingly ignorant; it isn't that long since we were using bows and arrows . But I think this is beside the point too. I answered you as I did, before, because I went straight to a speedy philosophical critique of the design argument, which is what you are backing and arguing for. I thought this was what was called for: better to put out a fire with a hose than play with the flames with an eyedropper, and knowing all along that it wasn't a good idea. You asked in this post of yours " what makes you assume that things we design need a designer?". I don't want to go nuts over a needless battle over words, so I would like to put what I meant in a different way: the great philosopher David Hume said that the reason people think the design argument is plausible is because they say, from observation, that something gets created, like a pot or a house, because they made it , and then, they go on to say that therefore (by induction) the universe was created by a creator also. Actually, interestingly, this argument cannot prove, even if it is considered convincing, that there was one creator. Maybe I should add, so I have literally answered your question, that it seems reasonable for us to assume that it is self-evident evident that "the things we design" ,ipso facto, are designed by us ("we"). I'm sorry if I am missing your point. It puzzles me why you said this. The argument by design is based on the belief that it is possible to discover religious knowledge by natural procedures (rationalistic thinking is another way to put it). To lots of people, though not to lots of others who jump in boots and all, such a belief is a dreadful example of a person's gross overrating of his or her mental powers. Hume made people realise that the philosophically named (I didn't name it) " argument from design" makes a big leap of FAITH. Still, the observation of the mindboggling complexity of the universe is suggestive of the idea of a creator and this observation has convinced lots of people. Me, it never convinced me and I was glad to find out later, from my studies of philosophy that I wasn't alone, in bad company, or stupid or something, as some people suggested in their underhand ways (there is a great book by Thouless called "Straight and Croooked Thinking" that goes into this matter - I was mightily relieved to discover it when I was 15) of trying to win when they put the design argument to me. I should add, perhaps, that I am nevertheless, for other reasons, a fervent believer in G-d. I'm not basing what I am saying, both now and before, on just a consideration of the design argument. I've looked at the general question of religious proof (concerning various matters) and have surveyed what philosophers (good philosophy is just good thinking) have said on these matters. This is a very complex, and important , topic and I did try to go into it more in my last post but you did not respond to that. I don't mean to be rude in not responding to you when you said the following . I just couldn't understand it : "It even goes further than that, since we could also logically conclude why things just don’t happen, since it takes an awful amount of planning and know how to make something with design, the more complex, the more planning and intent is needed. If there would be things that we experience that happen by them selves, then this would be all moot. But putting these 2 factors together, it still makes more logical sense that designed things don’t happen by themselves. It reminds me of a “Calvin and Hobbes†comic strip where Calvin complains that his mother didn’t accept his excuse. “Just because she never had her gravital force change direction she thinks it can’t happen to anyone else.â€" By the way, I think it is a shame that the person whose words I used to start this topic has hit and run, so to speak. I've been thinking of PMing her and saying "Where are you? Come back and speak to what you said !". I hope you do not think I am not showing you suitable respect because I am debating with you. I thought of backing off, but that definitely seemed wrong to me - ie, to be dishonest.
|
|||
|
|
|
Rob, I was simply talking to the "argument from design" as Rav brought it up. He went for the design argument. "Being" doesn't get a mention in this argument. Philosophy, as do we all, breaks the universe of potential ideas into little packets.
But "being" is a very important concept, including regarding the topic of this thread (initially). I think it is relevant. If you look at how I address the topic of faith (on this topic and other ones) you can see that I factor it in highly. What were you getting at exactly? You said "In our terms things purposely put together for a purpose must be designed." I agree. Seems like a good definition as long as you don't use it as a springboard to weave a word trap. See my latest reply to the Rav (posted after Shabbat here). We need to keep in mind what exactly we are talking about here. You said "However a Flawless Omnipotent Omnipresent Omniscient Creator just wills into being creating in perfect position exactly as a thing should be?" . Was this the word trap? Honestly, I can't handle a debate about the difference between "designs" and "wills". And I don't think it matters, basically, to do with this matter, as Hume wasn't taking about G-d per se. Hume was merely trying to point out where he thought the decision to use the argument from design came from. We are talking past each other. But, as an aside, I would like to point out that there is a powerful little word "should" in your last paragraph. " Should" surely speaks of "purpose" ?
|
|||
|
|
GY Teacher |
Dear Rosemary,
I don't mean to start an argument with you, for whatever reason you believe in Hashem, is fine. I'm just saying that I really don't understand this disproof. How I understand what he's saying, is that we don't have any proof of anything unless we experienced it. Just because we assemble pots is no proof that other things need assembling. You wrote "Maybe I should add, so I have literally answered your question, that it seems reasonable for us to assume that it is self-evident evident that "the things we design" ,ipso facto, are designed by us ("we")." Yes, we designed it, but no proof that we manufactured them. If the only thing that we have proof for is what we experienced ourselves, thus anything we didn't personally experienced could have happened by itself. Thus, though cars could be assembled by us, if you hadn't experienced any given car being assembled, how can you prove that car was manufactured? You didn't experienced it. So according to Hume's logic, can you prove that those cars you hadn't seen assembled in a factory are actually assembled in a factory? Maybe it coincidentally got assembled by itself. So the question is, according to Hume, what is the burden of proof? Do you need to accept the possibility of a claim of someone that he flapped his hands and flew, since you didn't experienced this by him, so you have no way to disprove him? Quote "Secondly, the thought of people now with their technology being able to create what you are suggesting seems a big ask (ok, I mean impossible). We are still amazingly ignorant" I think we're smarter and more advanced than a dumb accident. Quote "it isn't that long since we were using bows and arrows" It's been 60 years since we obliterated two cities with a nuclear bomb. I think we're quite advanced since bows and arrows. ____________ http://limudtorah.jewishweb.org Please help the Global Yeshiva to continue spreading high quality Torah by sponsoring a Shiur in the "Understanding Mishna Brurah" forum. All sponsorships are tax deductible. |
|||
|
|
GY Teacher |
Dear Rosemary,
I want to say that I'm not trying to change your mind per se, and your right, that my main reason for being religious is the Mesorah I have. But yet, to me, the intelligent design makes sense, and I really would like to see the other side of the coin. Of course my background opens me up to this side of the argument, and I like to consider myself somewhat of a thinker, though philosophy is not my main subjects (much of an amateur) (since Torah learning is what I spend my most time on.) Though Philosopher Hume, who you seem to have learned, seem to hold the opposite of that, but I also believe that there are people in philosophy who may not agree with his conclusions, which is often the case that there is two sides, but in philosophy class they might only show one side. Thus, i would like to hear the other side, and then speak it over with my Rosh Kollel, who is a brilliant person, and also has a lot of background in secular ideas and philosophy, and is also a big believer of intelligent design, thus through this, I'll have a broader view of the subject. ____________ http://limudtorah.jewishweb.org Please help the Global Yeshiva to continue spreading high quality Torah by sponsoring a Shiur in the "Understanding Mishna Brurah" forum. All sponsorships are tax deductible. |
|||
|
|
|
Shalom Rav.
I don't want to argue with you either; just to toss some ideas around in all sincerity. I'll answer this first, latest, post of your to me with regard just the first thing you said (see it as a quote below). Then I'll come back after some chores and see if I can write ok to your second, latest post plus what was in the first, latest, post that has the same subject matter. I just wanted to really stress two things in this post of mine. The first I said already I think but I'll repeat it as I'm worried somebody will misunderstand. The first thing is that the statement which I used to start this thread wasn't out of my mind (see above, in the thread, eg,post one). It just perplexed me so I wanted to hear what people would say. I guess it does make me think of some things I don't yet understand or know about, but I wouldn't have been able to say what she said as I don't even know what she means really. Sometimes I feel really ignorant and stupid. I know there are some things I never did understand in my study of philosophy. The second thing I want to say is that I wasn't really talking ,when I was discussing the topic in this thread, about my own reasons for faith. But thank you for not wanting to disturb my personal "reasons" for faith. I try not to disturb other people's faith reasons too, even if they don't add up to me. It can be hard sometimes when I don't realise they are really talking about conclusions that are important for them personally to believe. In my replies to you ,I was trying to answer to what you said. Maybe I didn't answer you very well. Sorry if that is the case. I wanted to clear up that point. I really have been trying to talk philosophically about the topic, keeping my faith reasons apart. I'll try again when I get back.
|
|||
|
|
|
From your first, latest, post:
How I understand what he's saying, is that we don't have any proof of anything unless we experienced it. Hume wasn't an existentialist. He was an empiricist (and see what I say at the end of this post). In his "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" he shows in detail that the influential Argument from Design, which ascribes the mechanical order of nature to a divine mind, cannot survive careful application of the standards we use in scientific thinking. (" The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy" 2000, p.259) Just because we assemble pots is no proof that other things need assembling. This seems to miss the point, or do I just not get what you are saying?.But in checking back to what Hume said, I can't see that it fits. You wrote "Maybe I should add, so I have literally answered your question, that it seems reasonable for us to assume that it is self-evident evident that "the things we design" ,ipso facto, are designed by us ("we")." Yes, we designed it, but no proof that we manufactured them. If the only thing that we have proof for is what we experienced ourselves, thus anything we didn't personally experienced could have happened by itself. Thus, though cars could be assembled by us, if you hadn't experienced any given car being assembled, how can you prove that car was manufactured? You didn't experienced it. So according to Hume's logic, can you prove that those cars you hadn't seen assembled in a factory are actually assembled in a factory? Maybe it coincidentally got assembled by itself. This doesn't make sense to me and I don't think it would to Hume or people generally. You sound like a good philosopher. But good philosophers just don't always make sense to me. I think we need to constantly validate what we say with evidence, always asking "Does this happen?". To me it is obvious that we design and make cars and I will believe this unless I think I have gone mad. I am a very simple, realistic and basic philosopher, with pretty solid logic. To arguments about whether a chair is really there or not, I just say, "ok. Try to run through it and you'll find out. I think my approach is scientific like Hume's. But, see later, I am also a mystic Note: There are different sorts of philosophers and approaches to/types of philosophy (which in essence just means thinking through). And philosophers who look at things in a different way are known for disagreeing. It's nothing personal. From your 2nd, latest, post: Though Philosopher Hume, who you seem to have learned, seem to hold the opposite of that, but I also believe that there are people in philosophy who may not agree with his conclusions, which is often the case that there is two sides, but in philosophy class they might only show one side. You don't know me very well. I am a very stubborn and determined person and I go after my goals and for things to add up. I studied philosophy to answer questions I had and no lecturer can limit what I explore to what he chooses to lecture on, or my conclusions to what he says is true. When I study something, I research it from all over. And I find, anyway, that books, etc, give me a better answer than my lecturers.And then I think it all through. I analyse a matter to satisfy my search for truth, not to please a lecturer. Sometimes what I come up with can annoy my lecturers terribly, but it is my honest and not totally rubbishy conclusion. I didn't find my way back to my Jewish roots by being easily led. Thus, i would like to hear the other side, Yes people have disagreed with Hume but I don't think they disproved Hume's destruction of The Argument from Design; they just say they disagree of go at a tangent. Hume was very good and is commonly considered to be the greatest philosopher to have written in English ("Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy", p.257). I think people don't really think the matter through, to be honest: it just sounds fair enough to them, particularly if they are in non philosophical circles, and so they go off happily content and attend to the million and one things they have to do. Personally, I don't think it matters if we don't see The Argument from Design to be conclusive proof of the existence of G-d (or G-ds). It is still suggestive of this and can keep some people happy. Most important, I think that, if we push our thinking past operating in an Enlightenment, empiricist/materialist mode, there is no problem to believing that G-d exists: all one has to do is also consider the mystical, which is also real. I think there is evidence abounding here, first and second hand. Why reduce existence to the material? This is limiting and unjustified isn't it. After all, G-d , soul, etc is real but can't be pinned down. And the Torah is full of mystical experience. I'd love to hear what your Rosh Kollel thinks. Thanks for the discussion.  |
|||
|
|
|
Rosemary, The one remarkable thing about your statement here is that you are partly right, without your even recognising it! G-d doesn't have a designer, and yet He exists. However, your premise is wrong. While on one hand you are to be commended in your speculative pursuits, I would caution you about falling into the trappings of some who would have you think that the world and its substance are without a Maker, or that they evolved of themselves. Where you say that "not all things have a designer," this can be said true about us humans - for they have not created the earth nor the stones, neither the water, etc. However, you will admit (by your good faculties of reason) that an unearthed potsherd of exquisite shape and design was fashioned at one time by a man or woman that existed long ago - although you had never seen that man or woman. How much more the complexities of the earth, with its atmosphere, having all that which is needed to sustain life upon earth, &c. that these things did not just happen of themselves! You cannot hold the view of certain philosophers, on the one hand, without denying that view professed by Moses and Israel, on the other. If you say that the world was not created, you are saying in effect that Moses inherited a lie. Did not G-d reveal Himself to Moses, and to more than 600,000 strong gathered together beneath the foot of Mount Sinai? Had this testimony been a lie, there is no way that that same testimony would have been perpetuated by all of Israel for so many years. For all of Israel heard the voice of G-d speaking unto them from Mount Sinai. Maimonides, in his first three rules about belief, wrote the following: "THE LAWS OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE TORAH A) To recognise G-d. 1) 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. 2) Let it be known that if the Creator did not exist then nothing else would, for nothing can exist independently of the Creator. 3) Let it further be known that if everything ceased to exist, the Creator alone would exist and would not have ceased to exist like everything else had. All things in creation are dependant upon the Creator for their continued existence, but He does not need any of them [for His continued existence]. Therefore, the reality of His existence is not like the reality of the existence of any creation." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Lastly, you seem to be against anthropomorphism. You should be apprised, Rosemary, that man was created in G-d's image (Heb. "tzelem"), meaning that he was created with the "faculties of reason and of logic." Thus, is it explained by Maimonides in his Guide for the Perplexed. So saying that the earth was derived from somewhere or some thing is perfectly natural for us humans. But when G-d revealed Himself to Israel, all doubts concerning this should have long ago subsided. David This message has been edited. Last edited by: Gila, |
|||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |