Comprehensive coverage

Opinion - Is there meaning in a world without God?

Nir Lahav explains what secular spirituality is, and how one can get along very well even without religion and New Age and still feel that we have contributed something in our lives * On Shavuot Eve Lahav will hold a secular 'Tikon Shavuot'


A 19th century cartoon depicting Darwin as a monkey
A 19th century cartoon depicting Darwin as a monkey

My name is Nir Lahav, I am doing a doctorate in physics on the subject of brain research and I give a series of lectures in the name of science and the study of reality to the general public at movie theaters throughout the country. I am active in the Israeli skeptics organization and in general in science communication. A few years ago I happened to be at the World Atheist Conference in Australia. I really enjoyed it there, I liked that they don't limit themselves only to the subject of scientific skepticism but understand the value contexts that accompany it such as the importance of freedom, equality and liberalism in general. Pretty quickly I came to the conclusion that something is missing both in the organization of skeptics and to a lesser extent in the organizations of atheism - we only "destroy" without building something new.

On the same topic on the science website:

It is very important to develop a skeptical mindset and it is very important to differentiate between what is real and what is not, but we have to remember that in this way we usually only destroy people's beliefs when they realize that they have done scientific tests and found that there is no real basis for their beliefs. It's quite hard to see how almost every New Age or alternative medicine claim doesn't stand up to the test, but this is the truth. On the other hand, the meaning is very important for human development. We as conscious beings know that in the end we will die and we know that we have tremendous potential and therefore we are looking for how to develop and what to do with our finitude and with the meaninglessness that surrounds us. We are looking for meaning and therefore in my opinion after the demolition something new should be built - meaning should be offered to man based on science and rationalism. I don't think as secularists we put enough effort into creating an alternative. How should one live and how can one reach happiness and meaning even when following the scientific and secular path?

That's why I decided to take the initiative and do it. The name I chose for this is "secular spirituality". I know, a somewhat problematic name, but still... the idea is to show how it is possible to reach a way of life that has meaning and values ​​without the need for gods, New Age or religion. I take secularism in the broadest possible sense - not only is there no infinite intelligent being who created the world, but there is also no first intention and desires in nature. Nature is completely indifferent. Nevertheless, even under these conditions, it is possible to reach personal meaning and spirituality without resorting to mysticism. Just looking at the awe-inspiring beauty of the universe can for example lead to meaning and spiritual experiences without the need for a creator, intention or purpose.

But first of all the question arises, is there even a connection between science and society and between science and values ​​and spirituality?
With the help of science we try to discover facts about the world and thus progress in understanding the reality around us. And really within a few hundred years since the beginning of modern science, we have been able to progress in understanding the universe around us in a fast and impressive way. Science is so effective thanks to the scientific method developed in the last few centuries. At the base of the scientific method is skepticism. To doubt everything and let nature tell us what is true and what is not with the help of an experiment. But is there a connection between science and values ​​and between science and spirituality?

Many will argue that science is not related to social questions and certainly not to values ​​and spirituality. Indeed, science is not about values. A scientific fact that I have discovered does not mean anything of value as long as I have not given it an interpretation. But the situation is not so simple.

We always give interpretations to scientific facts, whether we like it or not. Take for example the theory of evolution. Look at how many interpretations and discussions have developed over the last 150 years because there is a common ancestor between man and chimpanzee. It must not be ignored that as thinking human beings we immediately ask "wait what does this mean?"

What does it mean, for example, about my place in the world and the location of animals if I am descended from animals.

By interpretations of scientific facts I mean that there are consequences for all kinds of different fields to the dry facts we discover and our responsibility is to address the entirety of these consequences. The mechanism of natural selection, for example, mechanistically explains the development of life, without the need for a creator and a master planner. This has consequences for the religion that tried to show in a logical way that we owe God because otherwise how could such a complex life develop (the argument of the watchman for those who know). The discovery of natural selection challenges this argument and shows how complex life evolves from less complex life without the need for an intelligent director. Thus, a dry fact is no longer dry because it has implications for other issues.

It is impossible to ignore the interpretations of the scientific facts and the fact that the discoveries have consequences. Instead, it is useful to give philosophical interpretations that are based on the scientific facts we have discovered. Interpretations that can provide a person with answers to the questions of how to live and how to reach meaning. Since the seventies, by the way, scientists like Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Dan Dent and more have been trying to do this.

Not only should we not ignore interpretations of scientific facts, but we should also pay attention to the fact that there is a connection between science and values ​​at the level of the scientific method. ZA not at the level of collected facts but at the philosophical level that asks how science works and what are the conditions for scientific investigation to succeed.

For example, in order for there to be a scientific investigation at all, the truth must be placed as an important value to strive for. Otherwise, someone could argue that it is more important for him to feel happy and not the question of what is the truth. He has no problem believing something that is not true just because it makes him feel good. This is fine, as long as we have not placed the truth as a value that is more important to us than other values, such as happiness or meaning.

The problem is that if the truth is not an important value, then it doesn't matter how the person was created for example, each society will invent its favorite story and we will not be able to move towards understanding the real reality in which we live. Instead we will live in illusions.

Therefore the scientific method assumes, perhaps implicitly, that the search for truth is among the most important values. For this reason, the proposal of secular spirituality also starts from the pursuit of truth and only then tries to show that it is possible to reach meaning and happiness even then. Beyond that, the idea in secular spirituality would be to show that it is precisely the pursuit of understanding the truth that can give the greatest meaning.

But let's get back to science, more values ​​emerge from the scientific method. For example, the assumption that man can at all explore and understand nature (and does not need, for example, the help of the Holy Scriptures). If there is not this value of faith in man's ability to understand the reality around him, there is no point in starting and doing science at all. There are several other values ​​that connect to these basic values, for example, in order for scientific investigation to be most effective, every person should be given the ability to investigate. Without freedom to explore, I think science will go away. Without freedom of expression and freedom of research, the scientific method will not be able to operate smoothly and successfully, once censorship and other subjective influences are allowed to prevail over the laws that guide the method. Furthermore, in science ideas undergo changes, fight for their existence and the best (according to the scientific method) wins, so it is clear that the freedom to hypothesize in science, and the freedom to attack models before they are accepted as reliable scientific theory, is necessary. This means, for example, that a pluralistic and even liberal environment in its approach is a basic condition for good and unbiased scientific research. If women have reservations about expression, women will have reservations about skeptical thinking and thus we will destroy the whole system. The claim here is not only that science will flourish under conditions of freedom of expression and equal opportunities, but that without freedom and equal opportunities science will slowly decline until it disappears. ZA that the scientific method implicitly demands values ​​of freedom and equal opportunities for every person, regardless of who they are.

And really, historically, the scientific revolution gave birth to the Enlightenment that paid attention to the values ​​that underlie the scientific method. Modern democracy, liberalism and human rights developed out of the Enlightenment movement. The French Revolution and the US Constitution are examples of this (for more information on the subject: the book Introduction to Modern Philosophy by Professor Yosef Agassi). Historically, we see the strong connection between the scientific method and liberal and humanistic values.

Benjamin Franklin, one of the founders of the USA and drafters of the US Constitution, is a classic example of the Enlightenment period in which there is a connection between science and society. He was a statesman, inventor and scientist. The picture reproduces Franklin's famous experiment in which he tied an iron key to a kite and flew it into the sky during a lightning storm. This is how he tried to show that lightning is indeed electricity.

Because it is necessary to take into account the consequences of the scientific facts and because there is some connection between science and values, there is no need to be afraid and to suggest, relying on the scientific method and based on scientific facts, a recommended way of life for a person. Scientific skepticism is very important, it is the best way we have found so far how to know what is true and what is not. But it has consequences. It can destroy the beliefs and meaning of others. If, for example, it turns out that you believe in something that is not true, then according to the value of truth, you should stop believing in it. So, if we destroy beliefs that turn out to be incorrect, then now we also have to offer an alternative. In my opinion it is our responsibility to know not only to question but also to build something new based on the scientific method and expanding it. Just as we expect others to show depth and responsibility and check the truth of the things they hear, so too we need to show depth and responsibility and build a scientific interpretation that will suggest to a person how he should behave and how he can achieve meaning in his life. The call here is to return to the path of enlightenment and continue with it in a way adapted to the 21st century to create a proposal for a complete way of life worthy of a person.

Such an alternative should be based on the imposition of doubt and therefore it should be without mysticism, without infinite intelligent beings who created reality, without a nature with intention, purpose and desires, without absolute meaning, without coercion, without saints and without fixed dogmas that must not be challenged. Secular spirituality is the alternative we try to offer in this group. It does not derive directly from scientific skepticism or the scientific method, but is based on it and adds to it. It is important mainly because if the value of truth is important to us then we need to show how it is possible to reach meaning given this scientific skepticism. How to reach meaning and even spirituality given the truth.

Tikun Shavuot as a sign of secular spirituality

Those who would like to delve deeper into the subject of secular spirituality, Tikkun Shavuot as a sign of secular spirituality. A complete evening of learning into the night that combines lectures and activities on the topic of secular spirituality:

Tuesday 3.6.14, Shavuot evening at a sustainable bar

The correction will begin at 21:00 and will continue into the wee hours of the night in "Bar Kaima" (a place for a tribe) edited by Nir Lahav (founder of a secular spirituality group and the science and research of reality lecture series).

 

Entrance price: 20 NIS

sustainable (a place for a tribe)
22 Mashbir St. Tel Aviv
03-949-3322
For schedule updates, see the event on Facebook -
Tikun Shavuot on the subject of secular spirituality
Look for us also in a secular spirituality group on Facebook

Comments

  1. Bottom line, what alternative can secularism offer that sanctifies the material? After all, if there is no soul and no continuity, why do we need spirituality? Eat, drink, make money, go out with beautiful women, have children, have assets, make good investments and in the end, leave everything here. What alternative can secularism offer more than that?

  2. When you turn back time to deal with problems that will happen in the future, you also meet creatures that know how to erase themselves in time, and also to arrange good and bad so that it remains in the next world after turning back time, sorry if I offended anyone, with respect to blowing water

  3. Miracles
    The reaction of a woman from Venus reminds me of those who repent and think they know the absolute truth. That's probably how it is with the Venusian woman. To be more righteous than the Pope. All those who think they have reached the absolute truth and there is no end to it. They think that only their truth is correct. There can be more than one truth or solution and all or some of the solutions will be correct. A similar phenomenon exists in academia. First-year physics students think that if they learn a few formulas, all of physics will fall on them.

  4. Miracles

    Haven't you gotten used to it yet?

    a sultry woman

    Haim's saying about the age of the bucket and the sponge is not chauvinistic. He didn't say the thing about who should be sponged. The chauvinism perceived in you, stemmed from your associations, not from what he said.

    It is not enough to activate thinking, it is also necessary that this thinking is not damaged and wrong.

  5. obscene woman
    I studied the books I mentioned and I understand them deeply. The spiritual world does not interest me at all. And I understand exactly what it is growing from and I will explain my intention. Since the collapse of the great ideologies, people are looking for something new, and indeed it should be, but that doesn't mean being lazy. Even in the first century BC, there was a great ideological break in Israel and throughout the Roman Empire, and of all the sects that existed in Israel, the one that succeeded and took root was Christianity. No ideology remains monolithic over time and new currents develop in it. In Judaism, for example, Hasidism, Orthodoxy. In the Christianity of the Catholics, the Anglican Church, the Protestants and more, they also have subcurrents. In Sunni and Shiite Islam, both in Buddhism and among the Confucians, different ideological currents are developing, for better or for worse.

  6. Life
    Have you read the books you recommended in a previous comment?
    can you read I'm in Doubt
    Did you read the title of the article at the top of the page?
    Have you read the article we are responding to?
    This above is about the meaning of spiritual values ​​and other important things
    In an attempt to base these on science and use scientific tools
    And on the subject of the sponge - now we can understand that you are also a chauvinist
    Your ability to think and discuss is very low - and since you don't have sufficient mental tools to make claims - you descend to a very low level of discussion and try to be mean - you have no chance with me - any attempt you make to be mean - indicates only you and not the good
    Now I can assume that my level of education is higher than yours and the amount of books I have read, of any kind, is greater than the amount you have read,
    It is not enough to read - life - you also need to exercise thinking

  7. a sultry woman
    Science is devoid of values, values ​​belong to humans. The question is what to do with science. For example, what is this similar to? to hammer With the same hammer you can drive a nail into the wall to hang a picture and with the same hammer you can hit a person on the head and kill him. I hope that at least now you are starting to understand or it is beyond your understanding..

  8. a sultry woman
    You probably don't understand or don't want to understand that science is based on observations, measurements, building models, and if you see that one model is wrong, you try to build another model that will give a better explanation for the phenomenon being studied, and it doesn't matter if it's biology, metallurgy, sociology, psychology. There is nothing sacred in science. He took values. The refrigerator you use is based on scientific research (thermodynamics), the car you use is based on scientific research, the airplane you fly in is based on scientific research (aeronautics), the microwave you use is based on science. Want more examples? Have you ever read a book in mathematics, (without this subject it is impossible to build any airplane for example), in chemistry, in physics, in astronomy?

    I understand that you belong to the so-called new era and you acquired your education at the Kabbalah Research Institute. The world of your concepts is in the Age of Aquarius, you can only do one thing in it and that is a sponge. You may need this - a cognitive sponge

  9. Sorry miracles!

    Haim you are wrong
    Haim, you will continue to brag about the mysticism of your science, blind faith in the holy science, without any doubt,
    While questioning every other belief, it is clear to me that everyone who believes in something is different from you

  10. Miracles, you are wrong, in a caesarean section, the abdominal area is anesthetized, the woman is fully conscious,
    Check the facts before you jump to wrong conclusions

  11. a sultry woman
    According to your words, "Example: a woman undergoing surgery in the abdominal area - there is a danger of bleeding - the doctors sometimes cannot stop the bleeding.
    Can the woman through thought - affect the blood flow towards the hands and feet - and prevent the problem?
    It has not been scientifically proven - therefore the idea is wrong?"
    How wrong are you? Before surgery, the patient is anesthetized, or local anesthesia is performed. In this state the senses are blurred. What person whether asleep or dozing can be aware of what is being done around him at that time? It is also not possible to activate the ads for this purpose. try it If you are sleeping and your house is broken into, are you aware of your situation? By the time you wake up and realize what is happening, at best they have already left the house with their loot. In any situation where there is bleeding and believe me the doctors know how to deal with the situation and it doesn't matter if it is a man or a woman. When you can't, you probably have unseen reasons for whatever reason to stop the flow of blood. In this case the situation is problematic. How much one can brag about mysticism. Get down to earth, maybe start reading a few books on the philosophy of science and fill in a few gaps in your education.

  12. obscene woman

    "...when it comes to spirituality, meaning - the reality is that we still have a lot to guess, check and we still haven't found the reason -
    Therefore, according to the scientific method - we must reject everything that we have not proven"
    - Definately not. The history of science is full of stories about things that were sought for a long time. Some have found (quarks and Higgs boson for example) some, their very existence has been disproved (ether, phlogiston for example), and some are still searching (dark matter, dark energy, extraterrestrial life).

    "Example: a woman undergoing surgery in the abdominal area - there is a danger of bleeding - the doctors sometimes cannot stop the flow.
    Can the woman through thought - affect the blood flow towards the hands and feet - and prevent the problem?
    It has not been scientifically proven - therefore the idea is wrong?"
    – What has not been scientifically proven here? Every baby knows that the mind affects the body. How exactly do I type here now? When I get excited - my heart rate doesn't go up?
    And in the case you described - we know that fear causes a stronger flow of blood to the limbs. Science has no problem with such cases.

    "Man has the ability to understand the reality around him - but there are things that man will be able to prove in another thousand years - science requires me to reject everything that has not been proven yet"
    – Again, absolutely not. Example: Do you know that scientists have been searching for life in space for tens (even hundreds) of years? Scientists do not rule out life in other places - on the contrary. But those who deny life in other places are precisely the religious ones (I think most of them, Scientologists actually believe in such life) - of course, as soon as such life is discovered - they will show science that it is written in the Torah...

    "If you don't need scientific proof of the existence of the soul. And you define what you mean by the term "soul", there is a situation where my definition is very different from your definition, for example: according to your definition - is there any connection between the souls - or is the soul limited to the area of ​​the physical location of the body?"
    - You will be surprised by my answer. I think that there is a connection between souls under certain conditions. This has nothing to do with mystical things - this connection is measurable with scientific tools. If you want - I will expand.

    Think of a concept like "the Palestinian people". Is it possible to prove or disprove its existence? Before that we have to define what a nation is, right? There is no intention to make a political statement here - I think everyone will agree with my point here.

  13. The article at the top of the page suggests looking for meaning - which is based on science, values, faith in man's ability to understand the reality around him
    Everything is good when we guess, check, look for the cause - cure a disease,
    And the drug is not used until we scientifically prove that it works.
    When it comes to spirituality, meaning - the reality is that we still have a lot to guess, check and we still haven't found the reason -
    Therefore, according to the scientific method - we must reject everything that we have not proven

    Example: a woman undergoing surgery in the abdominal area - there is a danger of bleeding - the doctors sometimes cannot stop the flow.
    Can the woman through thought - affect the blood flow towards the hands and feet - and prevent the problem?
    This has not been scientifically proven - therefore the idea is wrong?
    Man has the ability to understand the reality around him - but there are things that man will be able to prove in another thousand years - science requires me to reject everything that has not been proven yet

    If you don't need scientific proof of the existence of the soul. And you define what you mean by the term "soul", there is a situation where my definition is very different from your definition, for example: according to your definition - is there any connection between the souls - or is the soul limited to the area of ​​the physical location of the body?

  14. a sultry woman

    According to your principles when I see a cake I am allowed to assume that it grows like a tree. And we don't have to assume that it was baked.

    Your disregard for the need to understand the creative process causes you to make incorrect assumptions. Or maybe I'm wrong and the cake actually grew in the field.

    You wrote that many things go wrong in your plans. If there is a "directing hand", it also directs these disruptions, and therefore interferes with you, in order to help you later, thus essentially doing double work.

    The mind is not technology, that's exactly the point.

    If I were you a person 2000 years ago facing a bus, the bus would not be illogical, it was something that I do not understand how it was created. You could just as easily say that mountains made no sense to a human being 200 years ago.
    The fact that there is something in front of you that you have real evidence of its existence but you do not understand how it works does not mean that its existence is illogical, it means that you do not understand the principles that make its existence possible.
    The unhealthy logic is in the way of thinking (which gives up basic logic), and drawing your conclusions, not whether the things in front of you are real or not.

    Shouldn't we have actual working examples of telepathy, intuition, thought transference, and knowing the future before we talk about whether they will be able to understand how these things work in the future?

    No one expects that when you come across something you don't understand, you will logically conclude that it doesn't exist because you don't know how to explain its existence (this is not logical thinking). If you come across something tangible like this, you would logically conclude that it exists because you are experiencing it in a tangible way (assuming it is not an illusion or a hallucination) (it's not really logical exactly, but never mind), then you might try to understand how it works, or you might just decide to use In it because it exists and it works.

  15. a sultry woman
    You assume the cake is baked, rightfully so, because that's what experience has taught you. There is a hypothesis that this is exactly how religious belief began - the assertion that every phenomenon has a cause. Think of an ancient man trying to hunt a deer. He quietly follows a deer, and suddenly the deer jumps in panic. If our hunt is smart and deduces that there is a lion around, then he too will run away and thus be saved. That is, there is a survival advantage to the one who understands that there is a cause for what he sees. Now, there is a terrible storm, so there must be someone who caused this storm.

    We are not primitive man. We see a phenomenon, guess what the cause is, and then test our guess. We see people suffering from illness, instead of assuming it is the will of the gods, we look for the cause. And you know what? This process tripled the lifespan!!!

    I don't need scientific proof of the existence of the soul. I just need to define what I mean by the term "mind".

  16. I'm not trying to prove
    I make assumptions - although I have no way to prove it
    It increases my options
    when I see "baked cake"
    I assume there was a process - and I call it "baking"
    I assume she was involved in the baking of a being - I call her "Baker"
    Do you have scientific proof of the existence of the "soul"?
    What is the ability of the "soul"? Maybe my soul can know what goes through your soul? Maybe my soul and your soul are connected in some way? Some other kind of anarchy that you still can't measure?

  17. a sultry woman

    Regarding the stubbornness - you gave an excellent explanation. But, this is the explanation according to evolution. This is not an explanation that suits an intelligent creator who planned everything.

    "1 In every big plan there are glitches - this does not mean that there was no planning in advance" - again, this is not what I expect from an intelligent creator.

    "2 When a person works in a large organization - he does not always see and understand the whole picture - this does not mean that there is no manager and that there is no proper procedure" - here you assume what you are trying to prove.

    "3 If there was no evil there would also be nothing good - from a human's point of view - because a human can only understand relatively" - does this sound like a serious explanation to you? Doesn't it make more sense that you and I give up the good so that others don't suffer?

    "Scientifically - there is no need to lay down a "directed hand" to explain the world. On the contrary - the assumption of a guiding hand causes enormous problems: on the page above it is about: meaning, values, spirituality - if we only take what the logical scientific explanation gives - and take out everything that works even though a person still has no way to explain - what remains is much less than the spiritual ability Ours as human beings - like the difference between a doctor who treats only the physical disease - without considering the person in front of him - and even the scientific doctors admit - that there are cases of healing that they cannot explain scientifically - unless something else is taken into account - such as for example the powers of the soul"

    I don't agree with you. There is no need for a "directed hand" for meaning and values ​​(I have no idea what "spirituality" is). Secular people are not less valuable or less moral. I even think the opposite. I don't want to see myself as a tool in the hands of an external creator whose job it is to serve and please. I have 80 years to live, and I want to make the most of them.

    No - there is not a single case that does not have a scientific explanation. There are cases where we do not know the scientific explanation. It is clear that the mind has a high influence on the healing ability of the body. There is nothing mystical here, just biology...

  18. They don't have any explanation for "body hair standing on end when scared"
    What do you think of this explanation?
    When you look at the animals - for example a cat meets a dog - his hair is thicker - he seems to be bigger, threatening and scary,
    A type of defensive response in times of danger.
    Today it does not serve us - but maybe thousands of years ago - it did serve us and it remains with us.
    I can't prove it, so of course it's not scientific - but it's enough for me - and many scientists' claims - sound like that.

    Regarding evil, suffering, failures, etc.:
    1 In every big plan there are glitches - this does not mean that there was no planning in advance
    2 When a person works in a large organization - he does not always see and understand the whole picture - this does not mean that there is no manager and that there is no proper procedure
    3 If there was no evil there would also be nothing good - from a human's point of view - because a human can only understand relatively

    From a scientific point of view - there is no need to lay down a "directing hand" to explain the world. On the contrary - the assumption of a guiding hand causes enormous problems: on the page above it is about: meaning, values, spirituality - if we only take what the logical scientific explanation gives - and take out everything that works even though a person still has no way to explain - much less than the spiritual ability remains Ours as human beings - like the difference between a doctor who treats only the physical illness - without considering the person in front of him - and even the scientific doctors admit - that there are cases of healing that they cannot scientifically explain - unless something else is taken into account - such as for example the powers of the soul

  19. They don't have any explanation for "body hair standing on end when scared"
    What do you think of this explanation?
    When you look at the animals - for example a cat meets a dog - his hair is thicker - he seems to be bigger, threatening and scary,
    A type of defensive response in times of danger.
    Today it does not serve us - but maybe thousands of years ago - it did serve us and it remains with us.
    I can't prove it, so of course it's not scientific - but it's enough for me - and many scientists' claims - sound like that.

    Regarding evil, suffering, failures, etc.:
    1 In every big plan there are glitches - this does not mean that there was no planning in advance
    2 When a person works in a large organization - he does not always see and understand the whole picture - this does not mean that there is no manager and that there is no proper procedure
    3 If there was no evil there would also be nothing good - from a human's point of view - because a human can only understand relatively

    From a scientific point of view - there is no need to lay down a "directing hand" to explain the world. On the contrary - the assumption of a guiding hand causes enormous problems: on the page above it is about: meaning, values, spirituality - if we only take what the logical scientific explanation gives - and take out everything that works even though a person still has no way to explain - much less than the spiritual ability remains Ours as human beings - like the difference between a doctor who treats only the physical illness - without considering the person in front of him - and even the scientific doctors admit - that there are cases of healing that they cannot scientifically explain - unless something else is taken into account - such as for example the powers of the soul

  20. a sultry woman
    "The "guiding hand" does not interfere at all because in the end everything works out for the best." - There is a lot of suffering in the world. There are small children with terrible diseases who suffer until they die. Is everything going well for them too?

    "So if the brain is technology - then who wrote the software "evolutionary mechanisms" that created the technology?" - There are things in the world that do not need to be written because they necessarily exist. For example - the logic. Example: If I am given that the existence of A entails the existence of B, and I know that A exists - then B also exists. You agree with that, right? It is not possible otherwise. So it turns out that evolution also necessarily takes place. If you want, you can expand.

    "To me - if the "antibiotic" works - even if you still can't understand how - it exists - this is sufficient proof" - you are absolutely right. Most people don't care why things work. But we are writing here on a scientific website. And in science it is actually interesting why things work. And from a scientific point of view - there is no need to lay down a "directing hand" to explain the world. On the contrary - the assumption of a directed hand causes enormous problems:
    For example - evil in the world. How can one explain that someone designed the world so that animals must eat other living creatures (plants, other animals) in order to exist?
    For example - all kinds of "mistakes" in our body. And there are many of them.
    For example - all kinds of phenomena in our body that have no explanation. The standing of the body hair when scared for example.

    And again - everything I say has a logical scientific explanation.

  21. The "directing hand" does not interfere at all because in the end everything works out for the best.
    It's just that I can't see the whole plan in advance
    So if the mind is technology - then who wrote the "evolutionary mechanisms" software that created the technology?
    What you happen to "common sense" - is everything you can understand prove to conclude logically.
    If you were a human being 2000 years ago - a bus or antibiotics would be defined according to your method in the field of unhealthy logic.
    In 2000 years - maybe - there will be people here who can logically conclude - how telepathy or intuition works - transferring thoughts and knowing the future - and then it is common sense.
    You assume that once a person can make a logical conclusion then it is common sense.
    To me - if the "antibiotic" works - even if you still can't understand how - it exists - this is sufficient proof

  22. a sultry woman

    Wait, so there is a "directed hand" that interferes with your plans all the time but in the end somehow at the last minute arranges everything in the best possible way? Why does she bother you all the time? Why don't you just leave your programs alone so they can work as they are and then she won't have to do double work (both interrupting and tidying)?

    The organs in our body are far from being the most advanced technology. The only part of a person that can possibly be argued to be the most advanced technology is the brain. Every other organ exists in a more "technological" variation in other creatures. And today there are optical systems that are much more technologically advanced than the eye (any eye). The same goes for the ear (only that the systems are not optical). Breastfeeding mechanism for some reason is not popular in technological developments.

    All this did not happen by chance, it happened thanks to evolutionary mechanisms.

    Do you understand that the creation process of human projects and organs in living beings are completely different? The reason you assume that a lot of thought was put into the human project is because you know (in general terms) the creative process. You don't know the creation process of the eye, and you are projecting the creation process of the project onto the creation process of the eye, even though they are not similar at all. This is not common sense. This is not a standard logical inference.

  23. a sultry woman
    There is no problem in giving a natural explanation for everything you described. Let's take for example the creation of the milk you describe. It is not true that the amount of milk is adjusted exactly for the baby. There are women with a large excess of milk and there are women with a severe lack of milk. In the past - women with a sufficient amount of milk could raise many children, and this trait is inherited (at least partially), women with an excess of milk suffered from a lack of food and raised fewer children (in the past, obtaining food involved a lot of effort). You can also look at it the other way around - babies whose rate of development matched the amount of milk available were more likely to survive than other babies. Don't forget that in the not so distant past few babies even survived.

    Let's take another example - the eye. There are about 40 different types of eyes in the animal world - are they all the best eyes possible? There are animals that live in total darkness that have eyes.
    In addition, the eyes have many problems - half of us need glasses. The eyes are easily damaged. The sun is harmful to the eyes. Some animals see much better than humans.
    To learn about the world - we need to help the eyes: telescope, microscope, night vision devices, etc.

    Rather, evolution can explain every point I have made here. So I see no reason for there to be anything beyond that.

  24. Too many times it happens to me personally that things work out for the best even though the chances of that seem very small,
    I plan something, do my best, many things go wrong, and then at the last minute everything works out,
    I believe there is something beyond our normal senses
    Beyond the knowledge we perceive logically
    there is plenty to discover
    Also - there are many things in our reality - that make me believe that there is a "directing hand"
    The most advanced technology - is in every "eye", "ear", "breastfeeding mechanism"
    The fact that a baby is born - then in the beginning there is milk that is adapted to the beginning stage
    And then - the amount of milk in the breast - adapts itself - by a hormonal mechanism - to the needs of the baby
    The reality is too complex - for me, based on my experience - to accept as an assumption - that all this happened by chance
    When people plan something complicated
    They need to invest a lot of effort and good intentions for the project to succeed
    When I see a very complicated project - I assume without knowing for sure - that a lot of thought was put into it
    "Eye" is a very complicated mechanism
    I assume that a lot of thought went into the design of the eye mechanism

  25. To all those who favor spirituality and it doesn't matter on what basis, theological, secular, new age. If I stand next to a ventilator I will also be spiritual. For some reason the Age of Aquarius reminds me of a sponge.

  26. No Name
    In my opinion, repentance is a serious low... Like moving from Ubuntu 14.04 to DOS 3.0 🙂

  27. If you want to get someone out of their routine, you have to give them a decent alternative
    Just like formatting a computer, you don't leave it empty, but reinstall, and once in a while you install a new system
    Our beliefs and our worldview are equivalent to computer operating systems, it is not customary to underestimate...

  28. Zvi Lifshitz
    I guess you also don't know that Hitler happened to support religion, in Mein Camp. I don't know... I don't think you knew that...

  29. Zvi Lifshitz
    I don't believe there is anything outside of nature. Are you comparing me to Hitler? Hitler was not an "atheist", if you didn't know.

    Are you claiming that morality comes from religion? You're not exactly moral...

  30. The atheist Enlightenment, that is honest with itself to the end, is the Enlightenment of Nietzsche, who admits that without God there are no morals and no values. This is exactly the same Enlightenment that laid the foundation for eugenics, and this served as the basis for "Mein Kampf".

  31. Hi,
    It was very interesting to read your article.
    Unfortunately, you are completely wrong in your understanding of the concept of "scientific truth" and "value truth", they are two completely different things, without any logical connection between them.
    You do not differentiate between the scientific truth which is "instrumental truth", and the "value truth" which is the idea that a person's mouth and heart value.
    The "scientific truth" is to science what Langer taught. As there is no carpenter who does not work with wood, so there is no scientist who can work with false Torah. A scientific theory that is not "truth", does not predict anything real for the world and is not fruitful for expansion and development.
    On the other hand, there is the "valuable truth". The idea that it is obligatory and proper to tell the truth. Here, the scientist is every human being. A person can be a great scientist and a Nazi (which is a bit worse than a liar), take for example Heisenberg who collaborated with the Nazis and it is not clear whether he was happy or not, what is certain is that this did not change his "scientist" level.
    If you are interested in the connection between religion and science, I would like to click on Isaiah Leibovitch's small book "Conversations on Science and Values", where he explains clearly and clearly why you are trying to bridge an unbridgeable gap.
    The division of value and instrumental truth is taken from there.
    With the blessing of Hesher Kach for the worthy effort, to try and reach a world of values.
    And hopefully you will see the light 🙂 or at least understand that there is a built-in value darkness in a naturalistic world 😉

    borrowed

    borrowed

  32. Hi,
    It was very interesting to read your article.
    Unfortunately, you are completely wrong in your understanding of the concept of "scientific truth" and "value truth", they are two completely different things, without any logical connection between them.
    You do not differentiate between the scientific truth which is "instrumental truth", and the "value truth" which is the idea that a person's mouth and heart value.
    The "scientific truth" is to science what Langer taught. As there is no carpenter who does not work with wood, so there is no scientist who can work with false Torah. A scientific theory that is not "truth", does not predict anything real for the world and is not fruitful for expansion and development.
    On the other hand, there is the "valuable truth". The idea that it is obligatory and proper to tell the truth. Here, the scientist is every human being. A person can be a great scientist and a Nazi (which is a bit worse than a liar), take for example Heisenberg who collaborated with the Nazis and it is not clear whether he was happy or not, what is certain is that this did not change his "scientist" level.
    If you are interested in the connection between religion and science, I would like to click on Isaiah Leibovitch's small book "Conversations on Science and Values", where he explains clearly and clearly why you are trying to bridge an unbridgeable gap.
    The division of value and instrumental truth is taken from there.
    With the blessing of Hesher Kach for the worthy effort, to try and reach a world of values.
    And hopefully you will see the light 🙂 or at least understand that there is a built-in value darkness in a naturalistic world 😉

    borrowed

    borrowed

  33. sympathetic,
    When you wrote "Science believes that the world is amenable to a complete rational description", you lost me. I wrote to you that science is the totality of scientists who document, research, come up with theories, conduct experiments and refute mistakes and there is no such thing as "science" in the essential sense that you are trying to produce here. I mean your key sentence in the first paragraph is nonsense. Maybe it's a nice sentence to say, but it's not true.
    I also read Taleb and I understand the problematic in induction, extrapolation and other curses, but the inherent problematic in the use of these curses does not turn the subject of the scientist's research base into faith in the Faith sense.
    To check what motivates the scientist you will have to ask them, we have several on the site here. I guess that curiosity, challenge, the ability to come to work every day and think differently from many jobs where the bulk of the work is a boring routine all these make this job not bad. salary??? I don't think it's a hit but I hope I'm wrong.

    If you claim that Jesus has no proof that he ever walked the earth, and even if he did, the legends about him are certainly not proven, that means preachy, and if you claim that the gods have about 0 proofs of their existence to prove your argument, then you have done the work for me.

  34. sympathetic
    It seems to me that you are grasping at every straw to save your faith. You take care of every comma and don't pay attention to the essence of things.

  35. sympathetic

    Well, since you are withdrawing from the discussion, I will only refer to the end so as not to bother you too much, and take up the time you don't have right now.

    "I would be happy to hear that you agree with that. Although due to lack of time (and not lack of interest I am forced to withdraw from the current discussion). Our day-to-day world consists mainly of things that our senses cannot distinguish, in particular all the mental processes, our loves and hates, our history."

    It seems to me that our definition of things we notice through our senses is somewhat different. All the things you listed are completely things that we notice through our senses according to my understanding. In addition, I will point out that the inputs we receive from devices we created (for example telescopes and various measuring devices) and could not experience before we created them are also considered as things we notice through our senses.

    "The value obtained from the opposition of God as whole compared to man who is limited and partial shows us that we must behave modestly. There is something greater than us."

    What is the connection between being modest about the existence of something bigger than us and using the term God (which already has several different meanings than something bigger than us)?

    Three things that are simply unrelated

    You think there is value in acting modestly, nice. But it is not related to these two things in any way. If I am the best at something in the world does that mean I will necessarily be immodest about it? Even if I know that in fact I am the best in the universe at this thing there is no charge for immodesty.

    I'm also not clear what you think is so immodest in science - this thing whose starting point is we don't know. Compared to this thing that comes from the assumption that you already know everything you need to know and you just have to follow its rules, do you remember what it's called?

    "If all our conquests and elimination of ignorance are not like this, we will reach an understanding of ourselves, our essence and the essence of the world."

    If not, then how do we get there? What path do you think we have to reach the understanding you seek for us? Do you have an example of something like this? Any train of thought you can type here that results in something like this?

    This is an emotional statement. If we don't try we will never be able to know what understandings of the nature of ourselves and the world we are able to reach through science.

    "A person's search should be internal and not based on objective truth, according to me only in this way can a person reach happiness."

    But the scientific search is not a search for happiness. These are two separate and completely different things. Understanding the universe can make a person happy or depressed, amazed or bored to wonder or disinterest, each person will probably experience these understandings in a different way.

    There are many things you can think of that will lead you to find happiness, but this is a completely different process that is not related to science.

    You are looking here to connect things that are not related to each other.

    The problem with illogical and irrational thinking is that there is no consistency, and you can actually just jump from one thing to another. You enter a world where everything has meaning at the same time that everything has no meaning. There are countless essences out there that exist or do not exist independently of anything and for whatever momentary or eternal periods of time you wish to imagine, and which can be completely contradictory to each other and there is no problem with that. Do you think there is a way to find some consistent essence out of it? No problem. Explain how and provide evidence for your claim.

  36. Israel
    I don't think there are only 2 options. It is possible, for example, that there was a God who created the world and disappeared.

    What is most amazing is people who say that man is limited on the one hand, and on the other hand can prove that God exists... and yet they know what God is thinking.
    What misery…..

  37. sympathetic
    you amaze me You say nothing in so many words…..
    Seriously, you didn't say anything.

  38. "If he can answer Israel Shapira's questions, that would be cool."

    don't get carried away. There are things that even the Almighty cannot.

    What's more, solving the Riemann or Goldbach conjectures on his Facebook page could be a constructive training step.

    After all, there are two options: there is a boss or there is not.

    If there is - then one can accept many of his commandments and strange laws, just as we accept the strangeness of quantum mechanics without understanding what it actually is (this is what Feynman says).

    If there isn't - it will be difficult for a thinking person to take it seriously if it doesn't actually exist, even though believing in it offers many benefits.

    A bit like paper money: a prosperous economy can be rolled out using fake dollars, and that is what is happening in the wild west on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

    But it will be somewhat difficult for us to trade with money that has no backing behind it, even though from a practical point of view the economy will roll out very nicely even with monopoly money.

    In short - the people demand a miracle or a miracle, and it is desirable that there be a meeting with the people at Rabin Square!

  39. walking dead

    In response to what I wrote "that is, there are rules or laws that determine the behavior, but it is possible that the rules and laws are just our consequences like the example you gave about the natural numbers"

    You wrote to me, "It seems to me that you missed the significant point here, which is the lack of information and/or a possible way to answer the question of whether the laws are only in our thoughts or whether they exist independently and independently. Given this situation, the discussion on this point is at best philosophical and interesting, but in fact has no real purpose"
    In my opinion, you missed the main point for me, which is whether the limited person, many of whose perception of nature are consequences that reflect him and not the world, can ever understand reality as a whole. The question is, what kind of understanding of reality are we looking for? Is a scientific understanding of reality enough for us and even within the framework of science, is the process of searching for ultimate truth a final process?

    In response to what you wrote "The only thing you do when you choose to call it health is to enslave your thoughts to the literal connotations of the word. You force upon yourself the idea that once there was nothing and then something was created. There are so-called two options that the existence has always existed and that the existence was created out of nothing. When you choose one based on no factual information you are actually doing exactly what you claim you don't want to do. You put your thinking into the frame. Worse, you do it on the basis of a choice that lacks any foundation or meaning.”
    I have no problem not talking about health and I have no problem not talking about logical options either. In my opinion, our world is much more complex than logic. By the way, who among us navigates his life on a logical basis and what contribution does science have to our lives other than materially (an area I do not underestimate).

    Indeed, in my thought I expressed myself too poetically, when I wrote "Why not just admire the beauty of creation?"
    In a more practical way, the intention was that even as humanity, in my opinion, we will not be able to understand everything or achieve everything. The mad race for more and more material and more scientific theories is dangerous when it does not also include fundamental questions. The understanding that no matter how much we work we will not get close to infinity should fill us with humility in terms of the basis for a spiritual concept that the above article misses.

    You write "You have all kinds of very strange ideas about what science is about. It seems like you think it's a sacred rulebook and that there are people who sit and oversee these rules and make sure they are kept because I don't know what will happen. Science is simply a collection of observations, some more accurate and some less so, and interpretations of these observations, some more correct and some less correct, with the help of which we try to understand how the universe around us works, and hope indeed to arrive at the truth about it."

    First of all, science defines what is truth or what can be scientific truth, this is the basis of the scientific method. According to science, truth is objective. A scientific experiment testing the truth should be reproducible. Our external and internal world is much more complex in my opinion than this kind of truth. In addition, it is the scientific interpretation or language that produces reality. Our private reality is much bigger than our language which is again limited and reveals only one facet of the inner reality. You write "The point is that the understandings in science should be based on something that can be felt (measured), or in other words evidence. ". In my opinion, a visual description of the world is not enough. By analogy does the legal description of our world reflect the totality of the phenomena. If someone tells me that he was happy or sad, should I just ignore it because I have no evidence of it?

    Regarding your claims about science you say that "science is really about things we can examine with our senses" really has anyone ever seen a cork or an electron. Have we seen a black hole? Modern science has so many levels of abstraction that it has long since lost touch with our senses.

    Athena writes "All the other things that we cannot discern with our senses are simply not of interest to science. According to his guiding principles they simply have no use." I would be happy to hear that you agree with that. Although due to lack of time (and not lack of interest I am forced to withdraw from the current discussion). Our day-to-day world consists mainly of things that our senses cannot distinguish, in particular all the mental processes, our loves and hates, our history.

    The value obtained from the opposition of God as whole compared to man who is limited and partial shows us that we must behave modestly there is something greater than us. If all our conquests and removal of ignorance are not like this we will reach an understanding of ourselves, our essence and the essence of the world. A person's search should be internal and not based on objective truth, according to me only in this way can a person reach happiness.

  40. Miracles

    A finite number of laws can describe a collection of phenomena if they are simplified. For example, the word table in principle applies to an infinite number of objects, but this word only describes a very partial feature of the objects. One table could be metal, the other wooden, one could be a 16th century collector's item and the other a simple formica table. In using the law or in general to describe infinite results, we choose to refer to only a narrow part of reality.

    Regarding your understanding of quantum theory, you admit that it is little, so I think that you should not rely on the opinions of experts cited in popular literature. If you insist, I would like to understand from you why you are doing nothing. The quantum vacuum is not a state of nothingness. Regarding the creation of something from nothing, classical physics is based on conservation laws but is directly related to symmetries by a theorem that I do not believe that there are physicists who believe that something can be created from nothing if we do not take into account the illusory theory of multiple worlds.
    You asked if I believe there is a God. So I believe that man is limited and there is something that is above man. The recognition of our finitude and our limitations compared to the infinite, can also be called God. This is not a lovable grandfather with a doomsday beard.
    As I also wrote to the other commenters, unfortunately I don't have enough time to answer everyone, so I am withdrawing from the above discussion. In conclusion, I would advise you to think a little more open and think a little more deeply about the essence of things and a little less firm determinations, especially in areas in which you are not an expert.

  41. Shmulik,

    You claim that there is no faith at the base of science and the example you give is admissions or the high probability that the sun will rise again tomorrow. The assumption that the sun will rise again tomorrow is not a scientific assumption as long as we don't have a theory behind the sunrise. A scientific theory does not say the sun will rise tomorrow because that is how it has been until today, on the contrary our everyday insights are based on this. Scientifically we believe that the sun will rise tomorrow because we understand its rising through a mechanism (the understanding that the earth rotates on its axis). In addition to this, you are of course aware of the problem of induction, or as shown in the book "The Black Swan", the problem of the turkey. The turkey that the farmer feeds builds a theory that life is good and the farmer loves him. Indeed the rooster is fed for 1000 days until on the 1001st day it is slaughtered. That is, there is a problem in building a theory based only on induction, a mechanism is needed. Science assumes that things can be explained because at their base there is a hidden mechanism that we must discover. Science believes that the world is amenable to a complete rational description.
    I have no problem with believing in what you call an explained natural phenomenon I have a problem with believing that everything can be scientifically explained. Basically, science does not deal with nature as it is, but is an attempt to describe the infinite universe in human terms. Science is built on the human way of thinking and this way is limited. Our imagination is indeed wide but it also has its limits. We think in a certain way and within the framework of our way of thinking it is convenient for me to define God as whole while man is finite and limited God is the perfect whole. One of the advantages of this worldview is the understanding that we will never understand everything (the human race) and also the understanding that this is not a war of conquest, as science knows more, this does not mean that our lives are better. Indeed, in a material sense, there is a correlation between the progress of science and our material possessions, but in terms of our understanding of ourselves, who and what we are, I only see a retreat with the progress of science.

    I have defined for you the whole which we can never understand and now we will turn to your demands for things that will provide you with proofs for the existence of God. In order to know who will win the trophy enough Octopus does not need to be God, to answer Israel's questions it is enough to be Israel (which is also respectable). As for God, you asked him to break a logical law, but there is a God who does exactly that. Jesus, for example, is the son of a virgin. In my humble opinion, this is a logical contradiction, in addition, he is both human and immortal, again a logical contradiction. The logical contradictions come to show that an understanding of God is not done through logic, the universe quickly consists of more things than we can understand logically. As for breaking the laws of physics, there are countless gods who pride themselves on this. The common name for this phenomenon is miracles. By the way, physics laws are also broken in laboratories from time to time, although not in a grandiose way as you requested. All I am saying is that it is the true recognition of man's limitations and his attempts to describe the world that leads to the thought that there is something beyond human consciousness, in a certain sense more perfect.

    Regarding science you write there is no such thing as the goal of science. If so, as the atheist requested from the religious in the previous paragraph, explain to me what science is and what is the motivation of scientists to engage in it (beyond a reasonable salary). Do scientists believe that there is truth in their theories and the accepted theories? Do they think that they can always be improved? Do they believe that little by little we are conquering territories from the hands of the ignorant? Do they believe that the more science we know the better our lives become (in the general sense of humanity). Is the only way for humanity to progress scientifically? Is the only way in which man investigates himself scientifically? Are we happier than our predecessors?

    In conclusion, although the discussion with you is very interesting as far as I'm concerned, I don't have enough free time to answer all the respondents, so I will regretfully have to withdraw from the discussion.
    As a side note, one of the "failures" of the large accelerator at the LHC was that it did not find physics beyond the standard model, i.e. supersymmetry.

  42. withering,

    I will start with your words about listening to "smart people". I have no problem with people listening to smart people when they talk about their profession in a professional manner. The problem is that the accessibility of the general public
    Not for reliable professional information, the public is fed mainly by popular literature in which scientists sometimes add
    Regarding their book, they discuss very speculative issues. The layman does not distinguish between speculation and theories
    established. In addition, the scientist often simplifies his words significantly so that the lay reader often understands something completely different from the true meanings of the research. In short, there are very few smart people
    who know how to explain the latest theories in a reliable and clear manner. Nissim identifies himself as something that is not a physicist, so I would advise him to stop citing what he read in popular literature as the Sinaitic Torah and further refer me to these sources as a reliable source of information. I prefer a person who thinks resourcefully and knows how to justify his claims instead of people who bring sources of authority that do not flow to them. You can continue to argue that I'm arrogant, but I don't think I should bow my head and keep quiet just because Nisim quotes the words of this or that laureate. Many of the great physicists, if not all, had speculative theories which in retrospect they hid because they were not true, I would be happy to provide examples. In any case, since my time is limited, we have already said that man is a limited production, I do not have enough time to reply to all the commenters and therefore I am forced with some regret to stop my comments on this topic.

    I am not against asking questions within a given framework and I emphasized this in my words. A recommendation to engage in the big framework is ugly behavior, rather it is a suggestion to open the mind and head a bit, but it seems that this is not the direction that interests some of the commenters here. The insult that I propose to examine the basis of our perceptions indicates, in my opinion, problems of thought and determination. You claimed that ugly behavior is the one that unfortunately you mostly encounter in conversations with religious people and that is a fact, so what? Is your experience enough to perform statistics on it? Does that mean I'm religious? What does this have to do with religion? Is it a logical conclusion that I am most likely religious? Again you try to transfer the topics of the conversation to who and what I and my religion are secular again looking from a narrow framework within a framework of labels.

  43. Nir Yakiri, old Freud promised that science would replace God. Our Lord too!! As a scientist I turn to you (with your permission, in the words of Marie Gelman about superstitions and repression. ) - Please free us from the Babylon called God. I'll leave you with repairs and other eggshells. Those whose soul is hurt, should go to psychotherapy. You don't need a bearded hug from mikvah lovers whose mercy increases this time of year :))

  44. Nir! Some reflections. The meaning of life must be sought in biology. Meaning for human life must be sought in psychology, and in the theory of evolution, which is a framework and template for biology and psychology. The central motif in human life is the construction of a complete and coherent representation of the external environment and the internal environment (the "I"). Since the knowledge available to man is partial, and the system for processing knowledge is limited, the construction of the representation is sometimes done at the expense of the truth. The process of building the complete and coherent representation explains the creation of religion and the creation of God, and many other psychological phenomena. "Looking at the exciting beauty of the universe". There is no beauty in the universe, the "exciting beauty" is a person's personal response to external stimulation.

  45. sympathetic

    "In other words, there are rules or laws that determine the behavior, but it is possible that the rules and laws are just our consequences like the example you gave about the natural numbers"

    It seems to me that you missed the significant point here, which is the lack of information and/or a possible way to answer the question of whether the laws are only in our thoughts or whether they exist independently. Given this situation, the discussion on this point is at best philosophical and interesting but in fact has no real purpose.

    "Now let's replace the concept of nature with the term God and say man is trying to understand the creative creation"

    We say nature for convenience, when in fact we are trying to understand everything. Call it nature, call it the world, call it the universe, it doesn't matter, call it God, call it creation, call it creation, call it human thoughts, call it sand, call it whatever you want, it means nothing.

    The only thing you do when you choose to call it health is to enslave your thoughts to the literal connotations of the word. You force upon yourself the idea that once there was nothing and then something was created. There are so-called two options that the existence has always existed and that the existence was created out of nothing. When you choose one based on no factual information you are actually doing exactly what you claim you don't want to do. You put your thinking into the frame. Worse yet you are doing it on the basis of a choice that lacks any foundation or meaning.

    It seems terribly significant to us if the universe was created or if it has always existed but it is probably just an illusion that stems from our way of thinking and our language. Beyond that it probably cannot be reconciled because in fact there is a source of paradox in the definition of existence, since every time you invent/imagine something that is external to it and can be a cause of its creation from within the definition of existence, this thing that you invented becomes part of it due to the fact that existence actually includes in its definition everything. (In the sense of creation versus infinite existence, the meaning is another addition of time on each layer of such an additional creative factor)

    It may be very interesting, but the litigation and imagination of how things were created, and how the things that created them were created, and how the things that created them came into existence, and how the things that brought them into existence came into existence at all, is pointless when it is based only on the imagination and philosophical thoughts and is not supported in data from reality.

    "His mind is limited, so he can at most only admire the beauty of creation"

    What is the point of this statement? Do you have a reference for this? The only person today is not capable of knowing everything (or at least that's how it seems to me from my knowledge of my private mind) but is this true and will it always be true for all future humanity?
    I do not know. You choose to think yes, and a fan chooses to think no. How will you determine which of you is right about what will be possible in the future?

    Why should we just admire the beauty of creation? What does it give us? Why is it good? How much time a day should I admire and what should I do the rest of the time? If everything we do is considered an admiration of creation, what is the point of this type of Haggadah? Isn't it just a figurative language to simply live or exist?

    "...His description of the world will always be incomparable with the infinite universe or alternatively God."

    Why is the "alternate God" so important to you? Is there really any real additional meaning here?

    By the way, we don't even know if the universe is infinite or not. What if one day we happen to discover that the universe is actually finite? Aren't we entering the point again where we say to ourselves well there is the limit of the universe, beyond this point it is no longer the universe, but nevertheless there is something there that is not the universe, but if there is something there that is not that means it is actually part of the universe since the universe is actually supposed to include all that exists?

    "The point I stand against is that the truth is only in the hands of science, because there is nothing but the laws of nature. In my opinion the laws of nature are partly a human invention like the whole numbers or the concept of beauty. In our language we often create a world and not just describe it"

    You have all kinds of terribly strange ideas about what science is. It seems like you think it's a sacred rulebook and that there are people who sit and oversee these rules and make sure they are kept because I don't know what will happen. Science is simply a collection of observations, some more accurate and some less so, and interpretations of these observations, some more correct and some less correct, with the help of which we try to understand how the universe around us works, and hope indeed to arrive at the truth about it.
    In the past there were scientific ideas/understandings that we later realized were less correct than other ideas/understandings that were more suitable to the measured information, and it is likely that this is still true today, and in our minds the ideas that are not completely correct and will be replaced in the future by more correct understandings that will also later be replaced by more correct understandings . Even the historical misconceptions that have been neglected are still part of the world of science, science is built on the basis of errors as much as it is built on the basis of truths. The point is that the understandings in science should be based on something that can be felt (measured), or in other words evidence. That's why when someone says something in the world of science, the answer they get is not: "That's not true." The rulebook says you're wrong. Fly away from here, you wicked infidel", rather: explain and provide evidence for your claim.

    Science does not rule out God or disprove his existence or non-existence (or any mythological or imaginary creature). He does not deal with him (or them) at all. The reason why science is really about things we can observe with our senses. All other things that we cannot discern with our senses are simply not of interest to science. According to his guiding principles they are simply useless.

    It could be that our senses are not correct at all and we are living a lie. But we don't use them because they are true and are an absolute truth but because they are the only tool we have to discern the world/universe/whatever. The question of what the absolute truth is doesn't really matter to us if we have no way of interacting with that truth in any way.
    Would it matter to you if our universe exists inside a giant cosmological orange, which is indiscernible and has no effect on your life in any way, even though it is the absolute truth?

    "Does the poet's poem have an evidential basis, is only what can be justified in the court of science true? Or true?”

    Do not know. It probably depends on the song.

    If you arrive at any truth related to understanding the universe that is based on tangible evidence (and not imagined evidence) you are dealing with science. Therefore, yes, the "court" of science rules with a high hand over everything that is true and related to the understanding of the universe and tangible evidence. Not because it overpowers all truth, but because if truth is tied to understanding the universe and tangible evidence, then it falls under the definition of science.

    We are all busy telling each other some kind of lies and debating/arguing about which lies are better, better explained, fit the evidence better, all the while hoping that those lies will eventually lead to the truth, or something close enough to the truth.

    Science is not the absolute truth. It's a lot of errors that we hope are close enough to the truth, and try to correct other errors that will be closer to the truth or maybe even mistakenly actually be the truth.

    "God can be thought of as the whole while man is the limited part"

    What does this definition give you? If opposition to a disabled person is so important, why isn't this opposition to a non-disabled person (or a whole person)? How does asking the concept of God (which already represents many different things to many different people) to represent a complete opposite to the partial person contribute to something?

    Please explain to me what value is obtained from these definitions, as I see no value in them.

  46. Ashurbanipal
    Many of my opinions are actually the result of traveling around the world - getting to know nature, getting to know other peoples.
    Like Darwin 🙂

  47. Miracles
    Where do you get the time to sit and answer talkbacks and give such long answers? Are you retired and bored with life? Travel the world a bit and see the emperor penguin in Antarctica. Climb to the top of the Himalayas and see Yeti and try playing Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata on the xylophone and more.

  48. withering
    You are very right.

    sympathetic
    A while ago my eye hurt. I went to an ophthalmologist and he told me that it was serious, and that I must immediately be treated with certain antibiotics, and if there is no effect within two days - hospitalization.
    I understand from you that I made a mistake in listening to him? Maybe I should have asked the rabbi?

    And for completeness - here is another case, and a question. I had the chance to visit Pegia several times in one of the hospitals. There was an Orthodox couple there. The parents insisted on performing a circumcision after 8 days, according to the order of their rabbi.
    The question - what happened at the end of the story (everything is real)?

  49. sympathetic,
    Reporter:
    "I think there is joy in asking questions within a given framework, but it is very limited."
    This "very limited" is also not the vision of everything, and it is undoubtedly not the vision of everything, occupies a very, very significant part in our lives, in the lives of all of us, even in your life. The belittling you do to this part, which is led mainly by scientists, is spitting into the well from which you drink every day, and this is very, very ugly behavior, which, unfortunately, I encountered mainly in conversations with religious people. I don't know why this is so, but these are the facts.

    Regarding the rest of your words:
    "Sometimes we have to examine the framework itself and its basic rules to understand which of our beliefs is based on what is an unwritten agreement between the people dealing in a certain field and what are the limitations on our knowledge when we operate in a certain field."
    I completely agree, and the fields that do this best in my opinion are the fields of philosophy, psychology and sociology. The main difference between these three and other structures of thought such as religions for example, is the reliance on rational thinking (in all three areas) and the reliance on the scientific method (in some areas) which is the only method to date through which reliable knowledge of the world has been obtained. Religious beliefs, however strong they may be, are not reliable knowledge.
    It is not at all clear to me why you state that I only act within the framework, I mean I also invest thought and study in the meta-structures of thought about the framework, whether at the conceptual level (the meaning and validity of the concepts we use), whether at the personal level (psychological biases) or at the level The interaction between people, usually scientists in my case (sociology of science), and their possible effects on my actions in the usual "framework" of the scientific method. Why did you decide not to give my opinion on this?

    Regarding listening to "smart people", it seems to me that Nissim means, and rightly so, that he relies on the words of professionals in their field of expertise (Nissim please correct me if I am not being precise). Scientists are usually professionals in their field, on the basis of this professionalism they also carry out research on open questions for which the answer is not yet known. From this point of view, the level of professionalism is not uniform in everything and anything that the scientist does. He can be the number one professional in the world on a certain subject and still grope in the dark without yet knowing exactly what is happening in the field he has just started researching, even if this field is basically based on methods, technology and knowledge in which that scientist is an expert and professional. In a world where professional knowledge is distributed and in fact it is not possible for one person to obtain professional knowledge at a high level in all fields, even in limited fields it is quite difficult, it would be foolish not to rely on the words of the professionals from another field. Please note that relying on a professional, as wise as he may be, does not mean blind reliance on any other issue that the same party refers to. Nissim did not claim, for example, that on the subject of existence appearing out of nothing, he relied on the celebrated biologist Richard Dawkins, who is a professional in the field of biology and in the field of evolution in particular, but he relied on information provided by physicists that the subject in question is included in their professional field. The comparison to blind faith or the comparison to a "foolish follower" in this case is really out of place. You continue to condescend, tease and insult, and then wonder why you are treated unfriendly. why do you do that (To be clear, you have already done so from your previous comments in the past on the subject of evolution and science).

  50. sympathetic
    From my little understanding of quantum theory - yes, I think it is possible that "nothing" is unstable. I am basing myself on books and articles I have read, written by people who are experts in this field.

    I don't think this solves the problem of the formation of the universe - but it shows (to me, at least) that there is no puzzle here that science cannot in principle solve.

    It is the same for the formation of life. We don't know how it happened. There are several theories for this, one of which may be true. But again, there is no fundamental problem here that prevents a physical solution to this problem.

    Likewise for the formation of reason in man.

    I do not claim that there is no God. I say, that I see no need to believe that there is a God. And the truth - I see many reasons to believe, and also to hope, that there is no God. One of the reasons for this is that I have never met a religious person with enough integrity to say that the existence of God is only one possibility, and the truth is not that well established. And even if there really is a God - the chance that the Jews know the most about him is really low...

  51. sympathetic
    "Making a list of endless things is an endless task, do you agree with that." Define what a list is for you.
    If it's a piece of paper written on it by hand in a certain font - I guess you're right - I don't think there's an infinite amount of paper in the world.
    If you mean that I can give you any element in the list you want - that depends on your definition of infinity. Some cases yes, some cases no.

  52. Miracles

    I tried to explain to you several times but it seems that you refuse or don't want to understand. I'm not telling you to believe anyone, I'm asking you to think for yourself! The fact that a certain person received a certificate or an award or holds a certain title does not make his words sacred. I gave you an example of a Nobel laureate in physics who is currently engaged in reading minds and moving things with the power of thought. I'm not asking you to tell me that you don't understand what they are saying, and in contrast I don't expect you to determine what I know and what I don't. Try to make claims that you can back up yourself and not claim, for example, that modern physics implies that something must have been created out of nothing (whatever, as far as I know, it does not claim that).

    I still haven't understood what those laws you are talking about are the laws of nature. The universe was created according to your opinion with hardware and with an operating system the laws? In your opinion, science is trying to decipher the operating system? You keep talking about natural laws and you don't define them. What is the validity of these laws, are they axioms? Is their validity mathematical? How does matter know that it must obey these laws? Are the laws part of the properties of the material itself, that is, are they part of its definition?

    Regarding the finite and the infinite. Making a list of endless things is an endless task, do you agree with that? What science does is an abstraction of the world, it takes a certain property of objects and groups them accordingly. For example, Newton stated that in the framework of a model, all bodies can be viewed as a point mass and for points of mass he determined his laws of motion. Reality is made up of dozens of counters and Newton's laws touch one aspect of it, from here you will surely understand that even a finite collection of laws cannot describe an infinite number of phenomena.

  53. Avi,
    Seven times I tried to enter my comment and the site seems to accept it but does not display it.
    Perhaps, proof to God will be if the site suddenly stops resisting accepting comments

  54. sympathetic,
    Let's start with the name. I think you are wrong…
    We will continue:
    Even if you ask again and again whether there is no faith at the base of science, my answer will still be no, and I have explained why. In essence, I do not "believe" that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I think that the sun will rise tomorrow, based on past observations. Why put the word faith in here? Believe in what exactly? In an explained natural phenomenon? If you want something a little more in-depth, read the link provided by Kamila that demonstrates the problematic nature of the word faith, in Hebrew. According to the link, I can say that I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow when the word "believe" is in English the word Belief. Belief (again, according to the link) is the state of mind in which a person perceives something as true. This. It has nothing to do with a higher power, a lower power, God, Zeus, Thor or the Kraken or any other elemental force in Shin.

    You respond to miracles while demonstrating a fine command of physics and mathematics in an impressive way ("By the way, the balloon has a limit in the R3 space...") but you treat my request carelessly: I asked you to first define for me what God is so that I know what I'm getting into. How can you ask me for proof of something that I don't understand what you want from my life? What is this, a Kafka novel? You asked, "Does the fact that there are things that science cannot explain or describe mean that there is proof of the existence of God" No. Why would this be proof? Who said that tomorrow we won't be able to explain the same things that today we can't explain? Since when is the inability to explain any phenomenon a proof of an empty claim that means nothing? The claim "God exists" must stand on its own and cannot be proven by "inability".
    Nevertheless, I will respond to the challenge. My answer is that if God could create a stone that he could not lift, then lift and at the same time be too weak to lift and solve this paradox, that would be interesting. If he shows me that conservation laws can be broken, like there's no tomorrow, I'll think there's something interesting here. If God breaks the second law of thermodynamics, that will be interesting. If Ella changes the very laws of physics in front of me, it will be interesting. If she resurrects the dead, that will be interesting. If she can throw away Eisenberg's uncertainty, that will be interesting. If Thor suddenly appears and moves stars so that it is written in the sky who will win the World Cup, it will be interesting. You know what, just anticipating the future will surely be fine. If he can answer Israel Shapira's questions, that would be cool. If he makes Hapoel win the championship, that will be nice. If she or he if they could explain why she or he or they were silent in the Holocaust, that would be interesting. continue?

    The problem with this answer is that it is as good as my private definition of God and part of what I asked for, perhaps, a psychically technologically advanced race could realize, so the categorical problem with the answer is the question. is the definition of the term. The definition, not the atheist should provide. The atheist (who doesn't know he is one yet) lies on the beach and drinks coconut milk. Suddenly some crazy people come to him and tell him that in God's name he has to wait 6 hours before eating crab and if he wants an exemption from that, he should disprove the existence of this funny God who forbids him to mix coconut and crab. The atheist straightens up, clicks his lips and says: What are you talking about, explain to me what you want from my life? I've been lying here quietly and suddenly you throw concepts at me that I don't understand and expect me to disprove some ethereal concept in the name of which you are mobilizing force against me? Fuck You (don't be offended...)

    The purpose of science:
    There is no such thing as the goal of science because science is a summary of all the people who are engaged in the analysis, characterization and prediction of nature while agreeing (of most of them) on the method that allows the elimination of errors (reproducibility, meta-analysis, peer review, etc.). This. Science is not something. Science does not want things, science is not bad, science is not good and therefore there is no answer to your question. Perhaps one scientist will tell you that he is interested in discovering the truth itself, and perhaps another scientist will explain to him that all he can strive for is to produce a theory that allows better predictions than what was in the past that will not be disproved as long as he is alive, and perhaps a third will think that technology is the best proof of our ability to predict, but which in itself does not guarantee that we have arrived at the absolute truth. As far as I'm concerned, every time an explanation becomes more solid and contains fewer holes, and as an example we can take the discovery of the Higgs boson, I realize that we have advanced another step in understanding the universe while I keep to myself the reservation that maybe tomorrow it will be her turn that explains the findings in a different way.

    Regarding string theory, I am not an expert and therefore can only quote the experts, including those of string theory, who agree with the claim that it is still not a physical theory since it has not provided any rebuttal test and there are some who call it Not Even Wrong.
    On the other hand, if I understood correctly, her rise gave an opening to ideas such as super symmetry so that at least she has a significant conceptual contribution. is it so

    Happy holiday

  55. sympathetic
    Why believe Amnon Yitzchak and not Richard Feynman?

    Should the anti-Semitic views of the Nobel laureate in physics affect his knowledge of physics?

    Do your rabbis have an education in all the fields I mentioned earlier? do you have How do you preach something you yourself don't live up to?

    The question "Is finite production able to understand the infinite". Beyond the fact that the universe, or everything related to the universe is not necessarily infinite - surely man can understand the infinite, as long as the laws are finite. Do you know it is different?

    Ehud - I do not understand the origin of the world. Nobody understands.
    But, I have no doubt that you will find answers (if you find them) with those who are looking for the answers, not with those who claim that they always knew the answers. Among other things - I think I'm right because the people searching have tripled their life expectancy, and those who claim to know are just bullying me...

  56. walking dead

    The meaning above or below a person was metaphorical of course. You hold the view that nature "nature works in some way." That is, there are rules or laws that determine the behavior, but it is possible that the rules and laws are just our consequences like the example you gave about the natural numbers. Now let's replace the concept of nature with the term God and say man is trying to understand the creation of creation, his mind is limited and therefore he can only admire the beauty of creation. He will be able to marvel at the beauty by writing poems or by scientific investigation, both of which are legitimate ways of describing the wonders of creation. The understanding of man's limitations and that his description of the world will always be incomparable with the infinite universe or alternatively God.

    You write "Mathematics is a language. When a poet or writer (or just a person) describes something in the words of the mother tongue in his mouth, is this description less accurate than the mathematical description of the same thing? When you explain an explanation of some phenomenon in one language and then in another, is it necessarily more accurate in one of the two languages?" I tend to agree . But remember that mathematics is the language of science, science speaks in quantities, it measures sizes, they translate measurements into numbers, mathematics is the language of science and it is supposed to be universal. In my opinion, a description that a poet describes the world can be just as accurate but it will not be quantitative.
    The point that I stand against is that the truth is only in the hands of science, because there is nothing but the laws of nature. In my opinion the laws of nature are partly a human invention like the whole numbers or the concept of beauty. In our language we often create a world and not just describe it.

    The question "You/we are interested/are interested in understanding how nature works and how it is that nature works the way it does, great. But how exactly does imagining all kinds of invisible, unmeasurable and unsubstantiated answers help with this?" Does the poet's poem have an evidentiary basis? They are only what can be justified in the court of science. Is it true? or truth? The understanding that man is limited and its opposition to something that is not limited leads to the definition of concepts such as God. God can be thought of as the whole while man is the limited part.

  57. Miracles

    As usual, you take care of the little things, but let's go. If your balloon resides in a three-dimensional space (the world we live in) it has boundaries defined as the inside and the outside direction in which the balloon has thickness is the direction in which it is limited.
    So you think people who get a Nobel Prize in Physics are smart, so what? And if I think great rabbis are wise people? This is how you conduct a discussion, this is how you justify claims? Is my claim true because a wise man said it? Really tried the kindergarten I left a long time ago.
    Do you think Nobel prize winners in physics are smart, do you understand what they are saying or are you just parroting things you heard? By the way, there were Nobel prize winners in physics who were anti-Semitic and racist, does that mean they were right, they were smart? There were winners who made basic mistakes in physics even though they received a Nobel Prize. Is everything they said true? For example, Josephson, one of the youngest winners of the Nobel Prize in Physics, has been researching paranormal phenomena (reading minds, moving things from a distance) for several decades. Should I believe him because he won the Nobel Prize? Truly miracles.
    I did not claim that you need advanced degrees to think there is a difference between knowledge and thought. Nor did I claim, as you once again attribute to me, that man will never be able to understand the universe, I only asked whether finite renunciation is capable of understanding the infinite. You avoid the basic questions I ask you and ramble on about theories in physics that you admit you don't understand. Anyway, have a Happy holiday.

  58. sympathetic

    "Do you think there is nothing above man?"

    Of that above man? Is man above something? Is there anything under it?

    "Do the laws of nature exist even without people?"

    What is held? Nature works in some way. We try to understand how and use language to describe what we understand or think we understand according to the input we receive from the environment. Nature will probably act the way it does regardless of the laws formulated to describe it. The laws we formulate are at best our best understanding of this way of doing things.

    The philosophical question of whether the laws and definitions exist outside of human thoughts or are universal constants is indeed interesting, but what basis do you have to answer it? Take the natural numbers for example 1 and 2, no more. Do they really exist universally independent of human thought (or any other thought) or do they only exist in thoughts. What evidentiary information do you have that can answer this?

    "Is beauty a human convention only, or does it exist in the world independently of man?"

    Rather, beauty is quite undoubtedly a social convention or a subjective diagnosis. It's quite easy to find cases where people disagree about whether something is beautiful or ugly. I appreciate that you have experienced such cases in your life.

    "Well today mathematics is the language in which people write the laws of nature, take for example Einstein's equations, the second law of thermodynamics, etc..."

    Mathematics is a language. When a poet or writer (or just a person) describes something in the words of the mother tongue in his mouth, is this description less accurate than the mathematical description of the same thing? When you explain an explanation of some phenomenon in one language and then in another, is it necessarily more accurate in one of the two languages?

    Is anyone able to understand the second law of thermodynamics (or any other law) just by seeing the mathematical formula?

    "Are you claiming that the basis of science is not the belief that everything can be described scientifically"

    I have never noticed such a belief. Maybe there is hope, that everything can be described through science, but I don't think there is such a belief or anything similar to such a belief.
    I don't know where you came to this conclusion or where you encountered this approach.

    "If man cannot explain everything through science, does that leave an opening for God?"

    You/we are interested in understanding how nature works and how it is that nature works the way it does, great. But how exactly does imagining all kinds of invisible, unmeasurable and unsubstantiated answers help with this?

    What's the point of bothering to fill in the holes of what we don't understand, don't know or can't explain in this way?

    Isn't it better to try to fill the holes by searching and maybe finding more evidence, more measurements and more data that might close a few more holes and open a few new ones?

  59. sympathetic
    Balloon faces are not limited. I don't understand, you can argue about that.
    You claimed that man could never understand the universe. Why do I have to prove anything?

    I think people who get Nobel prizes in physics are smart. I have no reason to think that religious preachers are wise.

    You claim I don't think for myself. I understand that without advanced degrees in nuclear physics, cosmology, chemistry, biology, philosophy, mathematics and several other subjects, there is no point in talking about the subject. Of course, this rule only applies to those who do not believe in God. Good thing we clarified that.

  60. withering,

    On the contrary, I do not claim that I understand everything and that something above man created everything, I try to understand what is the framework within which we think or act. You, on the other hand, operate within the framework as you wrote, "I wake up in the morning knowing that I have many open questions and things I don't know, and that I have the tools to investigate and discover the legality behind things, within the framework of what I can perceive, and that is really, really enough for me and fills me with joy." In my opinion, there is joy in asking questions within a given framework, but it is very limited. Sometimes we have to examine the framework itself and its basic rules to understand what is based on our beliefs, what is an unwritten agreement between the people dealing in a certain field and what are the limitations on our knowledge when we operate in a certain field. I am not claiming that there are only big philosophical questions and that's all, but that questions from this are also challenging and interesting.

  61. If man cannot explain everything through science does that leave an opening for the tooth fairy? For the spaghetti monster? Saint Leumicron?

    Is it really that scary to say my knowledge goes so far, and as for my ignorance, let's just let it be for now without the obsessive need to fill the void with some (very, very specific) filler? Is this really what scares the religious people so much?

  62. Miracles

    Again I wonder about you, my mother wrote "something that has no limits is infinite." And you give me an example of a series that has a limit?
    1...=+1+1/2+1/4+1/8, come on, how does that contradict my words? By the way the balloon has a border in the space R3. But all these are not the subjects of the discussion.
    The thing that almost broke me was your claim "Third thing - smarter people than me say that "nothing" is an unstable state. I am not a physicist - and when you asked me for an explanation I referred you to my source of information. My explanation is taken from this source, and several other sources. Don't like the explanation? Go search in reliable sources and don't ask me." You quote smart people but are aware that you don't understand what they are talking about. How are you different from foolish followers of some rabbi? In addition to all this, is the fact that smart people said something a proof of truth? Why do you speak for others and more without understanding the field and when I ask you say I am uneducated?

    You asked me "You claim that our reason, as the human race, is limited. Are you ready to specify what the limitations are?" The limitations are many and clear to anyone with an understanding. Finite calculation speed, limited memory, limited data processing ability, psychological biases and more over and over again. You who claim that the person is not limited, in my opinion, the burden of proof is on you.
    You write "I know very little about the world." But, when not knowing about something bothers me, I look for a solution in science, with people who understand the world." Again you trust others without thinking for yourself and when I try to challenge you to think you do
    insulting me What do you think scientists understand about the world? Why do you think what they say is true? In my opinion you are a foolish follower, maybe not of a religious sect but of another religion.

  63. walking dead

    You write "The laws of nature are our interpretation of the observed/measured behavior of the environment." If the laws of nature are our interpretation, then they are a human convention, that is, the laws of nature have no meaning without man. Do you think there is nothing above man? Do the laws of nature exist even without people? This also concerns simpler things, for example "beauty" is beauty a human convention only, or does it exist in the world independently of man? And to return to the laws of nature if they represent human interpretation are they mere agreements?

    You ask about mathematics "Does it even describe a single natural phenomenon?" Well, today mathematics is the language in which people write the laws of nature, take for example Einstein's equations, the second law of thermodynamics, etc...

    Are you claiming that the basis of science is not the belief that everything can be described scientifically. Although human abilities are limited, he believes that everything can be explained through science. If man cannot explain everything through science does that leave an opening for God?

  64. Miracles,
    It seems to me that Ehud makes clear claims in his words:
    "Do you believe that the limited man will be able to understand the wonders of creation. If so, what are the laws of nature? They are not matter, are they spirit? Who set them? Are they mathematical axioms? Can mathematics describe all the variety of phenomena in nature?"

    I understand that it is clear to Ehud that she was healthy and that there must have been someone who set the rules in this world (Ehud, you are welcome to correct me if you don't believe this, although it is implied from your words). It seems to me that his words about man's limitations are also clear, because if there is necessarily a God (who created the world and invented the laws and is obviously omnipotent, etc.) then it is also clear that man is necessarily limited and will never be able to understand everything because the meaning of a thing he will also understand You are God and that is big no no for religious people. It is understood that those of us who do not need a God of one kind or another, it is enough that as long as we have not reached the limit of our nature, and in the meantime it seems that our understanding is only getting better and better, there is no reason to think about what will happen when we encounter such a limit and if it exists at all. I wake up in the morning knowing that I have many open questions and things I don't know and that I clearly have the tools to investigate and discover the legality behind things, within the framework of what I can perceive, and that is really, really enough for me and fills me with joy. It sounds emasculating, disabling and degenerate to me to obsessively engage in what I might be limited in even though I currently have no way of knowing at all. It just seems to me (personally) stupid and especially unnecessary that the alternative is... ummm... what is the alternative? Ehud, what is the alternative actually?

  65. sympathetic,
    I have no choice but to come to the conclusion that you are really unaware of the antagonism you are creating (long before that reaction of Nissam that you quoted, which at least I understand what your previous words provoked it). I honestly wanted to understand whether you are aware of the way you express yourself and I get the impression that not so much, that's all actually. I'm not here to educate you, I don't think I'm better than you, but I do think that in your conduct, especially the gap between what you claim you're interested in and the way you actually express yourself, you're the one who ends up losing, and that's your full right, of course (not because I "give ” Same to you, Ketoni, but because it is simply true for all of us).

  66. sympathetic
    I'm not saying I believe there is no God - just let's be on the same sheet of music. What I am saying is that I believe there is nothing outside the laws of nature.

    Second thing - limitless is not equal to infinite. For example: +1+1/2+1/4+1/8 is infinite but limited. For example: the face of a balloon is finite but not limited. Einstein claimed that human stupidity is unlimited - so why do you think there is a limit to his wisdom?

    Third thing - smarter people than me say that "nothing" is an unstable state. I am not a physicist - and when you asked me for an explanation I referred you to my source of information. My explanation is taken from this source, and several other sources. Don't like the explanation? Go search in reliable sources and don't ask me.

    You claim that our intelligence, as the human species, is limited. Are you ready to specify what the limitations are?

    You wrote "Do you believe that the limited man will be able to understand the wonders of creation. If so, what are the laws of nature? They are not matter, are they spirit? Who set them? Are they mathematical axioms? Can mathematics describe all the variety of phenomena in nature?" – Maybe get some air out of your swollen head and listen to what you say?

    Yes Ehud, I think you are arrogant. I know very little about the world. But, when not knowing about something bothers me, I look for a solution in science, with people who understand the world. You, apart from trying to kill, add nothing to the discussion. You don't say what you believe - you just try to dismiss anyone who thinks differently than you.

    Do you want to claim something and discuss it? you are welcome. But stop preaching. not appropriate. You have no interest in understanding me, certainly when this understanding will hurt your own feelings.

  67. sympathetic

    "What is the validity of the laws of science if they change?"

    The validity is, to the best of our understanding, dependent on the evidence we have

    "What are the laws of nature? They are not matter, are they spirit? Who set them? Are they mathematical axioms?”

    The laws of nature are our interpretation of the observed/measured behavior of the environment.

    "Can mathematics describe all the variety of phenomena in nature?"

    Does it even describe one natural phenomenon?

    "You refuse to acknowledge reality because your belief in science is based on belief and not certainty or absolute truth"

    When you say faith what do you mean? Because there is a difference between the faith of people for whom all the evidence in the universe will not change their faith, and between the faith of people that is based on evidence and changes according to new evidence (in fact I think that the term faith should not be used for the second case).

  68. Miracles

    You have already shown that you do not understand anything from quantum theory and you still quote from it like a foolish follower. The debate between Einstein and Bohr was about the correctness of the quantum theory in itself and this debate had nothing to do with the question of whether it is possible to build a theory of quantum gravity. I recommend you read a little.

    Again you blame me and you actually mouthed things, where did I write that I am trying to convince you that God exists? come on. I'm trying to understand what is the basis for your very solid positions? What is the validity of the laws of science if they change? Is the ability of man which is finite able to understand the infinite (universe). Yes miracles something that has no limits is infinite. Do you believe that the limited man will be able to understand the wonders of creation if so what are the laws of nature? They are not matter, are they spirit? Who set them? Are they mathematical axioms? Can mathematics describe all the variety of phenomena in nature? You refuse to acknowledge reality because your belief in science is based on belief and not certainty or absolute truth.
    I'm also aware that when you're wrong or don't know how to answer, you resort to personal insults like "I'm quite tired of your arrogance."

  69. sympathetic
    Does not limited mean infinite? Think a little cute, before you pull from the hip again.
    Does limited mental capacity mean that man will not be able to understand the origin of the universe?

    Einstein versus Bohr... read a bit...
    Ditto Hawking and Susskind.

    After that we will continue. Meanwhile you're just trying to convince in the strangest way that God exists. I am quite tired of your arrogance.
    And it turns out not only me.

  70. Ehud, I want to thank you for your comments, it's a pleasure to read them and learn from them.

  71. Shmulik,

    First, my name is Ehud and not Ehud. Let's start with the explanation of your words, you write "An atheist, for me, means someone who is not ready to accept the existence of God (first, by the way, let the believer define for me what God is) without evidence and that's it." I would like to understand what evidence for you would constitute proof of the existence of God? Does the fact that there are things that science cannot explain or describe mean that there is proof of God's existence? If not I would love to hear what you want as proof of the existence of God?

    In addition, I would like to understand what, in your opinion, is the purpose of science? Is the role of science to discover immortal truths or laws of nature, or is its mission concentrated in the creation of technology (for example, the computer with which I write). In your opinion, what is the validity of scientific claims, is the validity only when they are useful? Is string theory a science in your opinion?

    You write "If things stop working tomorrow, we'll have to change our theories." Isn't the fact that we create theories of faith based on the fact that there are laws according to which the world is governed?

  72. Science is a derivative of nature and has a certain lawfulness that works in our reality.
    But the Creator as they call him is an additional force above nature and therefore we have no tools to measure him but only his creation/interface which is nature, whether you believe it or not
    Personally, it is very easy for me to believe in the existence of a creator who is beyond our scientific and also philosophical understanding, but is required in terms of my personal logic.

  73. withering,

    I try to discuss questions that seem interesting to me and I try to deal with the questions themselves objectively when other commenters try to determine facts such as who I am and what I am, or like miracles for example "You like to say things and draw conclusions from them. Just because there is a desire to understand does not follow from having the ability to understand." Or "to save you from opening a book, lest you learn something about the world, mercifully," this creates antagonism for me.

  74. Miracles

    First I will address the last part of your statement. I was really impressed with how confidently you talk about things you don't understand. You write "There are pairs of magnitudes, one of which is a derivative of the other. Now - if in a situation where there is nothing - all the values ​​are 0 - then necessarily their rate of change is not 0. OK?" . So this is really wrong. The uncertainty principle is a principle in quantum theory that concerns observation values ​​of non-commutative operators. The momentum in quantum theory is indeed a derivative of the place but the fact that is important for the uncertainty principle about them is that they are non-reciprocal. Which means all their values ​​are zero. In quantum theory, observational values ​​are measured and are only accessible to us. An observation value is obtained by applying an operator to the wave function and an observation value can have the value zero, for example the observation value of the place of a harmonic oscillator in the fundamental state can be zero, there is no problem with that, but it does not mean that the operator is identical to zero or that the wave function is identical to zero. I would advise you to learn a thing or two before you talk about matters of which you have so little understanding.

    In addition to more of your Shafer articles "On the other hand - you claim that our intelligence is limited. On what basis do you say that? Today we are studying the second trillionth of the universe's formation from 14 billion years ago. Do you conclude that we are limited? Open your eyes" Do you believe that our intelligence is not limited? The opposite of limited is infinite. Are we creatures of infinite capacity? Our mind as a calculating machine is limited, that is, we have limited intelligence. Opening our eyes does not make our intelligence infinite. Think a little and activate what you have between your eyes, do you expect a dog to be able to understand the universe and everything in it? Now think about us, we are indeed smarter than other animals but why do you expect us to be able to understand everything? This is why, as you wrote, "You like to say things and draw conclusions from them." When true things are said, conclusions can be drawn from them, that's why logic exists.

    You also write "the laws of physics do not "change frequently". They refine over time. That's how it should be, isn't it?" Does it really have to be that way? Do the laws of mathematics also change frequently over time? If something is a law of nature you would not expect it to change and in particular you would not expect it to contradict other laws of nature ie my example of general relativity and quantum theory.

    Regarding my question as to whether the process of searching for the laws of nature is finite or not, I simply offered you two options that you are welcome to choose from or offer an alternative, therefore there is no need to argue and write "I did not claim that the process is finite nor did I claim that it is not finite. Don't put words in my mouth. Discuss what I say, not what you want me to say, okay? And if you're already asking - I think it's an open question." Well, do you think this is an open question, what does it mean about reality, nature, and what does it mean about man? If the process is infinite, what makes it infinite, is it the limitation of human intelligence compared to the infinity of the universe (after all, you claimed earlier that human intelligence is not limited). If Sufi walked, who determined the laws of nature, are they immortal? Again our approach to such questions is based on faith and this faith is not much different from the faith of a religious person.

    Let's return to the question of the contradiction between quantum theory and general relativity about which you write "Einstein argued with Bohr, and Susskind argued with Hawking. There are really two deep and beautiful theories, which today have conflicts between them under certain conditions. So what? No one claims that both are completely correct. I don't understand what the problem is here.
    But note - both theories are useful. GPS technology uses many tools from both theories. Therefore, it would be foolish to throw them away already, wouldn't it?” First, some of the figures you are talking about are not at all related to the disagreement between the theories (I don't know about Bohr or Hawking regarding Susicand, but I am satisfied). In any case, are you willing to believe the theories that lie to each other? Is this how a logical person behaves? After all, your argument against the religious is that they believe in things that are not logical, how are you better than them. If your argument is that you only believe in what is useful, that is a completely different argument. After all, regarding the religious person, the belief is practical, maybe in some cases contradictions are revealed, but it is the same with you.

  75. Joseph
    I agree with Camila. This symmetry reminds me of the paradox of the waterfall. The paradox says - claim (a) "every crow is black" is equivalent to the claim in (b) "everything that is not black is necessarily not a crow". A white cat is evidence for claim (b) and is therefore evidence for claim (a).

    The claims "there is God" or "there is no God" are not in terms of claim (a) versus claim (not a). There are endless claims of the type "there is a God" - "there is Bigfoot, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, unicorns, mermaids, the Loch Ness monster" and on and on and on.

    You make a very, very unusual claim - you need to give reinforcements for this claim. I don't have to prove there is no God, and I can't prove there is no God either. Do you really think I have to prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist?

  76. withering
    I will add to your words. Look at what many Muslims do in the name of God. Murders, murders and more murders. Mercy is a human trait. Have mercy on the other and show empathy towards him. To be what is called in Yiddish a - mantesh.

  77. Joseph,
    Do you believe that the existence of any god should be considered with the same degree of seriousness? After all, it is not possible to prove or deny the existence of any of them. Do you recognize that your belief in the existence of a certain god (by the way, which one do you believe in?) a belief that is not based on knowledge but on your inner feeling, is equivalent to any other person's belief about another god (including belief in non-divine beings such as fairies or the dragon The purple behind your back that hides as soon as you turn around...).

    I didn't understand why you link between religious faith and mercy... (You wrote faith and I assume you meant religious faith, please correct me if I'm wrong). Mercy is a feature of humans and is not related to faith or religion, but to the basic morality (probably of evolutionary biological origin) that exists in normal humans. If there is compassionate behavior and reports of compassionate feelings in people of all religions, including non-religious people, the obvious conclusion is that this behavior does not stem from a particular religious concept. Incidentally, this is also true for other moral values ​​such as respecting father and mother, loving others or preventing murder. As a general rule, most of us identify with these values ​​not because they are written in one book or another, but because they feel right and desirable to us from the start, and again, the evidence for this is that most people adhere to values ​​regardless of their religious belief and in the absence of it.

  78. sympathetic,
    Are you really unaware of the antagonism you are creating?
    It's a little hard for me to believe that you're not aware because you get specific and explicit reference to this from commenters (trying in this case and from me and from others in the past), so I'm trying to find out, do you really have no idea what I'm talking about?
    And if you are aware of this "added value" in your words, can you please explain why you do this? Surely this does not contribute to a substantive discussion. And one more thing, if you are aware of this (and maybe even behave this way on purpose), why are you surprised when you subsequently receive treatment that is unpleasant to you?

  79. Joseph,
    Indeed, there is a loose definition of what is known as a "hard atheist" who disbelieves in the existence of God, but this is stupid because it is really impossible to prove the non-existence of an entity outside of nature that created nature (and this is already my definition). Most atheists can be defined this way: the atheist is someone who says "Bring evidence for the existence of God but also, by extension, define him for me first, otherwise what do you want from my life?" How do you expect me to refute something that you do not define and whose definition probably contains internal contradictions (a stone is too heavy...)?

    I wish most religious people would accept your definition of religion, but in practice this is what happens, evolution without a monkey:
    http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4526186,00.html
    That is, the religious establishment is so lacking in self-confidence and is deathly afraid of science, that it uses political power to hide scientific facts. I will be there for my children to fill in the gaps for them but it is the role of the education system to teach the facts without fear or dread and this is not happening in Israel 2014 and it is a shame.

    Regarding Nazism, what you wrote is not accurate. The Nazis did not really oppose Christianity but drew its power from it, that is, from the Catholic Church. The first agreement of the Nazis was actually with the Catholic Church that a huge percentage of the SS. came from her ranks. In a side agreement, Hitler allowed the church to teach its doctrine in schools. It is true that Nazism was not simply Christianity but rather a mixture of pagan Germanic religions and Christianity but it cannot be said that they opposed Christianity.

    Read here:
    http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/קונקורדט_הרייך
    ...'However, with the rise of the Nazi Party to power, the church found a renewed opportunity to sign the Concordat, since most of the prominent Nazi leadership was Catholic, and most of the party's supporters identified with the ideas of the Catholic Church. In addition, the Catholic Party and the Conservative Party in Germany, which supported the election of Adolf Hitler to power, encouraged the achievement of the agreement. As a gesture of gratitude for this support, Hitler began negotiations to achieve the Concordat immediately after he came to power.'

  80. I believe I have no problem with atheists. I just think atheists have a problem with me.
    After you have convinced yourself that you are right, and right, I repeat again and say: God's existence or non-existence does not depend on me or you. I also do not insist on defining him/her as a creator who sits on the sidelines and sees that he/she is whole from creation. I have no way to prove its existence, and an atheist has no way to prove its non-existence. In all matters in the world I would accept the claim that the burden of proof is mine. But I cannot prove its existence, and I still only personally believe that it exists.
    The meeting point I see: an agreement that scientific investigation is the only way to discuss things and not involving God in any process that happens in nature and trying to understand it. Preoccupation with the existence of God I propose to limit as equivalent to the practice of philosophy. Philosophy, sometimes meets with science. Sometimes it is promoted by science and sometimes by itself.

    I also agree with what has been repeatedly said here: conventional religion exists to impose a royal fear, which works on most people in the world, of punishment for moral transgressions. so that terrible things will not be done. Religion has caused injustices throughout history, but the fact that the Nazis opposed Christianity because it was too merciful, actually defines the faith. It also has room for mercy.

  81. Shmulik
    If I understood you correctly, I accept your correction. The word "faith" is too loaded, and I understand that you associate faith with religious belief. A more correct formulation is to say that science is a method for investigating the world.

  82. sympathetic
    The method has no purpose. people have People do use the scientific method because they want to understand the world.

    You like to say things and draw conclusions from them. Just because there is a desire to understand does not follow from having the ability to understand.
    On the other hand - you claim that our intelligence is limited. On what basis do you say that? Today we are studying the second trillionth of the universe's formation from 14 billion years ago. Do you conclude that we are limited? Open your eyes 🙂

    The laws of physics do not "change frequently". They refine over time. That's how it should be, isn't it?

    I did not claim that the process is final and I did not claim that it is not final. Don't put words in my mouth. Discuss what I say, not what you want me to say, okay? And if you're already asking - I think it's an open question.

    You ask what the source of the laws is. A bit early to ask, isn't it? We don't even know what the rules are today. But let's think together about an example. Let's take Kepler's laws. Newton showed that these laws are a consequence of his law of gravitation - a much simpler law. Today there are several theories for the origin of the law of gravitation. Perhaps by investigating these theories we will know more. It's worth investigating, isn't it?

    Einstein argued with Bohr, and Susskind argued with Hawking. There are really two deep and beautiful theories, which today have conflicts between them under certain conditions. So what? No one claims that both are completely correct. I don't understand what the problem is here.
    But note - both theories are useful. GPS technology uses many tools from both theories. Therefore, it would be foolish to throw them away already, wouldn't it?

    To save you from opening a book, lest you learn something about the world, mercifully, here is a short explanation. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle claims that the values ​​of certain pairs of variables, such as time-energy and position-momentum (and there are more) cannot be determined exactly. This principle also exists in macroscopic sizes - for example, in measuring the frequency of a signal - the longer the time, the better the frequency is defined, and vice versa. A second example is from you Doppler - the more accurately you measure the speed of the target, the less well you know the range, and vice versa. Among the additional pairs - there are pairs of sizes, one of which is a derivative of the other. Now - if in a situation where there is nothing - all the values ​​are 0 - then necessarily their rate of change is not 0.
    OK?

  83. Miracles,
    I do not agree with you that the scientific method is faith or at least the meaning of the word in this context is not the meaning of the word in its deepest form, and I will explain with an example:
    I had a discussion about faith with my two friends. At some point one of them said that he believes there are aliens in the universe and to that my second friend replied that it is the same as believing in God because if they prove to my first friend that there are no aliens, he will change his mind, while for the religious believer, no matter what is said and done, his faith in God will not be shaken. That is, in this case the word belief should have been replaced by the word thought.

    Does the scientist who claims that the sun will rise tomorrow believe that the sun will rise tomorrow? No. He thinks the sun will rise tomorrow. He thinks so because of thousands of years of observations that have led to this conclusion and it has nothing to do with faith. If it turns out that once in 5463 years the sun does not rise for some unknown reason, the scientist will change his way of thinking about the chance that the sun will rise tomorrow. It's called studying.

    Fan,
    You wrote: "But the basis of science is that there are laws according to which the world works." It is a matter of belief and not something that can be established" I do not agree with you. As mentioned, the basis of science is the observations, the raising of hypotheses and their refutation, and the fact that science succeeds in producing fabrications after sifting through all the incorrect hypotheses (and the computer on which you are writing your response is a fabrication that demonstrates that we have accumulated enough knowledge to understand how the universe works on a certain level) is the foundation that you claim cannot be made and there is no Another method that allows us to produce fabrications that prove themselves apart from science. Again, the thought that there is legality is not a belief but the result of experiments. It has nothing to do with faith. If things stop working tomorrow, we'll have to change our theories.

    Another small thing: an atheist for me means someone who is not ready to accept the existence of God (by the way the believer will define for me what God is) without evidence and that's it. Atheist is a bad definition because no one wants to be defined by what they are not.

  84. Miracles,

    What then is your opinion on the scientific method, is its purpose to understand the world? If you claim yes, then at the basis of the scientific method is the principle that the world can be understood by limited intelligence (human intelligence). What is the basis for this belief?

    You write that the laws of physics are found in the literature, but the literature shows us that they also change frequently. What is the basis for the process being final. If you believe that we will arrive at basic laws that will describe nature, what is the source of which laws? If you believe that we will never arrive then all our theories are fundamentally wrong.

    You write "non-physical forces" - I mean things that contradict what we know." By the way, even in modern science there are many things that contradict what we know, it is known for example that the general theory of relativity is not compatible with the quantum theory, is therefore the belief in one of these theories unfounded, should we abandon both? Where do we have the belief that it is indeed possible to reconcile them? After all, this is purely a belief and not an established fact.

    It is not clear to me how the instability of the vacuum according to you is related to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. If the topic is clear, I would be happy to hear your explanation instead of receiving references to books

  85. sympathetic
    I think the basis you state is a result of the scientific method, not the basis. From engaging in science, as I described, we deduced what you say. The scientific method is certainly a belief, but it is a very well-founded belief. It is based on exactly what you said - there are indeed rules.

    Where can the laws of physics be found? Good question. You can find them in the scientific literature. This is literature based on research and experiments. "Non-physical forces" - I mean things that contradict what we know. Like the existence of a creator for example, like seeing the future, like telepathy, and so on.

    What I wrote about the stability of the vacuum is a direct consequence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Do you need links to related articles? Start with Kraus's book - "The universe from nothing". Hello and this was my original idea 🙂 🙂

  86. Miracles

    You write "The basis of science is observation, making hypotheses and testing them." But the basis of science is that there are laws according to which the world works. It is about belief and not something that can be established. Science as a worldview also requires faith in its foundation. In addition, you state "an atheist is a person who does not believe in beings with non-physical powers." But what are the laws of physics in which he does believe? Where can the laws of physics be found and what is their basis?

    Regarding nothingness, you write "Nothingness is an unstable state, so something will immediately be created." This is equivalent to the ancient Christian belief that God hates a void and so some Christian thinkers had problems with the concept of zero. It is not clear to me what is your scientific basis for the claim that nothingness is an unstable state?

  87. I would add that in order for liberal secularism to be able to respond to the multitude of needs of humanity,
    Like religion, it should respond to the social person from the day of his birth and his acceptance into the community
    through the various initiation rites that represent milestones in his maturation,
    The feeling of the human connection that creates a family
    Until the day of his death and the days of mourning
    This is the human world.
    Religion was indeed built as a human concept in which there is a creator of the world, but for the most part it is a concept that provides an answer
    For different needs of humans from thousands of years ago if additions of different interpretations, most religions are ancient so that an automatic import of this will also put us there in those times but a selective import that adapts it to secularism will allow the creation of a home and community for more people under the wings of secularism.

  88. A good article that explains why secularism versus religion does not provide an alternative for large parts of humanity,
    But there are other reasons,
    And one of them, in my view, is represented by, for example, Richard Dawkins, who sits in a church gathering in the American Tanakh region and is unable to get to the bottom of what the people are really looking for there,
    He doesn't understand that he can't offer them anything that they are looking for, he presents a kind of coldness not warmth and love for them, he won't be there to hug them when they fall, the clergy will be there,
    A universe based on mathematical equations is not what stands out most,
    They will always take the blue pill, when in the world of reality the blue pill is not just a false virtual
    It also has a realistic meaning on people's lives, it is a safety net, it is staying connected to the people of the community,
    This is not only a truth of life, this is a type of security, this is a community hug and, according to their belief, also a "hug from the Creator",
    In order to provide a worthy alternative, it is not possible to come only with skepticism and scientific analysis, you need the communal embrace,
    the human connection to each other, a kind of new way of life that suits the multitude of human needs and the different genders
    People are different from each other but for most people there is a need for community life beyond the walls of the house
    and the relationships at work that are often connected to interests that go beyond human companionship,
    The weekly gathering in the house of prayer in the various religions gives the answer this feeling of being together,
    There is also involvement and help for the needy, the weak or those who have fallen, which is built into the foundation of most religions,
    To leave the world of religion and be secular is to be alone, no one is waiting for you, the embrace is not guaranteed,
    A justified claim for religion is that they also create dependency and backwardness, but this is another story, worth adding
    That the mere fact that a person decides that he is a liberal does not make him one, there are some people who call themselves liberal
    Extreme liberals and a lack of skepticism that would not even shame religious extremists of any kind,
    Their sharp intellect serves them to make excuses in a better way
    Behaviors extreme to the point of hatred and lack of skepticism, under the auspices of a decorum of a liberal fig leaf,
    They never doubt they know, and are very, very angry as soon as a different opinion is heard around them,
    And they have a cartridge with mantras that are automatically pulled out and recited
    For every event just like the religious mantras, so even in the "secular" world there is still a lot of work to be done
    So that he can really be described as a true and secular liberal,
    A place where there is a culture of conversation and discussion where between two people there is a dialogue and not a loud monologue,
    A place where hugs are not patronized and to be seen, these are true human brotherhood,
    In order for secularism to take a larger share of the human population, it needs to give what the religious institutions give
    Community life is a kind of communal meaning in life, a way of life,
    To this day, secularism is based on individualism, which probably suits only a small part of the population
    But probably not for the rifle,
    So many people who also fall under the definition of secular, are actually no different from religious people
    and turn to all kinds of spiritual alternatives, whether it is alternative medicine that lacks scientific basis and other concepts
    Some of them are even believers who simply live in the secular world,
    There can be different interpretations of reality with different flavors that are adapted to the different nature of human beings,
    But in order for us to truly see a secular community teeming with needs, we must probably import elements that exist in the religious world
    in the right way without the guru so that it will answer people who are looking for a community life and also to dwell under secularism and real and not simulated barrality,
    It is worth noting that this is not a need for every person, there are those for whom individualism is their bread and butter,
    But if the needs of large parts of the population (perhaps the majority) are ignored
    So no wonder why they will always reject the red ball.

  89. Y.A
    Totally agree. It is worth noting that there is a difference between religion, as you described, and the tendency to religious belief. Many animals have morals, and there are even situations of superstition in animals (ie: creating a causal connection between independent events).

  90. Below is my opinion regarding several things written here.
    First of all, religion is just a mechanism created by people to achieve some goals (the main ones are):
    1. A crowd control mechanism (by the clergy who are, of course, God's representatives).
    2. A tool to provide answers to questions that humanity had no tools to deal with. (Why did Adam die? Because God decided that his time had come. God's ways are hidden).
    3. A mechanism for instilling morality in people, through fear of God's nose.
    By itself, section 3 is positive, but it does not justify the existence of religion. Humans, unfortunately, are cruel and immoral creatures. If it weren't for the laws we enact, many people would be doing "immoral" things that today they don't do out of fear of some kind of punishment. Besides, the definition of what is moral and what is not is in the hands of the person and may change from time to time and from society to society.
    Secondly, there is no point in taking the successful theories and teachings in modern physics to try to give meaning or even to talk about creations from nothing, etc.
    It should be understood that physics tries to produce tools to explain the laws of nature and in general, gives models some of which are good and some less good and some are not good at all, but in the end these are only models.
    The standard model, for example, which describes all matter (and antimatter) and the subjects of forces and the interrelationships between them, is one of the most successful models ever in physics. But this does not mean that the description he gives of the material is correct.
    The point I am trying to convey here is that it is very presumptuous to talk about the beginning of the universe with great certainty, as if one or another theory that is considered successful actually explains what happened at that time.
    In my opinion, science will have to advance a great deal more before we can use it to say something intelligent about the meaning of life, the universe and everything else.

  91. Joseph
    Again - I think you are wrong. Quantum theory in Prussia accepts the creation of something from nothing. There is no question here of "where did it come from". Nothingness is an unstable state, so immediately something will be created. I'm not saying that quantum theory has solved everything, but it does show that there is no paradox here.

    Second thing - the existence of God actually exacerbates the problem!!! I claim that it is possible to come from nothing, and there is no contradiction. You claim that there is nothing from nothing, but immediately say that God is such a thing….. and if you claim that God has existed forever, then I will argue that it is possible that existence also existed forever. Again - you can't use it at all when it's convenient for you, and reject it when it's not convenient for you.

    Where are the slanders?? You brought the Holocaust into the conversation. You went very low. I explained to you why. You have the right to ignore my words, but please don't blame me for your actions.

    Yossi - you are describing atheists who believe in a creator who is not God. I think you don't quite understand what an "atheist" is. An atheist is a person who does not believe in beings with non-physical powers. You said something right at the end of your words - you need to separate a higher intelligence from a creator. In the USA there are two Christian movements that exactly show this division: creationism vs. intelligent design. But pay attention - both movements believe in the same God and the same son - Jesus. The two movements fight each other - but they are far from being atheists - on the contrary.

    Your right, and everyone's right, to believe what they want, as long as it doesn't hurt others (including their family members). There are good and bad people, smart and stupid on both sides. But, nothing will help - there is a certain contradiction between religious faith and faith in science.
    The basis of science is observation, making hypotheses and testing them. The third step is missing in religion, isn't it?

  92. I meant that the combination of general relativity and quantum theory (=string theory) - in what is called inflation, the stage in which matter is created at high speed, is the model that allows something to enter space-time from nothing, but still does not explain where its existence comes from. Some physicists come to the conclusion that beyond the visible universe there may be a superuniverse that I don't think we can visit, but we can prove that it turns out to be. You are right that excessive precision - in quantum theory the entry of matter and antimatter is possible. I believe that once we moved to slander and on my part at least missionary on the one hand: I did my part, I created the necessary doubt that perhaps the distance between a higher intelligence that some of us believe exists, and the existence of God that some of us do not believe is correct, is not that great. On the other hand, we have created unnecessary antagonism. And this is a good time to end the dialogue.
    I also use the open platform of this site for people that my father disagrees with, my father seems to me to be an atheist and in that I respect him, heretic/atheist are concepts that I used in a positive sense, if I was mistakenly misunderstood.

    I said that for all of humanity and not out of conceit an external creator is brought because without fear of the kingdom the majority do not observe
    The principles of morality, which are required from the theory of benefit to the group (a mathematical theory that does not need to assume the existence of God), are essential for the preservation of survival.

    People think a little more, and there aren't many of those even today, if we look at what happened in 1939-1945, and what is happening today,
    Rambam gives 13 main points in his book Teacher of the Embarrassed, for the thinking person, who is also interested in the sciences, and this, in my opinion, bridges the gap between those who believe in a higher intelligence but not in a Creator God (those atheists are a type of no less noble believers in my opinion only, according to Rambam's view), and those who believe to distinguish God. Other atheists believe that there is no higher intelligence and with them I do not find reconciliation on the same level, but I respect them. Again: we meet at the level of the sanctification of the scientific way and agree to disagree on the existence of a higher intelligence, and this creates further divisions: the atheists are pure empiricists, and the believers in a higher intelligence allow themselves to wander in theoretical models before establishing them empirically. I believe that the darkness from the outside is so great: creationism, disbelief in the correctness of the big bang, free thought, that this separation within the temples of science is unnecessary, and we must find a way to accept the difference, and understand that we are both separate opinions in one experiment to which there is no answer: there is/is not a higher intelligence , and differentiate: there is/is no creator.

  93. Joseph
    My argument is that the very question should embarrass the questioner with its stupidity. If that's not the case, I won't waste time on a response, except for "shame on you". Do you really want me to mention how many people have been murdered, and are being murdered every day in the name of God? Really Yossi?

    Your partial understanding of physics makes you wrong. First of all - the theory of relativity has nothing to do with the subject. Quantum theory literally allows the creation of something from nothing. More than that - according to quantum theory, a state of "nothing" cannot exist at all.

    To say that God is needed to explain existence from nothing (assuming that it does need to be explained) - leaves the question of a 4-year-old girl - "But who created God". Yossi - If there is a rule that "there is nothing there is nothing" then you cannot change the rule at your convenience.

    And again - you use the argument "from authority". This argument is not valid, and I am a little surprised that you are falling for this nonsense again. If I give you a list of 100 philosophers who do not believe in God - will that convince you? And if I bring you 1000 scientists who do not believe in God? And you know what? Each of the 1000: his first name is Stephen…
    Will that convince you? Of course not - you're not stupid (except for the embarrassing first clause...) - so why do you think I'm stupid? 🙂

  94. And what is your answer regarding the way the Germans interpreted the "death of God" as you suggest.
    They are also modernists. For them, too, God is dead and Christianity is Judaism and therefore invalid. For them, man had to choose his destiny and pave his way. That's what they did. They chose for all people to be a collective culture where one tyrant thinks for everyone, and the others are willing to do his bidding, because otherwise it is not clear how 50 million people were killed in that war.
    Why do you think they are wrong about the absence of God, and you are right. That is, loving your neighbor as yourself is an extreme conclusion of Torah
    The benefit to the group, but also natural selection is a conclusion from the other end of the scale to the absence of God. evolution.

    How was the present created, and what was before it. We have already seen that the equations of relativity and quantum theory make it possible to come from nowhere
    Provided that matter and antimatter arrive together. But the equations still don't tell us where the hash comes from. Physics, on the other hand, tries in some of its streams to understand where existence comes from. How is this different from Rambam's 13 abstract principles.
    There is a book in Hebrew about philosophy about the 15 great philosophers of the West. The vast majority of them, with the exception of Olly Sartre, who by the way collaborated academically under the Nazi regime, believe in the existence of a higher intelligence. Voltaire, Descartes, Kant, Spinoza (nature is God), Plato and Socrates - the Ida, the unity. Today, Luke.
    Head to all Immanuel Kant and his book Critique of Pure Reason. What he calls supreme intelligence of the cosmos, the other calls God.

  95. Joseph
    Your 3 examples of the greats of humanity who believe is denied. Beethoven wrote music, he was not an explorer. His opinion about God has no meaning. Newton had already explored the world and was a believing Christian. Let's move on - Einstein did not believe in a personal God - he thought it was complete nonsense. He was a secular person, when in some of his letters it can be understood that he was ready to leave room for some creator. Why stop there? Hawking - a complete atheist. Kraus - a complete atheist. Susskind - a complete atheist.
    Well - what is the conclusion? Is it even right to exclude from the belief of this or that about the existence of God? Don't go there Yossi, you'll just lose.

    Note - I did not say "love your neighbor as yourself". Definately not! Read what I wrote again - it's completely different. I have no need to invent God to find purpose in my life. I truly pity those who see themselves as toys/slaves/flowers in another entity's pot. This is a terrible thing to me.

  96. How can we feel that we have contributed something in our lives? Well, you have to look a little at those people that society has not been kind to, to say the least, at the lonely seniors, who almost freeze in the cold in the winter, at the children who are left behind because the pace of schooling was too fast for them, and the solution they found is to wander the street, and the rest is known... and there are no more missing Situations that crave help. To feel a sense of purpose in life you don't need religion or spirituality, sometimes to simply do. Use your heart and not your brain.

  97. Miracles: Accepting the responsibility of the person who believes for his actions, can be done in my opinion from the premise of the complete absence of evidence for the existence of God. This is the stronger belief, which does not need significant proof. This part you will not be able to bridge with the scientific principles. Again: His existence or non-existence does not depend on my opinion or your opinion - whether God exists does not depend on me or you. As much as you try to discuss the possibility of the existence of the world, without the existence of God, or the meanings, in my opinion, you will not reach proofs here and there. The way you described: "Love your neighbor as yourself" is not fundamentally different from the Buddhist way, which as a philosophy separate from religion, does not speak of a clear God. That is, what you propose is Buddhism - I did not find how you deviate from religion.
    The greats of mankind, let's take for example Einstein, Newton, Beethoven - believed in the existence of God. This is also not proof except for themselves, but it is a statement in my opinion.

    Not all humanity will conclude that in the absence of God "love your neighbor as yourself" is the ultimate way. There was an experiment in the last century that dealt with a culture where "God is dead" as Nietzsche said, castrated by them, in the years 1933-1945 and they came to a different conclusion, what to do in his absence. Not all humanity can be presented with an abstract God. That is why in the Jewish religion it is said "Thus said God".

  98. Here are three sayings that sum up the situation for anyone looking for purpose or destiny:
    Life has no purpose
    The main thing is the journey...
    seeing death as the end of life
    Equivalent to: seeing the horizon as the end of the world...
    Life is not less interesting because of death
    Just as they never stop being serious
    When people laugh…

  99. Lanir Lahav - a pleasure to read, as usual,
    A small and obligatory addition: the existence of an "external" intention and purpose should not be ruled out, this is one possibility, it is not scientific because it cannot be refuted (Popper), and in my opinion it is also not true, but it is a possibility that should be "on the table".
    On the finitude of life and purpose: The finitude of life does not negate its purpose, actions (and especially of the mind - MIND) create ripples in different forms (myth, book, formula...) Einstein continues to kick even today, so does Immanuel Kant, Aristotle...
    Our purpose today is in the world we are creating for those who will come after us.
    One of the measures of quality (of an object, action, idea...) is beauty, and beauty is (apparently) derived from symmetry and the way in which it is broken, and since beauty creates an emotional response, we have a connection between geometry (physically and as a concept) and the spirit, and this offers a starting point for understanding spirituality and values ​​that arise from the things themselves and not from an external (divine) commandment

  100. Joseph
    You wrote "a world without God, it lacks a sufficient purpose and lacks a sufficient purpose." If God exists, then the one who has the purpose, the one who has the will, is God, and not man. To me, this is a terrible thought. If I thought that was the case, I would shoot myself in the head, and certainly not "produce" children. Who knows if the same God will be as kind to them as he is to me? I'm kidding of course - I don't really feel that God is nice to me, not at all.

    I, as a complete atheist, believe in one thing "love your children as yourself". Now - the purpose is mine. The love of my children makes me want to leave them a better world than the one I got from my parents. Think for a moment Yossi - what will happen if everyone thinks like me?

  101. Religion brought good things and bad things - like anything.
    It has nothing to do with the question of whether there is a God and, if so, what is his essence.
    The absence of absolute proof that can be seen externally is exactly the environment in which a person decides whether he believes or not.
    For example during the Holocaust when humans treated other humans like cattle.
    This is a point of strong appeal to the existence of God.

    Believing in God does not mean being a creationist or not believing in the big bang. Again to separate formal religion from belief in the existence of God.

    In my opinion, a world without God lacks a sufficient purpose and lacks a sufficient purpose.
    No matter how hard the heretics try, they have not been able throughout history to produce a satisfactory replacement.
    When a person is in a situation where it dawns on him that he is completely alone, because he is always alone, but in an extreme scenario, he is
    may reveal that there is a God or that there is no God. The truth is neither on this nor on the other side.

    In my opinion, also plagiarism: I believe in science, therefore I am necessarily a heretic, harmful. If I am a religious person and you are not and we both believe in the correctness of the scientific way, if we divide, we will be defeated by the majority who do not sanctify science, and are comfortable with others thinking for them. Even so, being scientific is a rare metal. Why then give up half of it?

    If I believe and you are a heretic and we both believe in the scientific process: I put the truth of scientific research before everything, and believe in the correctness of the Big Bang and the correctness of the theory of evolution, and the right of animals and more.

    It seems to me that the heretic ticks most of the sections above. So why divide us? At the abstract level we are of two opinions and there is no proof in either direction.

  102. Fitz, that's exactly what I'm talking about. According to the author of the article, there is no purpose and meaning to life/universe.
    He only describes it in a negative way "without a nature with intention, purpose and desires, without absolute meaning" "without the need for a creator, intention or purpose". And if this is the essence of reality, the mere addition of meaning by man is an illusion.
    The truth, which you describe Fitz, is only a fact that meets the conditions of "you went back and checked it" - that is, empirical. And this is a tautology - only what is scientific is the truth.

  103. Dotan is not saying that there is no purpose in life, he is talking about building meaning from what is really around us!!
    And regarding the truth you mention, it is simply the truth and not a form of control and a beautiful piece of truth... When have you come across a piece of information that is true not because you believe it, but because you checked it and checked it again and checked it and other people checked it until there was no shadow of a doubt?? Definitely top value.
    Very interesting and food for thought article!! Cheers!!

  104. Common sense is worthwhile alone.
    Pure logic is a right way of life.
    and if you must bring religion into it, make it Vulcan.

  105. Waste of time. Once your initial axiom is that life has no purpose, everything is empirical and in the end there is only death. No matter what you try to pour in, the thing you pour in automatically becomes meaningless. And calling it 'truth' or 'science' or 'secular spirituality' is a mental game that at best gives you some sort of illusion. Exactly what you blame other social models. You also use the word 'truth' but the meaning is really 'control' or more precisely 'mental control'. According to your model, control is more important to you than happiness or joy. And to invest all your energy in control when the last note in the concert of life is a total loss of control, this is the most foolish investment and model a person can make.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.