A new study from the University of Chicago, published this week in PNAS shows for the first time that religious people attribute to God views that they themselves support. When their opinions change, so does the way of thinking they attribute to that god
Why are a number of extreme rabbis convinced that a ruler transaction is forbidden according to God's commandments? How are essays published in the settlements that allow in the name of Halacha and God to kill all enemies of the people - inside and outside - without mercy? And how do these interpretations of God's will reconcile with the determinations of other rabbis regarding God being a merciful and generous Father? The answer was revealed last week and shows that not only did God create man in his image, but man also creates God in his thoughts - and changes his image according to his needs.
"Believers and non-believers alike have long argued that people create God in their own image." A new study from the University of Chicago is presented, published on December XNUMXnd in the online edition of the prestigious scientific journal PNAS. The study shows for the first time that religious people attribute to God opinions that they themselves support. When their opinions change, so does the way of thinking they attribute to that god.
To demonstrate the assertion, the research group led by Nicholas Epley conducted a series of experiments on volunteers who believe in the existence of God.
The volunteers were asked to give their opinion on controversial issues, such as abortion, same-sex marriage, the death penalty, the war in Iraq and the legalization of marijuana. After that, the subjects were asked what they think God's opinion is on the subject.
When they finished analyzing God's motives and desires in the various issues, the subjects were also instructed to indicate what the average American, Bill Gates, George Bush and other famous figures think about each of the categories. The opinions of the subjects largely corresponded to the opinion they attributed to God in each of the questions.
This, of course, is not a big surprise. If you are convinced of the existence of a higher power that guides the movement of the stars, it is likely that you will not want to upset it, and that you will adapt your views to his views and your desires to his desires. In fact, this is the logical and emotional basis of all religions in the world. But here Epley raised a difficulty of a new kind: do we use God only as a mirror that reflects our own desires? And in fact, if we change our opinions, consciously or unconsciously, will we believe that the wishes of the higher power have also changed?
To get the point across, Epley used a well-known technique in psychological and political circles, which is used to change long-established thought patterns. It has been known since the time of ancient Greece that popular and populist lecturers are able to bring about far-reaching changes in the opinion of the audience listening to them. But not only the audience is convinced by the speech - the speaker himself also becomes stronger and believes more in his words. Apley took advantage of the same mental flexibility we are endowed with as humans, and asked the volunteers to write a speech presenting the death penalty in a positive light, for another experiment he claimed. Most of the interrogated wrote the speech, and when they were re-examined, Epley found that their point of view had changed in favor of the death penalty. Not only that, but also the opinion they attributed to God changed according to the change in their opinions!
Last but not least, the researchers put into operation the fMRI device that measured the levels of activity in different areas of the subjects' brains. The measurements revealed that when the researchers were asked about their own opinions and about God's opinions, the same area in the brains of the respondents 'lighted up'. In contrast, when the researchers were asked about the opinions of the average American citizen, a different area of the brain known to be used to decipher other people's motives was activated.
The conclusion of Epley and his group was that people tend to attribute to God the same beliefs that they themselves adhere to. If in the past there was a reference to religion as a 'moral compass', which distinguishes good from bad and light from darkness, now it seems that the compass does not necessarily point in the absolute right direction. And as Epley writes, "...a compass always points to the north, regardless of the direction in which the person is standing... this study suggests that, unlike a real compass, deciphering God's will may actually advance people in the direction they were headed in advance."
Editor's note: This study reminds me of a segment of Tovia Tzafir, probably from cleaning his head, in which he is disguised as Rabbi Shmuel Avidor HaCohen, who was then a celebrity thanks to his television program that was broadcast on Friday at eight in the evening (he knew it was broadcast on Saturday, it just says that the program was filmed on a weekday).
In Zafir's version, Avidor HaCohen says things that he probably would not say in reality - that there is a connection between the people of Israel, the Torah of Israel, the Land of Israel and the God of Israel, and the unknown is that the God of Israel votes from FDL.... N.B. Apparently since then God has changed his mind and switched to voting Shas, because today it is the largest religious party.
On the same topic on the science website
146 תגובות
: )
Dear Eddie D Response 50 Although I disagreed with your views, I greatly appreciated the way you presented your claims and the eloquence of your language. But then you started - and the commenters will forgive me for the cheap slang - to engrave in the language all kinds of high-level intellectual sentences and I couldn't help but be reminded of Schopenhauer's catchy saying: "vague words - vague thoughts".
And to Michael Rothschild, I've been visiting this site for about a year now and your comments are always wonderful, accurate and brilliant to the point where I don't see any need to narrow the discussion in my average responses... I'm with you 100%!
Epistemology
The answer regarding the rabbit, including quotes from the Bible and the Midrashim -
http://www.hofesh.org.il/articles/halacha/zoology/zoology.html
If God does not exist and is the creation of man, why should he be bothered all the time? The science writers, as those who do not believe in any deity, write about her at every opportunity. A bit absurd to me.
Michael:
To your question on the subject, do you think the rabbit is ruminating? (living and not living)
Courtesy of Hidravot site
http://www.hidabroot.org/CommunityDetail.asp?FaqID=15010
Greetings
There is nothing better than presenting before the epicurean the answer of the famous gaon Rabbi Yechiel Ya'akov Weinberg ztzel in his book Shredi Ash Ash (Heb XNUMX). And this is the wording of the answer: "Doubt the identity of the rabbit in the turn with the Lievre or Haza.
According to Avraham Ibn Shoshan, the rabbit is a species of animal found in the eastern countries, and it is not the rabbit in the western countries, and a rabbit in the eastern countries is really a living animal. And others, such as Rabbi David Zvi Hoffman, the head of the Beit Midrash for the Rabbis in Berlin, in his commentary on Leviticus, says that the Torah did not mean the anatomical markings of the rabbit (that it lacks the four cells in the stomach of the rumen) and gave only an external sign, namely that the rabbit moves its jaws in a similar way Le Maali Gera, and by this it is visible to the eye as Maalie Gera.
The Torah wanted to prevent a mistake, because by the outward appearance it looks like a living animal and it is possible to mistake it for a kosher animal. And this is also the case in Shepan (and in this commentary, Hebrew translation, published by Mossad Rabbi Kook, Jerusalem). And all the researchers held this opinion of Radz Hoffman. See, for example, in Sefer Hai of the Bible to Mr. Yehuda Felix, Tel Aviv, XNUMX, Sinai Publishing.
And in the book Rabbi Dr. Yosef Zeliger's author holds the opinion that the hare and the rabbit are species of camels. and that the various translators followed the previous Greek translators, who were wrong in translating these names. Rabbi Aharon Marcus also held this opinion in his book Barzilai. But the opinion of Radetz Hoffmann, who proves it with unshakable evidence, is more visible. I was happy to see that his honor is engaged in the study of the Torah, which is our life and the length of our days.
And it would be good if he explained to his friend that it is forbidden to think that the Torah was wrong. On the contrary, all scientists, without exception, admit that the Torah's descriptions of animal species are accurate and correct, and one should only doubt our knowledge, but not question the truth of our holy Torah. And peace to the Lord and to all who belong to him, and blessings and success in his actions.
Dear Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg [The genius Rabbi Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg was born in Russia in 1885 and died in Montreux, Switzerland in 1966 and was buried in Jerusalem, studied in the yeshivas of Lithuania, during the First World War he emigrated to Germany And later he was appointed as the head of the Beit Midrash for Rabbis named after Rabbi Azriel Hildesheimer in Berlin, until it was closed by the Nazis on Kristallnacht, in 1938.
He was a Talmudic genius who answered many questions in Halacha, and educated generations of rabbis, leaders and thinkers]. In the case of the rabbit, it should also be noted that it does not pass stool to the stomach, MM found that it has three blind intestines, [one large in the usual place, and two more in the middle of the large intestine), and when the food passes from the intestine to the intestine there is a kind of stool raising, and there are naturalists Today, those who claim that what the rabbit moves with its mouth as a raising of anger also belongs to it, see Sefer Shihat Chulin (page 410).
Also regarding the rabbit, apart from the above opinion, partitions were found in its stomach where it expelled the hardened food for re-grinding, and the researchers recently discovered [and is now known to every zoologist], that the rabbit is not able to properly digest its food at one time, and therefore its excrement is divided into two types, The well-digested food passes through the caecum and exits the caecum in long, soft pouches, but the food that is not properly digested does not enter the caecum but is expelled by round, hard pouches that contain vitamin B, which the rabbit eats and chews again for further digestion, [and as written in the book ``The Physiology of Animals'' page 20].
And if that is the case, then the rabbit really has a matter of bringing up a burden, and there is no contradiction between the Torah and science, and if so-called contradictions are found, then they are only ``imaginary,'' due to our lack of knowledge and proficiency, and about such it is said (Beresheet Rabbah XNUMX): "Everything is in Sumin, until God enlightens their eyes
Tzviki:
Right.
He should ask the rabbi.
But when the rabbi tells him what God wants in the matter - he should understand that it is not God but the rabbi who wants it.
Tzviki What is written religion? by himself? someone wrote
To the author of the honorable article,
I have not found two rabbis who disagree on whether it is permissible to travel to the sea on Shabbat.
The opinions you present are matters of discretion.
In the religion it is written that every person should observe what is written in Halacha and what is not written should be asked by the rabbi and not decided on his own.
If there are those who do not do so, then they do not represent the religion in (this topic anyway).
Tzviki
I was a friend of God and I met opium, even worse things like a new age are not upon us.
Guys, I can't understand your discussion and the point of it - all believers is the cancellation of the Torah. All infidels - it's a waste of electricity.
Sometimes when I think of you religious people, tears come to my eyes. You are like a prisoner who is unaware of his situation and from here, in the light, yelling at him to look outside. Although reality is not something, it is more realistic.
The rest of the time you look pathetic to me.
One note for order: the one who denies God is not the opposite of the one who believes in him unless we are talking about one specific god. We the pious infidels, infidels in all, including the nice ones.
So the argument or the idea that either the religious are right or the writer is flawed in logic. Either the author is right, or:
The Christians, the Muslims, the members of the Maasai tribe, who sacrifice to Baal, who swim in the Ganges, the tribe that prays for the pilot who fell with the plane, 8564 other religions or - yes it comes - you! One day you will internalize it....
Samuel:
If the research didn't bring anything new to you then you agree with the claim that man creates God in his own image and likeness and everyone says that what he wants is God's will.
The question is, therefore, why should I even believe someone who comes to tell me what he thinks God wants (because he is just telling me what he wants).
By the way, just for the record:
Do you think the rabbit ruminates?
Are lice created from human sweat and mice from mold?
Is it really moral to stone Shabbat breakers and homosexuals?
Does the fact that in 1966 the court forced a married man to marry his brother's widow for one night, rape her and deport her the next day - just because she was deaf and the religion did not allow her to go through a halitza ceremony, do you think this is a characteristic of a reformed country?
To Mr. Roy...
A lot of studies arose and fell to the same extent
The fact that there is new scientific research on the subject is all well and good, but it should not be taken as a law of nature
Before you rely on studies and write things about rabbis
First maybe it's better for you to understand that if you were a bit of a researcher in Judaism
You would discover that it is a well-known fact that every person has lesions, and he is influenced by his desires and interprets things that way
that they will satisfy his desires,
So you didn't tell me anything about research
Second thing, before you start talking about rabbis, you first need to start hearing things
Your religion, which is Judaism, must see that science and the known laws of nature do not contradict the Jewish religion at all
But they only strengthen it and because this research was conducted on people of faith but not people of high spiritual ranks
I can't make anything out of it.
Because if you get to know a religious person a little deeply and you see their order of study and the work of morals, you will understand that they work so much on morals that the lesions that every person has is in a moderate decrease
And if you get to know one rabbi and understand his qualities and the person behind him, I'm sure you won't speak the way you speak now.
Therefore, before you speak in such a harsh manner and hurt the feelings of many people who seek science who know the reality of the Creator, do some research about your religion and the reality of God, and contradictions between science and religion, and then we can get a little more objective information from you,
And again I repeat that there are a lot of theories and studies and every day more and more advanced explanations are discovered
Like the theory of the age of the world that was widespread all over the world until the middle of the 20th century and was believed in with absolute faith that the world had always existed and was never created until they discovered cosmic radiation and from this discovery came the theory that is widespread today, the Big Bang, which recognizes that the beginning of existence was the creation of the primordial light and not that the world exists Since forever.
I hope that my words did something in your heart and as a repentant person who studies and lives science I researched and discovered the truth, for the simple reason that I was looking for it, and I wish you success in finding the truth =]
Good night
A:
What a professional twist!
What is an inexhaustible system?
After all, every time they show you a change that takes place in evolution, you will immediately say "good - but it's a freak!"
The nickname "unbreakable system" is a nickname with a changing meaning that hides among the things that have not yet demonstrated their evolution and remains there forever as it is reduced from time to time.
In the name of the God of the Gaps - let's call it "The Island of Unloading the Gaps"
When did I claim this? After all, I clearly said that it should be an "undischargeable" system, meaning that a lack of one component would make it invalid. This is not the example you gave here.
The same goes for bacterial resistance to antibiotics: plasmids, point mutations on a target site, genes that have been activated and more. These are not newly created genes. Also regarding the digestion of nylon (according to a source I saw, this is a plasmid or activation of a gene that digests nylon)
It's also interesting how people don't understand that many small changes (which they know about) can add up to a big change (which they don't know about)
A:
I'm tired of you.
You say that according to creationism there must only be major changes.
You are shown small changes (which according to your previous claim disprove creationism) so you say - so what - these are small changes.
It's already clear what you're made of.
There are also examples of creating new genes (of course - this too with small changes) such as the gene for nylon digestion.
Bacteria are constantly evolving (in small changes with a huge effect) and overcome any antibiotics we develop.
Sweet dreams.
I did not find in the link any evidence of the formation of a complex biological system in small steps. Even in the example of the lizards, it is an improvement of normal systems (without the concept of indestructible). Bite strength and head size can be obtained from a single point in a visitor's gene. A cyclic valve can be obtained from an activated pseudogene. Certainly not a new gene whole.
A:
You are a creationist who doesn't even know all the creationist arguments.
If you claim that creationism will be disproved by small changes, then creationism has already been disproved and in response 127 there are several examples of this refutation as observed in the laboratory.
Of course there are other examples such as this one:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/lizard-fast-evolution-230408/
I am not their creator. Although in my opinion it is necessary to present the arguments of both sides (I personally studied the arguments of both sides). As I have shown, there is a refuting test for both theories, which has been turned into science. At least that is what their thinkers published...
And of course also:
http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-speciation.pdf
A:
1. Intelligent design does not support the claim you made.
2. Now - exposing yourself as a creature - it is also clear why you allowed yourself to make false claims.
3. I can only refer you to the usual sources:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist
Although true in principle, but evolution claims that...
Complex systems cannot be created in large steps (consider probability)
The planning claims that….
Complex systems were only created in large steps, that is, exactly the opposite. That is, it is a test that needs to refute the central claim of the 2 theories. There is no middle ground.
And regarding the eye - although they showed simple systems of receptors, but a photoreceptor is also infinitely complex.
If a minimal photoreceptor consists of 100 amino acids then about 100^20 mutations will be required for its formation. This is still a lot and there are no small steps here because it is like an all or nothing lock.
Although true in principle, but evolution claims that...
Complex systems cannot be created in large steps (consider probability)
The planning claims that….
Complex systems were only created in large steps, that is, exactly the opposite. That is, it is a test that needs to refute the central claim of the 2 theories. There is no middle ground.
And regarding the reference - although they showed simple systems of receptors, but a photoreceptor is also infinitely complex.
If a minimal photoreceptor consists of 100 amino acids then about 100^20 mutations will be required for its formation. This is still a lot and there are no small steps here because it is like an all or nothing lock.
I'm sorry, rant, but your last comment is even more stupid than the previous ones because your sentences don't even fit syntactically.
When will you stop using the internet?
Michael Rothschild:
As you surely know: for claims with a circular feature as you have just raised.
Their basic feature is that they can be applied completely symmetrically to the source from which they arose.
Therefore draw your own chain of conclusions towards yourself because the solution you proposed will work just as well.
This is by the way the basic feature of the research topic of the present article.
Therefore, it was very easy to use the same weapon used by the initiators of the study.
And for the same reason as well, all your attempts to refute the approach I presented will rise in vain like dove blossoms.
chatter:
I repeat and refer you to the offer I have already made.
Since in your opinion the scientists only say what they want and not what is really true, you should just stop using everything that is based on the science they developed because it is incorrect science and therefore the developments cannot work.
As a first priority, I suggest you stop using the internet.
Chatter, as chatters do, keeps on chattering.
In his opinion the scientists do not understand the principles of science and therefore they all signed a document saying that in their opinion the truth of evolution is better than the lie of creationism.
It's nonsense that they don't even know that one theory should not be preferred over another and in the case before us - truth over falsehood.
Avi Blizovsky:
There is no need at all to go into the details of a type of experiment that was not carried out conclusively, that is to say disproving.
As Michael Rothschild already said: in his last response.
A confirmatory experiment is not a validating experiment. Only an experiment that disproves any other possibility may verify the theory.
And therefore the experiments you mention are not refuting experiments at all.
And regarding the opacity, it's a shame that you are fanning pigeons. All in all, answer the question.
There is no point in contradicting another opinion just by attaching some defamatory nickname to the one who brings it. It does not change the facts.
Regarding the eye, for example, there were already experiments that proved the gradualness, and so is the case with the rod. There is another problem that regarding the opaqueness they failed to prove - for those who are opaque and willing to hear only their own theories and no proof is good enough for them (and there have already been examples on this website in regards to missing vertebrae and things like that, I noticed that the creationists are not satisfied with any discovery.)
Michael Rothschild:
I carefully read what you wrote about your personal opinion.
You put your personal opinion and that of Avi Blizovsky and other scientists in one basket.
Adiyo, it remains your personal opinion to do so, which of course stems from the fact that you have a common interest with Avi Blizovsky, for example.
Your implicit claim that in your personal opinion there is an advantage.
Void by virtue of the conclusions of the research that this article on which we detail.
No personal opinion has an advantage over the others.
Reason 1-as above
And reason 2-from the very scientific approach that requires equality and non-preference of perceptions to begin with. And this is one of the cornerstones of the evolutionary approach.
A:
You suggested rather be the messenger and carry out
The expression "your personal opinion" that started to be heard here as a derogatory expression is of course the personal opinion of the one who uses it.
Those who understand also know that the personal opinion of that one is wrong and in fact all the academic institutions in the entire solar system unanimously signed the document this Just to say that their personal opinion is like my personal opinion and my father's personal opinion.
Regarding A's proposal:
There are no proofs in science, therefore there can be no situation where the refutation of theory A would be proof of theory B.
In particular - if they succeed in building a complex system in small steps - this does not mean that it is impossible to build it in large steps, and on the other hand, if they do not succeed in building a system in small steps, it only means that they did not succeed and that it is impossible.
On the other hand - they are actually working on the matter and this from several directions.
One direction is that of finding the small steps that can be the way to what creationists mistakenly present as inextricable complexity (dissolving complexity is proof that it is not inextricable). This has been done, in a large number of areas, including the issue of eye development which creationists used to claim was not a discharge.
These are only thought experiments, so it's not exactly what A proposed, but it faces the same problem and could be a preliminary step to an experiment that will actually do it.
The second direction is to prepare the knowledge infrastructure for testing things "on wet";
It should be understood that it is really not simple and it will take a long time until the subject is feasible because today we still do not have a lot of applied knowledge about everything that involves the connection between the genotype and the phenotype - that is - about the answer to the question of what is the genetic change necessary to give an organism a predefined trait.
Part of this direction is also the experiments done in creating synthetic life, one of the most prominent of which is the attempt to create a living cell in which all DNA is created synthetically.
See for example:
HERE
And here
A proposal for a refuting experiment for both theories-
To show experimentally that it is possible to create complex biological systems ("seemingly inseparable"), while maintaining functionality at every step. After all, evolution claims that complex systems are created in small steps, whereas intelligent design claims that complex systems should have been created in large steps of several components. That is, the refutation One of the arguments will be the proof of the second. It's a shame that no one really took on the task...
Avi Blizovsky:
That the competing theories are not at a sufficient level against the theory of evolution is your personal opinion.
And as stated in the title of the current article. Please test result.
————————————————————————————–
A new study from the University of Chicago, published this week in PNAS shows for the first time that people attribute to science opinions that they themselves support. When their opinions change, so does the way of thinking they attribute to science.
-------------------
Therefore your opinion and the opinion of all those who support the idea of evolution is obviously biased because of the interests you have in the matter.
In the same way, of course, the opinions of the owners of the competing theories of evolution will be biased.
But surely the theory of evolution has no advantage at all.
And since you yourself determined that an experiment disproving the competing theories would verify the theory of evolution.
And since such an experiment has never been carried out so far, the theory of evolution remains at the same level of credibility as its competing theories.
Michael Rothschild:
Very true Mr. Rothschild, I exactly agree with that and that's what I just wrote.
But you continue as usual not to read what I wrote before.
As you have already admitted that you did not read the article we are responding to.
If I can only conclude that the spirit of prophecy is upon you. But it is very puzzling for a person who does not believe in this kind of matter that is clearly not scientific.
Avi:
You didn't understand the meaning of the rant.
It's not surprising because your starting point was that he understands what science is.
This point of departure is not correct and the scum once again demonstrated this when he demanded proof of the theory of evolution when every sane person knows that in science it is impossible to prove a theory and it is only possible to disprove a theory.
Not true, lots of experiments were done and each experiment could disprove the theory of evolution and maybe even confirm the conflicting theories. The fact that it was not refuted but rather strengthened despite all these experiments indicates its success in explaining the phenomena.
Another problem that the conflicting theories have is that they are not scientific and therefore cannot be disproved, but this should not be the problem of evolution. As you know, you can't put a featherweight boxer together with a heavyweight boxer. In order to compete on the same arena, the theories should indeed compete. A made-up theory such as creationism cannot compete with evolution because it does not play on the same playing field.
Avi Blizovsky:
You then claim that everything is objective and that your opinions are only influenced by the pure truth and that you have no interests.
You claim that truths depend on experiment. So here in this article itself we will do an experiment that can easily be understood to be relevant for any type of opinion that a person supports. This kind of straw is used in all the articles you brought about evolution. There, too, findings "that can be tapped" from which this truth is different are brought to the evidence.
In more detail you claim that refuting a theory involves an experiment that will demonstrate the refutation.
Can it be concluded from this that the absolute confirmation of a theory involves the refutation of all conflicting theories through an experiment.
If this is true, then the theory of evolution is not a provable theory because the experiment that disproves the conflicting theories has not yet been done.
to chatter Your sentence is incorrect, because science does not change according to someone's worldview, but only if a theory has been disproved in an experiment.
Friends:
I have a suggestion for anyone who claims that the claims of the scientists express their wishes and not the reality.
Stop using the products of science (which cannot act at all according to your delusional theory)!
Mostly I suggest you stop using the internet.
splendor:
I asked what the connection was so as not to say that you are wrong.
This study is not based on any a priori assumption about the nature of God (Whatever that is), but only on what people describe when they talk about him.
He shows that always - when they talk about God's will they are actually talking about their own will.
In other words - God is used by them as a tool to give an image of holiness and importance to their private will.
Therefore - even if there is a God (whatever that is) that no one ever talks about (because always when people talk about him, they are talking about themselves) - the article did not talk about him (just as no one else does except in the general and meaningless way in which I just talked about him - that is, as something devoid of qualities and desires).
Michael, what is the connection?
Read again what I wrote, I claim that both in this study and in the study I mentioned that the researchers also explain their abilities and the meaning of their research. A common cognitive bias, they claim to know what reality is and based on that they are looking for how close the interrogators are to this "reality". And of course they cannot... claim that they know that reality is positive or negative and not the true nature of God (does he exist does he exist only in the imagination of the people or not)
How is this unrelated??
Michael Rothschild:
You admitted yourself that you didn't read the article.
Now you are saying something meaningless.
conclusion:
The article is one hundred percent correct.
Your opinions as well as the emphasis and messages of this site depend on each individual's personal interests.
The title of the article in the general sense should be a candle to the feet of this site.
————————————————————————————–
A new study from the University of Chicago, published this week in PNAS shows for the first time that people attribute to science opinions that they themselves support. When their opinions change, so does the way of thinking they attribute to science.
chatter:
As I said - you are really just rambling and I no longer feel like it.
You have convinced me that not only do you not understand what science is, but you never will and it's really a waste of my time.
Michael Rothschild:
Your words about the science including sections 1,2,3 are your opinion and your opinion only. (except maybe the division into 3)
You claim that science is such and such in the name of some undisputed supreme truth.
After all, science without question and without skepticism is false.
You continue and claim that you have not read the current article on which the discussion revolves. Then you are just mumbling words because you are referring to your private imaginations. Or you have a prophetic spirit to know what is written in the article but it is not possible because it is not scientific.
I did read.
It is about the opinions of people regarding what they believe in.
And it is very easy to conclude from the experiment that was done that people change their minds whenever they have a sufficient interest to do so.
The experiment demonstrates that with humans there is no absolute truth. Their opinions depend mainly on their own personal convenience.
And so are you, it is your private opinions that guide you.
You have no ownership of absolute truths and there are none at all.
Science is an invention of humans and without them there would be no science.
Yigal
The existence of an idea [God's entire existence is in the minds of some people] is only in the minds of some people and therefore they can decide about those people that they are inventing his opinions and desires while those same people themselves think (rightfully to themselves) that they are only guessing the opinions and desires of the Creator that they are believe in its existence
I don't understand why you refuse to see it
Yigal:
I simply already understood that probably Shanad (read it however you like) is nothing more than an old handout
Ned, the conclusion you are talking about is not a conclusion but an explanation. Michael is probably right, and there is no point in discussing it with you: you are caught in a small example that I made and turn it into the main thing.
The main thing is that since God's entire existence is in the minds of some people, they can (and do) decide anything about him, including what his opinions and desires are. If it is not understood, it seems to me that every other word is a waste.
Yigal, where did you get the statement that the jam jar is empty? Isn't it possible to impose the same thing on you that you attribute to me. If you assume that the jar is empty then Mimila assume that the jam has no properties and all the properties you attribute to it will be imaginary but if you believe that there is jam then all the properties you try to attribute to it will be your attempt to guess the properties of an existing thing , the truth is, and the only truth, that the jar is sealed! , neither I nor you can know what is inside it, but we can believe that there is or isn't something in it, this is the basis of faith, all faith, both faith in God and faith in his non-existence come from the same human "defect", the ability to believe.
Notice how I can draw from the same experiments a completely different and contradictory conclusion...
...the reason why that part of a person's brain is activated when he thinks about God is due to the fact that in a person's mind the most real thing that exists is himself, all reality, all other people can be perceived as an illusion but a person cannot doubt his own existence and this is unconsciously blinded to all One, then the very fact that thoughts about God come from the same place where a person thinks about himself is evidence that a believing person sees God as a very real thing, as real as he sees himself, while all the other things are at a lower level of reality in his mind....
Of course it's not true but I'm just trying to show that ridiculous research can lead to quite a number of contradictory and ridiculous conclusions.
fuss in clothing:
The only thing your words justify is the nickname you chose for yourself.
If you look at my first response to the article (response 10) - before all kinds of idiots dragged me into discussing nonsense, you will see that in my words to Eden I said that this is not something that is unique to God.
On the other hand - there is exactly one exception to the matter, and that exception is science, and you simply do not understand what science is, nor the research you cite.
What you don't understand about science is (wow - there's so much that it's really hard to decide where to start - I'll limit myself to a few salient things):
1. Science has no will, therefore no one will claim that his will is the will of science.
2. Apart from integrity, there are no laws that oblige the scientist and therefore you will never find a scientist who will do any act because it is the commandment of science.
3. In science - every theory is tested in an experiment and no scientist will continue to hold for a long time a theory that is hidden by the experiment.
In other words - the things that the article talks about directly - those that are related to desire - there is absolutely no possibility of putting it on science, and the things that the article does not talk about at all but that stem from the same kind of flaw in humans, it is not justified to put it on science because in science (and in it alone) there is Exactly the mechanisms necessary to deal with this flaw and these mechanisms are the experimental mechanisms and the mathematical proof mechanisms.
It's about your misunderstanding of science.
As for your misunderstanding of the article to which you refer - and I allow myself to say this even without having read it - because there is enough information in your words that makes it possible to know what the article says and what is the logical fallacy in drawing your personal conclusions - then this is how things seem to me:
The article did not do an experiment at all. He scanned correspondence in a very specific field that is still abandoned by disagreement among scientists. A dispute, as we know, can only exist when there is no unequivocal refutation of any of the theories. This is not the case of an accepted scientific theory but of a scientific theory in the making. In this situation - where there is still no refutation of competing theories - people really follow the inclination of their hearts but it has nothing to do with their reference to tested scientific theories.
Beyond all of the above - there is an even more noticeable flaw in all your words and that is the mention of my name.
I don't remember PNAS ever writing an article about me.
The current article also talks about the behavior of people who believe in God and therefore not Eli. I believe neither in God nor in anything else except sensory input and my logical thought. That is why I never attribute my desires - not to the will of God - not to the will (which as mentioned does not exist) of science - not to the laws of religion or to any other law.
I am the type of person who has no choice but to attribute their desires to themselves or - in other words - take responsibility.
Ned,
It is clear that the supercomputer is different from God because it does not have all the qualities required to be God, and if it has them, it is God, no matter what you call it. I stated in the response 79 what are the required features!
Imagine in your mind an empty and sealed jam jar. You claim it has orange marmalade but you could actually claim it has everything in the world, it's empty anyway. The same is the case with God (only that the thought loopiness is not done consciously): the imagination guides the believer to think about his God everything that comes to his mind, not deliberately, but to make himself just or appropriate in any way to the will of the God in his imagination. It matters what people do in relationships and how complex their behavior is.
Michael Rothschild:
The research reported in the article proves exactly that.
that people attribute {to every field they believe in} opinions that they themselves support. When their opinions change, so does the way of thinking they attribute to that {domain}.
The research was indeed carried out for a certain purpose due to certain interests and thus it proves that scientists will indeed support anything they have an interest in supporting and will change their opinion according to the interest.
The same applies to the commenters on this site, for example. For example to you.
"A new study from the University of Chicago, published this week in PNAS, shows for the first time that {Michael Rothschild} attributes to science and those who comment on his opinions opinions that he himself supports. When his opinions change, the way of thinking they attribute to that science and to those who comment on his opinions also changes.
Let's consider in what situation {Michael Rothschild}'s views might change?
The answer to the question depends: if the respondents agree with his opinion and praise his wisdom.
If positive - then the respondent is invited to the site and receives his approval.
If negative - then he will muster every effort to prove that the commenter is a stupid stupid idiot and will leave the site.
Nad:
Of course, this response didn't convince me to make an effort for you either.
You have heard all the reasons I have to make. You didn't understand them. Of course you will claim that you understood them, but it is completely clear to me that this is not the case.
Yigal It is clear that we are talking about the attribute of God in the mind of man, but what in the spectrum of divine beliefs brings man to this identification, what makes God different in the mind of man than just a computer that knows everything?
You know what, suppose we take an absolute atheist, we'll call him Michael, we'll ask Michael a question like this
Imagine in your head a supercomputer that knows and understands everything there is to understand, what do you think this computer's opinion would be about X?
Let's connect to Michael MRI, doesn't it seem that the same part of Michael's mind as in the mind of the person who believes in God will work? If your answer is yes, could you derive evidence from this that Michael sees the supercomputer as part of his inner self? If a control group had been made for the experiment with definite atheists, I am convinced that we would have seen exactly the same results, don't you think?
Michael, although your tone is blunt and personal, I will not stoop to your level, there is no value in it.
Ned,
You are missing the whole point! It is not the attribute of God that creates the identification but the attribute of man that creates it. If all the conditions of a being that man refers to as divinity and which exists only in his mind (we said God!), then everything that was said about these qualities (I will not repeat the research results here) is fulfilled.
nonsense,
I am not clear what you mean by this exchange of words. Not every possible combination of words also has a meaning.
Nad:
I already said that I came to the conclusion that you are not worth the effort.
Your words did not change anything in the matter.
Clumsiness in clothing (answer 90):
Come and show me such a study.
After all, there is no such study and there never was.
The fact that in all advertisements for eating healthy food the phrase "healthy food" can be replaced with the word "poison" still does not turn healthy food into poison.
It's amazing what stupidity you have to deal with!
Yigal G.:
Note the following title change.
"A new study from the University of Chicago, published this week in PNAS, shows for the first time that scientists attribute to science opinions that they themselves support (due to financial interests). When their opinions change (due to financial interests), the way of thinking they attribute to that science also changes."
The question arises as to what financial interests the scientists involved in the Hall of Science may have.
Possible answer to support the opinion: fat research budget.
A possible answer to a change in opinion: cancellation of research budgets.
An illustrative example please:
"A group of hackers broke into the server of a climate research department at the University of East England, and stole an archive of confidential correspondence between the world's leading climate researchers over the past 16 years.
Some of the emails talk about falsifying measurements and attempts to fit data into the global warming theory. In addition, there are many attempts to link warming to human activity."
Example sources:
Look for the sentence below in your google.
"Global warming or global bullshit"
Yigal, I have not yet understood from you, what is it about God's attributes that causes man to identify him with himself, and when this attribute is removed, man will cease to identify him with himself. If you make such a claim then you need to explain it
It is clear to me that there is no such quality because man, even unconsciously, does not treat God as himself, but when he tries to guess his opinions, he turns to the most correct and just thing he knows, and these are of course his own opinions.
To-stupid- please find a more decent name for you - respect yourself!
See comment number 80 to understand that your substitution lists are not appropriate (replacing "lion" with "tiger" is not the same as replacing "thought" with "stone").
Michael Rothschild:
We will do a little experiment on the title of the article and change it as follows:
"A new study from the University of Chicago, published this week in PNAS, shows for the first time that scientists attribute to science opinions that they themselves support. When their opinions change, the way of thinking they attribute to that science also changes."
instead of
"A new study from the University of Chicago, published this week in PNAS shows for the first time that religious people attribute to God opinions that they themselves support. When their opinions change, the way of thinking they attribute to that God also changes"
Michael Rothschild:
Such proofs Aristotle called teleology.
Just as the force of gravity arises from the bodies' natural tendency to continue.
And again - please replace the words "religion" and "god"
In one word from the list "Science" "Aliens" "Shas" "New Era"
Then perform the same experiment with an appropriate group of subjects.
You will get exactly the same result.
So who's talking here?
Michael, I have the right to think that this experiment is nonsense just like you have the right to think that God is nonsense even though there are people whose education and ability is greater than yours and still believe in him. Claims must be addressed and not the claimant.
It's good that you agree that even an explanation that makes you understand even less can still be considered an explanation and the fact that you're trying to get where it doesn't really change the matter, except that even with the "God" explanation people get to a lot of places (albeit good ones)
Regarding your claim, it's the same song again, God is a private creation of humans only if you accept in advance the assumption that humans are not a private creation of God, if you believe in God then you will simply assume that he exists and that the best you can do is to guess his opinions and attributes What you yourself think is right.
It is not clear what this study comes to say, since if it deals with believers who do not have Torah or anything like that, but try to do what God wants. Because then there is nothing to investigate, since they have no way to find out God's opinion, only by forming their own opinion. Whereas if he deals with believers who have Torah, then their way of formulating an opinion is to study their various sources, which again is (apparently) the same area of the brain of a self-evident person.
As a matter of fact, I assume (from my experience with humans) that the change that took place in their views was not a real change, but that side received more detail and expansion. For example, that person believes that the death penalty is more harmful than helpful. And after writing the speech he is convinced that in certain periods or countries it is more helpful than harmful. For some reason such changes are considered by most people to be a change and not an additional clarity, unjustly.
Ned, read my answer again: what looks like a watermelon, smells like a watermelon, has watermelon seeds, etc., is probably a watermelon!
Yigal you say something and its opposite. Will the definition of an omnipotent and omniscient computer that created the universe activate the same area in the brain that is activated when that person thinks about God? If the answer is yes, then does that mean that person treats the computer as part of his interior? If the answer is no, then please explain what is the difference that you think causes a person to relate so differently to the concept of "God" and the concept of "omnipotent and omniscient computer that created the universe"
Nad (response 69):
I really don't care if you agree or not.
If you are willing to accept from someone an "explanation" that you understand even less than the phenomenon he came to explain - shame on you.
This is a sure way to get to...nothing (or - in other words - God - the "ultimate explanation that if all men accepted it anyway - they would never discover anything).
Know that if after receiving an "explanation" you understand the phenomenon even less, it's a sign that you were confused - and again - it really doesn't matter to me if you don't recognize such a self-evident fact.
The research did not discover anything about humans that it does not claim to have discovered.
What Atzata says he found out is exactly what he says he found out.
Since the only expression of God - as humans perceive him - comes from their descriptions of his actions and desires and since no one has yet caught God "in the act" then it has been proven here exactly what the title claims and that is that the God that humans talk about is their private creation - in their own image and likeness.
I will add something to the ending of your words:
Like a large part of my discussion with you - she points out baseless arrogance.
I have no doubt that both the editors of the study, and Roy who wrote the article, and I - the one debating with you - surpass you in our education and our proven abilities and not a little.
None of us think this is nonsense.
When you claim that this is nonsense you claim, in fact, that you know better than all of us.
This is simply not the case and it is better, therefore, that you check what you do not understand before you treat others as misunderstandings.
Yoel Moshe (70):
An explanation is something designed to allow another to understand what you understand.
Therefore it must be based on facts that are also accessible to others.
I did not talk about proof and I explained the role played by probability (it is also a word derived from the same root) in the process.
In other words - the one who confused concepts is actually you.
It is already known that it is possible to induce in people the illusion of a divine revelation by stimulating a certain area of the brain.
To me the personal experiences that some people may have had are nothing more than a form of epilepsy.
Therefore, there is no doubt that such experiences cannot be part of an explanation.
Nad (response 72):
I also agree with the words of Yigal C (who did not say anything about the word explanation) and I am amazed that you manage to find support for your mistake in the interpretation of the word "explanation" even in a text that does not say anything about explanation.
77:
Dress up!
There is no point in even trying to explain your mistake to you because the explanation has already been given here many times.
Do you know a scientist who doesn't want to know how to fly without any auxiliary equipment?
Do you know a scientist who would claim that it is because of his will that science allows him to fly?
Get out of here!
Nad (all comments below):
You've convinced me you're not worth the effort.
And to the blind looking in the mirror,
Shas and the MDG are equivalent (if not quite equal) and compared to them, science and God are a hyper pangalactic distance away from each other!
First of all, if the said computer is a figment of the believer's imagination, does not exist in reality, it sets values and morals, the believer believes that it is on him for his servant and in essence one can give him any attribute he wants, then it is about something equivalent to God and not a computer. In that case my claim holds true.
The conditions you specify as attributes of God are not sufficient for the computer to be equivalent to God.
Second, it is likely that the whole variety of believers exists in the range between your minimalist definition of God and the classical beliefs, so it is possible that even believers in an "omnipotent" computer (plastic definition...) will hold the reference mentioned in the study. Look at primitive beliefs such as the baggage cult from Vanuatu.
Yigal, do you understand this is ridiculous? Will a person treat a supercomputer that knows everything differently from God, and if we also add to it a fact that this supercomputer created the entire universe, then suddenly he will think about it in another part of the brain? It's absurd
Wonderful conclusions!
Readers are invited to replace all the words "god" and "religion" in the article where they appear.
In the word "science".
And see it's a miracle you will get exactly the same result.
In fact, you can replace it with any other word you can think of, as the esteemed editor Eli Blizovsky suggested:
In his wise comment, "MDFL is replaced by Shas"
You can put in there "aliens" "new era" and imagination.
Proofs of this type are called teleology.
Ned, not only are your conjectures completely hypothetical, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong: the answer to the question about the right person always depends on the self-control of the season (can he attribute this quality to himself) and for the computer, there is no doubt that this is a completely different area of the brain.
Yigal, the identity of the positions is not relevant in my opinion, when you try to guess what another person thinks about the world, you activate a certain area of the brain that interprets his views by observing him from the outside, when you try to guess what God thinks, you simply think of the most true and right thing there is
It can be explained too easily like this, suppose they were to ask the subjects, "What do you think was the opinion of a person who is always right about a certain matter?" , it is clear to you that in this situation the same part that was activated in the question about God would be activated.
The same thing would also happen if the person were asked, "What do you think would be the answer of a computer that knows everything about the matter" here too the "self" part of the brain would be activated, is this evidence that the person regards the supercomputer as part of his inner self?
And one more thing, the research is not about referring to God from the believer's point of view, so it is not important (for this matter) what the believer thinks, but only in what is expressed in his relation to God from an internal (anatomical) and external (as the world sees it) expression. In this sense, you are right that the use of the word "thinking" is not appropriate here and I should have used the concept of reference: the believer himself also refers (without being aware of it) to God as something internal (belonging to his interiority) rather than belonging to external reality.
Note Ned, the active area when presenting their own positions is the same as the active area when presenting God's positions, while when presenting the positions of other beings (people), also positions identical to theirs, a different area was active. In my opinion, this is evidence that not only do they present positions that they think are true and right, but much more than that!
Yoel, I agree with your words in general, that's why I also argued to Michael that he defines the concept of explanation incorrectly and assigns an unnecessary condition to it, Yigel, the MRI results show that people attribute to God the opinion they are most sure is the correct and just one and this will always be their opinion and not of someone else, therefore the area action of their own opinions. There is no evidence here that the person thinks that God is an internal thing, but only that the person thinks that the best way to define his views is to observe the most true and just thing for himself. Beyond that, I think that every person who believes in God believes in some place where God is also found, since God is found in everything from his point of view.
In my understanding, the research found empirical proof (through statistics and qualitative measurement) that people (at the very least) adapt their God to their views and that they have a certain identification with him.
There is nothing in the research about the existence or non-existence of God, although the great flexibility that people have shown regarding the way in which He manifests in their lives hints (thickly hints) at this.
None of the commenters referred to the fMRI tests that were done on people and the results of which show that people identify with their God (the area of the brain that deals with the opinions of God also deals with their own opinions as opposed to the opinions of others), a test that shows that even the believer himself thinks that God is something internal (belonging to his interiority) rather than belonging to reality the outer
To Yoel Moshe (response 63),
There is nothing wrong with putting religion and God in one basket, in most cases they are there together by their very nature, and in any case there is no touchstone. Dealing with the claims of the different religions is not funny and indeed I would not call them evil (although some of them are) but more as people who have been deceived. And there is also truth in your words that the religions, on the basis of vanity, fight each other to the point of death, to the death (of some of their believers). The vast majority of believers devote a lot of effort to forcing religious behavior not on themselves but more on others, especially those who do not share their faith. The ridiculous demands that the religions put on their believers (fasting-Jews and Muslims, self-flagellation - Shiite Muslims, beds of nails, suicides, etc.) originate from the desires of their leaders to receive proof of the believers' loyalty and distinguish them from other groups. The basket of behaviors does not indicate a treatise that is not subject to interpretation, but rather a collection of contemporary positions dictated by the mortal religious leaders (the change created by the Dervino Gershon boycott, the rules of Halacha of today's rabbis, for example the Yesha rabbis regarding the territories of the Land of Israel, a change in Vatican policy regarding the Jews , fatwas for administration, etc.).
In general, it is useful to refer matter-of-factly to the body of the things and not to the body of the writers ("Once again the owners of this channel do not overcome their endocrine lust...").
And finally, the interesting question is not whether believers associate their views with their God and whether they invent him, the answer to which is quite trivial, but why man invents a God for him!
Hello Michael and NAD. Please do not mix 'explanation' with 'proof'. When a sequence of arguments shows that reality is derived from a series of [conventional/proven] assumptions, this is a proof. When it comes to a hypothesis that answers the sequence, this is an explanation. The methodology that prefers a 'simple' explanation over a complex one is good as a choice between two possible explanations for a given problem on the way to proof. Since the reality of God is an argument based on believers of two schools of thought. 1-Religions that claim the experience of God's revelation to individuals or a group. One can accept or reject the 'testimony' of those who claim such an experience [or offer them alternatives for analyzing the world of their experiences], but it is not proof for those who do not share the experience. 2- A basic premise that the given system which is the world/reality as a whole finds its way outside of it and created the world and its rules.
To the sorrow of many and to the joy of others, such an assumption by its very nature has no proof or denial. It assumes that we are limited within a reality from which our world of concepts and proofs derives.
In general, the arguments of Michael, who is not interested in the assumption of God's existence anyway [which in his opinion is unnecessary] really refer to the side products of the assumption of God's existence. That is, to the applications that religious people deduce from their assumptions. These applications, which are usually mixed as a result of the two assumptions above [revelation + the assumption of the existence of God], which extend both to the commandments to do and not to do, and also to the "understanding of the world" in the words of the religious people, each according to his doctrine and belief, are indeed often given to both contradiction and disgust.
Michael, I agree with the first part, but the second condition is not necessary, an explanation does not have to be based on simpler basic assumptions, you are just generalizing within the term explanation something that does not belong to it.
For me, anything that describes the reason that led to the occurrence or existence of something is an explanation, it can be a good explanation or a less good explanation but it is still an explanation.
The fact that the reason for the occurrence of something belongs to a more complex and complicated system than the thing itself does not make an explanation "confusion". The purpose of the explanation is to point out the reason and that system.
The current research did not reveal anything about humans other than the fact that if they believe in God then they also believe that everything they perceive as true and just will also be God's opinion which anyway comes from the strength of their belief that God is always true and just.
Oh, maybe it also revealed something else about humans and that is that it is really easy to mislead them and make them participate in ridiculous and unnecessary experiments
Nad:
Not true.
If I pretend to be an explanation then will I be an explanation?
The word explanation has a meaning and you cannot use it to describe a chair, a package of cheese or God.
Can the theory of God's existence be considered an explanation for something?
To answer this question we should ask ourselves what should be called an "explanation".
An explanation is first of all a sequence of arguments that shows that a certain reality is derived (even if not absolutely - then with a high probability) from certain assumptions that are the basis of the explanation.
Let's assume that the claim of God's existence meets this condition and indeed it can be shown that God's existence can indeed lead to the creation of a world like the one we experience.
This is not enough because there is another requirement we demand from an "explanation" and this requirement is that the basic assumptions on which it is based be "simpler" than the thing we are trying to explain (because otherwise it is not an explanation but confusion).
The quotation marks around the word "simple" are meant to make it clear that the simplicity I'm talking about is a complex concept in itself:
A simple assumption, for that matter, can be a simple assumption in the conventional sense of the word, but it can also be "simple" in the sense that it describes a verified fact - one that those who observe the world can easily prove its correctness.
The assumption of God's existence does not meet these conditions.
It is not simple in the conventional sense of the word because a creature that is able to enact natural laws is a much more wonderful, strange and incomprehensible thing than the laws of nature themselves.
It is not simple in the extended sense because it does not describe a fact that those who observe the world can prove its existence.
To them - the attempt to explain something based on the assumption of God's existence without explaining how God himself was created or designed - does not explain anything but only confuses.
And I didn't shoot myself in the foot.
Man and his insanities are a worthy research topic and the research described deals with this.
He is not concerned with God but with human beings.
I am surprised that you understand this sublimely.
Yoel Moshe:
Now you really proved that you didn't understand.
to Michael I read and understood. The article contains hidden claims. 1-"When a religious person makes a judgment or faces new problems, he is engaged in self-deception". 2-"When he decides, he does so from considerations of convenience which are anyway the center of his being/outlook" 3-"The believer only claims to believe in God but is not serious in his search attempts" and of course the opposite is true in the "autonomous free scientist".
I consider myself exempt from referring to these disparaging assumptions because I argued that the basic assumptions are what lead to the result in the title and not the research.
Michael, enough with the nonsense, everything that claims to be an explanation is an explanation, there are explanations that can be ruled out by finding an internal contradiction in them or by measurements and observations that contradict them, all other explanations remain a matter of faith and science should not deal with them,
And even if we go completely according to your method, then you also shot yourself in the foot, why would science concern itself with things that "pretend" to be explanations instead of the "real" explanations?
Yoel Moshe:
You did not understand the article.
Read again.
Once again the owners of this channel do not overcome their endocrine lust and mix scientific content with ideological populism. The touchstone for these articles [as well as the usual commenters] is putting religion and God into one basket. It is funny to deal with claims of different religions that fought for their place against each other to the death, literally [Christians vs. Jews, Catholics vs. Protestants, Islam/Christianity , Shiites/Sunnis, etc.]. Unless everyone is looked down upon and judged as a bunch of idiots who not only believe in vanity but also give their lives for values they don't really believe in. I think that any objective observation [anthropological if you will] will diagnose that these are societies that place great importance on loyalty To the content of life as it is perceived in the world. Usually the believer devotes considerable effort to forcing religious behavior on himself even in cases where he is required to sacrifice himself starting with simple actions contrary to the basic instinct [fasting for example] and in exceptional cases even the actual sacrifice of life. Religions that rely on texts have a whole basket of behaviors dictated by the text and there is no room for interpretation. But there is great complexity in life and there are situations of conflict that require innovative solutions to deal with. In these situations, the believer tries to make a difference from known situations to the new questions. It is possible to influence the understanding of the believer according to his level, just like everyone else. Obviously, if he is a true believer who is faithful to his premise, he will strive to discover the truth and when it settles in his mind, he will decide that this is the new religious truth.
In conclusion, the believer treats the dilemmas of existence as questions of religious/moral weight and when he is honest with himself and reaches a conclusion, he sees it as a direct continuation of the main task of his life, which is to adapt his life to God's will.
By the way, in Judaism this confrontation has always been sanctified and it is called Oral Torah.
Nad:
Enough with this nonsense.
If in your eyes "pretending to be an explanation" is equivalent to "here is an explanation" then there really is nothing to talk about.
Michael, the idea of a transcendent God, claims to be the explanation for everything, he claims that there is an intelligent being with "desires" that is beyond this world and is the reason and explanation for all things, this definition in itself
It cannot be refuted or confirmed, therefore there is no reason for science to deal with it at all or with its various interpretations among all the people who believe in it, good science deals only with what can be disproved, any dealing with it is not science, it is a trending pursuit to justify a particular belief or opinion, precisely those who love and appreciate science Such experiments should be opposed.
Nad:
You're just getting off topic.
I don't know how you define existence, but even if we don't know exactly what gravitation is - there is no doubt that it exists and is an excellent explanation for the observed phenomena.
No one is free to "invent" her as they wish and any description of her should match the observations.
God - on the other hand - is a net "invention". It does not explain anything and everyone defines it according to their needs.
The comparison between the two things is similar to me to the comparison between truth and lies.
Michael, I have no argument that gravity is a better explanation than God, but I have a problem with research that claims that gravity "exists" more than God, both gravity and God are simply tools or interpretations of the human mind given to observed and measured phenomena, one is better at predicting future phenomena and the other is better for the believer's peace of mind, but neither one "exists" more than the other. The role of science is to try to find the best explanations but not to determine that they are the thing that "exists", such a determination would take away from science all its power and this is bad science.
splendor:
And to me it reminds me of donuts.
What is the connection?
Nad:
But it's quite the opposite!
No one claims to know what gravity "wants" and in fact no one claims to know what gravity is either.
The only thing that is believed in (and that too with a limited guarantee - that is, subject to the results of experiments that may disprove the matter) is the predictive ability of the theory!
There is simply no connection between the things!
The theory that God wants X does not predict anything - it is only intended to serve the predictor.
The theory that if you jump from the roof of Migdal Shalom you will crash on the floor will also remain the belief of a physicist who wants to know how to fly without any auxiliary equipment.
That is, there is what exists and there is what tries to explain what exists which is always only in our minds, it is impossible in any "scientific" study to separate the ontological level of a certain explanation of reality from another explanation, even though this is not the role of science at all.
Michael, but I did deal with it, after all I said that gravitation is also a complete creation of imagination that was given as an interpretation of something that happened in reality, just like God. After all, I claim that everyone creates any interpretation of reality in their imagination, therefore there is no point in proving this with such unnecessary research
It's like in the past I came across an article that "proves" that optimists are wrong in seeing reality because "reality" is less good than what they saw. They forgot to point out that a researcher must be pessimistic in order to disagree with the reality view of his optimistic subjects...
As material the researcher pretended to know what is positive and what is negative in reality.. a bear that cannot be tested.. - because it cannot be proven or disproved
Nad:
Do you disagree with my opinion?!
You say exactly what the article and I claim and that is that everyone creates God in his own image and image and not the other way around.
Of course, you also did not try to deal with the fact that, contrary to your words, it would not be justified to claim anything like that about physics.
Michael, I disagree with your opinion, we are not talking about objective reality but only about the subjective interpretation that a person gives to it, this interpretation does not have to be consistent and can change, two people can see an apple falling to the ground, one can interpret it as an eternal and invisible law called gravitation And the other can interpret it as the will of an eternal and invisible being called God.
to Bezalel at 38,
I assume your words in the end of your response were directed at me, as the quote you brought in the beginning was my words.
I respect your approach, which relies on evidence from the scriptures.
The problem is that in the type of discussions that take place on this website and similar websites - your approach does not have the power of persuasion, since the dispute is, at the root of things, about the very origin and status of the scriptures.
In these circumstances and with these disputants, the fight over the religious case, including in a scientific context, must be on a rational basis and must be armed with rational arguments based on knowledge from various human knowledge fields.
This is what people like Neugerschel and Porat may understand, but with certain limitations, which are both limitations of the very specific method they come to represent, and also personal limitations. The unpleasant results - accordingly.
In fact, the rational confrontation with fundamental issues has been neglected by orthodoxy in Judaism for over 400 years, and it is not something even among the reformers and conservatives in the last decades. I believe that the reason for this is very generally - excessive dogmatism that has taken over Judaism, as well as pressing and limiting historical circumstances .
I believe that the situation can be changed. What is clear is that until this situation changes - only a visible experimental salvation will be able to reverse or at least balance the direction.
Eddie:
I'll start by saying I never said I didn't have an agenda. On the contrary - I said that I have and that there is no commenter who does not have an agenda.
The question is whether a person allows himself to bend logic in favor of his own agenda or does logic remain logic with him and the truth remains the truth.
Here I claim that my agenda never makes me say anything that contradicts the facts and logic and you do!
Your last response is, in my opinion, a clear example of this and it is the type of responses that makes me want to stop arguing because as soon as a person no longer refers to the facts and makes claims that clearly contradict them - it is clear to me that what is talking about him is only the agenda.
Michael Rothschild,
I do not understand what is not clear to you in my claims. The fact that this is a ridiculous and mobilized study that does not prove anything, but demonstrates once again a personal worldview - not at all 'scientific' - after all, this emerges from the body of the 'experiments', which 'assume the desired' (ie: the concept of God is not real and is a kind of personal imaginary invention of people believers of all kinds) - basically.
Of course I disagree with your basic view, which says that "God's main expression in our lives is in what people claim he requires of us"; A view which is actually what the article (and the research) come to preach - yes, preach! - To us in Iztala 'scientifically' aalek!
For me, God is a being that has an ontological reality, which can be rationally defended - and therefore has objective meanings that are the basis of statements about him, statements that are not essentially subjectivist. God is not someone's arbitrary superpower.
But also methods that perceive God in a purely regulative sense (and there were and are many good people of this type) attribute to him, with rational justification, attributes and meanings that have an objective status, due to their rational philosophical method. God is not a wasteland.
In both cases, the culture or the world of ideas built on God - knows how to formulate agreed statements and norms, not subjectivistic, that are implied by God. It is certainly not about 'people' who are just individuals making subjective claims about what he requires of us. This is a phenomenon and norms that have an overall cultural validity. This is what history teaches.
The fact that different people can be persuaded or swayed here and there - does not teach about the overall concept of the God-based culture/religion and that it is something completely subjectivistic (as the unfortunate title of the article states).
And by the way, Michael - are you claiming that you don't have an 'agenda'?
Nad:
I don't know which arrow you are talking about.
First of all, I hope that you understood that the conclusions of the research according to which man is the one who constructs for himself the image of God as he pleases (and not according to some objective reality because objective reality is uniform and cannot be different for different people) are understandable to you and that you understand that there is no need to assume in advance ( as you said) that there is no God to reach these conclusions.
You can shoot arrows in any direction but basing them in research is not always possible.
I don't think you will find a similar finding in the laws of physics for several reasons, two of which are:
1. No one has ever attributed a will to the laws of physics and therefore no one will ever claim that what they want is the will of physics,
2. You can never interpret the results of an experiment as if they confirm a claim that they refute.
Which by the way and without any connection, I am one of them 🙂
Michael, you can shoot this arrow back at almost anything, even when I'm talking about the laws of physics, I'm not talking about the laws of physics that exist, but only about the laws of physics that I currently understand to be true.
If the research tries to check if the idea of "God" is consistent in a person's mind, then we can also reach the opposite conclusion - the idea of God will always be adapted to something that is perceived as truth, just like the idea of the "laws of physics" (which, by the way, is also a word invented by humans) ,
Unfortunately I still don't see the value in this experiment except to convince the convinced
We discussed:
If you want to talk about the "comments" you should read them first.
If you only want to talk about some of the comments - it still won't hurt if you also read the others and see that what you said has already been said in them.
A small addition:
Not that atheists don't suffer from the same syndrome
The responses came out of the context of the study.
The research does not come to examine whether there is a God or not (that is impossible), it comes to examine our way of thinking that shapes the way of faith, religion and the way we see our "God". (Jews, Christians, Islam, Buddhism, etc.)
After all, science cannot test if there is a God because there is no definition, "God" is a word for an abstract thing that we draw in our imaginations just like the big bang. As long as God remains the "creator of this universe" as well as the "big bang", the answer will never become clear unless:
1. God will reveal himself to the whole world in a way unknown to us (perhaps Messiah)
2. Science will prove the big bang how it was created and why.
3. The most logical answer - there is no answer.
And it is clear that everyone will invite God to his side. It is enough to see the currents of Judaism, read the Bible and understand that everyone has their own god.
Nad:
I waved in the negative.
There is no need for the premise you mention (even though it is a correct premise) and this is because different people claim different and contradictory things in relation to God's will and it cannot be that God demands from man a demand and the opposite.
Assuming that God exists - the research shows that when a person talks about God - he is not talking about a God who exists.
Since the word God was invented by humans it comes out quite funny.
point,
Read my words to Agnus again and you will find that I did not address the issue of the opinion of those rabbis at all. I have no intention of entering into a discussion here about the release of Gilad Shalit, or expressing my personal opinion on the matter.
And in order not to continue with all the worn-out arguments, which I will admit that in this particular case they seem to be motivated even more than usual by the personal beliefs of some of the commenters, I will end here. Anyway, thanks to everyone who responded and expressed their opinion.
------
My blog - Another science
NAD 39
The study doesn't talk about your God at all
He deals with the God of the individual [what goes on in his head]
So whether God existed or not
It does not matter
What is in the mind of the volunteers matters
Roger Waters also wrote 3 songs about it on the AMUSED TO DEATH album
WHAT GOD WANTS PT 1,&2
that each one changes God's will according to his own desires
Michael, I hope you agree, if not, then I would appreciate it if you could explain to me why you think this is good science?
In order to show that God is the one who changes in man's mind and not the man who adapts himself to what he perceives to be God, one must accept as a basic premise that God does not really exist, such a basic premise leads directly to the conclusion that man creates God and hence also that he can change him at will. That is, the conclusions of the experiment derive directly from the premise and not from the experiment itself. Let's take the possibility that God does exist and was not created by man, in such a reality would the experimental results be the opposite?
About such 'studies' it should be said - to paraphrase the title of the article - that 'the scientist creates the conclusions of the research - now it is scientific'... The title also indicates the truth and honesty of the writer. All the disqualifiers, etc
To 33 you wrote me the answer thank you regarding the Jewish religious explanation it is not just a logical guess
Judges discuss, for example, whether there is value. Look for the detail in a particular case. Decide whether it is a value or the reflection of a judge in Judaism and its knowledge today and later.
Eddie (24):
What is not clear?!
God's primary expression in our lives is in what people claim He requires of us.
The experiment shows that what people claim God requires of us is actually what they themselves require of us.
In sister words - perhaps without knowing it - each of them creates his own God - one whose demands merge with the demands of his creator (the same person).
It is so clear that it is difficult for me to describe a scenario in which you would object to things if you did not have an agenda that is not related to drawing the correct conclusions from the facts but to drawing predetermined conclusions (which, as I have already said, is a widespread phenomenon that characterizes exactly the same human trait that the article refers to).
Agnus:
Religion is opium for the masses.
Eyal A:
Yes, but Roy called them "extremists" and the impression one gets from a normal reading of the things (without the commentary he added to them later) is that this title was awarded to them because of their opinion and not because of the mere fact that they demonstrate the article's claim (after all, the article's claim is that all religious people attribute their opinions to God) The personality, but he didn't describe all of them as extremists, and it's really impossible to describe such a large group of people as extremists - that's the norm - although it's a disgraceful norm, but still not extreme).
Nad:
I read your words and you shook my head.
I don't think it took any research to know that.
Since God is a product of man's imagination, in the first place they can be equated with man's opinions.
Small correction
Since man belongs to the primate family of monkeys
A species worthy of saying that the monkey creates God
In short, I think it's bad science
It's a bit of a funny study, because if someone believes in God then he fully believes that God's opinions are correct, therefore anything that is defined in his mind as a correct opinion will be attached to what he thinks is God's opinion, and vice versa.
In my opinion, a fascinating example of clear scientific bias.
The scientific bias here is that the "non-believing" scientist will explain this as evidence that man creates and shapes God according to his worldview, but the "believing" man will explain this as evidence that man is only guessing the eternal opinions of the God who exists anyway.
For Jacob from 28:
As an exercise, let's try to insert in the 'experiments' described in the article wherever 'God' appears - the term 'science'. Don't be surprised if you receive as a title the announcement: "Man creates science - now it's scientific."
Of course, this title is empty and empty of any content, just like the title of the article we are discussing.
In this context, it is worth emphasizing that the concept/divine entity has a very long and deep conceptual and philosophical historical infrastructure, and it seems that in every culture that created its own concept of God - the concept/divine entity has a whole set of clear objective properties that are quite beyond the preferences of this or that individual. From this a clear, moral and legal normative system is derived, which again - it is not important to consider the special and unique opinion of an individual, unless it is an exception, and if it is defined as deviant or wrong.
The fact that you identify yourself 'as someone who grew up in an ultra-Orthodox family and environment' does not add any validity to the statement of the article. The ultra-orthodox culture, with its widespread superficiality, believes in the emptying of the abstract and philosophical thought baggage from the contents of religion and religious life, and it focuses on the juridical or trivial thought side of Judaism. The truth is that this situation has existed for about a hundred years, and I am not surprised that people from your background and circumstances do draw fundamentally wrong conclusions, in the current state of things.
The mind is nothing more than a possibility that the body fulfills only partially.
Our mind is the ability to relate to pure possibilities and treat them as completely real, for example: we all have hopes, we have fears, we have concerns, we have visions, we have ideas, all these are pure possibilities, these are not things that are actual physical.
What is a pure option? All possibility is pure when it is freed from the conditions of place, time and causality, no two pure possibilities are the same otherwise they would enjoy the same one possibility.
Let's say that the soul is a pure possibility or rather a singular pure possibility, that is to say the pure possibility that is my soul and the pure possibility that is your soul are special applications that not only are not identical to each other, they are not even similar to each other.
Agnus,
It should also be noted that those people used Marxism (including the phrase itself) as a tyrannical 'whip' in circles unlike any other in history.
Roy does not speak (directly) about whether the deal is correct or not. Not even about whether or not there is a majority among the rabbis for the Shalit deal, he only deals with the rabbis who say that the deal is constrained by God's mitzvah motives. A rabbi can decide that the transaction is bad for any other reason
Ladi as someone who grew up in an ultra-Orthodox family and environment
I verify this empirically
The saying "religion is opium for the masses" is opium for the masses. It is usually recited by people who do not know what religion is or what opium is.
I'm with Eden (regardless of my personal belief), a good "proof" is not a proof but evidence, science does not prove it demonstrates but allows refutation at every stage .. science is not mathematics, it has no proofs it is a sequence of theories .. very important but still is unable and does not pretend to prove anything.
And regarding the findings, but they really show that people change their minds and then adapt the findings to their opinion (reducing cognitive dissonance?) but the title starts from an assumption (not demonstrated proven or... never mind* that God was created by man... and our opinion of him is his reality .. (and it has nothing to do with me being an atheist... the article does not prove the fact that God does not exist...
Opium religion for the masses - Karl Marx
Roy,
Whoops, I didn't understand what was so 'scientific' here.
None of the 'experiments' proves what it claims to prove (or rather what it is expected to prove...). At the most, he demonstrates a claim, a personal claim that is apparently accepted by the opinion of some people or groups of people who have some agenda or ideology regarding matters of belief in deity, and who happen to be office bearers in academic institutions, who have access to research budgets, and who for some reason believe that the subject of the research It is an issue worth pouring money on, maybe even just for the 'headline' in the media.
About such 'studies' it should be said - to paraphrase the title of the article - that 'the scientist creates the conclusions of the research - now it's scientific'...
If such 'scientific' standards as demonstrated in the aforementioned 'research' are applied to scientific research in other fields - science is in trouble, and we are in trouble. I hope it doesn't happen too much, although sometimes it seems that way…
I assume that in the fields of science you are involved in you would certainly prefer more scientific standards.
Since the article is written, as usual with you, with flair and grace, I would suggest publishing it in a somewhat light section of the general periodicals, and there is no shortage of such. But it is possible to save its publication in Iztala Scientific and the website that pretends to publish scientific content.
Roy,
More scientific than that is the fact that the media determines for the public what is right to think. And it's much, much worse.
Religion = faith for the masses
Faith is a very personal thing
And people are only able to believe what they are able to believe because that is their brain chemistry
But no one is able to explain infinite consciousness because we are only human
Therefore, all perceptions and views between good and bad, according to God, are irrelevant.
Al cannot be for and against executions at the same time
Oh, and blind faith is not faith
You have to deny the existence of God in order to truly believe in him.. otherwise you never thought if he existed at all
So actually many of the most religious are atheists.
In the beginning man created God. Second, man made God his servant and indeed, God does and thinks everything that man commands. And in the third, a part (minority) of human beings succeed in imposing God's will (=their will) on another part (the majority) of the human population, who are tempted to believe
Because the will of the minority is the will of God. Those who belong to the minority described above, also usually manage to make a good living from this combine.
Roy,
Do you prefer that Yonit Levy determine the steps of the Land of Israel?
As already published in the media, a big campaign was made here to "shape public opinion" to support the release of terrorists with blood on their hands.
Agnus,
I think now I understand better what you mean. I will explain what I mean. I see as extreme rabbis those who claim that Halacha should determine the steps of the Land of Israel. They are no different, in my opinion, from fundamentalist Muslim preachers who determine Iran's domestic and foreign policy. Because of this, when a relatively small group of rabbis comes (which also goes against the statements of the 'greats of the generation' - Ovadia Yosef, Eliashiv and Amar) and tries to dictate Israel's foreign policy according to their very specific interpretation of Halacha - they are extreme by Western standards , I openly adhere to them).
------
My blog - Another science
One who understands:
This is neither true nor appropriate.
For example - usually a person becomes religious - not as a result of any conscious decision but as a result of the education he received at home.
It is burned into his mind in a way that makes it difficult for him to reexamine things and in most cases he continues to believe it despite all the evidence that his belief is wrong.
A similar thing happens to those born in a house whose residents are "burnt" towards a certain political direction (it is less extreme because God is not involved, but even here - in many cases - the person does not examine the possibilities in a balanced way and arrive at some well-founded belief).
Be that as it may, he comes up with solidified theories (always unfounded and mostly unfounded) and Oren begins to examine reality.
The theories do not define everything and therefore there are subjects where he can make an independent decision.
For example - religion does not say whether it is permissible to evacuate settlements, but - since he has a certain opinion - he will mobilize religion as a reason against the evacuation.
If he is in favor of the evacuation or at least against the opposition to the evacuation, he will mobilize the religion for this purpose.
For him - the trump card of religion is a reasoning that should convince everyone that it is an absolute reasoning that cannot be disputed and must not be disputed.
In the same way, he will find in every detail in reality confirmation of his beliefs.
For example - a rational person will find in the Holocaust confirmation of the assumption that even if God exists - it is clear that he has no interest in the welfare of the Jewish people.
A person who has given up rationality in favor of religion will explain that the Holocaust was necessary - either because people sinned (he has no proof of sin, but the very existence of the Holocaust is proof in his eyes) or because it was what was necessary to establish the State of Israel.
In other words - both use the same facts as evidence of the correctness of their opposing beliefs.
Roy,
Of course, the articles you proved do not prove that the rabbis are "extremist" because this concept is not scientific and it expresses your private opinion.
As I already wrote, your scientific writing is wonderful, and I believe that you want people to read your words and like them, so my opinion is that it is a shame to insert your private opinions into the scientific news that you deal with. You are, of course, free to disagree with my opinion and do as you wish. I (if it interests you) will read what you write in any case, and I will try not to let my political views be influenced by such and such expressions that enter our consciousness from the back entrance.
I will quote to you from what Rabbi Yosef Albo says:
The belief in the thing is the thing painted in the soul a strong picture until the soul can't imagine
In no way contradicting it, even if it will not be known through the truths in it, as the soul will not imagine
In the contradiction of the first intellects and the things in which a person's mind grows, or
that they are in man from his nature and he did not know how they came to him, or as the mind would not imagine in contradiction
What was gained from sense and what was verified by experience, even though you won't know it
I believe in him.
explanation:
Rabbi Yosef Albo presents us with a difficult challenge. A believer cannot be satisfied
In defining himself as a believer, he must engage in a deep investigation of the essence of his faith
Let him have no doubts and contradictions.
Faith is part of his personality and nature.
In every religion God is portrayed as something good that cares and has good intentions
Therefore the population is full of good intentions
World peace is coming
All that was needed was internet
: )
But I checked it with my friends and all kinds of people, first of all the person decides what he advocates which position
And only then does he connect to a theory that, for him, is super real, check it out.
Believing that black is white and white is black is all based on a presupposition of what you want to believe.
Agnus:
I apologize.
When I entered the website, I read all the comments quickly and did not notice the fact that what bothers you is not the principle described in the article but the position expressed on another issue.
I noticed this following the response of a point which I have already read more in Nihota, so thanks to the point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2wvqDfitLY
Roy,
Why did you let us in through the back door that those who think that the terrorist deal is forbidden are radical rabbis?
does not fit you.
One who understands:
I don't think you can choose to believe.
You can only say that you believe in something, but the belief in it is an inner feeling that comes from the degree of our conviction in its correctness.
In my opinion, even most of those who claim to believe in God do not believe in him, but only say so for various reasons.
A person can really choose what to say, and therefore the illusion is obtained that he can choose what to believe.
Eden:
Your words are correct.
This story is not only true for God but for everything - including political beliefs/ambitions.
An addicted right-winger will always see in every attack "proof" of too left-wing policies and an addicted leftist will always see in every attack "proof" of too right-wing policies.
There are few people who are able to examine reality objectively and without bias.
What else?
God is a joker in this whole thing!
Since we don't exist - he doesn't have any real desires and therefore he is really subject to design according to a measure that you will never find a discrepancy between him and him! In politics that represents some kind of relationship to objective reality, it happens that man realizes that he is walking with his head against a wall, but God simply does not have a wall.
Gad:
If you want to say something - you should say it.
Don't be ashamed - if it's a lie or defamation everyone will understand it so you can express yourself freely.
"especially":
It's hard to understand what you wanted to say but it doesn't sound right to me.
Sigal:
You don't understand anything but I have no one to ask to pity you so I do it myself and suggest that you also pity yourself, open your eyes and finally see where you live.
Agnus:
The research confirms the claim in a very clear way.
He does not speak about the extremist rabbis in private but only as an example of human behavior and he tested this behavior among a representative sample of humans.
I hope that the extremist rabbis are also human, although it is not always evident in their behavior.
"especially":
Even from your second response (where you "shortened" more or less nothing to a relatively long response) it is impossible to understand anything.
Agnus,
Indeed, I did not bother to prove in the article the sentence about the extremist rabbis, because there is a limit to the number of topics that can be concentrated on in one article. You can find more information on the topic at
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3809235,00.html
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3813268,00.html
Compared to these, there are other rabbis who hold a different opinion that Shalit should be released. And everyone believes that God's opinion and Halacha are on their side.
Best regards,
Roy.
------
My blog - Another science
I have a free lesson.
I will summarize all my words according to how I remember them from this morning (two hours ago):
The state has a law -> a person for the state -> in a person's actions there is a Boolean aspect of truth.
If a person has both actions and thoughts (opinions and beliefs, for the purpose of the matter), why does the law (which claims to be truth and order) not have an effect on thoughts as well, when it claims to have an effect on humans (having actions and thoughts)?
After all, even an opinion (thought) has an aspect of truth and falsehood.
One can oppose this idea only because its implementation is imagined to be completely intolerable and freedom-killing, but that one should look at the matter as a criticism of the state and the desire for groupism, from which the state was created.
Nevertheless, one can oppose the idea in this way (although he will also have to oppose the idea of the group, and the existence of God):
If there is an agreement that a country is a group (here I would apparently agree), and if a primary group (that is, a group of people who first are people, and not of people who are first and foremost fans of the game of chess) was created out of the interests of a greater yield, or higher chances of survival (Here, apparently, I will have a disagreement), after all, it completely ignores the thought of the person, and refers only to his physical existence (tnuva, survival).
Nevertheless, isn't it absurd that our mental existence ("thought" in this matter) depends on our physical existence, especially when pro-physical ideas like a group are mind-neglecting ideas?
This is a paradox whose only solution is that there is a God, in the sense of a soul that remains even after the dissolution of the body (meaning that the body does not have a soul).
Even this funny conclusion, I will remain an atheist.
This is another interesting topic to discuss: "I will remain an atheist", because an atheist is sure of the lack of God, so how will he believe in God again? Is thought showing its formless face again? (Just kidding... because "form" is a physical concept).
I knew I loved writing, but maybe I dismissed the blog idea too hastily anyway.
I especially like this style, where I start the article (comment, in this case) with a certain idea, and continue from there to the ideas of the moment.
Sickle
I think he has a divine soul since he is a Jew like you and it is known that there is a divine spark in every Jew. So Roy, I also congratulate you on your research and the openness and insight you have to new ideas, since only new ideas advance humanity towards the future. By the way, in "Sigel" there is one divine letter and in "Roi" two...Roi is worth more.
Roy Cezana,
I like your articles and am convinced that you are an expert in your field, but try to stick to your field of expertise. The sentence that opens the article, in which you talk about "a number of extreme rabbis", shows us that sometimes even those who carry the banner of scientific objectivity, surrender to their personal opinions. In the quote I gave you assume two things: a. Because the rabbis who express this position are few. B. Because their views are extreme. The research you cited does not confirm these facts.
Tani congratulates you on the research you have done and on the other hand I will ask for mercy from the Creator of the world to forgive you for your lack of insight and lack of insight. You certainly do not have a divine soul as there is in my body and therefore you need many mercy and graces
Be careful one who understands.
"Everyone believes what they want to believe", this is a saying that came out of freedom, but also fear and ignorance!
Do not treat a truth of such small importance.
True freedom does not exist, because man belongs to his country. This is because the state can deprive him of rights (eg prison). So if from this we assume that we belong to the state, and yet we have a degree of "freedom" (such as freedom of action), we will also agree that within this freedom there is also a sanction from the state (if we have done an action against the law), and not just a sanction from the injured or profiting party (real freedom ).
It can be assumed from this that there is an action that is included as forbidden by being a person, and a person cannot do "everything he wants to do", because there is no truth (the law pretends to be the truth) in some of the things he wants.
But is there a difference between belief and action? We are human, and different from the animals in the aspect of faith.
But she is part of us, and should be treated equally.
Sorry, I'd get to the point, but I'm in a hurry to school. Maybe at 3:30
"Man believes that his opinions are the opinions of God - now that's scientific!"
Such a title is more respectable for a website that claims to be scientific and objective.
That everyone wants to believe that they are "good" and act according to God's principles has nothing to do with whether God exists.
Even from reading a book of laws, different people will draw different conclusions and believe that they are acting according to the "law".
And the title is too exaggerated scientifically?
Everyone believes what they want to believe! Even if it's not true
Whether it is so or whether it is so, from one extreme to the other,
And really believe what they choose to believe.