On the eve of his departure from the White House, in a farewell interview with ABC's Nightline program, President Bush details his opinions in various fields, including his attitude to religion and science. A summary of eight years full of decrees and withdrawal in the USA
Faith in the White House. This was the subject of one of the episodes in the article in which the ABC Nightline program team accompanied President Bush. The program was broadcast at the beginning of the week. According to the show's website, the president's private religious life has always been the focus of public interest. As President-elect Barack Obama prepares to take his place in the White House, many are wondering which church he will join in Washington.
Like his father, Bush is a member of St. John's Episcopal Church in Washington and he also frequently attends prayers at Camp David. In an interview with the Nightline program, Bush said that he prays in the Oval Office and added that "faith has caused a big change in my life."
"There is a sense of calm in the Oval Office, even though many dramatic moments have occurred there, and a lot of pressure, but there is also calm in the White House." Bush said. "But how will I know it's because of my prayers? I'm guessing the answer is because I believe it is. I can't prove it. People say that religion is like a support. For me she is not supportive. For me it is an illustration of the power of a universal God and a recognition that God came to prove a mess to men and then they die because of their sins. It was hard for me to understand this for a long time and even now I'm still trying to understand as best I can, but in understanding and searching I find comfort and strength."
As I recall, President Bush was one of the presidents with the strongest religious orientation. he Prohibited government funding of stem cell research, the judges appointed to the Supreme Court allowed some states in the US to revoke the freedom to abort unwanted fetuses from the women who live there, spoke out in favor of A study equal to the theory of intelligent planning As for evolution, Denied global warming And more.
When asked if he believes he prays to the same God as people of other faiths, Bush said, "Yes, I think so. I believe that there is an almighty God who is wide and big enough and loving enough to cover a lot of people," Bush said, but he drew the line when it comes to those who initiate terrorism.
"I think that those who kill to achieve their religious goals are not religious people," he said. "They may think they are religious, and they play as if they are religious, but I don't think they are religious. They don't pray to the God I pray to, the God of peace and love."
When asked if he believes that the Tanach is literally correct, he said that he does not support the literal interpretation when it comes to reading the Tanach but focuses on the important insights he believes the Tanach teaches. As for the question of whether it is possible to believe in evolution and nature at the same time, Bush said that he believes in this combination and added that "I tend to believe that evolution does not completely explain the mysteries of life. "I believe that God created the earth, the world. I think that the creation of the world is so mysterious that it requires something great and almighty, and I do not believe that this is inconsistent with the scientific proof of the existence of evolution."
Cynthia McFadden, the Nightline reporter, joined him on a visit to the faith-raising project that was done with government funding, as part of the White House Office of Faith Affairs and Community Initiatives program, where children are assigned to older brothers or sisters. He told the reporter that the children were inspired and that the instructors' commitment was an "act of love". "There is something bigger than government, and you can see that in every local church." During his time in office, Bush has supported faith-based programs, adding that he hopes Obama will continue some of these initiatives.
48 תגובות
Bush is a descendant of royal families, he has a direct blood relation to Edward VIII
His father ruled America and now it was his turn
Clinton is again in the picture by the way as part of the Obama administration
The greatest show in the world - democracy
Obama and McCain were supported by the same financiers for the election campaign.
George Bush Jr.'s parents are nephews to the 8th degree, so maybe he came out a bit "dumb"
There is a paradox in the world that the aging generations do not understand at all because their vision is directly affected by the social consequences that came from the past and were shaped by foster care.
An educated and curious person who reads the story of creation will very quickly understand that there is no logical connection between faith as it is today and in general, and faith and love for God as written in Genesis. It is clearly written what the Creator wanted from humanity, and throughout history in the name of faith
Things were messed up and nothing he asked of us was correct.
It is clearly written, and without the need for any commentator who empowers himself to sanctity to explain, that we were born naked out of unconditional love and the Creator breathed his spirit into us. We were meant to be a family, a fertile and loving and helpful collective, without inhibitions and without negative feelings because that is happiness. We were born to love each other as much as you are God and as any stone or tree, because the Almighty is the creation of the Almighty and He is in everything. If you want personification (it's easier for believers to understand this way because the roots of their faith and intellectual understanding are pagan) then harming a tree is like harming God's flesh. He loves all of his creation equally. The Creator created us happy, determined and intelligent. And what happened is that man became the smallest there is, narrow-minded, hating his friend, in love with himself and his faith, and if only to understand the grayness of man and his contentment with the gray life, one can come to the conclusion that he is a sinner. According to the belief, a person is born to suffer and correct himself and enslave himself and please God. According to our people's book it is a sin to torture God's creation.
And now I will return to the paradox. The technology that is in a "natural" way is on the other side of the scale from faith, bringing humanity closer to a much more open and closer view of God's will. As absurd as it sounds to believers, this is exactly what is happening.
Little by little, and in other areas quickly, technology eliminates the dark corners of human behavior. Globalization, the abundance of knowledge, advanced communication, the ability to express oneself on an unprecedented scale, gives modern man the tools to acquire his conscience from a primary place and not from his ancestors and history. Individualism is falling apart, because it no longer reflects the new soul. No one would want to be special and stand out when the rest are connected and living a vibrant life together. We are social life (or soul). The sin of sin is disappearing because already now we strive to cooperate with the other because we have the means and it doesn't matter what the distance is. The person's inhibitions and shame also left the person's psychological circle because the past and its consequences lose their importance.
Sad but logical that several generations will have to go from this world in order for the change to become the new truth. It is also sad that they will go without understanding anything, but comforting that they will not suffer because they will go with complete faith.
I am amazed by the older generations when they show fear and loathing of technology. Parents do not choose to adopt the new tools and learn them in order to influence their children, the prevailing trend is to fear and accuse them of being empty and busy with nothing.
The amazing and happy thing is that, unlike in the past, the small children do not absorb these negative feelings from their parents and use and learn new psychological qualities from the technology. They are completely free, the children are freed from our sins.
Permissiveness and patience, free love for all and respect for the world rule without any help from religion.
To Michael R.
I'm with you completely and I'm amazed at the number of ignorant people who don't even bother to elaborate on your words. On the other hand, our war in light of the stupidity and opacity of those commenting here seems hopeless...
Abomination of God:
http://hofesh.org.il/articles/god/smallpox/smallpox.html
In their opinion=impersonating=Brother=Danny=important second <> nothing:
OK.
So you either don't understand Hebrew or you are re-inventing it for the sake of contrast.
You also make it clear at the end of your words that a personal attack was their intention in the first place.
They messed up with you.
All in all, you have to endure yourself non-stop while I only run into you here and there.
Virtue, in my opinion you hit the 'core'!
Every scientific truth is an apparently temporary truth, always reserved the right to refutation. A right that has often become law.
Truth is therefore a philosophical concept, its validity does not come from knowledge (which as mentioned can be refuted), in my opinion the validity of real truth comes from 'knowledge about knowledge'. Truth is found in an honest search for truth, in the path itself. In open-mindedness, in intellectual honesty, in skepticism in your own opinions (not only in the opinions of others). Courage to understand an opinion opposite to yours and admit your mistake if you are convinced.
As an illustrative example: in my opinion a relevant diagnosis is the difference between a politician and a scientist - a politician wins when his opinion is accepted. A scientist wins when his opinion/mistake is disproven, when the scientist has learned something new. The truth behind the politician is that in practice his goal is to put himself above the other, the truth behind the scientist is in neglecting his position in relation to others and his sincere striving to improve his understanding of the universe. Therefore to a certain extent, the politician wants to teach, the scientist wants to learn!
post Scriptum. - Michael is an example of a politician who will not allow any fact to divert him from his ego games. Here on the site he never admitted his mistake, not even that he learned a new insight!
Small opinion:
What weird calculations are you doing?
We talk about the gaps in our knowledge and you talk about masses and volumes of all kinds of things.
Does this define our knowledge gaps?
What nonsense!
The more we understand, the less we don't understand. It goes without saying.
As time goes by we understand more.
So we don't know what exactly the dark mass is made of. What does it matter? After all, we don't even know exactly what every grain of dust on the moon is made of! Would you claim that as long as we haven't looked at all the grains of the moon and analyzed their composition then there is a chance that God is hiding in one of them? seriously!
Is it common to think that water is the source of all life? Definately not. We appreciate that heaven is necessary for life, but no one is sure of this either. All in all, there is an assessment here that everyone attributes a certain chance to - there are those who think the chance is very high and there are those who think it is only quite high. But what does all this have to do with us?
Hitler, Stalin and Mao Zedong were founders of new religions.
Even if there was no God in these religions, these were religions for all intents and purposes and I already explained this when I talked about memes and there is a reference to this from this discussion.
Therefore their states were not atheistic.
They were atheistic in the sense that they did not believe in God but they were theistic because they had a religion.
How many times does this need to be explained?
So you ask whether to continue?
My answer is no! Stop! And instead of suggesting that I think twice, you are important for the first time!
1. So at this stage to dismiss possibilities?, to say that God is being pushed back and "losing territory"?, from that light second, which is 3%, and from which we know Permil !!!
2. Today it is customary to think that water is the source of all oceans (among the scientists dealing with the subject).
3. I cannot prove the existence of God and no other person can disprove the existence of God. As long as I didn't go claim Social Security benefits for God's sake, I didn't break any law. According to every law in Israel, it is my right to believe in God! Prof. Yeshayahu Leibovitz was an avowed religious (which I am not) and a true scientist and humanist.
4. Hitler, Stalin and Mao Tse Tung were avowed atheists and star at the top of the list of oppressors of humanity.
5. Germany-Nazi-atheist, Austria-Anschluss-collaborator-atheist, France-Vichy-atheist, Poland-Auschwitz-we didn't know-atheist, Romania-divisions on Stalingrad-atheist, Japan-biological weapons experiments on Chinese villagers- Atheist (continue?)
6. That's it, I don't underestimate Bush at all, he reached what I will never reach!. I just hate him for what he has done to thwart any initiative to protect the environment.
7. THINK AGAIN.
their opinion:
The fact that additional questions are opened is completely different from the claim that additional lack of knowledge is opened.
Do you really not understand this?
Don't you understand that when you don't even know the question (and certainly don't know the answer) you know even less than when you know how to ask the question?
You say that it used to be thought that the sun was the source of life.
so you said
Maybe there was even someone who thought so, but scientists still do not know the origin of life.
Is it you who used to think so?
God is being pushed back and losing ground whether you acknowledge it or not.
Every time a task that was in God's hands is taken away from him in favor of the laws of nature, he is pushed more and more.
Say what you want and on my part you will even use the common lie among the religious like Einstein believed in God.
You are also welcome to ignore the inverse correlation between education and belief in God because for you - not only Einstein is wrong but the vast majority of scientists are also wrong. The truth is known only to you and it is actually defined according to your words and if your words do not correspond to reality then reality is the one that is wrong or lying.
Can you point to even one difference between what proves the existence of God and what proves the existence of the flying spaghetti monster or Zeus and co?
Of course not, but what does it even matter? prove?! Confirm with an experiment?! Conclude using logic?! Who needs all these?!!
"If I understood Bush correctly, then for him God is a combination of 'dark mass' and Valium"
Well, well - what do I even want from you if you don't even understand a simple person like Bush (and with such an expression you accuse others of underestimating him).
By the way - you didn't hear me belittle him. I think he has a lot of good qualities even if he hasn't been able to break free from the brainwashing he went through as a child about God.
You can believe any lie you want but the fact of the matter is that countries are more moral the more atheistic they are. At the most religious end you will find the Islamic countries with the kind of morality you like and at the atheist end you will find the Scandinavian countries with the morality I like.
Links for those who do want to understand something (probably not for you, Datan):
An inverse correlation between education and belief is demonstrated here:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
Sam Harris' lecture on faith (including a reference to the proven connection between atheism and greater morality) is here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1232718550543562442&hl=en
virtue:
We think exactly the same except for one thing.
You decided to bear the name of truth in vain.
What does this mean - in your opinion - that our knowledge is becoming more and more accurate?
For me, accuracy is the degree of closeness to the truth.
What is the accuracy for you?
You have no way of defining it because you have stripped the truth of its position as the accurate claims about reality.
For me - the truth is one and only and it exists whether we know it or not.
Our knowledge improves in that it approaches the same truth and in some areas even reaches it.
In any case - this is not a dispute about what is right, but about the use of words.
All this, of course, without anything to do with God.
Indeed I said and I even believe it 🙂
I really don't know the same Dawkins you mentioned, if you meet him please tell him I think he's wrong (just kidding). Tell him, for example, that in light of the dire situation on the roads, we are not considering canceling the cameras/camouflage and police ambushes. Tell him we prefer safe and sound drivers to respectable and dead ones.
Beyond that, in my opinion the relationship with God is different from person to person. If I understood Bush correctly then for him God is a combination between 'dark mass' and valium. That is, a general concept for everything that we don't know how to explain (I'm only undecided about Bush's antics and not about his faith). For me it's different, it's more of a feeling of presence - I have no proof of this and at the moment I'm not free to verify the issue. I may dedicate my retirement to this...
post Scriptum. – I wish I could threaten some oppressors with terrible torment if they don't stop their crimes. On the other hand, maybe they were 'respectable' and didn't believe in the existence of a security camera.
Datan, you said somewhere in your comments that in your opinion belief in God makes a person more moral.
Immanuel Kant, I and others make the logical diagnosis that a person who "behaves properly" regardless of an omnipotent being threatening him with terrible torment is a more moral person.
Dawkins illustrated the matter well in his well-known sentence -
"I don't think we probably have much respect for people who only behave well because of the great surveillance camera in the sky".
There is such and such dark energy and other percentages of dark mass, which leaves 3-4% for the rest...
The Greeks coined the term "sealed" and claimed that if they were given the means... we were given the means and they only opened more questions and more lack of knowledge.
The human race has actually reached the moon, which is a light second. But the universe is 13.7 billion years in radius.
It used to be thought that the sun was the source of all life. About thirty years ago, volcanic chimneys were discovered at the bottom of the sea, around which there is an independent and complete ecosystem - the sun can turn off and the creatures there will not be affected.
So at this stage to dismiss options?, to say that God is being pushed back and "losing territory"?, from that light second, which is 3%, and from which we know Permil !!!
So what?, as the size of the ignorance, so is the size of the self-confidence. to know without understanding. count grains instead of independent thought. To underestimate the "influential man in the world" (who was also elected and completed a second term) from the waters of nothingness in a remote puddle.
As they say in National Geographic - THINK AGAIN
indeed indeed! ! !
The truth is "as far as we know now"
And from her nature, she saw, step by step. . .
Therefore, everything we call truth is only relative, both being a stage in the process of our understanding and mature
Thus defining the same truth, only in part and not in full.
We have an agreement that the development is getting closer to more accurate knowledge [to say the least]
of larger parts of the same truth.
Because the truth is so complex, that we are not even able to achieve in our imagination, and so complex
Many subjects, not in our lifetime or in the days of our children or in general for this race, ever, we will be able to achieve it
In full.
The truth lives, grows and depends on our actions, which [at best] depend on our understanding.
And while looking for it, make it. . .
Yes, the present is the past of the future, isn't it?
Hugin:
: )
Ahh..Michael, now my token is gone. When a person experiences a huge revelation, he exclaims in amazement: "Unbelievable!"..
virtue:
And in addition to that - what is the development you are talking about if not getting closer to a more accurate knowledge of larger and larger parts of that single and absolute truth?
I repeat for the umpteenth time:
Just because we don't know the whole truth doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
On the contrary: our ability to make a claim like "there is no one truth" is based on the belief that there is indeed one truth and that the claim that there is no one truth is part of that truth. This is a situation that includes belief in two contradictory claims and therefore it is an illogical situation.
virtue:
There is one truth - final, absolute and clear.
We do not know what it is, but to claim that the claim "there is no absolute truth" is a truth claim is a self-contradiction
And a small gift for Saturday
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3637419,00.html
For those interested in studying the "enemy"
If there was one, definitive and clear truth, there would be no need for controversy and debate, right?
Not in the experiment, not in the proof and not in building and searching for theories at all.
What is the truth at this moment?
And what will happen in a year or an hour for the sake of the matter, my life?
What is the point of studying if understanding is not something that development is at the center of?
In my humble opinion, understanding is both a personal and a group process, and this is how we progress.
I can say with certainty that my understanding has changed, developed and some say improved [?!] over time.
This is similar to climbing stairs to the top of a mountain, each climb reveals a wider view [in terms of knowledge].
But in general, the search for the truth is always welcome
Reference to the words of Zvi Yanai:
"Science has no answer to the purpose of your existence nor to the meaning of your life"
I agree with this and add: neither does religion. Although it claims to give an answer, it is an answer written by a person like you - only one who lived thousands of years ago and knew much less.
The only way to find purpose to existence and meaning to life is to pour them with your own hands.
"You can find the compass for this guideline in the saying attributed to Hillel the Elder: What is hateful to you, do not do to your friend. It is not a perfect compass, it is not always accurate, but I do not know a better compass than it."
I agree with this one hundred percent: see what I wrote in my response within the article itself here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/science-is-not-everything-2909086/
"Because there is no final truth, and even if it exists - they will never know that they have reached it."
I don't get the first part. There is an ultimate truth. But I agree with the second part. I have said this myself many times (including in the article about beauty).
Zvi Yanai confuses here between truth and theory and therefore he says that the truths change. It's just linguistic confusion.
He probably quoted his words about the soul having no memory from me, so I certainly agree with them.
Good. I got a little tired. It is a fine text written - as Zvi Yanai himself says - for children.
I have nothing to learn from him.
Therefore, instead of reading the whole thing, I decided to look for the word "religion" in it and see what he writes on the subject.
Actually doesn't write much but what he writes matches my perception. I am qouting:
"Therefore, beware of the gods, beware of the religious priests and diviners, who claim to know the wonderful from their understanding. Stay away from those who do evil today for the sake of good tomorrow, because the wrong actions in the present anyway tarnish the good that may be achieved through them. Especially beware of the one and only God whose face radiates light So fierce and precious, that he is required to hide his face from his believers. Lean on your reason, despite its limitations, because your sovereignty over your life, your independent thought, your chances to reduce ignorance have no solid support from him."
Hugin:
I have not yet found time to read Zvi Yanai's words.
From what I've read of his words in the past, to me he's okay but not great so I'm not rushing to read his words but I promise I will at some point.
I repeat: the fact that we have not solved all the problems does not mean that there is a God.
Even if there are problems that we will never solve it will not say that there is a God.
The fact that the guy from Hod Hasharon reached the situation he reached is just another proof that there is no God.
Have you ever heard me claim that there are no humans?
Michael, it's also a shame that you don't read the comments of "Deatan" more *carefully*.
What is implied by your response to his response, that machines can be brought in to deal with real human issues.
We will see you come up with a human (not monstrous) practical application, for example, how to pick up that 25-year-old in Hod Hasharon who after 10 years is basking in his bowel movements.
Does every issue have a humane (moral) answer as practical and good in science? Of what use will scientific analysis and mental explanations be, when one must truly and practically rehabilitate from a loving/supportive/growing/constructive/believing place? Do the theories of science (in the way you represent) really have an answer to all human issues?
In points such as these, the "wisdom of the heart" comes from the human side (high morals) which has no substitute and never will.
And I will quote the French proverb he came up with: "The heart has a sense that reason does not understand".
Michael, why didn't you respond to Zvi Yanai's article in the link provided by comment 17?..
mindless opinion:
5000 years ago science slowly helped with nothing.
So you would probably say that in moving from place to place, eating, sleeping and decaying, science ends and God begins.
Did I mention the god of gaps?
Today, all kinds of people who in the past would have been tied up in closed institutions because they were possessed (a friend of God) receive medicines and treatments that allow them to move around freely.
All the feelings you described are known to be evoked by activating electrodes in the brain and know how to do this even for the dumb feeling of a divine "revelation".
Today science ends and God begins trying to explain reality to idiots.
Michael,
Your absurd ramblings are ridiculous and childish: did you marry your wife after analyzing each other's neurophysiology?, did you educate your children by DEBUGING their operating software?, did you make a woman tremble with excitement?, did you ever lead people?, did you gain their trust?, did you gain their respect ?, did you like it? - What about all these and science?
You said "God of the gaps" and you spewed quite a few stupid slogans (about a rabbit and such). In doing so, you only showed mental shallowness and emotional poverty. Cheering up a child with cancer would not help you! A mother who lost her son!, a father who lost his family in a painful divorce process!. You are probably one of the troublemakers who always tries to "explain" the logic instead of simply reaching out and being together.
You clearly do not understand the wisdom of the heart - where science ends and God begins.
J Center:
I made sure to say that religion is the enemy and not the religious.
Please read my words as I wrote them and don't put words in my mouth.
You say that my use of science is no different from the last of the religious people who use the Torah as a crowbar to dig into it but, for some reason, you did not give any example of such a use on my part.
It is also clear why: there is no evidence of this. Here, too, you are building on people believing without testing.
You should understand:
A religious person may have an illusion that he is using religion as a tool to dig in, but in fact it is religion that is using him.
I have already explained the topic of "memes" many times and instead of repeating things I will refer you to response 47 in the following discussion:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/baylor-survey-finds-new-perspectives-on-us-religious-landscape-2109089/
It also contains answers to most of your other comments.
their opinion:
It's interesting how you can write such a long comment that doesn't contain a single thing that is true.
Science studies the human soul and has made a lot of progress in this - both from the direction of psychology and from the direction of neurophysiology.
That you don't know this only shows your own ignorance.
So it is true that they have not yet discovered everything about the soul.
God of the gaps as a mountain I said?
But to ignore everything that has been achieved and to say that science at all does not help us understand the soul is narrow-minded and mentally and emotionally limited that only shames their owners.
Michael
I will try to answer all the claims, although by the fact that they are directed in so many directions, I probably won't be able to answer them all.
First of all, I would like to point out that I am an ultra-orthodox person and not a "religious lite" and the mere fact that I "accept" the science does not indicate anything beyond the fact that this is my personal opinion which I have chosen and I should not receive grades based on it, just like if I manage to convince you not to see me as an enemy it is not will mark the beginning of your repentance.
And the whole thing is on one leg. That's exactly what my first reaction came to, and you can say that the ace came out of the bag.
It seems to me that your use of science is not that different from the last of the religious people who use the Torah as a tool to dig into it. How did you end up avoiding the ultra-Orthodox (I admit that unfortunately...) and being a burden on the economy?
And that all world wars are related to religion? And that the Bolshevik tyranny was not atheistic? And the two world wars were completely "secular" (perhaps the third one will be based on religion - but again it is not "because of" religion, it is only used to make political moves).
It is also possible based on this to say that the war between the English and the Spanish was on a religious basis, but again we witnessed how the King of England harnessed the Protestants to his side in order to expel his queen (if my memory serves me correctly).
It has nothing to do with religion. And just as you use science to attack an entire public here in Israel, so there are religious people who use religion for their political needs. But logically (!) it has nothing to do with the discussion about faith.
I don't think you suffer so much from religion here in Israel, and of course bringing all the claims against the ultra-Orthodox in Israel into the discussion is unrelated and deserves a different discussion in itself.
[In the framed article. In general, the claim that the religious are ignorant and the secular are enlightened - even though you didn't put it in writing, I assume you won't object to this statement - try asking those around you questions about the leading theories in physics and you will find out how much the general public is not interested in science. It just so happens that I work in a company where most of my members have at least a bachelor's degree (mathematics and computer science) and I asked those around me why astronauts float in space about 80 percent (!) They answered me that there is no gravity... they had no idea about free fall, etc. Try it too and it will be argued].
Most of the religious and secular public (and I have a feeling that you too) build their views according to the slogans of those around them and the logic changes according to the early views (or shall we call them beliefs?).
Pragmatism and tolerance is, in my opinion, a cornerstone for curiosity and the development of science and you should stick to it. Seeing the other as an enemy hurts you more than the other.
Truth is a relative matter. And I will answer you with the same weight: that with what audacity people allow themselves to claim that the latest theories in science (for example the big bang) are true claims after theories that have held for hundreds of years have fallen and changed and continue to change beyond recognition even in the last century. But truth is not a logical concept. Truth is a belief in which we choose to believe either based on knowledge and experience (and the views of those around us - don't ignore this), or by virtue of faith and religious tradition and many other resources that we sometimes don't even feel influence us.
I enjoyed Zvi Yanai's instructive article even though he explained to his children to avoid any religious belief. But his article was respectable, not disrespectful, and in my opinion he also went a little against your absolute views in favor of science and against religion and recognition of your and yours alone ownership of the truth and knowledge.
With all due respect
י
There is a saying in French that is my favorite: "The heart has a logic that logic does not understand."
Science is a practical tool that helps us understand nature, it does not help us understand the human soul. In order to do science, one must understand the human soul, because no one goes anywhere alone.
If you are Mr. Bush, religion is soothing - shame on him. I believe that faith in God makes a single person more moral and better - because not only the physical account is fulfilled, but there is a broader and later account.
So of course you can bring examples here and there and vice versa and in a square, in the end it's a private and personal choice.
The important thing in my opinion is to keep an open mind and accept the other and the different. When I was a junior engineer, science really served as a solid rock for me. When I moved into management positions, the emotional and psychological understanding helped me more in motivating people and achieving goals. Today as an economic business owner, science (statistical analyzes and mathematical models) is negligible compared to understanding the emotions and trends of the human public and market behavior.
All the scorn that has been voiced here about religion/religious/God only shames the scorner - it proves narrow-minded and emotionally limited.
J Center:
I explained and I repeat and explain:
I don't care what people believe.
Although faith by its very definition negates any logical reasoning, but if people choose to believe in something - be it the flying spaghetti monster, God, or anything else - how do you say" that's their problem.
What bothers me (and I don't underestimate it at all because one must not underestimate the enemy) is that faith - almost never comes "naked". It is always loaded with behavioral consequences that cause the believer to hurt me personally.
Some of the vulnerabilities are blatant attacks such as the religious wars, the Inquisition, chastity watches and suicide bombings, and some are indirect such as the persecution of scientists and scientific research, the security and economic parasitism of the ultra-orthodox, the suppression of people's desire to find the real answers to questions for which they *believe* they have received an answer.
Religion, I repeat, is in my eyes a real enemy and I do not underestimate enemies.
Some people think they are "light" religious - those who are ready to accept science, according to them.
Beyond the fact that these religions are the platform on which the difficult religious can gain legitimacy, their tolerance for science and truth is usually limited as well.
I do not make any absolute statements regarding scientific claims.
I only do this in relation to logical claims.
The logic is absolute. Without absolute logic there is no point in a conversation between people because it is not at all possible to guarantee that they will understand each other's intentions or even their own intentions.
Since I don't make absolutes, how should I address your claim that I do?
Is it a lack of understanding or is it a trending expression arising from your willingness to defend the faith even at the cost of the truth?
And in relation to things that can or cannot be investigated:
The word science is derived from the root knowledge.
The role of science is to increase society's knowledge.
What is the source of our knowledge?
Our knowledge is gained from experience and expanded through logic.
Can you point to another source of knowledge?
On the reasonable assumption that your answer to my above question is "no", I ask you with what audacity do people allow themselves to claim that this or that claim, which has no hold on experiment or logic, is a true claim? After all, they have no way of knowing this, so why do they allow themselves to lie to me?!
The intellectual integrity of Zvi Yanai cannot be denied.
It is possible that if there are differences of opinion, they are already related to semantic nuances..and different perceptions of reality for example..what does he mean by "will", in his reference to nature..how come he does not have a will to nature? ).
Michael will probably like his reference to idealization..more..
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3635738,00.html
A short article by Zvi Yanai on the way to relate to religion and science in our lives - I wonder what you think.
Michael
I did not establish that there is a God because science has not yet solved all the mysteries. It's just that when I read the articles of the website editor and your comments (and I really enjoy it, I must say) there is always a feeling of complete disdain for the crowd of believers, and it's hard for me to understand on what basis. On what basis do you completely deny and disparage the faith of so many people. If you had full answers about the mysteries of the world, even if I didn't agree with your words, I would understand where this disdain comes from.
But since you don't have answers to many questions and contrary to your statement that the "refuge" is getting smaller, the more we understand the more questions there are (unlike the late nineteenth century when they were sure there were no longer any essential questions...), since that's the case, I wouldn't ask you to believe In what others believe, but I do not understand where you derive the confidence that what your eyes do not see does not exist.
And this does not mean that science should not continue to investigate. And science must be based on the natural curiosity of man, but please do not state that religion denies knowledge. The Maimonides and many others led faith and science that broadened horizons. It is true that he had many opponents, but in the end he proved that science and faith can be born together and that is how it should be.
Your assertion that what is not subject to physical investigation is completely ruled out contradicts the foundations of modern science in which it is forbidden to establish with absolute certainty (and in any case to rule out the contradiction) any assertion. There is a well-known philosophical question as to whether this statement is an absolute statement or not...
In my opinion, the essential difference between science and faith is not in the expansion of knowledge, but precisely in this question. Faith is based on unequivocal assertions, while science is committed to not denying various assertions, even those that are contrary to the period's mindset.
And this is where I mean, how is it that people like you who claim to be scientists act as the last religious people on earth and make absolute determinations? And here I bring you back to Rambam who knew how to ask even within the framework of religion.
And I won't get into an argument about the rabbit. It seems to me that they messed it up enough... (What's more, you chose to ignore the demagoguery I wrote... I'll behave as is the custom of those older than me).
A watch requires a watchmaker, that's the whole point...
Not long ago the world was flat, and at the center of the universe.
To bring a child into the world you needed the Holy Spirit.
Rot appeared out of nowhere and diseases were called a curse from the Creator.
And today the world is round and revolves around the sun. Children can be made "in a test tube", decay is a microorganism and so are diseases.
and tomorrow? Tomorrow we will find out that another religious mantra is holding on to the poor. It's just a matter of time.
And an explanation for Bush's rise to power is yet to be found 🙂
J. coordinator:
Are you really inviting us to believe in the god of gaps? The one who always finds refuge (which is getting smaller and smaller) in what science hasn't cracked yet?
Just because science hasn't found all the answers yet doesn't mean there's a God any more than it means there's a flying spaghetti monster or a teacup sailing around space.
We have a natural curiosity that pushes us to try to understand the world.
Faith and science try to solve the gap between what we know and what we want to know in two opposite ways:
Science does this by increasing knowledge.
Religion does this by eliminating the will to know.
And now tell me:
Does the rabbit rummage?
Father, is there anyone who claims that science can explain all the mysteries of the world?
And if science today cannot explain many of the mysteries of the world, and according to past experience, the more we can explain today's hidden natural phenomena, the more we will find (or invent... then it may turn out that there is a less complex explanation than string theory) new concepts that will be beyond the ability of scientific analysis and proof.
Isn't it around 1900 who believed that science already understood all the laws of physics and all that was left was to fill in the details...
And if we have so many incomprehensible phenomena, how do you dismiss the belief in the creator of the world out of hand? If I had tried to explain the theory of relativity to you about a hundred and fifty years ago, you would have treated it as a superstition, and if I had told you that by the power of your observation you would influence the behavior of electrons, and that when you observe an electron you would also be able to influence its friend who is at the end of the world at that moment - would you be able to read Is that science?
I can accept an argument that you don't believe in something that has not been understood (and did you understand the theory of relativity and quantum theory?) or has been proven within the framework of scientific research and according to agreed laws, but the disdain for believers and dismissing them out of hand does not suit someone who lives in a time when scientific theories change beyond recognition in a relatively short period of time.
In general, I have a question for my fellow believers - why reject the theory of evolution? Why put the theory of evolution against the belief in the creation of the world. Isn't it like the belief in the creation of trees and rivers even though we know that a tree will take a few years to grow, so should there also be a belief that G-d created coal that takes millions of years to form, as well as stars that take billions of years to form and arrange themselves in the way they live today? And the theory of evolution can still live in peace and explain to us various phenomena in the formation of life and mutations.
And one last question for you, my father. Really, the thick soup of minimal size followed by the Big Bang sounds logical and plausible to you because some star that is millions of light years away from us has its color shifted to blue or red, etc. This means that the debate between us is not about facts but about parameters according to which we are ready to determine our beliefs. I respect your views very much (and also recognize and cherish you for the wonderful website you have established thanks to these views) but please do not underestimate and respect the religious views even if you do not recognize them.
Avi Blizovsky
On the other hand, it is possible that Obama's punishment will be such that he hopes that Bush will return
He is finally leaving the White House….
After years of destroying Clinton's achievements with his own hands.
Very simple: do what my father did right now... use the "wisdom" of religion and not the other way around. :)
Mila believed. The problem is that he also acted to harm what he considers to be against his faith (not even all religious people think like him), and thus actually caused the deterioration of the USA with his own hands. The proverb I will use is taken from religious sources, but nevertheless it is striking: blessed that we are freed from the punishment of this.
And who can explain the nonsense of religion?
Very simple: he believed.
The main thing that science cannot explain is how a fool like Bush became the president of the USA
Israel:
Just one more step, please:
Let's leave the faith to the gullible
Shahar, you must know that the research tools determine the result. God, by his very definition, is not measured by the tools of logic you use. (even numbers are not always rational... let's not talk about physics...), so let's leave God to faith, and physics (for now) to logic.
If God would handle so many proofs for so many people.
Teaches them about their mistake, provides them with punishments, reliefs, forgiveness and answers to prayers, etc., etc
How did he have time to set up anything at all…
And in general how with so many interactions there is still absolutely no evidence for the existence of this or that hidden force. The opinion of its existence lies in belief and belief alone. With all the respect I have for my heritage as a Jew I accept that there is no one who cares for us, there is no universal source of comfort other than the comfort and support we provide to one another.
But something else to think about. If God is omnipotent and omniscient then how can he change his mind about something he wanted to do in the first place? After all, he should know in advance what he will want later...
So either he has no ability to change his mind or he has no idea what will happen.
Oh and yes, the Jews add the phrase "and the permission is given"... Oh well, since time immemorial a circular argument has been the refuge of those holding a failed argument....
The only question is how long will we argue about it 🙂
In this I completely agree with you Mr. Bush. Nevertheless - there is a God!
Life in general and the earth in particular are so special that God had to create them, or because they are so special then we created God. Actually, what is the difference?