This is what Nobel laureate in physics Prof. David Gross says, who completed his first two degrees at the Hebrew University, and is well acquainted with science in Israel * Prof. Gross will be a guest at the special salute event to mark sixty years of science in the State of Israel, along with nine other Nobel laureates, in May 19 at the Technion
"The last time I was in Haifa was when I received the Harvey Award, eight years ago, I would love to visit again." Says Prof. David Gross, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics for 2004 in a telephone interview with the Hedaan website ahead of his visit to Israel next month as a guest of the salute event to mark sixty years of science in the State of Israel, along with nine other Nobel Prize winners. The event will take place at the Technion campus on May 19.
In a framed article - I met with Prof. Gross in Stockholm in December 2004, and a few months later at a conference at the National Academy of Sciences in Jerusalem, where I joined an interesting conversation that Gross had with the late Prof. Yuval Na'eman about a meeting of physicists that took place in Beijing at the exact time when the Tyne Square events took place Ann Man, and how they had to leave China by non-roads due to the suspension of flights.
Gross was born in Washington and at the age of 13 he came to Israel, as part of his father's work. Studied in high school next to the university in Jerusalem. He received his bachelor's and master's degrees in physics from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and his doctorate at the University of California, Berkeley.
In 2000 Gross received the Harvey Prize at the Technion and in 2004 the Nobel Prize in Physics. Together with Gross, David Pulitzer from the Physics Department at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and Frank Wilchek from the MIT Physics Department won the Nobel Prize. The three won the prize thanks to the explanation they formulated in the mid-seventies about the nature of the strong nuclear force, the force acting between quarks - the elementary particles that make up the nucleus of an atom. Gross serves as the director of the Cavelli Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and he also directs the Winter School of the Institute for Advanced Studies at the Hebrew University.
What do you think about the crisis in higher education, which you are surely aware of?
The scientific community in Israel is a wonderful community. However I am concerned about what I hear from my friends here about the sharp decline in support for science. Recent governments have severely damaged higher education. Most of my knowledge comes from Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. This is a mistake, and also evidence of the short-sightedness of this government and the last governments that preceded it to ignore what made Israel such a successful country. This is so stupid. Many of my friends, friends of Israel were simply shocked. I'm used to stupid governments. After all, we also have such a government, but it is extremely stupid. This is not a good situation at all. However, from the technological, applied point of view, Israel in its high-tech industry is very successful, but this success is based on the support network for higher education and basic research. Israel lives today on the fruits of past investments. I hope that in Israel I will have the opportunity to make such a statement. I'm sure it's really stupid. I don't understand that. I would expect the Israeli government to be much more vigilant. It seems like people are only looking at next year. There is no evidence of long-term planning. Part of Israel's genius in academia stems from the ties with the US because they understood that there is a great benefit in the long term, but what is happening now is very difficult, it is very disappointing to see what is happening."
"Israel has great potential. The higher education institutions still produce very good students. There is great appreciation for Israel in the world. This is a cultural factor. If you give young people a chance, many of them will go into science. We must not take it for granted and ignore this need. The situation is similar throughout the West, the Chinese and Asian countries are investing a lot. I am fascinated by the excitement of the young people, it is something that cannot be replaced and cannot simply be bought."
As a half-Israeli, a graduate of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, what do you think about the academic ties between Israel and the US?
It is amazing to see how fruitful the scientific ties between Israel and the USA were and that they still continue. This was part of the Israeli strategy to develop very strong ties, but this was for both sides, both Israel and the US.
What will you talk about at the event?
The topic of my lecture will be the challenges in physics in the 21st century. Physics is a broad field, everything from cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics to biology nowadays. Anything physicists can contribute to is part of physics. Physics is a very powerful approach that helps describe the physical nature of the universe. Therefore I will talk about challenges in many different areas, starting from traditional physics, speculative physics and even biology.
What will you talk about in relation to biology?
At the moment, for example, we have a very interesting program on neuroscience - the brain. This is a wonderful field in which physicists have been interested for many years, and recently they are trying to advance it. Especially experimental physics people who are developing new imaging technologies that brought with them a revolution in the way we observe microscopic components of the brain, and there are people who have developed models with the aim of understanding how the brain works - something that is very difficult from a theoretical point of view. Even if you mapped the whole brain, it would still be difficult to understand how it works. If we know this we can build a computer that will work the way the brain works. It's really amazing, it's a young science. This is a field where neuroscientists, biologists and physicists work together on modeling, on construction, trying to extract insight from a very complex world. The brain is a very complex machine. Even to watch it, theoretical models are required to record the data. You can't just look at the components of the brain under a microscope. There are 10 billion neurons in the brain, and each of them has about a thousand connections, which means 10 trillion - 10 million million synapses.
What about particle physics?
The subject of particle physics and in particular string theory is my field of specialization and in every free time I conduct research in the field of string theory. This field is very exciting to me and I even wrote a book about it. It is also a very exciting time in this field because there is a particle accelerator about to open its doors in Geneva and we expect many discoveries to be made in it.
What message do you have for the heads of the Technion, the faculty and students?
"Congratulations on the occasion of the country's 60th anniversary celebrations. The Technion is a successful institution. They already have two Nobel Prize winners, and we even received the prize in Stockholm together. Since then I have also met them in other places in the world where we meet many Nobel Prize winners. I think the last time I saw them was in Petra last year. I also know Prof. Fried Mord and Elie Wiesel, whom I also met in Stockholm where he stayed as a guest of honor. I also try to support some of his activities."
Intermediate: Ten Nobel laureates will participate in the conference
Ten Nobel laureates have expressed their agreement to participate in the special salute event to mark sixty years of science in the State of Israel, which will be held at the Technion on May 19, 2008, close to Independence Day. The Nobel laureates who will participate in the event will be Professor Tim Hunt from Great Britain, Professor Kurt Wottrich from the USA (2002 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry), Professor Fried Mord from the USA (1998 Nobel Laureate in Medicine), Professor Jean-Marie Laine from France (1987 Nobel Prize Laureate in Chemistry), Professor Guenther Blubel from the USA (1999 Nobel Prize Laureate in Medicine), Professor David Gross from the USA (2004 Nobel Prize Laureate in Physics), Professor Elie Wiesel from the USA (Nobel Peace Laureate for the year 1986) and the Israelis Professor Robert Uman (nobel prize winner in economics for 2005), Professor Avraham Hershko and Professor Aharon Chakhanover (nobel prize winners for chemistry for 2004). The event will be opened by the president of the Technion, Professor Yitzhak Apluig. In addition to the scientific conference, the Technion will arrange for the participants and their spouses trips in Israel, festive meals and receptions with the participation of students, high school students, and faculty members.
The winner of the Nobel Prize in Medicine for 2001, Professor Tim Hunt from Great Britain, wrote to Professor Aviram that he would be happy to participate in a scientific salute to the State of Israel on its sixty-year anniversary. "I greatly appreciate the vitality, the knowledge and the lack of formality of the Israeli scientists," he wrote.
Intermediate: Registration for the conference is over
The Technion informed that the registration for the Nobel laureate conference at the Technion was closed, after all the tickets were ordered within a few days. The organizer of the event, Professor Michael Aviram from the Technion's Faculty of Medicine, said that in view of the huge demand, it was decided to broadcast the event live on the Internet and in other halls throughout the Technion campus and the Faculty of Medicine.
51 תגובות
http://www.knesset.gov.il/mmm/data/pdf/m03271.pdf
The salary is not high (it is not low either).
- except that there are too many standards in too many universities - this is manifested in the decline of the academic level and the excess production of graduates, qualified, etc.: beyond what the economy needs.
- The academy has long since become a business.
And as a result - we are exporting educated people abroad because there is no place for them to be absorbed in Israel.
The current president of the Technion is in evidence: Tsaddik in Sodom.
http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3614205,00.html
After all, it is clear that at the end of each year the academy will say that it lacks money.
Every system is like that.
The IDF, the army, and every government office is like that.
You shouldn't get excited every time the academy calls for a budget: it wouldn't hurt to transfer a budget to the professional training of young men and women, as well as prevent an excess of graduates with non-professional, abstract and academic-oriented degrees.
Hezi
Where do these copy budgets come from in the academy you are talking about? Are you claiming that university academics' salaries are high?
Miracles:
I know the corrupt academy intimately.
- and knows very well what I'm talking about.
Hezi
Do you have no idea what you are talking about?
This is propaganda - the academy is full of money and produces an excess of academics.
Academics find it difficult to find employment because of an excess of academics.
That is why they are sent by the academy to study higher degrees or post abroad and boldly demand a budget for "brain drain". A huge fraud of the inflated Israeli academy.
Joseph:
You're just a liar.
He was an all-rounder and it was tested.
The ultra-Orthodox community does not award formal degrees, so your claim that he does not have a degree is an attempt to throw sand in the eyes of the readers.
I don't know if this incident where someone got confused and called him a doctor actually happened, but even if it did - he never introduced himself as a doctor
We must strengthen higher education because there is only the human resource here
Regarding Michael's words about Yaron Yedan,
Yaron Yaden claims to have been a total leader in the past, just as he claims to be a Bible and Talmud scholar (even though he does not have a degree and he has never published an academic article under his authority) and he once exaggerated and claimed to be a doctor (on some weird talk show in which he was interviewed They introduced him as Dr. Yaron Yedan).
Indeed, we have more in common than disagreement.
Well, you're welcome.
So now you have learned nothing.
This is a retroactive change compared to the following sentence:
"I am simply happy to know your opinion and reasoning, so that I can apply them against primitive religious supporters" which you wrote on April 18, at 15:52 PM
I guess if someone hasn't said it yet then here it is now: "The ego will blind the human heart".
(And I also argued with people and claimed that time travel creates contradictions (I thought it would convince them - I didn't think they didn't care about contradictions at all)
In response 34 I wrote that the intervening question for the benefit of his believers is discoverable.
You, in response 36, as a response to 34, beyond the fact that you require me (from me?!) to prove (prove?!) who are his believers instead of understanding that you brought the word "believers" into the discussion and which I referred to in response 34 and that there is no question of proof here but, as usual with you, a question of referring to an undefined concept that you used and that it is your job (you!) to define (and not prove!) what you mean, you write, after the above strange demand as follows: "Do Jews have more Nobel Prizes because they are the chosen people or is it within the Gaussian curve?" "
I remind you - this is an attempt to deal with my claim that God who is good to his believers can be discovered.
You claim, in fact (or at least that's how I interpreted your words and I think it's hard to interpret otherwise) that giving the example of the Nobel Prizes by a religious Jew as confirmation of his claim that God is good to his believers would be legitimate and I can't contradict you.
I claimed - and I repeat and claim - that this is a distortion of history.
You used it for your needs (which are not wearing Streimel but persuading the readers in your mind) and therefore it is a distortion of history for your needs. It is true that you did not mention the faith of the award winners. Avoiding mentioning this fact was also done for your needs.
That's why I said you twist history to your needs.
That's why you said that I distorted your words.
I didn't screw them up.
I repeat that my problem with your words is that they are not defined enough.
Of course nothing can be proven and I personally have already said it thousands of times on this site.
It can't even be proven (this is an example I use a lot) that we weren't created a second ago with all the memory of this discussion in our minds.
All my arguments are directed towards people who understand the scientific method and agree with you (otherwise, M.S.L. in the first place because the whole discussion is about whether there is a contradiction between religion and science and which contradiction can be greater than the complete rejection of the scientific method). Arguments were directed towards such people (of whom I assume you are one), but you allowed yourself, all along, to raise objections that come from the world of people who are not like that (who, as mentioned, are not at all interesting because the claim is proven in advance).
For the avoidance of doubt - although I said this from the beginning - I have no problem with beliefs.
I have a problem with actions resulting from them and especially with those that, in my opinion, hurt other people.
When you come to the defense of religion (and you do so as a reference to the things said here on the website) you - by definition - come to the defense of the type of religion that was opposed on the website (otherwise - what's the point of the whole thing) but the only times when I and other secularists expressed claims against religion here on the website These are the times when arguments were raised from Daoriyata against science. Therefore you have no right to turn the discussion to another type of religion (which in my opinion does not exist and cannot exist in reality, but this is already a function of our definitions of religion).
If you do this anyway, then you are not only accusing us of things we are not justified in accusing, but you are defending the same type of religion that we opposed - the one that contradicts science and rational thinking.
In my opinion, the evil of religions does not grow in a vacuum.
The ultra-Orthodox community is possible only on the background of a more moderate religiosity, and this is made possible by secularists "who are ready to accept the other" when they do not understand that this is an other who will never accept them.
In my opinion, this is similar to all expressions of postmodernism, which also stand behind the world's difficulties in understanding the difference between us and the Palestinians.
I will not consider your words just to twist my words,
I did not try to distort the belief of the Nobel laureates, I did not mention it
It is a well-known fact that those Jews were secular (like you and me) for the most part, I didn't think you would stoop so low (in a moment you will claim that I hang out with Streimel and protest against the bread eaters on Passover...). And I also mentioned that I'm not even sure that this* is true (this is considered known but I didn't have the strength to verify).
* Refers to the fact that the Jewish Nobel laureates are secular.
I will not repeat the argument that you failed to understand.
It is strange to me that you do not differentiate between an argument and a cynical opinion that is not related to the discussion. You may have given me the wrong impression. Please continue your war on religion and find the idiots to show them the quality of your argument (I was not impressed by them at all, I didn't learn anything from them that I didn't know before) I am sure they will agree that the world will not exist 5000 years after the discussion. I concluded that you are evading because you have no answer (you will claim that I did not formulate a question for you, I am tired of that), as always, I may be too stupid to understand your answer (I will send this correspondence to a scientist, a lawyer and a philosopher to understand where I am wrong).
But you said it well, I have exams, you don't have the strength, it's better if we end it.
Hoping that next time we will be on the same side of the debate.
All the best, Happy holiday.
Grace
Grace:
You are no longer watching and I no longer have the strength to respond.
All your arguments are based on the non-definition of the subjects you are talking about and in my opinion - without definitions there are no arguments. It's very simple. Therefore there is no point in the discussion. If I were the Oracle of Delphi I would actually like it but I don't.
A historical detail that you tried to distort to your needs is the subject of the Nobel Prizes.
The percentage of "believers" among them - also among the Jews - is significantly smaller than their percentage in the population.
Another thing, how will you even separate differences that exist thanks to God and those that exist because of the believers and their behavior.
Dossies have money from the state, of course they get discounts on black clothes, they have more children on average, and more and more differences compared to the rest of society.
What will be the control group in the experiment? What differences do you expect to find? If for any divine intervention I can find some possible logical social/physical justification (that has not been proven with certainty to have occurred), does that disprove its existence?
For example: Does the mere fact that I can inflate a balloon that resembles an alien spaceship prove that there wasn't one in the video I took? (When this is within reasonable doubt, not the certain and proven fake).
On response 34 (I noticed that there is a numbering after 35 responses),
It has been scientifically proven who are his believers and how he judges them,
Do the Jews have more Nobel Prizes because they are the chosen people or is it within the Gaussian curve? (I personally think it's psychological but take it in the scientific direction, and even I'm not sure that this information is even true).
From an experiment or two I have seen in sociology, statistics is at most a tool in the hands of the researcher to prove that he is right.
If God is consistent as you claim, I would expect the statistics to already contain his consistency, so there would be nothing out of the ordinary. Why would he do anything that would exceed the statistics? To do this he must judge people in a non-uniform way, and that would have to be beyond the statistics, stupid of him.
In general, if you were wondering why we mediate about this on a scientific website, it is because science has no answer, if there was, there would be no debate at all, these are indisputable facts. Similarly, we could argue about the results of a controversial scientific experiment regarding its interpretation (there is no shortage of such today), we may simply be of different schools of thought. Of course you have to support the right one and I the wrong one, at least that's what your words imply, so you'll surely understand my discomfort in being on the inferior side.
Forgive me for the long periods of time it takes me to reply, and my late response.
The topic is important to me, but you act like a religious act (sorry for the comparison) and you catch me for pilfering words and wordings that are not clear to me and interpret them as you wish and not as their language and mislead them tirelessly. I may have exaggerated the wording, I may have needed the help of a lawyer (which would have extended my excessive response time) but you do not answer the question of a young scientist like me to an old scientist like you, "Is there a God?" You said no, but you didn't give enough reasons. I have formulated the question in different forms so that you can demonstrate your logical process, all you have presented to me is the denial of Judaism or any other concrete religion on the grounds that it is not true. I really don't care what the correct form of worship is to the god you didn't explain to me why he doesn't exist. In front of you I have another scientist who will say yes (there is a God) and will reason just like you (meaning he won't really reason but will negate anything else I say).
Grace.
And I have already mentioned to you the abilities of that god, choose for him whatever qualities and character you want, and I have set before you the conditions of his existence.
I'm sorry that you find it difficult to understand my need for a chronological order in my arguments, it might be better if I omitted my original response altogether since you chose to delve into it so much while I myself left it only for the sake of order, if you had read my response in depth it would have been completely clear to you, maybe you just Belittled and despised in my opinion?
You dodge the challenge with a stupid claim that is not properly worded,
Please, I have offered you such a flexible wording, with so many possible adaptations, take the God of Judaism, Christianity or Islam and you can easily dress them in a pattern and relate to them if you like concrete cases so much, let him heal the sick, help the believers and rebuke the wicked in the framework I have placed, I Personally, I prefer to refer to a general god that I have characterized, but whatever is convenient for you, take any frame that you want to cancel.
On the other hand, you are so adamant about your position that you will completely distort my words again, so surprisingly you claim that I am describing a god without meaning (meaning not humanly comprehensible as I interpret) but wait, actually this is what every religious person told me when I asked what God is and why He is good, an inconsequential god (indefinite you said), oh wow where have we come 🙂
Could it be because Judaism treats a God who cannot be understood and defined as a true God? Who can worship such a thing? (sorry for the cynicism)
Grace
A God who intervenes imperceptibly does not intervene.
If he intervenes in favor of his believers, it is possible to formulate a prediction according to which his believers, on average, are better off in some sense. This can be checked.
I understand that you really did not read my response, I will shorten it for you:
In the last case, I presented to you an all-powerful god who intervenes day and night for the benefit of his believers and you tell me that I still adhere to the model of a god without influence? Desperate indeed.
Too bad, I just found something that interested me.
Grace
Grace:
You finish your words with the hope that we were not discouraged by your response.
I am, in fact, quite desperate.
Some of your words refer to things from the past using the noun "this" and it requires me to read a lot to understand what you are even talking about.
Without knowing which claim you call "this", I see no reason to change anything when I argue with you about your private claims and do not indicate that these are your claims - after all, I am arguing with you, so it is clear that the claims I am rejecting are your claims.
You did not ask me not to consider God's influence on the world. You said that you don't refer to her and justified this non-regard with reasons that I don't think are correct.
To me, the god who avoids detection by not influencing the world is irrelevant because he does nothing (except to be bored) and apparently does not demand anything from anyone either (since he cannot punish anyone for not fulfilling his demand). To me it is worth nothing and it certainly doesn't even remotely resemble the God of religions.
All the arguments about God on this site (and all the arguments about God that I have ever participated in in my life as well as any that there is even a chance that I will be willing to participate in) are those related to the gods of religions.
If you want to talk about God having no effect - talk about it with him - not me - he just doesn't interest me and I have a hard time understanding why he should interest anyone.
The discussion here also started with your reference to the attitude of the people on the site to religions and faith, and since a God without influence has never been discussed here (again - due to a lack of public interest) and because you were clearly talking about religions as well (and all religions also attribute to God an influence on the world and require man to give up his natural sense of morality For the sake of the instructions in some primitive book) I agreed to argue with you.
If you want to tilt the discussion in the direction of God having no effect then, as mentioned, I have no interest in the debate. For my part, believe both in his twin brother who actually wants to influence but was born paralyzed.
I repeat - with regard to God having an influence on the world - as long as you have not described his influence you cannot expect me to disprove his existence because you cannot expect anyone to disprove the existence of an indefinite thing (and an indefinite thing, in fact, does not even deserve the name "thing ") So it's true that I proved its non-existence and it goes without saying because you didn't define what the thing is whose non-existence you want me to prove. I am unable to answer a question that has not been asked.
I apologize for the delay in my response, I was simply cut off from the flow of information against my will until now.
The original response I wanted to write to you Michael was this (I saved it on my computer until now):
nice try,
First, you forgot that I mentioned that this is a claim, secondly my private claim.
Plus you haven't disproved it yet, you haven't presented proof of God's non-existence.
I mentioned that we will take the world as a complete set of axioms, that is, there is no fact that does not agree with all of physics (even the one that we do not know), that is, there is no experiment from which the existence of a new axiom can be deduced, this world has a distinct mathematical existence, which still contains theorems that are not true Proof, I presented an argument (again my private one) not a proof for such a sentence, similar to the Riemann hypothesis, also about which there are people who built mountains and hills in the air on the assumption that it is true.
In addition, you chose to join in because I asked you to neglect your words, God's influence or lack of influence on the world, the simple reasoning is that there are those who believe in the existence of God who knows everything and does not interfere in our actions.
Also, I was not wrong in the slightest that today's religion of Moses is fundamentally different from the ancient religion of Moses, over the years the religion has changed quite a bit, almost all the customs we know were created from one interpretation or another, so there is nothing wrong with your claim that a religion needs the word of God every day to be updated, God He himself spoke very little in the Bible, most of the rest were historical stories or legends.
You are right about the religious coercion, I never claimed otherwise, the term persecuted is not correct, although they are indeed people of their faith, their faith at our expense started as a negligible minority and the seed of disaster was hidden from view.
This is the end of the original comment, for my own logical order.
I thought about it a little, and I realized that you want to do an experiment that will disprove the existence of God, any existence of any God.
If I understand correctly, you refer to God as a force of nature that has no other explanation known to science except a new force that intervenes for the benefit of his believers (I'm sure you can put it better than I can), but since I claim that he has a significant influence on the world, you claim that we will discover it experimentally.
Think about the next experiment, I am omnipotent, omniscient and uncausal. You are a scientist determined to perform an experiment that will confirm or disprove my existence.
Since I am a good and benevolent God (and omnipotent) I help my believers in any way I want, but I have an interest in testing their faith, that is, in being undetectable or provable. I have no opposition or contradiction to science or the laws of nature that I created (or not, it is not important), but I can always change them as I wish, again provided that there is no way to prove that I did so. That is, I have an interest that you will not discover me in the experiment, no statistics will deviate from its Gaussian curve, the average financial situation of my believers matches their financial behavior and you will not see any abnormal deviation in any pattern of behavior during the experiment.
Find an experiment to prove or disprove my existence.
Personally, I am ready to commit to believing or denying the existence of God if the experiment is satisfactory and free of loopholes, in particular it must avoid the use of non-scientific tools and include only reasonable means for performing the experiment (the scientist is not omnipotent).
In exactly the same way scientifically proved the following facts:
- The Iranians are developing (or not) a nuclear bomb.
– There are (or aren't) intelligent aliens (at least like us + technology to get here) behind the moon (or the sun or your chair) and they don't want to be discovered, and are following us for whatever reason you choose.
- There is a real internet network animal, again it does not want to be discovered, every free and insufficiently secured computing resource is at its disposal and it disguises its activity (even at the cost of its destruction).
- We live in the matrix that created some kind of post-human society (there was an article like this here not long ago).
In conclusion, show me a thought experiment that proves the existence of an intelligence with knowledge and the power to eliminate or obscure any information of any kind, including its very existence (God, aliens, Iranian nuclear weapons agency, etc.).
In addition, hereafter we will immediately separate belief in God (which is a type of religion) and the religious-secular situation in our tiny country, which is not related to the point that interests me.
And for the cat who is so happy to be Schrödinger's cat, check what thought experiment you participated in and be happy that you are still alive (or not, the probability is 50-50), don't think that the other punishments of the time were more humane. But I'm sure that opinions differ on the subject, I don't know that the use of poison was as common for this purpose in our area as it was in Bion or Rome, I may be wrong.
Nice one hour earlier (so that I have a chance to escape the verbal stoning they will give me).
Looking forward to your response (hopefully you will not despair of my response)
Grace.
Chen T:
I'm sorry, but you don't understand Godel's imperfect sentence and the use you make of it is simply embarrassing.
In my various responses in the past, I explained where a growing sentence is relevant to science and where it is not. You are welcome to search and find.
In general, what this theorem asserts is that given a finite, but sufficiently complex set of axioms (where "sufficiently complex" means, mainly, that it includes the set of axioms that defines the natural) there will always exist legal claims that cannot be decided by using the set of axioms.
Your mistake in using the sentence is twofold:
1. The fact that there are such claims does not mean that we can choose them as we wish (and this is what you do - choose the claim regarding the existence of God and decide that it is precisely among these claims)
2. He only talks about mathematical deduction from the existing axioms - not about deduction from an experiment (whose conclusion may be a new axiom).
God's influence on the world or any influence on the world is always experimentally provable.
It is true that there will always remain truths that will slip away from the predictive capacity of the axiom system and the God of the gaps people will always be able to find refuge in their god there, but as soon as they attribute to him any influence on the world, their claim will become a scientific claim that can be tested experimentally (compared to the pure logical claims, among which there are those that are not their truth can be decided).
Religion has no existence without the existence of God. At least not as I perceive it. If someone wants to see religion as just a tradition that is not sanctified by God and does not constitute a reason for coercion on others, it really does not bother me. I myself celebrate the Seder this way and even enjoy it (even though I don't have much to eat because Tivol and Vozoglubak do not produce kosher vegetarian foods for Pesach and we celebrate the Seder as a kosher-observant family).
Religions that feed on God's words cannot be significantly updated because God doesn't even call. You can put certain restrictions on their violations, but this will not change the fact that there will always be those who want to apply them as they are.
Religion has never been a persecuted minority in Israel.
First of all because religion is a doctrine and not a group of people.
The people who held this doctrine were never persecuted either. If there is a title that can be attached to them, it is only the title of a persecuted minority.
No secularist has ever tried to prevent a religious person from fulfilling the mitzvot of his religion. Coercion has always existed here in a completely one-way way.
Oh oh, what is humanistic in school people??
Happy Passover, Chen.
Michael,
Undoubtedly, the "Jewish" religion that arose here in recent years is very similar to idolatry, and according to the writings of Prof. Leibovitz Sr., it is no wonder that a son behaves this way, and it does not seem to me to be defiance, but rather a continuation of his father's approach.
I will focus my arguments a little.
After we have adopted a general and axiomatic approach, we can continue with it.
According to Gadel, choose a set of axioms that does not have an internal contradiction.
We chose our world based on its physical nature as familiar and unfamiliar for convenience.
We will try to prove the following sentence: God exists.
I claim that you will not be able to disprove or contradict this claim, since the existence or non-existence of God is not provable.
I exclude from the claim the extent of God's influence on the world because even if such exists, we assumed that it is not provable (since forever there will be things that we cannot fully explain) therefore it will remain only a belief or a view (this is where the worship of God often comes from, but not necessarily).
According to Gadel it will always be the case that in our system of axioms it is not possible to prove or disprove any theorem and there are theorems that are true or false but are not provable (such as the famous Riemann hypothesis, and yes I know that it has not been proven for sure that it is such a theorem, but it is not provable to this day and this is an accepted view ).
From this people turned to several possibilities: there is a God (and they decided to worship him in any way they saw fit), there is no God (there is no need to worship a thing), the question is irrelevant since it is not provable (again there is no need to worship anything and we can take any side of the argument as we wish).
Enough axioms, some philosophy...
You claim that degenerate religions that were created in the past based on the "science" of the past contain an internal error, you may be right, but this is often due to a lack of updating, at the time when the great religions were created they had a more advanced humanistic approach that was more organized than the society around them, if you shed some of them All the historical background, you will get the clean approach of needing to worship God and social order (which was accepted in those days).
In my opinion, there are individuals who have updated their (private) religion so that it does not contradict science, some of them live with us as kippah wearers, there is still no contradiction in believing in God and the need to worship Him.
Most of the scenarios in which you describe the religion are indeed dark and primitive and stem from the internal interests of the society in which they grew and degenerated for many years in the religion (the last substantial changes in Judaism took place a few hundred years ago but since then there has been a kind of stagnation), so there is no problem solving them as such.
As I understand it, I don't think the question about the existence of God is relevant and therefore religion is a common custom or tradition and nothing else, you advocate the elimination of all religions, since they are wrong, I presented my argument for the basis of religion (the existence of a god and therefore worshiping him), take it As a prototype for religion 0, contradict this religion, and every n+1 religion is necessarily false.
A point to think about (this is a horror scenario for quite a few people, but give it a moment) in a halachic state, it is necessary to update religion, when religion is a persecuted minority (today it is not anymore, but it is still not a majority) it freezes as a defense mechanism.
And again, since it is an accepted custom and a beautiful tradition, I will wish everyone
Happy Passover!
Grace
An interesting detail regarding Professor Leibovich is that his son Ilya (also Professor Leibovich) is one of the greatest fighters for science and against superstitions (including religions).
He even spoke at the event where Yaron Yedan's book was launched - "Religion Rises on Its Creators"
Speaking of humanism and ethics - any religion that requires faith from its believers works, in my opinion, in an unethical and humane manner.
Additional unethical and humane aspects exist, of course in every religion but again - they differ between the different religions and therefore can only be analyzed given a specific religion.
By the way - our very ability to stand outside of religion and judge the degree of its morality and ethics is proof that the source of our ethics and morality - the yardstick for testing the morality of religions is in us and not in religion, therefore any appropriation of morality by religions is just another aspect of their immorality.
Chen T.
Your challenge is unfair because I don't know all of Professor Uman's views and I don't know what he believes and what he doesn't.
If he joins the discussion, it will simplify the matter, but I am satisfied if he does so.
That's why I asked for an explicit definition of a specific religion. Stating that this is the religion of a craftsman is not a definition that can be used.
Oh no, I presented my words in a way that was misinterpreted, I apologize!
I have no claim that science is against humanism and ethics. And there are religions from which humanism and ethics onwards. I just wanted to emphasize that the state of ethics and humanism is very bad.
And Michael, I claimed that I could not polish your argument, and I could not find flaws in them that do not arise from writing that is not long enough, when you say that you are able to contradict any religion n and religion n+1 I accept it. It is possible that we interpret the concept of religion in a different way, as Saul assumes that atheism is a religion (I have no intention of getting into the linguistic debate about the concept). I claim that everything should be doubted, but the question of whether religion x or y is wrong is irrelevant (forgive me that for me atheism is also a religion), but if you insist on looking for the challenge, I have already offered it to you, show me the problematic and internal contradiction of a religious scientist (As a case in point, take Prof. Oman, not because he is the only one, but because he is the most well-known) and how does he not lose his mind or repeat the question and why is it not possible to raise in him the doubts about religion that can be raised in someone who is not a scientist? I'd be happy to try to find flaws in your argument.
I presented you with my agnostic view to make it clear to you in advance that this was an argument that you won in advance, but I am interested to know how.
Grace
Chen T:
You say that your reasons are logical, but they are not.
Describe to you a situation in which an infinite number of arithmetical theories are proposed"
Theory 0 is the one that is based on the accepted axioms of arithmetic.
Theory 1 is based on the same axioms and adds to them the axiom 1=2
Theory 2 is based on the same axioms and adds to them the axiom 2=3
Theory 3 is based on the same axioms and adds to them the axiom 3=4
. .
.
Theory n is based on the same axioms and adds to them the axiom n=n+1
And so on…
I claim to you that only theory 0 can be true because the rest contain a contradiction.
You tell me what?
I tell you - here - see, for example, theory 1 contains the axiom 1=2 and then you answer me - it doesn't mean anything - it's just one stupid theory, I didn't say it's true, there are countless others and I just said that your claim that only theory 0 is true is Wrong - I did not say that theory 1 is correct.
In response, I present to you the general sentence - all the theories we are discussing claim, regarding a certain n, the claim n=n+1 and therefore each and every one is wrong, but if you want to point to a specific theory I will show you exactly where the contradiction is.
You, in response, tell me you are agnostic.
I don't think that ethics and humanities are opposed to science or that religion has a monopoly on them. that if you are secular you are not humane or if you are religious there is more chance that you will also be humane or you will be more familiar with the same ways of the land and morality that are being talked about.
I am responding to your penultimate sentence, Chen T. which just seems to me to lack any basis or context. This is simply not the first time I have come across this insulting dichotomy.
After an amusing reading of the whole debate that started with the rabbit's foot (well, mostly...) I am forced to announce my worldview, that you will not find favor in the Bible.
I simply don't have to decide, I accept things as they are, I don't need to determine whether there is or isn't God, whether Judaism is true or false, since that is of no importance to me. This does not mean that I accept or deny the existence of this or that god or religion depending on the moment, since this moment (for me) does not exist or at least did not exist until today.
I present you simple arguments that are based on logic (mostly) and are intended to show a different approach than yours, whatever that approach may be.
According to Wikipedia I guess part of my view is called agnosticism (deciding not to decide).
You may see it as the ability to enjoy all the worlds, others will see it as a way to not enjoy anything, I just have to smile and move on. I'm just glad to know your opinion and reasoning, so that I can apply them against primitive religious advocates.
I can side with the fact that people like you are needed to stand guard and return science to its rightful place in our fundamentalist country for the future, it is important to me that you don't forget ethics and humanism along the way.
Hope this solves something of the virtual dispute between us.
Chen T:
I'm not trying to use psychological methods on you other than logic.
There are really many currents in religion, but they are all united by faith, and according to me, faith in itself (and not least - training helpless children to adhere to it) is an irresponsible and immoral thing.
This, as mentioned, is true, not only for all currents in Judaism, but also for all religions.
I already mentioned that in order to go into more details you have to choose a specific religion and naturally I chose the religion that most interferes with me living my life.
If you would like me to refer to another specific religion (and other currents in Judaism are also in this category) I am ready to do so. Give me a definition of a specific religion and I take it upon myself to do one of two things - either prove that it is not a religion or show you that it is false and immoral.
The current situation where the lack of definition allows you to enjoy all worlds is unacceptable to me.
post Scriptum.
Michael As usual, I respond to your comments in one late response,
There is no real error in your arguments, indeed a considerable part of our public representatives are not educated and enlightened to say the least. I apologize if my painterly lips sometimes hurt you and I will try to stop it.
My argument focuses on the fact that the discussion of what would happen if the religious accepted science and the length of productive life (things that are independent of each other), is not relevant, because they are not... If it were possible to prevent these budgets from them, I am sure they would have prevented it (the Ministry of Finance does not show generosity or sympathy even when necessary). So the situation is given, we are left to cry or face it, without hesitation we have already chosen the second, sane and logical option.
I have to remind you that there are many streams of religion, some of which contradict everything scientific and sane as you define it (including our existence here), and some of which are productive and logical and contribute to science for the country, etc., don't generalize.
All the corruption we are familiar with that you are so disapproving of developed only here and only in the last period (the last hundred or two hundred years), and I also oppose it. You consciously choose to see a very specific religious faction as the face of the whole religion and therefore you dismiss everything, most of the religious arguments have logical arguments (although not necessarily modern or humanistic ones), I argued that overall there is not necessarily a contradiction. Otherwise, explain to me the religious scientist as a type that is not radically different from the environment in which he lives, after all he is enlightened and not primitive, as much as a careful examination will reveal (he will not explain the earthquakes in the Benezari way) unless you consider the belief in the existence of God to be primitive (not in the sense of the things). That's why I don't agree with the claim that religion is against sanity, at most sometimes people take advantage of it that way, and that's what's wrong.
From time to time I read your previous debates, fascinating arguments, but I believe that each of us is armored in our opinion and does not intend to give it up easily for one or other psychological reasons.
Chen T
I could also claim that lime has a black color and you could say I was just trying to guide people ethically.
This would of course be nonsense but you will be able to do it as you do it in relation to the Holy Scriptures.
There are really questions that science does not answer, but these are simply questions that do not have an answer, and the fact that religion claims to give an answer is actually one of the proofs of its immorality.
There are, of course, also things that have an answer that was discovered by science that contradicts the answers of religion, but from the point of view of religion this is not important because for it truth is of no importance.
You can find part of the discussion about the morality (=ethics?) of religion in the debate at this link:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/oldest-rabbit-fossils-2503082/
You are also invited to read Yaron Yedan's book - "Religion Rises on Its Creators".
Yaron Yedan was a rabbi and head of a yeshiva specializing in halachic rulings before he became sober so that it would be difficult for you (your intellectual honesty will be the cause of this difficulty) to claim that he does not understand the religion.
Thanks for the comments, hope you enjoy the trip,
I agree with the claims made here that religion has too much room for interpretation, but I have several reservations.
First of all, every scientific fact relies on previous facts, beyond any initial fact that is assumed to be true, there is nothing but a belief that it is true, just like a mathematical axiom, since it is true then this is how the whole science of mathematics is structured, if we had chosen a different axiom, mathematics would look different (This does not necessarily mean that there will be an internal contradiction in it).
And unfortunately, there is a significant number of contents in which an experiment cannot be reproduced so that it will always repeat itself, let's start with astrophysics which will rely on models
and observations and it is almost impossible to carry out their experiment (but this is a predictable and stupid example), chaos as a prominent example of the inability to predict the result of experiments and at most to find characteristics of the behavior of the results, quanta another relational example in which I openly declare that the result of the experiment is only statistical (if you accept the lack of variables hidden). Science in its entirety always has to provide partial answers and will never be able to answer everything that exists.
And of course there is a reason for everything, the question of whether it is God's fault or Benizri's should not prevent people (including the religious) from finding a cure or technology to fix it, a well-known joke (with a long beard) is about a rabbi who in a flood in the city refused help from citizens who came to help him claiming that God would save him , when the water rose he refused the help of a boat and in the end he refused help from a rescue helicopter for the same reason, he reached the top and asked God why he didn't save him, God replied that he sent people a boat and a helicopter.
That is, with God or not (cat, I personally am not ready to answer the question), humans must first help themselves, whether the immune system of life will stop the bubbles or not, is almost a statistical question, science only improves the statistics does not guarantee recovery . And in a statistical world, anyone can fill the space with whatever they like, whether it's strings or God or nothing in and of itself, it's open to interpretation and not at all subject to scientific proof (not in our lifetime apparently, although I hope for surprises).
I agree with Roy that science should be inculcated, but remember that all Israeli students are still lagging behind in international tests, not the religious students.
And if the public who follows in the footsteps of their rabbis does not want to learn the core subjects because they do not aspire to a productive life (which in a few decades I think the concept will disappear because the machines will work to create and we will only have to think and enjoy the free time) then we cannot push the knowledge into their heads by force, we cannot create scientists by compulsion .
The amazing study methods that are used in the Far East (Singapore in particular) are surprisingly developed in Israel (now they come here to learn how to instill creativity as well, I find it amusing), in addition, study techniques in yeshiva are considered successful and polished for a very long time compared to Western methods.
And I didn't see religious people in science as a delusional phenomenon or tainted by a conflict of interests, simply their religious view is not contrary to the values of science and there must not be any kind of contradiction in this argument. I accept that there are people whose conception of religion or the world is such that they will invent gnomes and demons to explain anything that is not easily explained, but to begin with they have no interest or word in science, only to instill their values just as the scientists want (only that the latter also find more logical justifications and provable). Hence, they must be prevented from instilling values that contradict the values of science, but not reject them altogether, I still encounter people who ask why even among the kippah wearers, it is simply necessary to recognize which fields are separate and make sure that there is no overlap or conflict between them, because as soon as people invent such fields, then there is The conflict you describe so well.
Of course, I have no justification or solution for such people and one should simply try to face the reality together with them and see how the desire for science is instilled in the general public despite those current science infidels (more politically torqued than Mabbat, I think I'll call them KAMs).
At the level of principle, I cannot accept the so-called contradiction between religion and science, but only between the interpretations of people (scientifically ignorant or science hypocrites) and science. The axiomatic conflict you described would have required comprehensive mental treatments for every sane person who wears a kippah and the end would be that he would become completely secular. Of course this does not happen and people continue to research and believe independently, people like Prof. Uman are living evidence of such independence, therefore I do not accept the claim that every religious scientist must live in an internal contradiction as we have already mentioned in previous claims.
I will refer to the issue of stem cells simply to clarify that although Bush is doing this for religious reasons, but religion dictates this for ideological reasons only, I cannot say that they are not morally correct, this is a very delicate issue and the scientific solution does not solve the ethical problem in this type of research, religion offers a reasoned solution Of her own (surprisingly conservative) there are other solutions which again not all promote research and not for religious reasons but for ethical reasons. To illustrate the point, let's mention the medical research done by the Nazis, some of which contributed medically and scientifically with all the unethical and wickedness involved. So it's just a more complicated issue ethically and religion just burst into an open door in this case.
And again I feel like I wrote too much,
Even though it is a religious and non-scientific holiday, lacking in orderly proof and not supported by experiments, I still find it appropriate to wish everyone
Happy Passover!
(As my student already told me once, physics sometimes makes more sense when you're drunk)
Grace
Chen T
To find what I wrote here on religious issues, you are welcome to look for discussions in which I argued with Shaul.
You are guaranteed a lot of reading and I am sure you will learn a lot from it.
I found it appropriate to write another comment because I noticed your prediction about where the budgets that would be freed up would flow if the funding for the religious brainwashing was stopped.
I am not a prophet and I do not pretend to know what would have happened, but I very much doubt your claim. In my opinion, it is so unreasonable that it is a shame to even argue with you. What's more, if the ultra-Orthodox worked, something would be created in the country as a result of their work, and I'm sure they wouldn't just make coffee machines for Knesset members.
Even the prophecy about what would happen to me if I told a secular man that his ancestors were monkeys is disproved by the reality of the night and the evening. Why do you say that? Are you ready to say anything - no matter how ridiculous - just to defend your position? I suggest you grow up!
You call those who impose conservative laws on others primitive but the entire religious leadership does. Are they all primitive?
The truth is that I agree with this claim in certain definitions and here I get to the heart of the matter: to behave in a primitive way among the seculars one has to be a primitive person. To behave primitively among the religious - it is enough to be religious. Religiosity creates primitive behavior even in people whose personal virtues would allow them to be enlightened people.
You must understand that I am not positing secularism as an alternative to religiosity. Secularism is not a sufficiently defined thing because its entire definition is the negation of religion and outside of religion there are many things that are fundamentally different from each other.
I reject religion as I reject many of the delusional ways of being secular.
I'm all for sanity.
Religion against sanity.
This is my whole dispute with religion.
Chen T.
You don't know how many arguments like this I've had and I'm just tired of it.
You are welcome to look for answers to some of your words even in my words on this website.
Do I choose not to try to understand?
seriously!
Maybe it's you who chooses to ignore reality?
You can look at the holy books in many different ways (for example, I look at them as a weight to prevent bullets from flying in the wind) but many of the religious view them as books that contain truth and I repeat - opposition to science is rising again and again from religious circles (and only from them) for this very reason, but after all this You allow yourself to demand from me as follows: "You will put up with the fact that religious people do not treat your book as a science book". In other words, you require me to put up with an unrealistic claim. I am not religious precisely because I cannot put up with unrealistic claims.
In general, the whole willingness to decide that someone wrote something in the book that he did not mean is a stupid idea. How do you choose what is right and what is wrong? Why do you think Benizri's talk about the earthquakes is stupid? After all, he came back and claimed that they originated in the holy books.
The point is that blind faith (which is exactly what religion requires!) forms the basis for most of the organized evil in the world and tolerance towards such faith is the basis of that basis.
Therefore, instead of sighing at my unwillingness to accept falsehoods as truth, perhaps I should crypt the fact that one should not believe blind faith and should not accept doctrines that preach it.
Chen T,
I'll start with an apology. It is appropriate that I respond to the fascinating discussion between you with a long response, but I committed to arrive at a certain target time for the trip to the Golan Heights. Therefore I will have to be short in my response.
I will summarize a number of points regarding the discussion and I stood by it:
1. I have worked with enough ultra-Orthodox and religious people to know and recognize that there are no more stupid people among them than the secular ones. Some of them are less wise, some are wiser - just like the seculars.
2. The secular public is not easily ready to believe that 'gnomes are running their computer screen'. I do science shows in Israel, and I can tell you with complete confidence that every person I've met wants to understand how things work. You only need to explain in the right way, because science requires a good foundation of study.
3. And here we actually come to an interesting point. Science requires a good foundation of study, which almost necessarily starts at school age. Secular education places a much greater emphasis on science than orthodox education. Therefore, it is more likely to assume (as it happens in practice, if I'm not mistaken), that more seculars are going to study science in universities after the army, Horedim.
4. But why is it so important to us? Why should there be more people with advanced degrees in science (physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, etc.) and not people who are wise in the Torah?
5. The reason is that science has been influencing everyday life incessantly for the past four centuries. He eradicated diseases that would have killed millions of people a year. It increased the life expectancy of humans almost twice. He allowed us to reach the moon, and so on.
6. What does religion have to show in the answer?
7. The reason religion has nothing to show in the answer is that science and religion have different axioms, as you mentioned. But as we will see immediately, these axioms cannot both be true.
8. The axiom of science in my opinion is simple: there are no divine interventions. Any experiment conducted under exactly the same conditions will yield exactly the same results. God is not a factor in the equation.
9. Because of this, science is obliged to accept the results of experiments as they are, and to recognize that they reflect the existing reality. For this reason, science is constantly developing and does not limit itself (of course, it takes time for any new theory to come in and prove itself). These developments of science lead to a better understanding of reality which allows to improve the condition of humanity.
10. And what is the axiom of religion? Let's take Judaism as an example.
11. There will be those who say "the book of the Torah is correct." But clearly this is not the axiom we are looking for. Different sects in Judaism treat the Torah book differently. There are those who see it as a guide to life, and there are those who treat it as a completely historical book, including the creation of the world. Some of the reformers, for example, refuse to eat goat in its mother's milk, but would be happy to eat chicken with cow's milk. That is, they interpret the Torah book in one way. The Orthodox will also refuse to eat chicken with milk, and therefore they interpret the Torah in a different way.
12. Therefore, the axiom of the book of the Torah cannot be honestly considered, because each Jewish sect interprets it in a different way.
13. What, then, is the axiom that every Jewish sect follows?
14. If I had to guess, I would say that this axiom is that "there is a God, and everything has a reason".
15. There is a reason for the smallpox that killed millions of people. There is a reason for AIDS. There is a reason for cancer. There is a reason for the Holocaust.
16. If so, is it worth finding a cure for smallpox? of course not. After all, this is God's will. If we try to find a cure, then we violate his will and violate our initial axiom.
17. So which is better? Religion or science? Science expands our horizons all the time and allows us to face many problems. Religion finds a way to explain why troubles have befallen us in the first place, but its solution always comes back to faith in God.
18. And this is why we must educate as many children as possible in science, and give them the basis for scientific understanding already at school age. This is done well in the countries of the Far East today, and may we be able to copy from them the teaching methods that give the motivation to many students to pay in the sciences.
I ran to the Golan Heights,
Roy.
Chen T.,
The problem with religion, if we focus on it, is that it interferes in the fields of science that are not related to it. She wants to teach the way of the land and morality (even the morality they teach there is questionable...), so you should concentrate on that. In the meantime, what is happening in Israel and in the world is that religious beliefs spill over into areas they don't belong in and affect all of our lives (who said Bush and stem cell research? Or even an example that I like and don't pay much attention to, the disruption and impact on archaeological research).
You also fall so far in your words to a classic religious claim - regarding the sun being a belief and not a scientific fact. And your words: "from a logical point of view" reveal a few more things about your way of thinking and that it pretty much comes from the field of religious philosophy.
And please, enough of this mixing of religious mythologies with scientific facts. No matter how they try to present it, the basic premises of faith are beliefs, the basic premises of science are facts. It is not at all a question of a different way of looking.
By the way, from what I know, the number of religious professors in the world, probably especially in fields other than literature or history and the like... is relatively few, perhaps because of the same problem of reconciling beliefs with facts. Unfortunately I have no reference for this, maybe someone else can shed more light on the matter.
Michael, one last thing,
I studied (and taught) with quite a few religious people, not in a religious institution, some are stupid and some are smart, but certainly not one person. Don't just underestimate, I'm not talking about a statistical error.
I'll just point out that I never claimed that a minister in Israel is a person with the highest intelligence
Oh Michael, it's not that you're wrong, it's that you choose not to try to understand.
I will take some more time from my homework to explain…
You look at the Tanakh as a science book and claim that it is not true, if so you are right.
If you choose to look properly, i.e. accept the fact that religious people do not treat the Tanakh as a book of science but as a book that guides them in life in terms of worshiping God, then you will understand why a religious person can study evolution (and there are some, I have seen) and study the Big Bang with the same enthusiasm as he prays in the morning . The people who do not recognize evolution are ignorant from a scientific point of view, it's just that the religious ones also bother to say it out loud, after all, if you tell so-and-so that his ancestors were monkeys, even if he is secular, there is a chance that you will end the day in a hospital, evolution or not, with or without God.
There are enough people who refer to the everyday magic computer screen that they just got used to, they don't understand it and for them even small gnomes can make it work. The problem is primitive conservatives who impose their opinion, unfortunately some of them are secular.
Although I completely agree with you that Torah students should not live at our expense, but I would be surprised if this budget was directed to students or education, at most it would upgrade the coffee machine in government offices (this is the most positive action I would expect)
I will conclude that you believe that the sun shines on the other side of Earth and believe that it will rise tomorrow morning, just because that's how it was yesterday and that's what you saw on the science channel and at best that's what a lecturer at the university told you. I'm sorry I have to warn you about this, it's only a belief, logically , you have no way of knowing anything without believing in basic assumptions that there is no way to prove them (whatever happened will be, the television doesn't lie and the lecturer is right), simply your basic assumptions are somewhat different from those of a religious person. Now if you try to tell me that religious education teaches children, I don't know from experience Personally, but the religious people I encountered were not ignorant and trained robots, I may have encountered the wrong people, but I encountered many secular ignorant people, when few of them even aspire to education and they are slaves to work and television.
And the education system was bad to begin with, that's why it wasn't screwed up, it's just improving too slowly if at all.
I hope I have presented you with another side of reality, and in general it is a shame to deny all religion, not only stupidity and mistakes are taught there, also through the land (where at least they teach it, not sure about the application) which is something we are slowly losing.
Chen T
You just found one person who defines himself as religious and that almost all his statements are contrary to those of the other religious people.
Again - the fact that a person can define himself as religious without being so does not purify the germ of religion.
I don't know if you read my previous comment. In any case, you did not refer to her.
I will use this opportunity just to add to the list of contradictions between religion and science the scientific innovation (in the science of seismology) from the seminary of the religion that Nizari recently proudly quoted (literally)
So let's separate the mixed ones,
Indeed the contents are important and indeed as you claim there are dark people (including religious ones) who support education without core contents, on the other hand you cannot ignore the fact that these people for the most part do not know the country and live here as parasites, if we return for a moment to the book I mentioned, Prof. Leibovitz, states Clearly, this concept of people making a living from learning Torah should not exist. If you claim that there are those who aspire to a stupid population so that it will be easy to control them, I direct you to look at all the ministers of Israel for generations, few of them are the ones who promoted the issue of education here in a way that is not branded or aimed at this or that issue (from settlement to mathematical stupidity). I'm not sure that a graduate of our education system is more productive or more successful than a Torah yeshiva graduate who never studied some of the core subjects, the only difference is that a secular person will complete his high school graduation after the army and study properly (and only the matriculation and psychometric institutes benefit from this), in practice, I wouldn't be surprised if An average Yeshiva student who has learned at least one thing in life (yes, just learn to learn) has learned one thing more than an average high school senior (who mostly managed not to learn it either).
Since the aspirations of the population are different, the ultra-Orthodox aspires to learn Torah (therefore the core subjects are not useful to her) and the secular one aspires to entertain the masses, money and prestige (science and culture are really on the fringes in our country, unfortunately) and for that we need to study a little more and externalize it more, so it is easy to consider the public The ultra-Orthodox is more stupid than the one who stares at the television every night and swallows every nonsense of a worthless entertainment channel.
As long as the Ministry of Education fails to impart education as a whole, why do you expect it at all to take care of any content that is not political and/or considered basic for our society? Don't forget that in our society, teaching is an inferior profession to almost all academic professions. And in the religious society (and reformed societies in the world) a teacher is a value and an ideal.
That is why I say that if rabbis (who are supposed to be a little smarter than the common people) decided that it is not good for their public to learn our core subjects, from my personal point of view, that is their problem, not ours.
And yet, surprisingly, there are places in the religious world that advocate science just as much as secular places, and the number of turban-wearing professors at the various universities and colleges will testify to this, and I would be surprised if their number falls short of their proportion in the population (correct me if I'm wrong).
To end with an amusing anecdote (at least to me), I have never (personally) encountered a religious person who has a mind at the top (my subjective definition) who is a rabbi, only ignorant people are like that. The problem is that the latter make much more noise.
Chen T:
I don't know how it can be claimed that there is no contradiction between religion and science when it is everywhere.
Let's start with the fact that religion requires a person to believe in certain things instead of examining and criticizing them. This is a clear contradiction to the spirit of science and this is true for every religion.
To talk about more specific contradictions, you have to talk about a specific religion, so let's talk about Judaism (I just chose Judaism).
A religion is based on faith in its holy books and in the holy books of Judaism it is written that the world was created in six days. A religious person is supposed to believe this and the fact that there are people who call themselves religious who accept the theory of evolution is due to the fact that they allow themselves to "interpret" the scriptures in a way that contradicts it. They do not do this voluntarily and it is no coincidence that all (but all!) the opposition to the theory of evolution comes from religious circles.
A religious person is also supposed to believe the "fact" written in the Torah that the rabbit and the rabbit rumen and this is contrary to what is written in the DNA of the rabbit and the rabbit.
And another priestess and priestess (did you know that according to the instructions for building the copper sea in the Temple it is possible to conclude that a pie is equal to three?).
The Holy Scriptures are full of contradictions with reality and the science that investigates reality finds itself inevitably in contradiction with the religion that determines by attributing to reality false determinations.
Regarding education, the situation is not much better.
There is a difference between education and training, and what the ultra-Orthodox children go through while they are babies captured by the ultra-Orthodox sect is training and not education (when the main component of this training is the training to believe and not to use the word that so characterizes children - the word "why?"). After successfully passing this stage of breaking their curiosity, the children enter a path that is nothing but a factory for parasites - they do not learn anything that will allow them to become productive citizens in society and these factories do this while promoting education in their mouths as a ploy to dig into the state budgets and take more and more from them at the expense of real education .
The result of this process, after many years of extortion, is that the state education system has also been screwed. what can we do? When there is no money to bring good enough teachers and when you finance the living of yeshiva students instead of that of students, this result is inevitable.
melody. ninth.
You are mixing up two things. One - the fact that education in Israel is deteriorating and that the children today do not know anything. It is not the fault of the religious, it is the fault of all of us.
Second thing - you claim that the ultra-Orthodox like education, that is also true, but should education be the be-all and end-all, isn't the content important?
The level of education among the ultra-Orthodox is deliberately low, because the rabbis do not want them to ever be able to integrate into society as useful. A 20-year-old ultra-Orthodox left yeshiva with the math knowledge of a XNUMXth grader. Not to mention English, how exactly do you want it to work out in the world? in Yiddish?
The knowledge he does know is often useless in the real world. Not teaching him the core subjects is a betrayal of the education system in him and in his future. Yes, including Minister Yuli Tamir who gave in to this shameful demand.
I think there is generally a problem with the approach to religion,
First I will state that I am not religious, do not see myself as a religious person, and try to question everything I know.
But, there is really no contradiction between religion and science, the same contradiction you pretend to present, as if religion follows science, and religious people encourage ignorance and stupidity is fundamentally wrong.
The main reason most scientists present it this way is that most religious people do advocate education (I know that still doesn't sound logical, wait), and secular people don't necessarily accept science as a fact of reality (until it appears on a 42 inch screen) but they just don't at all Interested in science beyond its simple material value and certainly not in education. The religious public is at the same level of ignorance as the secular public in terms of scientific education, simply because they were raised on the values of learning, so they strongly emphasize their more conservative educational approach (which, among other things, includes religious content).
And so you pretend to call individuals other than you who preach education as old fashioned conservatives from pans and what not. Don't forget that the majority of the secular public is just as ignorant as they are and doesn't even care what their child learns in school, whether it's evolution or creationism or the media world according to Orange (true story). Education in the country looks the way it does because (almost) nobody cares, it's not the fault of the religious.
And another thing, religious people don't need to live according to any kind of internal contradiction in order to succeed in science. It is enough to understand that there is no connection between the work of Hashem (as they call it) and the structure of the world, and for those who do not believe me, I can refer to Prof. Leibovitz's book "I wanted to ask you, Prof. Leibovitz", in which in some of the letters addressed to him he explains at length that the Torah does not come to teach about The structure of the world, the universe and everything else, and no I'm not going to change anything in my philosophy of life as a result of this, but it certainly shows that there is no contradiction between religion and science. The contradiction that is visible to the public is simply calls from those ignorant of science who have received a bigger stage than they deserve, but even for most of the secular entertainment and culture people the situation is not much better, but the mother has no say in the matter of education.
In my opinion, the education situation is not going to improve, so just save those you can and hope for the best.
To my father, I know you are a well-known batsman (quite rightfully so), I will be waiting for your response on the matter.
Gravity
What you say has nothing to do with reality.
Bar Ilan University, even though it is a "religious" university, is an ordinary university where more secular than religious people study.
The fact that some religious people manage to live with the internal contradiction between their religious beliefs and science does not indicate the generality.
The fact that ultra-orthodox education works as I described in my previous response is also an existing fact.
On the other hand, your claim that budgets are allocated for temporary entertainment and poor education has no basis in reality and is just a slogan designed to throw sand in the eyes of the readers.
A. Ben Ner
My dear friend, you do not see reality as it is.
It is not related to which religious rituals a person associates himself with, Bar Ilan University has produced very educated students despite their belonging to the religious sector and even ultra-Orthodox.
The problem as I see it is diverting budgets to temporary entertainment and poor education.
I agree with you on this, Limor Livnat did such an unsuccessful job.
And just so you know that most of the brains migrated to other countries where the vast majority of the population values science and technology such as Europe, America and the Far East.
In order to find out what the motive for proper growth is, you have to look inside as well as outside.
See what we are good at and what developing countries emphasize!
But for such things you need an establishment that correctly sees the development
Unfortunately, our establishment is headed by elected officials who supposedly represent a certain public.
The public in Israel is not developed, the institutional direction changes every 4 years with the elections, we have no long-term plans, a multitude of parties each appealing to their own interests, a paucity of political resources, there are a thousand and one problems.
With tears I say that we simply do not have ideal conditions for good development.
A. Ben Ner:
Unfortunately, I do not share the hopes you have in Yuli Tamir.
In the meantime, all we see is how she folds fold after fold in front of the ultra-orthodox establishment's demands and allows it to take more and more education budgets for the benefit of institutions that are not even willing to teach the core curriculum. All this money goes to training the next generation of military service dodgers and their economic actions.
I must point out that even before the mentioned governments, the situation was not alarming.
For example, when my middle son was in high school and was one of the representatives of the State of Israel to the international physics olympiads, I was exposed to the unwillingness of Yossi Sharid to support the training frameworks of our physics team that the faculty that prepares it for competitions was then (as it is forced today) literally to collect donations to finance the activity.
I wouldn't pin my hopes on the Americans either. Of course, asking them to limit us is unthinkable, but beyond that, the Americans (who, meanwhile, are much more religious than the Israelis) will not demand a non-religious education from us. Even among themselves, they do not achieve brilliant success and anti-scientific trends originating from religion (such as creationism) still manage to influence their "scientific" education.
The state of education in Israel and especially science education has deteriorated to where it is today after about 20 terrible years, during which the Ministry of Education was entrusted to the Federal Ministry of Education and another four years, even more terrible, during which it was entrusted to the destructive duo Netanyahu-Livant. Ministers of the Ministry of Education for generations , extolling "national pride" in their mouths, emptied the ministry's coffers in favor of "education for settlerism."
Netanyahu, on the other hand, sees education as a tool for creating businessmen and the like. Livnat Vsorua in the classrooms of the education system are good sites for waving national flags.
I do not want to underestimate the great value of:
Settlements, businessmen and national flags, but if these come at the expense of study and education, the day will not be far away and we will all have to pay the expensive and painful price. Unfortunately, the day of payment is approaching. Growing up in the country of a generation that we are on the same side
There are footballers, there are models (and models), unfortunately (and I say this as a football fan) football is also not
know And on the other hand, religious zealots are settlers, worshipers and rabbis, who are ignorant and peoples of the lands complete with a general education and are at most market traders.
The education system almost does not encourage value education for science and education, with the exception of isolated and exceptional islands that do not testify to the general rule and exist only thanks to educated parents, but not from the policy of the education system.
The country needs a miracle and maybe, maybe, maybe,
The miracle is in the form of minister Yuli Tamir
But in our fragile politics, we don't know how long her tenure will last and who, to our dismay, will be the politician who will replace her and whose ideological-Orthodox-settlement zeal will shatter and destroy the buds of improvement in the education system, which we are witnessing
These days.
It is possible that a basic law should be enacted in the Knesset stating that the Israeli government must contact the US government and request that it in turn provide, from now on, all American aid to Israel, economic, military
or cultural in that the Israeli government undertakes to allocate at least 35% of the national budget for the benefit of non-religious education in Israel. Only from the Americans (maybe) Nyusha.