Nir Lahav participated in the M.H.R conference that took place a week ago in Tel Aviv and asked in his lecture what is the connection between science and academia and social values and religious coercion? The atheists try to remind us that there is a strong bond that wears out and is forgotten over the years and it's time to strengthen it again!
A new force is raising its head and gaining momentum again in Israel and the world - atheism. In the world, this trend started a few years ago, and now it has also reached Israel. Last Thursday, a conference was held at Beit Zioni America in Tel Aviv M.H.R. - Science, freedom and rationalism. The conference was a great success, the organizers were surprised by the number of people who came, a long line stretched from the box office to the street and a large crowd returned home after very quickly all the tickets were sold. This is a conference initiated by a group Atheists are nice to meet And it is a song of praise for rationality, skepticism, human rights and human freedom. Freedom that is expressed on many levels, and also in the level of religious freedom and the right of each person to choose his faith. With this right, the atheists call for the separation of religion and state because faith and religion have no place in the political filth and the state has no right to force the citizens to follow religious laws. This conference and the future activity of the atheists in Israel could be an important turning point in the war on the image of the State of Israel.
the meaning of the word atheist She is a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods. An interesting point is that atheism does not mean that you have no religion, because there are religions in which there is no god! For example the Buddhist religion. All over the world atheist conferences are commonplace, but in little Israel it is a special event. I was at an atheist conference in Melbourne, Australia and I was very impressed by the atheist worldview. According to this view, God and gods in general are the product of the human imagination. We created them to fulfill our psychological needs, for example to give an explanation to the natural phenomena that seemed threatening (like, for example, why lightning and thunder appear in the sky), to give comfort to the knowledge that in the end we will all die, to give comfort to the lack of acknowledgment that we have in life and to fill human life with meaning.
Although these are important psychological needs, in order to solve them you don't need to cling to illusions, instead you can try and reach meaning with the help of the things we know do exist and with the help of the methods we have found that manage to explain and predict nature. Of course, this refers to the insights into nature that we have managed to discover in the meantime with the help of science, as well as to the scientific method, rational thinking (which is based on drawing conclusions according to logic) and casting doubt. All these are the basis of science and philosophy. It should be emphasized that this is a complete way of life and like any way of life here too there is a certain ideal and basic values on which it is based. These are the ideal and values of the scientific method. The (western) atheists base their longevity on these values, but one does not have to be an atheist to choose these values. All Western culture is based on these values and modern democracy and liberalism are also a result of these values. I think these are excellent values that each and every one of us should recognize and decide if these are the values by which I want to live and educate my children and my environment, and if not, these values do suit me.
Here are the values of the scientific method (according to my interpretation):
The ideal or the great idea to which those who have chosen this way of life are trying to aspire is that the person exists within any real reality and that a person has tremendous ability and power with the help of which one can understand this entire reality. Of course, this is a long process of understanding and realizing the human capacity, this is the journey in which man is from the moment of his birth until his death and with the help of which man can develop and be happy (by the word man is meant any self-aware being, both male and female).
There are several values that come out of this ideal -
The value of truth - for a person who has chosen this way of life, truth is a supreme value. The intention is that we will always prefer to understand what the truth is, what is true and what is not and we will choose the path of truth even if it is the more difficult path. In order to understand what the truth is, we choose the tools of rational thinking and doubting and do not let up until we reach the truth.
The value of freedom - in order for man to be able to realize his great abilities and for him to be able to explore and understand the true reality, man must be as free as possible to choose his choices and his way of life (as long as he does not harm the value of another person's freedom). To reach maximum freedom you have to use doubt. Everything must be doubted, especially the things that seem obvious to us so that we can choose and rebuild for ourselves the right path for us and not follow an unreal path or a path that has been constructed and does not suit us. This way we will have real freedom of choice to build our identity, and we will know all the choice options we have.
The value of equality of opportunity and rights - in order for man to be able to realize his great abilities and for him to be able to explore and understand the real reality, there should be equality of rights and equality of opportunity between all human beings without any differences or exceptions whatsoever (without differences of race, religion, gender, sexual orientations , age, economic status, nationality, culture, skin color, eye color, etc.). All human rights derive from these systems, therefore a person who chooses to live according to this way of life takes it upon himself to live according to the principles of human rights, to accept those who are different from you and to give them the same rights as yours.
The value of the centrality of the person in society and cooperation - the person is at the center, therefore the good of the individuals who make up the whole must be preferred and not the good of the general public (for example, the citizens of a country are more important than the country itself). But man does not live alone but surrounded by other men. Every person is allowed to realize these values as long as this does not harm another person's ability to realize those values. In order to maximally realize the centrality of the person, one should strive for cooperation and mutual help between the people in society.
The value of positive education - because freedom is such an important value, there is no place to force these values. From this emerges the central importance of the value of positive education. It is not an easy journey and these values are not easy to carry out, therefore so that we all as individuals can cooperate and act according to them, each person must be given tools on how to behave according to these ideals and values and actively and experientially educate them - educate for mutual help, give a person tools on how to believe in himself and his abilities, tools How not to be afraid of the freedom given to him and how not to be afraid of giving freedom and equality to another and different from him. To teach unity and human brotherhood while emphasizing the similarities between different people.
These are the values and the ideal at the base of the scientific method. They show that there is a strong connection between science, society and human culture. These values came to the fore and were developed from the moment the scientific revolution began, about 500 years ago, and they continue to develop over the years. The democracy, liberalism, science and culture we know today developed according to these values. For example, the demand that every people be able to establish a state and be free to manage it themselves, comes from these values. This demand appeared in the middle of the 19th century in Europe's "Spring of the Nations" and Herzl and the Zionists also used these values and based on the Spring of the Nations to demand the establishment of a Jewish state in Israel.
The ability of science to develop towards understanding reality is also based on these ideals and values, for example Galileo, Copernicus and Darwin questioned the religious tradition and created their own theories of how nature works, theories that stand the test of experiment, and Einstein questioned the physical theory of his predecessor - Newton and expanded it. Thus he brought us another step closer to understanding reality. Because of these interrelationships between science and culture, it is very important to destroy the academic ivory tower and open the general public as much as possible to scientific knowledge and the values at the base of Western science and culture. The scientists should take responsibility and do more for the dissemination of knowledge and values in society.
The atheist community has accepted this way of life and tries to teach it and show its benefits to the general public. It was even nice to discover at the atheist conference in Australia that there are intellectuals who do support the State of Israel! I am used to seeing most of the spiritual people in the world usually come out against Israel, but again and again speeches were heard from the platform of the atheist conference that mentioned Israel and supported it. Not surprisingly, atheists understand the danger of extreme religion and therefore understand the danger of today's Islamic extremism. One of the points that came up several times is the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran.
I was surprised to find out that it is precisely the atheists who hold the torch of these important values these days. The values that brought Western culture to the heights of freedom, scientific and technological insights, wealth and well-being. You don't have to be an atheist to follow this way of life and you can believe in God and still hold these values. I expected that it would be the skeptic organizations around the world who would carry this torch. When you look at these values, you clearly see what a central place the method of casting doubt has both in the progress towards the truth and in the progress towards more freedom for the realization of human power. But it seems thatSkeptics organizations in the world and in Israel (of which I am a member) are going more for a specific niche - emphasizing scientific doubt rather than the overall picture of all the values of the scientific method and the centrality of doubt in these values.
I am happy that there are those who have chosen to continue fighting for the values of the scientific method so that we can continue to develop, continue our journey to understand the true reality and to realize the tremendous power that we have within us. I recommend anyone and everyone to follow a group of nice atheists to get to know on Facebook and to come to the next conferences that will follow. The topics that are usually present in this type of conferences are scientific topics and value topics. For example, what is the scientific method, how do you know that the theory of evolution is correct, evolution versus creationism, the connection between robots and humans, Wikipedia and freedom of information, man and morality in a world without God, the need for meaning, the revelations The physical about our reality (I lectured at the conference on "In Search of the God Particle").
If you are interested in knowing how many atheists there are in the world and you also want to register in the statistics of world atheists, go to the next link!
27 תגובות
Dov Henis
You are confusing concepts about evolution. The genome is the genetic code and the phenotype is its expression in the living creature. These are two separate things, but without both there is no evolution. Maybe there is life - but no evolution.
Dov Henis
You confuse some things and it is hard to understand what you are saying. A genome is not a creature - the genes are not alive. What lives is a synergy of genome and phenome. We need a union of both but we also need a separation. In the genome there are mutations while the selection is done on the phenotype and there is no feedback back to the genome.
Is that what you were trying to say?
Life sciences rationally, not religiously
To be a free people in our country....
"Latest News" April 19 2013 Sarit Rosenblum: "Dietary? It's genetic!"
Weakness-addiction, or genetics?
It is enough to recite the ridiculous concept of the religious American trade union "American Association for the Advancement of Science"
(AAAS)
According to the American religious concept, it is the genetics cart that pushes the cultural horses and not the cultural horses that pull the genetics cart, contrary to what we learned from Pavlov and Darwin.
The time has come to develop a science free from religious concepts as dictated starting in the 1920s by the religious American culture....
Genetics is a consequence/result of culture and not the cause of culture. Genetic changes are continuous updates of the genome, which is a creature created by the genes for their function, when the updates are by the genes that are the basic creatures of life.
Science in the US is simply very limited because its culture is religious-technological, a culture that rejects rational scientific understanding.
Dov Henis
http://universe-life.com/
maybe yes
You are wrong, Hitler was a devout Catholic. Not everything Amnon Yitzchak should take seriously.
Nir Lahav
If I'm not mistaken, in Nazi Germany they actually used evolution as a justification for the racial laws.
I'm wrong?
The scientific method is not the discoveries we make in nature, but the method of how to discover them and how to determine what the real results of the experiments and statistics are (for example, you need to perform multiple tests and reach frequencies, perform double-blind experiments, etc.). It is true that a result is either correct or not, but the question is whether the method is accepted at all. Both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany did not accept theories like evolution (they decided in the USSR that it was against communism..) and like the theory of relativity (which was defined as Jewish science in Germany) because in their opinion they were against the values of these countries. This is of course nonsense, the results from the experiments are the same results, but if there is no one to look at the results and accept them, there is no science. Therefore, in order for the scientific method to be accepted and indeed to be worked on in order to try and get closer to the truth, one must accept the set of values that accompanies it and that is at its foundation. We may not consciously accept this set of values, but in practice we will behave according to it (for example, organizing internationally to create the Zern particle accelerator and analyzing the information worldwide is an example of an activity that actually accepts this set of values of freedom and equality and cooperation between countries and scientists in order to get closer to the truth) .
I don't think I understood correctly. I was talking about equations that cannot be used as approximations in any way, whose predictions are too far from reality. All I am saying is that the human mind cannot tolerate discrepancies (above a certain level and of which it is aware) between reality (the phenomenon) and theory. I understand that this wording is somewhat problematic and unclear.
When we choose to ignore this mismatch, we are lying to ourselves.
I did not refer to the concept of "wrong" at all, but to matching.
Yair and a posteriori,
Science in itself has no values just as a wooden cube has no values, nor does the scientific process require anything from anyone. These are the scientists (and in general, human beings or intelligent beings without setting a sharp boundary on the subject at the moment) who act according to one or another set of values and for all of them the behavior is closely related to the basic personality structure, I do not know of value behavior based on anything else, do you know of another possibility ? It is the scientists and the public who demand and expect those involved in the scientific field to carry out their work according to the critical criteria of scientific investigation, and they are also the ones who expect me to share the discoveries and to do so without distorting the results unfairly. The correct thing to say is that in a certain field, the scientific for example, there are certain values and not others that characterize those people who belong to that framework. Sometimes, there is a big gap between the values that a certain framework claims to represent and the way people who belong to that framework show in their behavior in practice. In science there is a very good (and necessary) fit between these two levels. It can be said that my private decision not to cheat is a good fit for the general value "of science" (that is, attributed to practitioners of science).
Most equations (and in general scientific discoveries) are wrong by nature and are only approximations to some single objective reality that we assume exists. A posteriori is wrong when he writes the following sentence: "Everyone can be a liar, but if there is a natural phenomenon with a certain structure, and a mathematical equation that describes it approximately, other and incorrect equations will not describe the phenomenon. Even if we lie to ourselves and say yes."
Because reality proves that this is not the case. Newton's equations are an excellent approximation and describe phenomena in an incredibly good and useful way even though they are obviously wrong. In the past there was also a consensus on approximations of reality that are even more wrong. As long as a scientist is aware that the current consensus is the best description as of this moment and that it is definitely possible (and in many cases it is known for sure) that there is a better description than it, there is no lie here, despite the errors and even the known errors.
withering
Although the decision to publish fake results to promote another interest is a value decision, it is not directly related to the scientific process. The conclusions you reached exist even if you decided not to publish them. The (scientific) process itself did not require the same values but only what followed.
Everyone can be a liar, but if there is a natural phenomenon with a certain structure, and a mathematical equation that roughly describes it, other and wrong equations will not describe the phenomenon. Even if we lie to ourselves and say yes.
There are many good arguments against religion and against theism, but the claim that they are irrational is completely wrong. Religion and theism are based on basic assumptions and from which methods are developed that demand different behaviors and claims about the world. The demand not to eat on Yom Kippur in obedience to God's commandment is completely rational. The question is only if there is a god. And even if there is not, the claim is not tainted by irrationality, but by the lack of a factual basis. Another example is the religious diet, what is known as kosher. There is nothing irrational in this method, it even has a factual basis, and it does not fall in any way from the degree of rationality of veganism.
Camila, your decision not to cheat in science does not stem from the values of science, but from your basic personality structure, which will prevent you from cheating in commerce or anywhere else.
A posteriori
The truth is that Kamila last wrote a good answer to your claim: "When I have to decide whether to falsify results in order to improve the chances of publishing an article in an important scientific journal or to win a prize or other favor and I decide not to falsify because scientific truth is more important to me than all the former, it is a value decision . When I review an article by a colleague who is, for example, a potential competitor or who belongs to an enemy state and I still make sure to refer as much as possible to the professional content, I choose a value-based behavior that puts the essence of the research before other things such as religion, race, sex, etc. From this point of view, science, or rather the scientists, in general (and there are always exceptions to the rule) definitely express a certain value behavior that exists in the world of scientific research (not only) but does not exist in other places, such as in certain religions that allow distorting reality and also lying downright if the matter Beneficial to that religion, and in a similar way also among some of the lawyers and of course among the politicians."
There is a lot of choice as to how much to be logical and how much to ignore logic, how much to doubt and how much not to doubt and you can't separate values from rationale, it's not logical.. 🙂
hi safkan
I recently saw a series on channel 8 and it's quite amazing to discover that the idea for the mouse and windows was actually invented already in the late sixties! (They showed documentary clips from IBM labs from that time). In the series they said that what they tried to do was to invent a way to communicate remotely with each other, because they realized that computers could make a social revolution in the world. I forgot what the series was called..
The whole idea of developing the WWW at Cern came precisely from the need and the question of how to share a lot of information and analysis with masses of scientists, notice how well this concept fits all the values I talked about. I don't think it's a coincidence. Obviously, when there is a body that acts according to certain values (even if it is not really aware of them) behaviors and supporting technologies will be created in it that will match these values.
Nir Lahav
The concept of www was developed in Cern just by chance. It's a completely non-innovative mathematical concept
which must have been endlessly tested by mathematicians in computer science, especially after the mouse as a pointing tool became a common tool. According to my memory the mouse became dominant as a voting tool in 1985 plus or minus, before that there were other voting tools that did not succeed, the mouse was introduced by Apple I remember on their desktop computer called Lisa. Before that, there were attempts for other voting tools, such as a touch pen, which were unsuccessful. As soon as the use of the mouse took shape, the idea of hypertext was a natural idea that would come up quickly anyway. The grammar of html is also not innovative, there were script languages at the level of html many years before.
In short, Zaren Labs is of no importance to the development of www, it would have developed either way.
I would like to refine a little the reference to the value of striving for "truth" which is the basis of scientific investigation and to remind scientists (at least to me and to all those I have had the opportunity to work with) that it is clear that the "truth" we seek is the best description we have at this moment, and the research work is the process The gradual, and the only one that has proven itself, that steadily increases our understanding of the world of phenomena around us and correspondingly increases the ability to predict and develop the technologies through which we can influence reality in a known and testable way.
When I have to decide whether to falsify results in order to improve the chances of publishing an article in an important scientific journal or to win a prize or other favor and I decide not to falsify because scientific truth is more important to me than all the former, it is a value decision. When I review an article by a colleague who is, for example, a potential competitor or who belongs to an enemy state and I still make sure to refer as much as possible to the professional content, I choose a value-based behavior that puts the essence of the research before other things such as religion, race, sex, etc. From this point of view, science, or rather the scientists, in general (and there are always exceptions to the rule) definitely express a certain value behavior that exists in the world of scientific research (not only) but does not exist in other places, such as in certain religions that allow distorting reality and also lying downright if the matter Useful for that religion, and in a similar way also among some of the lawyers and of course among the politicians.
The wording "the values underlying the scientific method" is also not accurate at all. Any introduction of the concept of "values" into a scientific discussion is wrong. Equality of opportunity, freedom of thought, objectivity, etc. have a different meaning when they exist within the framework of science than when they exist within the framework of a discussion of liberal humanism. This separation needs to be made. In science they are means to achieve other purposes, we don't need them except as the path that will lead us further, to the goal. In humanism they are used as goals - the pursuit of equality or freedom in the style of the French Revolution does not depend on what comes after - it is the goal.
Humanism is just an example, the same is true for any value system.
In any case, the social situation (equality, freedom) is not a necessity for the existence of science.
I am not talking about skepticism at all since it is imposed on the person by his very being, you cannot choose to be a skeptic just as it is impossible not to accept the scientific truth, it is imposed on you since you have accepted the fundamental assumption of the method it uses. To be a skeptic means to be logical and since a person does not have The possibility of not thinking logically (even if he denies his conclusions), there is no reason to call it "value".
Therefore, I agree that those who nevertheless accept the reality of science as a whole (the scientific method) but do not accept any proven scientific conclusion (for whatever reason, be it superstition or ignorance), are lying to themselves.
The value question is not a scientific question because it presupposes the existence of freedom of choice, while human reason is imposed on man, a situation that moral decision-making is unable to discuss.
A real scientist is one who does not let his values confuse his scientific considerations - true, if he sticks to the rationale he will never encounter a value question.
Please note that in everything I wrote about the values at the base of the scientific method, the subject of atheism did not enter at all.
There is no contradiction between engaging in science and believing in God (who like me knows, I'm a researcher at Bar Ilan University..).
The only connection is that those who follow these values and cast doubt, should question everything. Both in the Bible and in tradition and it can probably lead to atheism (but not necessarily).
Therefore, as I wrote in the article, I was surprised that the atheists are the ones who wave with the appropriate intensity the values at the base of the scientific method. I would actually expect that the ones who are supposed to do this are the various skeptic organizations, but unfortunately they don't.
A posteriori as well as R.H.
When we engage in science there are some basic assumptions and values that we assume, for example that the truth is more important than other values. Therefore, when the scientists discover confirmations for evolution or discover that there is no connection between a homeopathic substance and healing (beyond the placebo effect), we will prefer the truth we have discovered even though it may complicate our lives or perhaps conflict with our previous beliefs.
It was an example to show how there are values at the base of scientific research, even if they don't talk about it. Of course we do talk about it in the field of philosophy of science. In this example the meaning was the truth value.
The name "the values of science" is really an imprecise name, it would be more accurate to write "the values at the base of the scientific method". When it is said that there are no values in science, what is meant is that what is most important is the value of truth, therefore it is forbidden for science to include values other than the value of truth - the results of objective experiments. A good scientist must not change the results just because they do not agree with his other values. That is how high the value of truth in science is. In addition, the scientific discoveries in themselves do not reveal values, but rather knowledge about nature. We can take the results and interpret them and give them a value here and there. But compared to the scientific discoveries, the scientific method we developed does have a value base.
R.H. I listed these values in the article, did you read it?
From these values comes the scientific method, for example casting doubt and casting scientific doubt are the ways we have found to get closer to the value of truth as well as to get closer to the value of freedom. For details, look for my article "To doubt all the way to the truth". The way of life I was referring to is of course an attempt to live according to these values.
In my opinion, science cannot exist for a long time without these values. Without acceptance of the truth as a central value there is no reason for science to develop, only the different beliefs of different groups of people are enough. Only when you give a place of respect to the truth and want to reveal the truth only then do you look for tools on how to do it. Only then can scientific skepticism and skepticism develop.
Likewise, without the acceptance of freedom and equal opportunities as important values, science will not last long. You need the freedom to rebel against conventions and develop different theories than what was thought and you need the freedom of thought to throw out traditional theories that are no longer good and accept new theories that have stood the tests. Without freedom and equal opportunities for each and every one to become scientists and propose new theories, science will get stuck in place and fade away.
Even without cooperation and education, science will stagnate and fade away. Not by chance the WWW started from the particle accelerator in Zern. International cooperation has always been an important part of science (at least in the 20th century), starting with the testing of the theory of relativity in 1919, up to the particle accelerator and the space station.
Without these values, and without education for these values, the end of science will fade.
I hope I answered the questions
Nir
Nir Lahav,
Question, with your permission:
You wrote: "There is a fundamental difference between the values of the scientific method and religion. Admittedly, in both, and thus in every ideology, one chooses a certain way of life." What do you mean by "a certain way of life"? What lifestyle is actually required by the scientific method (with the exception of research work)?
Also, what "values" are at the foundation of science? Are they the same as the practical method used by science (questioning, criticality, rational thinking, positivist view)?
Thanks in advance.
"The values of science"?! This is fundamentally wrong in the most acute way. As already said above, there are enough religious scientists who prove unequivocally that everything written above is not true. Science has no values!
Any other claim is a demagogic and missionary lie that differs from the vile attempts of Amnon Yitzchak, who uses misguided inaccuracies to advance his agenda.
Batya and Eran
Science came so that we can understand the world and it discovers natural facts, but we must remember that science did not come from nowhere and has principles and values on which it wanders. I have listed here these values that are the basis of the scientific method. Although it is a philosophy of science and not the facts that science discovers, it is an important issue that should not be ignored. My father is doing well not to ignore this essential matter, even if it is more difficult.
There is a fundamental difference between the values of the scientific method and religion. It is true that in both, and thus in every ideology, one chooses a certain way of life, but religion is based on mysticism and tradition that are not challenged and these values come to replace religion. There is neither mysticism nor something that should not be contested here. In science and the scientific method, everything can be challenged, checked and changed according to logical tools and casting doubt.
Nir
Continue the comment that was interrupted for some reason.
And categorically this is not true. The Bible gives an exact number of Israelites who left Egypt as 60 thousand. With the return to Israel of the Babylonian exiles in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, the number of returnees was also given. Moreover, the scriptures even report the fathers' houses by their names. It is impossible to give the number of different communities without counting them. The source of this approach is in the days of King David when Nathan the prophet forbade him to take a census, on the eve of his departure for one of his wars. The reason for this was military-strategic. prevent the other side from knowing the order of magnitude of his army.
One way to stop them is to strictly exclude women from all the same buses. In the next case where they behave like this, the administrators should stop by order every entry of public vehicles into their communities and on the other hand donkeys should be made available to them to be used as means of transportation. I wonder how they will react. In some cases they threatened to leave the country if they saw fit. let them do so. The result that outside the borders of the country they will have no choice and they will have to go to work. They will have no choice. They will not have the coffers of a country whose financial udders they can milk. Come to Zion Goel.
Haim Mazar
One of the basic rules in the democratic way of life is that there is freedom to... and freedom from... the freedom to choose which social or religious conception to follow or religious one wants to live and on the other hand freedom from an ideological or religious conception. Every company has conventions (norms) that it adopts for itself. These conventions are extremely important since each company determines its own boundaries. Who is included in that society and who is not included in it. These conventions are a dynamic thing since over the years social and even religious perceptions change. The origin of this dynamic is that what suited life in previous centuries does not suit the 20th and 21st centuries. Skepticism and scientific investigation have nothing to do with religious belief. A person can be religious and a researcher in one of the various fields of science. A clear example of this in Israel is the Bar-Ilan University. In the early days of the state, the state auditor was Dr. Nebentzel who, according to his religious approach, was identified with Agudat Israel. He belonged to the orthodox religious stream of German Jewry in the 19th century, which was tolerant towards those who differed from it
The problem lies in the fact that a very specific sector in the religious sector is trying to impose itself on society as a whole and this should not be treated with any leniency towards the members of that community. Even the slightest compromise will invite more pressure from those extremists.
This must be fought with all our might without any regard for political constraints. In the long run the price will be too great. Zero tolerance towards all those circles in the religious community who see themselves as the saviors of the generation.
If we make a comparison between the Jewish communities during the Second Temple period, medieval Judaism and modern Judaism, it seems that the communities of the same generation, their Judaism was different from that of the members of communities of other generations. For example, the Judaism of the Rashi's contemporaries had a different perception than that of European Judaism in the 19th century. It is not particularly wise to belong to a Beit Shamai.
The problem is that they distort the Bible. Lishittam voice in the pubic woman and what is said about Miriam sister of Moses after the Egyptian army was drowned in the Red Sea. She went out in dances and singing. Are these also a voice in a pubic woman? The members of the ultra-Orthodox community do not participate in the population census because according to them it is against the religious concept as it is stated in the Bible and it is not categorized
"A person who chooses to live according to this way of life takes it upon himself to live according to principles..." and so'. This is a sentence that stands at the foundation of every religion. And it implies that there is a construction of a new religion here. And this is a religion, it is also based on individual freedoms. And it bothers me that this new religion puts man at the center - we are not the only life on earth.
In any case, I agree that if you want to move rational thinking and the wheels of science, it's time to "come down to the people". And the way to do this is to start organizing subsidized science classes for children and youth in their places of residence, and not to expect that the youth will flock in droves to classes at the "Weizmann Institute" and the like. And free lectures in local libraries from various scientists won't hurt either.
Even though I support the majority of the platform, I probably won't support you as leaders or as the leaders of the idea, if only because you try to mix your political opinion with various scientific truths.
This site used to be a science and mathematics nature magazine. Today he is busy defaming entire sectors every Monday and Thursday.
The situation in Israel is bleak for atheists without you.
Father, for the sake of good order, stop flooding us with various pashquevilles.
And yet - move move move.
Be strong and courageous. Good to know there are others like me in the world. Good continuation.
Atheists raise their heads to save science?!
After all, it's an absurd, inflated and meaningless title. There is no shortage of very religious scientists who are Nobel Prize winners. The time when Galileo was persecuted is over.
Written on Saturday.